|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2161
|
|||
|
|||
No matter what does or doesn’t happen, “freedom week 2” will never be likely.
|
#2162
|
|||
|
|||
Yes more than likely they attend graduations, biirthday parties and 4th of JULY cook outs of one another the all share common ground they are after all jurrists whom sit on the 9th circuit among the most important they are humans and are supposed to set aside their indifferences, feelings, political attributes when deciding court cases they must read the constitution for as it is written as the oath of office states to uphold and protect any person in public office or holding a place in which decisions are to be made effecting the people and their constitutional rights as set down by the founders. Need to exuse them selves from their duties if they cannot set aside their indifferences and be impartial.
|
#2163
|
|||
|
|||
Yup, won't be a "freedom week 2". It'll be plain freedom.
This is gonna be the best 4th of July EVER!! |
#2164
|
||||
|
||||
So, where are we at? Was the 18th the cut off for the courts to decide on whether Miller will be perma stayed?
__________________
Quote:
Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA |
#2165
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
No it was just a date the AG wanted them to rule by for an emergency stay. It’s kind of nice it didn’t happen. But they’re basically asking for stay after stay to see if something sticks, and usually something does whenever it’s against us. |
#2166
|
||||
|
||||
I TRULY hope so ! I have my grips ready to put back on lmao.
__________________
"Common sense is self defense" |
#2167
|
|||
|
|||
This is kind of ironic seeing as a Ford 150 was mentioned in the opinion…
https://www.yahoo.com/news/driver-ac...184634228.html |
#2168
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'd hope that they deny all recourse to the AG, but that's definitely hoping too much . |
#2169
|
|||
|
|||
Since Benitez stayed his own decision, the 9th has until July to decide how to word their stay during the appeal. No reason for them to work on a holiday. They can celebrate two “freedom” holidays then come back to work and take that freedom away.
Last edited by Foothills; 06-19-2021 at 5:07 PM.. |
#2170
|
||||
|
||||
So is July 4th comes with no word from the 9th. Our rights are returned. Can the court then issue a stay say July 5th, 7th or even Aug??
__________________
Quote:
Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA |
#2171
|
|||
|
|||
They could stay it another day, but all it would take is a small amount of time to be able to convert our rifles. Maybe not enough time to order a new one and wait the 10 days, but enough time to remove a fin grip.
|
#2172
|
||||
|
||||
That's not going to happen. The unlikely thing that could happen is that the motions panel is 2-1 pro-2A, denying the stay (and denying administrative stay during appeal to en banc) but then it would be appealed en banc, and then... actually I don't know how that works with appealing the MOTIONS PANEL en banc. I'd have to look at the General Orders.
|
#2173
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
General Order 6.11 |
#2174
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. Unless a warrant is obtained, it's a no go for police to enter and confiscate.
__________________
Quote:
Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA |
#2175
|
||||
|
||||
Like I said, the law is clear but the appeals court didn't care and affirmed the conviction. You might (or might not) be surprised at the contortions they went through to get there. To the point that at least 1 justice began to argue with me that case law on point "didn't say what I was claiming it said."
Reading the quote direct from the decision made no difference, he insisted that the words I spoke aloud didn't exist. Which was very disconcerting not having ever come across that type of denialism before. It was about that point in time that I began to be a wee bit disillusioned about the fairness of our justice system.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#2176
|
||||
|
||||
Nope.
