Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old 06-29-2017, 9:15 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
There is also the statute of limitations. Whatever that means.
Not to mention this terrible case of amnesia I sustained recently
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 06-29-2017, 9:43 PM
chrish4ku's Avatar
chrish4ku chrish4ku is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 25
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Outstanding
__________________
Alarmed and Dangerous
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:00 PM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 41,945
iTrader: 127 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

I leave the computer for a few hours and come back to this! I couldn't be happier right now.
__________________
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun and Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor
California DOJ Certified Fingerprint Roller
Ventura County approved CCW Instructor


Offering low cost private basic shooting and reloading classes for calgunners.

CCW SAFE MEMBERSHIPS HERE
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:01 PM
kevman0154's Avatar
kevman0154 kevman0154 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 147
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

1 down soo many more to go...

Thank you NRA/ CRPA for sticking up for us
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:12 PM
Walther_Guy's Avatar
Walther_Guy Walther_Guy is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Citrus Heights
Posts: 232
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Finally!!! Nice to get a break from being slapped upside the head and kicked around all the time!!! )))
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:15 PM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,995
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Cheers for a victory!

Slightly off topic, but since the DOJ has not issued regulations for the mag ban by July 1 (presumably), does this mean that regulations are no longer able to be issued for it?

T
__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:27 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,152
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timdps View Post
Cheers for a victory!

Slightly off topic, but since the DOJ has not issued regulations for the mag ban by July 1 (presumably), does this mean that regulations are no longer able to be issued for it?

T
Yeah, that ship sailed months ago.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:37 PM
Enterprise's Avatar
Enterprise Enterprise is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
It won't last in the 9th circuit, but a temporary win nonetheless.
Hopefully the supreme court takes this case then.... Huge win for now, but still a potential battle in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:37 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timdps View Post
Cheers for a victory!

Slightly off topic, but since the DOJ has not issued regulations for the mag ban by July 1 (presumably), does this mean that regulations are no longer able to be issued for it?

T
They won't bother, we'd have seen them by now if they wanted to resubmit LCM regulations.

They realized that nobody (including the legislature) asked for them, and they didn't have a legal method with which to submit what they wanted to submit.

They've got their hands full with lawsuits and the AW ban at the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:48 PM
Lex Talionis's Avatar
Lex Talionis Lex Talionis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 471
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Great news but bitter sweet.



Just think of all of the tens of thousands of owners who already destroyed or turned in their standard caps mags before the deadline. I'll bet they ain't none too happy!
__________________


THE LAW OF RETALIATION - an eye for an eye
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:03 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I doubt anyone has done a single thing with any of their magazines, except maybe buy some magblocks that they haven't gotten around to putting in yet. And definitely not a single one has been turned in or destroyed.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-29-2017 at 11:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:07 PM
subaruwrx subaruwrx is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I found this gem:

In describing Becerra's argument for the ban

"The evidentiary record is a potpourri of news pieces, State-generated documents, conflicting definitions of “mass shooting,” amorphous harms to be avoided, and a homogenous mass of horrible crimes in jurisdictions near and far for which large capacity magazines were not the cause."

eat **** !
__________________
shall not be infringed
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:10 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 96
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Having read the injunction, I'd like to highlight a few points I found especially encouraging for the future of 2A jurisprudence. I hope these parts are widely referenced in future decisions.

1. I could never see the logic behind Heller's acceptance of "longstanding prohibitions" nor the reliance on how common or popular a weapon was for self defense. Both concepts seemed to suggest an acquiescence to the idea that a protected right could continue to be infringed as long as it had been successfully infringed for long enough in the past. This decision calls out that absurd bit of circular reasoning and flatly states that it is invalid.

2. The injection directly slaps down the logic (or lack thereof that Kamala Harris used in Silvester v. Harris, and I have seen the state use elsewhere that :

" ...(observing that “scientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law)."

Which amounts to coming into court and claiming with a straight face. "Surely Your Honor can not expect us to produce actual evidence to prove our factual claims. The actual facts are irrelevant and our mere claims of fact alone are sufficient."

3. This is the first thing I have read that gives judicial weight to the obvious truth that criminals don't obey laws and actually uses that fact to discount the anti's claims that banning a certain thing will actually reduce violence.

4.The injunction dismantles the commonly used argument that item X can be banned because "it is the most commonly used item in such and such a terrible act". Of course, once you ban item X, some other item will become the most commonly used , etc. etc. This argument is of course endless and the Judge recognized it's weakness.

