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
  #2841  
Old 08-05-2022, 3:09 PM
FreemanG's Avatar
FreemanG FreemanG is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
The 9th could overrule the injunction while the appeal plays out
If they appeal and lift the injunction at the 9th, cant we appeal that up to SCOTUS at that point and really fast track the issue?
__________________

Last edited by FreemanG; 08-05-2022 at 3:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2842  
Old 08-05-2022, 3:47 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,864
iTrader: 212 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreemanG View Post
If they appeal and lift the injunction at the 9th, cant we appeal that up to SCOTUS at that point and really fast track the issue?
Perhaps yes. But IIRC Kagan or Sotomayer gets first look at any emergency appeals coming from the 9th. It would take extra karma to get the full Scotus to look at it
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #2843  
Old 08-05-2022, 4:02 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,433
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Perhaps yes. But IIRC Kagan or Sotomayer gets first look at any emergency appeals coming from the 9th. It would take extra karma to get the full Scotus to look at it
I doubt they will play games at that level. It wouldn't bode well for them when the shoe is on the other foot. NY v Buren is settled.
Reply With Quote
  #2844  
Old 08-05-2022, 4:57 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 221
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roswell Saucer View Post
They could, sure, but would they?
YOU BETCHA.
Reply With Quote
  #2845  
Old 08-05-2022, 4:58 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 221
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I doubt they will play games at that level. It wouldn't bode well for them when the shoe is on the other foot. NY v Buren is settled.
Um, really?
Reply With Quote
  #2846  
Old 08-05-2022, 6:03 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 600
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Is it obvious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Perhaps yes. But IIRC Kagan or Sotomayer gets first look at any emergency appeals coming from the 9th. It would take extra karma to get the full Scotus to look at it
If you notice, on the emergency docket, for most controversial things they refer them to the full court. They don't when they already know their peers leanings. For example, there is a general expectation that the status quo be preserved why lower courts brief things out and thoroughly examine an issue. If the lower courts are preserving the status quo, then SCOTUS doesn't like to intervene before it goes through the process.

On the other hand, say you had a rogue judge who suddenly ordered pastors to be imprisoned for something obviously protected by the 1st amendment. That's the kind of thing where they intervene immediately and tell them to knock it off.

They're much more likely to pause some action that looks like it might lose in the long run. That's why all the freedom week mags are currently safe: no one is trying to take action on those in possession, so SCOTUS doesn't need to intervene beyond the GVR.

If a government agency was going around arresting people, that's when they would step in quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #2847  
Old 08-08-2022, 8:45 AM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,685
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
You STILL don't get it. Is that on purpose? Let me help: How many more death sentences have been carried out, more quickly, since SCOTUS told them so strongly to "cut it out"?? Do we even HAVE a death penalty any more? Or did someone feel free to essentially get rid of it? Did I miss SCOTUS telling HIM to cut it out?

It doesn't have to be this hard.

