Quote:
Originally Posted by champu
These cases are hard to follow, no doubt. I made a post a little while ago trying to compare and contrast Duncan (LCM ban) and Rhode (ammo “bcg”) here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...5#post24202355
Since I made that post, the stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction was upheld. The next step (the step relevant to the document you just looked at) is for a three-judge 9th circuit panel to determine if Benitez abused his discretion (in which case the PI will be overturned and the case will proceed on the merits before Judge Benitez with the ammo law in effect; this is basically where we are today, except such a decision would cement that nothing Benitez decides on the merits stands a chance of surviving 9th circuit review) or if he did not abuse his discretion (in which case the stay is lifted, the PI goes back into effect, and we are free to buy ammo while this case goes through the merits at the district court level, appeal to the 9th circuit, en banc, etc.)
|
Champu, thanks for a really succinct and helpful breakdown of the status of the case. "Abuse of discretion" is a really high standard. Even the most ferociously anti-gun panel of the 9th is going to have to go through contortions to find abuse of discretion. For the near term, this case is teed up about as well as you could hope for. It seems to me likely that the panel will not be able to find abuse of discretion and we will get another shot at ordering online without background checks, while the case winds its way through the system. I guess I am less optimistic about our chances when that happens, but if we get a few years of online ammo purchases before they shut it down for good, well, that's better than a sharp stick in the eye as they say.