The clarity of the reasoning in the injection is spectacular and spectacularly rare in a 2A case. As far as I'm concerned, I like to see this judge considered for the next Supreme Court vacancy. My only disappointment is that while the logic of the injunction, especially the takings analysis certainly suggests that seizing my grandfathered mags as a public nuisance is unconstitutional, I did not see a specific injunction against that practice. Do the legal minds here think that is now illegal also, or still legal for LEO's to do?
__________________
The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:10 PM
subaruwrx subaruwrx is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I advise anyone who is interested to read the injunction. It is pure poetry.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Injunction.pdf
__________________
shall not be infringed
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:11 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,152
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subaruwrx View Post
I found this gem:

In describing Becerra's argument for the ban

"The evidentiary record is a potpourri of news pieces, State-generated documents, conflicting definitions of “mass shooting,” amorphous harms to be avoided, and a homogenous mass of horrible crimes in jurisdictions near and far for which large capacity magazines were not the cause."

eat **** !
Yeah, this guy went all out! The wording is so contemptuous of these silly arguments I wonder if this judge isn't a pro-gun guy. The reality is he probably isn't and the law on this is so poor a purely objective legal mind has no choice but to openly ridicule it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:17 PM
kmas kmas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: So Cal
Posts: 888
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Great news!!

There is hope for us CA folk after all ...
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:20 PM
subaruwrx subaruwrx is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Yeah, this guy went all out! The wording is so contemptuous of these silly arguments I wonder if this judge isn't a pro-gun guy. The reality is he probably isn't and the law on this is so poor a purely objective legal mind has no choice but to openly ridicule it.
I was beginning to give up hope of ever hearing a rational thought on guns from anyone in the political sphere of this state. His injunction is nothing short of inspirational.

"The rationale is anathema to the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. It is a right naturally possessed by regular,law-abiding responsible citizens, whom are neither reliant upon, nor subservient to, a privileged, powerful, professional police state"

__________________
shall not be infringed

Last edited by subaruwrx; 06-29-2017 at 11:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:38 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,275
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Yeah, this guy went all out! The wording is so contemptuous of these silly arguments I wonder if this judge isn't a pro-gun guy. The reality is he probably isn't and the law on this is so poor a purely objective legal mind has no choice but to openly ridicule it.
The judge sounds like he's a gun owner. There are multiple parts where he clearly displays knowledge about firearms above and beyond what the average non-gun-owner possesses and uses correct terminology where it is not unusual to hear even those involved with the law use incorrect vulgar terminology if said persons are not familiar with firearms to some extent.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:42 PM
Sgt5811's Avatar
Sgt5811 Sgt5811 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 307
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_2111 View Post
A whole lot of people just saved a bunch of money on postage.

...or a lot of time out on a boat somewhere!
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:51 PM
rawkstarr71's Avatar
rawkstarr71 rawkstarr71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 240
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
The judge sounds like he's a gun owner. There are multiple parts where he clearly displays knowledge about firearms above and beyond what the average non-gun-owner possesses and uses correct terminology where it is not unusual to hear even those involved with the law use incorrect vulgar terminology if said persons are not familiar with firearms to some extent.
Thank God, please let this be a lasting act, I'm so close to moving out of California

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 06-30-2017, 12:02 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,152
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

I did a double take when I opened the PDF. The first line is so contemptuous and full of ridicule I thought a calguns member was joking around and made a fake injunction or something, lol.

"On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still
possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime. "

Lol, like mana from heaven. The guy has a sense of humor too.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 06-30-2017, 12:08 AM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 523
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

FINALLY SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "A" AND "THE"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 06-30-2017, 2:00 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
There's always a chance this could win the 1st round at the 9th, as Peruta did (just citing the example that seems to keep getting brought up), and then NOT be granted en banc with the 9th nor cert with SCOTUS.

En banc hearings are relatively rare (only around 0.1% of cases get heard en banc), they aren't going to just grant it to every 2a case that comes their way - especially with the massive quantity of them that have been filed as of late.
In recent firearms cases in which the 3-judge panel issued an opinion which might be considered friendly to the RKBA isn't the en banc review rate closer to 100%?
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 06-30-2017, 5:06 AM
painkiller painkiller is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 299
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Glad we can have independence day again!
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 06-30-2017, 5:36 AM
ambis ambis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Love how Becerra says it's important to inform Californians of how policy changes affect their rights (for immigrants), but not when it comes to banning property legally acquired by citizens and making them criminals overnight
Attached Images
File Type: jpg beccara.jpg (19.6 KB, 99 views)
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 06-30-2017, 5:45 AM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18,419
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
Great news but bitter sweet.