It is you that does not "get" it. SCOTUS bitch slapped the 9th once and they can do it again. You can not claim that the District or Circuit Courts can stall and not have SCOTUS act, telling them to stop stalling. Would I like to see them do this more often? Sure, but we have precedent of them acting on it...
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #2848  
Old 08-08-2022, 9:37 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,433
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
Um, really?
Yes, really!
Reply With Quote
  #2849  
Old 08-08-2022, 12:21 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 221
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Yes, really!
It was a very naÔve comment and assumes the other side is playing by the rules.
Reply With Quote
  #2850  
Old 08-08-2022, 12:27 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 966
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Order dated today (actually dated August 2nd, but crossed out. Feel free to speculate wildly about when Judge Benitez wanted to order this) by Judge Benitez:
Pursuant to the decision of the court of appeals vacating and remanding the case to this court, both parties are ordered to file briefs addressing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S._ (June 23, 2022), and to do so withing twenty days of the date of this Order.
Reply With Quote
  #2851  
Old 08-08-2022, 12:31 PM
19K 19K is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,851
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
Order dated today (actually dated August 2nd, but crossed out. Feel free to speculate wildly about when Judge Benitez wanted to order this) by Judge Benitez:
Pursuant to the decision of the court of appeals vacating and remanding the case to this court, both parties are ordered to file briefs addressing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S._ (June 23, 2022), and to do so withing twenty days of the date of this Order.
Thought you had a typo. Then saw that itís in the actual document.
Reply With Quote
  #2852  
Old 08-08-2022, 12:53 PM
Roswell Saucer Roswell Saucer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
Order dated today (actually dated August 2nd, but crossed out. Feel free to speculate wildly about when Judge Benitez wanted to order this) by Judge Benitez:
Pursuant to the decision of the court of appeals vacating and remanding the case to this court, both parties are ordered to file briefs addressing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S._ (June 23, 2022), and to do so withing twenty days of the date of this Order.
haha Saint Benitez rules. He's chomping at the bit to address this.
Reply With Quote
  #2853  
Old 08-08-2022, 12:56 PM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
You STILL don't get it. Is that on purpose? Let me help: How many more death sentences have been carried out, more quickly, since SCOTUS told them so strongly to "cut it out"?? Do we even HAVE a death penalty any more? Or did someone feel free to essentially get rid of it? Did I miss SCOTUS telling HIM to cut it out?

It doesn't have to be this hard.
April 21, 1992. The case cited. The US Supreme Court said no more stays, and less than an hour later, Robert Alton Harris was put to death.
Reply With Quote
  #2854  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:04 PM
pbreed pbreed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 48
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default What other 2A cases does Benitez have?

Todays order looks really promising...
What of the other cases from the 9th circus have been returned to St Benitez?
IE what other fun orders shall we expect today?
Reply With Quote
  #2855  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:04 PM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Since then:

David Edwin Mason 8/24/1993
William George Bonin 2/23/1996
Keith Daniel Williams 5/3/1996
Thomas M. Thompson 7/14/1998
Jaturun Siripongs 2/9/1999
Manuel Babbitt 5/4/1999
Darrell Keith Rich 3/15/2000
Robert Lee Massie 3/27/2001
Stephen Wayne Anderson 1/29/2002
Donald Beardslee 1/19/2005
Stanley Williams 12/13/2005
Clarence Ray Allen 01/17/2006
Reply With Quote
  #2856  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:05 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,864
iTrader: 212 / 100%
Default

So he just wants briefs on Bruen - not a total rehash. I can't wait to see what Bonta pulls out out of the B.S. drawer this time...
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #2857  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:07 PM
arrix's Avatar
arrix arrix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: PRK
Posts: 1,408
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
Order dated today (actually dated August 2nd, but crossed out. Feel free to speculate wildly about when Judge Benitez wanted to order this) by Judge Benitez:
Pursuant to the decision of the court of appeals vacating and remanding the case to this court, both parties are ordered to file briefs addressing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S._ (June 23, 2022), and to do so withing twenty days of the date of this Order.
__________________
Quote:
There is no week nor day nor hour, when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves -- and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance -- Tyranny may always enter -- there is no charm, no bar against it -- the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.

-Walt Whitman
Reply With Quote
  #2858  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:10 PM
M1A Rifleman's Avatar
M1A Rifleman M1A Rifleman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,845
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
So he just wants briefs on Bruen - not a total rehash. I can't wait to see what Bonta pulls out out of the B.S. drawer this time...
Made up fake history
__________________
The only thing that is worse than an idiot, is someone who argues with one.
Reply With Quote
  #2859  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:13 PM
Roswell Saucer Roswell Saucer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
So he just wants briefs on Bruen - not a total rehash. I can't wait to see what Bonta pulls out out of the B.S. drawer this time...
Oh, we're gonna see some amazing legal gymnastics on this one.
Reply With Quote
  #2860  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:16 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,433
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
It was a very naÔve comment and assumes the other side is playing by the rules.
You have no idea what youíre talking about
Reply With Quote
  #2861  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:19 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Looks like Benitez wants to move through this as quickly as possible.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2862  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:25 PM
Ocdlaw Ocdlaw is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: South Orange County
Posts: 23
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Benitez just gave the parties 20 days to brief re: effect of NYSRP v Bruen! That's pretty fast.
Reply With Quote
  #2863  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:27 PM
lazycat lazycat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 4
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