Methinks that you may be misunderstanding the decision, made last month, by the Supreme Court in Caniglia v Strom. That case didn't do anything to change the police practice of "Welfare Checks." What Caniglia did was to make very clear (as in a 9-0 decision) that LEO's could not apply the "Community Caretaking" doctrine to justify the warrantless seizure of firearms from a home.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#2177
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I wonder if the victims and their familes can sue Ford and hold them accountable. I mean, you can now do it with firearm companies and the truck in question wasn't used as it was intended. Same liberal logic, right? |
#2178
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You correctly understand that officers initially went to the Caniglia home to conduct a "Welfare Check" after his wife had been unable to reach him. Officers conducted that check, located Mr. Caniglia, and arranged for him to be hospitalized. That sequence of events ended the "Welfare Check." The Court found no fault with the manner in which the "Welfare Check" was conducted. There was no "extension" of the "Welfare Check." The Court analyzed the reentry into the home as a separate activity (please note that officers only initially "entered" the home as far as the porch to render aid to Mr. Caniglia) The legal events that caused the Supreme Court to fang the officers all occurred after that point in time. It's important to note that Mr. Caniglia argued that the both the entry to seize him, and the entry to seize the firearms violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court only found that the second entry (which was well into the interior of the home), and the one to seize the firearms, violated the Amendment. Following the conclusion of the "Welfare Check", the officers elected to re-enter the home under the legal theory that the "Community Caretaker" doctrine would allow them to seize Mr. Caniglia's firearms presented a threat to public safety. In so doing, they relied upon an extension of the reasoning in Cady v Dombrowski where the court upheld the seizure of a firearm from a vehicle on what has later been term "Community Caretaking" grounds. In the Caniglia decision, the Supreme Court did not throw out the "Community Caretaking" doctrine. It simply found that the doctrine was unreasonably applied to the (re)entry into Mr. Caniglia's home.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. Last edited by RickD427; 06-21-2021 at 9:40 AM.. |
#2179
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#2180
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In Caniglia, the Supreme Court made a very clear distinction between the vehicle search in Cady and the residential search done in Caniglia. The key distinctions were that 1) A home has a greater expectation of privacy than a does a vehicle. and 2) Firearms left in a vehicle, in a storage lot, are at much greater risk of theft than are firearms secured in a home. The Court didn't throw out the "Community Caretaker" doctrine. It simply found that it produced a "reasonable" seizure in the Cady case, and led to an "unreasonable" seizure in the Caniglia case.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#2181
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#2183
|
||||
|
||||
The way I read the case, it would have made no difference. The Court faulted the officers for making an "unreasonable" entry into the residence for the purpose of locating the firearms, and that occurred even before they actually located the firearms.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#2184
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by abinsinia; 06-21-2021 at 1:58 PM.. |
#2185
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
As well as the "unreasonable" entry that Rick mentions. Since that occurred while Caniglia was already in voluntary custody at the time. |
#2186
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#2190
|
||||
|
||||
I'm really not sure why so many people here were getting their hopes up for a stay denial from the 9th. I mean, I'm sometimes more optimistic than most, but that was a loony amount of optimism.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#2191
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think anybody was realistically hoping that the 9th was ever going to deny the stay (they're filled with leftoid stooges), but my hope was that all the stuff about having to meet in person and bureaucracy taking time, would allow us to "run the clock" to the 4th of July and get Benitez's order in effect. Then anything that happened afterward would have to address all the standard config ARs that would almost certainly be made in even a 24-hour period and I don't think even the state could just criminalize tens of thousands of gun owners overnight willy-nilly.
|
#2192
|
|||
|
|||
Can someone who knows legalese translate it?
Quote:
I assume that's that big letter that was written by a bunch of free states saying don't stay this. So the OPPOSITION to the stay was granted? Meaning the stay was denied? Quote:
Quote:
|
#2193
|
|||
|
|||
They mean that the other states' written brief is granted and that it'll be accepted for consideration in decision-making, but as we see it didn't stop the court from extending the stay on Benitez's judgement anyway.
|
#2194
|
||||
|
||||
Prediction: Rupp will lose and the 9th will vacate Miller, citing Rupp.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific 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." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#2196
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
They didn't rule on the 1. emergency stay, or 2. the stay pending appeal. What they did instead was to stay the case pending the outcome of a different case which is stayed pending the outcome of yet a 3rd case. Which effectively was a granting of an emergency stay without even having to consider a dam thing.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#2198
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Prediction: Duncan will lose, and the 9th will vacate Rupp if Rupp wins, citing Duncan Then the 9th will vacate Miller, citing Rupp (or Duncan). The 9th cares not about any of that.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific 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." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#2199
|
|||
|
|||
Clearly they don’t, given that Duncan is about magazines. I guess they can stay any gun case based on any other gun case. The 9th needs to be broken up. It’s a joke of a circuit. I guess our only hope is SCOTUS at this point, not that I have any faith in them.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|