Just think of all of the tens of thousands of owners who already destroyed or turned in their standard caps mags before the deadline. I'll bet they ain't none too happy!
do you really think people did this?
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 06-30-2017, 5:53 AM
Swift04 Swift04 is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Can someone explain to me in dumb terms what this means
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:15 AM
ambis ambis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ban on legally owned standard cap mags that was to take place on 7/1 is temporarily halted.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:33 AM
ScottsBad ScottsBad is offline
No Prisoners!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Good news! Happy to see my long term investments in the CRPA are paying off. Great job CRPA and NRA. The long fight continues.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:43 AM
geoint's Avatar
geoint geoint is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: In the Mormon homeland
Posts: 5,032
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Default

Im happy for you guys! Hopefully this is the beginning of a new direction for CA!

The state has a million other problems besides gun rights but still, a win is a win and I know how much that law was gonna suck for the gun owning community back in CA so I am glad you guys can avoid that draconian BS that was going to go into effect next month.
__________________
Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Teddy Roosevelt

I Hate California.
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:56 AM
Medic451's Avatar
Medic451 Medic451 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 621
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Any chance this would lead to all of Prop 63 being overturned?
__________________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
- John Wayne in "The Shootist"
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:57 AM
bacon_lover's Avatar
bacon_lover bacon_lover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 748
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I wonder if I should cancel today's fishing trip on a rusted-out dinghy captained by Francesco Schettino (of Costa Concordia fame).
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 06-30-2017, 7:29 AM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medic451 View Post
Any chance this would lead to all of Prop 63 being overturned?
My guess is that the arguments provided by the judge could be used to attack other portions. But I am not a lawyer.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 06-30-2017, 7:38 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The other aspects of prop 63 will probably be handled with other additional lawsuits, the complaint in this suit doesn't mention ammo background checks (a good thing, IMO. To many different complaints in one suit isn't always the best route to take. The ammo BGCs deserve a suit all their own, which we'll probably see in the coming months, with perhaps another injunction if we're lucky)

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-30-2017 at 7:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 06-30-2017, 7:52 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The 9th will overrule this pronto.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 06-30-2017, 7:53 AM
machrono's Avatar
machrono machrono is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
The judge sounds like he's a gun owner. There are multiple parts where he clearly displays knowledge about firearms above and beyond what the average non-gun-owner possesses and uses correct terminology where it is not unusual to hear even those involved with the law use incorrect vulgar terminology if said persons are not familiar with firearms to some extent.
I believe that the CRPA wrote the injunction, and presented it for the Judge to sign, which he did.

Wow!!!!

Think of how many less boating accidents there will be this weekend!!!
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 06-30-2017, 7:57 AM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,915
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
The 9th will overrule this pronto.
What's the likely timeline moving forward?

I'm sure this ends at the Supreme Court. If we can replace RBG and Kennedy, it might be the way in which we kill magazine capacity limits altogether.
__________________
Securing a safe to a Post-tension slab - DIY

HK P30SK LEM for sale, S&W 27, S&W 37, Marlin Mountie - NorCal

Quote:
Originally Posted by KWalkerM View Post
eh why bring logic into this, that makes too much sense... besides when you have bested a fool, you have accomplished nothing and he is a fool.
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 06-30-2017, 7:59 AM
Corpral_Agarn's Avatar
Corpral_Agarn Corpral_Agarn is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 394
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This is the best news I have read in a LONG time.
__________________
My competition gear is sponsored by LAG Tactical!
Check out my YouTube Channel: EvanTV
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 06-30-2017, 8:00 AM
Ocguy31 Ocguy31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From Becerra's press release on the PI, you can tell they have no real response to this. His reasoning involves two points that were brutally knocked back in the 66 pages: The fact that the majority voted for it, and "public safety".
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 06-30-2017, 8:11 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
The 9th will overrule this pronto.
If you mean they'll knock down the injuction, I am betting they won't. Even if DOJ appeals the decision (which there isn't any indication yet that they will), the grounds for the injunction are very solid - there's a defined and irreversible injury to millions of californians if the law were allowed to proceed before the case is ruled.

If you mean they'll knock down the ruling, when there is one, then the answer is maybe. Depends largely on which judge(s) we get on our panel. Although liberal judges outnumber conservatives in the 9th, we do still have a number of freethinking constitutional judges. Remember, even Peruta won the 9th, it's only failure was in being granted an en banc hearing which essentially doomed it, but as I mentioned above, only roughly 0.1% (1 in 1000) of all cases in circuit courts are granted an en banc hearing.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-30-2017 at 8:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:20 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.