What do you guys think will happen in case this ends up with an injunction ? Will we get a "freedom moment" to get features ? In other words, all featureless rifles converted to normal during the period of injunction will be legal just like freedom week mags ?

Last edited by lazycat; 08-08-2022 at 1:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2864  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:31 PM
Roswell Saucer Roswell Saucer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazycat View Post
What do you guys think will happen in case this ends up with an injunction ? Will we get a "freedom moment" to get features ? In other words, all featureless rifles converted to normal during the period of injunction will be legal just like freedom week mags ?
California will not prevail in this case. There is no THT for a black rifle ban. I will be extremely surprised if the 9th stays an injunction issued by Benitez because they will 100% be overruled by SCOTUS with an even tougher opinion than NYSRPA.

Last edited by Roswell Saucer; 08-08-2022 at 1:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2865  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:33 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,572
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

my prediction:

win with Benitez with yet another injunction (and another emergency stay to avoid a "catastrophic" freedom week where we can have grips with no fins) for the inevitable 9th appeal, who will find, again, that somehow Benitez erred, even SCOTUS told them it was the defendants and the 9th that erred, not Benitez. In any case, they want time to be able to re-jigger SCOTUS before the 9th's 2nd ludicrously idiotic decision in favor of the state gets appealed.

Galling. I still don't fully understand how the 9th was able to GVR it back down to Benitez, when it was their decision that sucked.

I'm not a lawyer. Maybe somebody can explain it to me as they would a child?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"ď[S]cientific proofĒ of both gun-rights and gun-control theories ďis very hard to getĒ; therefore, requiring ďsome substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injuryĒ is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #2866  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:44 PM
lazycat lazycat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 4
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

My concern is not how this case will ultimately resolve in SCOTUS because I think everybody knows that already. The concern is to be prepared when Benitez issues a preliminary injunction on the law making the features legal for *period of time until they get emergency stay from 9th*. I lost faith in 9th circuit acting in any reasonable way at this point and I don't believe that they will obey the SCOTUS rules for evaluating second amendment cases. You can clearly see their position simply by looking at how this case was remanded back to Benitez, they could've just struck down the law and be done with it. Then you look at how San Jose judge somehow said that criminals posting surety is equivalent to insurance for all gun owners. These people are acting in a partisan way and they don't care about the objective THT.
Reply With Quote
  #2867  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:45 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazycat View Post
What do you guys think will happen in case this ends up with an injunction ? Will we get a "freedom moment" to get features ? In other words, all featureless rifles converted to normal during the period of injunction will be legal just like freedom week mags ?

If you mean a preliminary injunction that may not happen. I donít believe Benitez granted a preliminary injunction the first time this case came before him. For expediency of proceedings it may not happen this time either. The 9th is going to play games with any AWB so it may behoove Benitez and FPC to get as many briefs as the normal oral arguments as possible. If his opinion is overturned by the 9th Miller could have an easy shot at being granted cert by SCOTUS, if Bianchi v Frosch doesnít get there first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #2868  
Old 08-08-2022, 1:52 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
my prediction:

win with Benitez with yet another injunction (and another emergency stay to avoid a "catastrophic" freedom week where we can have grips with no fins) for the inevitable 9th appeal, who will find, again, that somehow Benitez erred, even SCOTUS told them it was the defendants and the 9th that erred, not Benitez. In any case, they want time to be able to re-jigger SCOTUS before the 9th's 2nd ludicrously idiotic decision in favor of the state gets appealed.

