2022 08 01 Boland V Bonta - Handgun Roster : Appeal to 9th 3-27

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

So I have a legal question for all you experts here. In the Baird thread we talked about that 9CA remand that clarified how 2A preliminary injunctions shall be assessed using the Winter factors correctly for constitutional rights. Would this published decision be binding on other 9CA panels assessing other preliminary injunctions like the current Renna and Boland case panel?

The 3-judge panel published its ruling, so the opinion is binding on every district court in the Ninth Circuit. Whether or not judges actually follow its prescriptions presents a different question. Mark Smith published a video about the topic this week, which I recommend.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

So this potentially means that the 2 of 3 liberal hostile judges on the PI motions panel for the Boland and Renna cases could be potentially forced to actually do the right analysis of the Winter factors and uphold the two district court rulings?

This will be amusing to read either way. [grabs popcorn]

Poor babies. What may save their bacon is if an en banc hearing is requested and granted. Is there time for a petition to be filed or a sua sponte call made?

[JiuJitsu]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Poor babies. What may save their bacon is if an en banc hearing is requested and granted. Is there time for a petition to be filed or a sua sponte call made?

It COULD save their bacon, but how many other judges in the 9th Circuit would actually support being that blatantly stupid to defy clear matters of law and precedent, including several SCOTUS rulings?

Oh wait.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

It COULD save their bacon, but how many other judges in the 9th Circuit would actually support being that blatantly stupid to defy clear matters of law and precedent, including several SCOTUS rulings?

Oh wait.

The problem they have is, if they undermine Winters for 2A cases, they undermine it for all other rights they hold dear. I'm moderately confident (ha!) that they won't do that.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by ritter

The problem they have is, if they undermine Winters for 2A cases, they undermine it for all other rights they hold dear. I'm moderately confident (ha!) that they won't do that.

Progressives have no standards other than double standards. I would not feel surprised in the slightest if lower courts defied Winters exclusively for Second Amendment cases but followed precedent for other rights.

[mej16489]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

I cannot stand the channel and hope a better one usurps it as the most-subscribed Second Amendment legal information source. The same exact regurgitated scripted filler material consumes 2/3 of every single Armed Scholar video.

There is zero reason to subscribe to that click-bait jack-wagon. If/when there is any movement it will be covered by the legitimate 2A you-tubers.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by mej16489

There is zero reason to subscribe to that click-bait jack-wagon. If/when there is any movement it will be covered by the legitimate 2A you-tubers.

I exclusively get my Second Amendment YouTube information from The Four Boxes Diner and Washington Gun Law.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

I exclusively get my Second Amendment YouTube information from The Four Boxes Diner and Washington Gun Law.

Don't forget X/Twitter
Great people to follow for updates are:
FPC
Kostas Moros
Rob Romano

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by tenemae

Don't forget X/Twitter
Great people to follow for updates are:
FPC
Kostas Moros
Rob Romano

I can attest that these are all great sources of information on the latest Second Amendment developments.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

I can attest that these are all great sources of information on the latest Second Amendment developments.

Can confirm.

[eaglemike]

From page 17
"Heller did not classify protected handguns according to the number of rounds one could hold or the caliber of the ammunition that could be fired. It did not suggest that typically possessed arms could be subcategorized and subjected to judicial ad hoc constitutional determinations."

This little gem might be a reference to the AW ban. There's a few other special tidbits.
Should we have a thread for "easter eggs" in the decision? Likely it would shortly deteriorate into another complaint thread - which should be it's own thread!

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by eaglemike

Should we have a thread for "easter eggs" in the decision? Likely it would shortly deteriorate into another complaint thread - which should be it's own thread!

I think you hit the wrong thread regardless. Did you want Duncan v Bonta?

[eaglemike]

Originally Posted by tenemae

I think you hit the wrong thread regardless. Did you want Duncan v Bonta?

You are correct - OOPS!

[JiuJitsu]

Anyone want to predict when a decision on the PI will be released for Boland and Renna? What is a typical timeframe for something like this from a 9th Circuit motions panel?

I am really curious how this panel will handle this now that the Baird case set a new standard for evaluating 2A preliminary injunctions and Winter factors.

[Ash359]

Newsom signed SB 452 another microstamp requirement. Will this case still address it?

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Originally Posted by Ash359

Newsom signed SB 452 another microstamp requirement. Will this case still address it?

I didn't think it was a micro stamp requirement. Thought it just pushed back the date for new guns to be added to 2028?

[joe_gman]

Originally Posted by Vinnie Boombatz

I didn't think it was a micro stamp requirement. Thought it just pushed back the date for new guns to be added to 2028?

It is another microstamp requirement. It states that if the CADOJ determines that microstamping is a viable technology, then all new semi-auto handguns sold in California must be outfitted with microstamping. No more grandfathered new stock of non-microstamped semi-automatic pistols will be allowed to be sold. It also includes criminal penalties to owners of microstamped pistols if they modify or remove the microstamping and requires damaged microstamping components to be repaired or replaced with like microstamping components.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by joe_gman

[I]f the CADOJ determines that microstamping is a viable technology, ...

Shocking that the legislature should give CADOJ unilateral control over law making.

[randomBytes]

This is just a big middle finger to the constitution

[BaronW]

Didn’t the original law require certification by the CA AG (Harris) that microstamping was commercially available, and she just pencil-whipped it?

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

Shocking that the legislature should give CADOJ unilateral control over law making.

Nondelegation doctrine does not exist in California.

[Ash359]

Looks like newsom signed a new microstamp law. Will this case still address it or will there need to be a new lawsuit?

[zeneffect]

How will the ca doj make this determination of viability? Under what scientific and rational basis? Who will peer review the work?

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by zeneffect

How will the ca doj make this determination of viability? Under what scientific and rational basis? Who will peer review the work?

Everyone here knows how the reality will go come 2028. The California Department of Justice will make the determination solely based on political motivation and gubernatorial dictates to punish the gun rights community as much as possible.

[Dvrjon]

The AB 452 thread would probably benefit from a full discussion.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by zeneffect

How will the ca doj make this determination of viability? Under what scientific and rational basis? Who will peer review the work?

LOL, you said "ca doj" and "rational basis" in the same sentence, come on man.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by zeneffect

How will the ca doj make this determination of viability? Under what scientific and rational basis? Who will peer review the work?

The same way Kamala did in 2013...politically.