Galling. I still don't fully understand how the 9th was able to GVR it back down to Benitez, when it was their decision that sucked.

I'm not a lawyer. Maybe somebody can explain it to me as they would a child?

No that pretty much sums it up. The 9th gave California a freebie to make up for Californiaís negligence when they briefed and argued based on intermediate scrutiny in order to ignore Hellerís analysis. Bruen did not create a new standard and Justice Thomas made clear that Bruen was enforcing Hellerís analysis. We can see in the San Jose gun insurance lawsuit the activist judges will make intellectually bankrupt arguments equating California laws with historical analogs that are anything but. California and the 9th will play games in as many cases as possible. Our only long-term hope is that SCOTUS gets involved every year with new gun cases, because if they go dormant like they essentially did from 2010-2022 then we are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #2869  
Old 08-08-2022, 2:08 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,433
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
If you mean a preliminary injunction that may not happen. I donít believe Benitez granted a preliminary injunction the first time this case came before him. For expediency of proceedings it may not happen this time either. The 9th is going to play games with any AWB so it may behoove Benitez and FPC to get as many briefs as the normal oral arguments as possible. If his opinion is overturned by the 9th Miller could have an easy shot at being granted cert by SCOTUS, if Bianchi v Frosch doesnít get there first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He stayed everything for the appeal. That will not happen this time around with NY v Bruen as settled law. Even a one hour PI will exonerate all CA AWís as being lawful in the hands of residents.

You may not be able to buy one off the shelf but the AW bans ship has sailed
Reply With Quote
  #2870  
Old 08-08-2022, 2:17 PM
Inoxmark's Avatar
Inoxmark Inoxmark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 678
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

I think Benitez will allow the parties to respond to each other's briefs, then issue his ruling without oral arguments.Hopefully not stay his ruling this time.

As to CA position, in the most recent CA brief linked to in this thread, CA AG all but laid down their new arguments. They will argue that AW are not really covered by 2A, because 2A is about self-defense, but AW were designed for offense. That self-defense needs are covered by other non-banned means, therefore AW are fair game for banning. Same argument will be presented in all other "hardware" related cases (mags, roster, etc). Sounds ridiculous, but just watch. All they have to do is to find a sympathetic judge's ear. They are not going to find that in Benitez, but there are plenty others who will embrace their argument and support it with 50 pages of legalese.
Reply With Quote
  #2871  
Old 08-08-2022, 2:26 PM
cleonard cleonard is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 905
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can't Benitez play the "delay" game in a way? Issue a TRO/preliminary injunction while working on the summary judgement. Sure the state can ask for a stay from the 9th, but the case would still be with Benitez. Seems like a path to freedom month or two.
Reply With Quote
  #2872  
Old 08-08-2022, 2:46 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleonard View Post
Can't Benitez play the "delay" game in a way? Issue a TRO/preliminary injunction while working on the summary judgement. Sure the state can ask for a stay from the 9th, but the case would still be with Benitez. Seems like a path to freedom month or two.

Itís not to his or FPCís benefit to delay. We need as many cases piling up ruling against gun control as possible while the iron of Bruen is hot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #2873  
Old 08-08-2022, 2:50 PM
Roswell Saucer Roswell Saucer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Itís not to his or FPCís benefit to delay. We need as many cases piling up ruling against gun control as possible while the iron of Bruen is hot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
100% this. Gotta move fast to address issues of first impression before the commies can.
Reply With Quote
  #2874  
Old 08-08-2022, 2:57 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 3,198
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
....

Galling. I still don't fully understand how the 9th was able to GVR it back down to Benitez, when it was their decision that sucked.

I'm not a lawyer. Maybe somebody can explain it to me as they would a child?
Because it is the trial courts that make factual findings, so it needed to go back to Benitez to see if there are any facts that that might bear on the analysis required by Bruen. I think that we can reasonably assume that Miller's brief will state that there is no evidence that could come anywhere close to satisfying Bruen's THT requirement. And as SkyHawk posted we can hardly wait to see what Bonta pulls out of the B.S. drawer this time...
Reply With Quote
  #2875  
Old 08-08-2022, 3:25 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,378
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inoxmark View Post
I think Benitez will allow the parties to respond to each other's briefs, then issue his ruling without oral arguments.Hopefully not stay his ruling this time.

As to CA position, in the most recent CA brief linked to in this thread, CA AG all but laid down their new arguments. They will argue that AW are not really covered by 2A, because 2A is about self-defense, but AW were designed for offense. That self-defense needs are covered by other non-banned means, therefore AW are fair game for banning. Same argument will be presented in all other "hardware" related cases (mags, roster, etc). Sounds ridiculous, but just watch. All they have to do is to find a sympathetic judge's ear. They are not going to find that in Benitez, but there are plenty others who will embrace their argument and support it with 50 pages of legalese.
Really, so they expect to argue that police walking around with assault weapons are just looking for someone to shoot instead of using them for defense?
Reply With Quote
  #2876  
Old 08-08-2022, 3:46 PM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,818
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
Really, so they expect to argue that police walking around with assault weapons are just looking for someone to shoot instead of using them for defense?
Offense and defense just depend upon perspective.

An ordinary person armed with an AR15 is so for offense.

A government agent armed with an M4 is so for defense.




.
__________________
Don't worry, it will never pass...How in the hell did that pass?

Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!


If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Reply With Quote
  #2877  
Old 08-08-2022, 4:02 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inoxmark View Post
As to CA position, in the most recent CA brief linked to in this thread, CA AG all but laid down their new arguments. They will argue that AW are not really covered by 2A, because 2A is about self-defense, but AW were designed for offense. That self-defense needs are covered by other non-banned means, therefore AW are fair game for banning.
When you have the facts, argue the facts, when you have the law, argue the law, when you have neither facts nor law, pound the table and waive your arms a lot.

Back in 1776, one .75 caliber musket was the same as any other .75 caliber musket, whether you were hunting, attacking, or defending. Moreover, it is difficult if not impossible to have a hedge against tyranny and the ability to overthrow the government without having offensive weapons. Not that it matters; Benitez knows full well that the "weapons of war" argument is utter B.S.
Reply With Quote
  #2878  
Old 08-08-2022, 5:12 PM
newbieLA newbieLA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 335
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
my prediction:

win with Benitez with yet another injunction (and another emergency stay to avoid a "catastrophic" freedom week where we can have grips with no fins) for the inevitable 9th appeal, who will find, again, that somehow Benitez erred, even SCOTUS told them it was the defendants and the 9th that erred, not Benitez. In any case, they want time to be able to re-jigger SCOTUS before the 9th's 2nd ludicrously idiotic decision in favor of the state gets appealed.

Galling. I still don't fully understand how the 9th was able to GVR it back down to Benitez, when it was their decision that sucked.

I'm not a lawyer. Maybe somebody can explain it to me as they would a child?
if the 9th plays games and overturns Benitez under appeal, they risk SCOTUS issuing a ruling that is going to damage their attempts at gun control even more so than Bruen
Reply With Quote
  #2879  
Old 08-08-2022, 5:34 PM
p7m8jg's Avatar
p7m8jg p7m8jg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I'm hearing a lotta "hope" vs traditional Ninth Circus opinions that "don't care" what the USSCt says.

God bless 'ya.
Reply With Quote
  #2880  
Old 08-08-2022, 6:34 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,378
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by p7m8jg View Post
I'm hearing a lotta "hope" vs traditional Ninth Circus opinions that "don't care" what the USSCt says.

God bless 'ya.

No king rules forever. At some point even the 9th will have to admit defeat. But they can take pride in being able to deny constitutional rights for a long time.
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 12:41 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical