Jones v. Bonta - Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by vino68

Clearly a millennial or gen z.

Don’t lump him in with us.

[ivanimal]

Carry on

[JiuJitsu]

So far it seems every single 2A case post-Bruen is being sent back to the lower courts. Delay and pray is about all Bonta has left.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman

change the court to eliminate the 2nd

Technically, this isn't what the courts will be doing, exactly, but in spirit, yes.

[My600]

Nothing going to overturn soon or even never will. Enjoy what you have, if you're not happy with it move to a free state or stick around and fight

[The Gleam]

And good riddance.

---

[Bullets&Whitewalls]

Originally Posted by Ned Ryerson

I'm glad to see that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is at least acknowledging that there is a new judicial standard that must now be applied in evaluating 2nd Amendment cases. This will work to our advantage in all future cases.

I disagree, If you read that whole blurb they put out it also goes with how they should be looking at what is going on today and not in history, Which if you ask me will work against us if I read it right.

[mit31]

"The district court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is VACATED"

I read that as an open invitation for another shot at a PI?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

...Delay and pray is about all Bonta has left.

No, no. You clearly don't savvy the messaging.

Decision to block California ban on under-21 rifle sales vacated

...Wednesday's order is a temporary victory for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who defended the ban...

See? Temporary (define 'temporary') or not, it's... VICTORY... for them. We lose. You must understand.

[JiuJitsu]

"Temporary victory". Love it. Just delay some civil rights until they ultimately lose. That's a "victory".

[taperxz]

The Hunting license requirement was unconstitutional! It’s good that it got sent back to district court to fix this issue. That’s not something appeals would fix.

[cyphr02]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

Yeah, I don't think it's cricket to give machine guns to<21 year olds in military and police and not let civilian militia 18-20s have same access. It's bogus and untenable and should be unenforceable. Would young Bill Ares, Ted Nugent, or Barry Sotero stand for this buggery?

You saying that the standard of ownership should be having a PT stud scream in your face for 2-3 months to see if you're going to crack under pressure or have incel tendencies; then be forced to get orders to check out your arms from an armorer, and then check them back in once those orders have expired? If not, you're making a straw man argument.

[9Cal_OC]

Paywall.

Can you quote some of the main points?

[GetMeCoffee]

Deleted - post transferred from a dupe thread and is irrelevant to this one.

[-hanko]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

This is from May 2022. Isn't this just the Jones v. Bonta case? https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1543462

May 11 to be exact.

[DolphinFan]

Let the dominoes fall.

[edgerly779]

I am going to up the price on ones I have for sale.

[taperxz]

Just delete this

[taperxz]

The PI was vacated and sent back to district court.

[SonofWWIIDI]

So, no for an en banc session that can be pushed back down to the lower court to rethink their view. The case will be re-argued and sent back up, two years later, only to be sent back down and sent back…

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by -hanko

May 11 to be exact.

As of TODAY, the 5-11-22 decision is GONE.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...3e8efb1701aa72

A federal appeals court on Wednesday set aside its decision that California’s ban on selling semiautomatic weapons to adults under 21 was unconstitutional, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that changed how judges must evaluate firearms laws.

[Fastattack]

Sounds like California government just got B***H slapped.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by SonofWWIIDI

So, no for an en banc session that can be pushed back down to the lower court to rethink their view. The case will be re-argued and sent back up, two years later, only to be sent back down and sent back…

No, it may have gotten sent back to get rid of the Hunting License requirement which is not in line with NYSSA v Bruen

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

No, it may have gotten sent back to get rid of the Hunting License requirement which is not in line with NYSSA v Bruen

That's not why .. Why do 18-20 year old have the suffer this law any longer? They sent it back to make it start up again and subject people to these laws again.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

That's not why .. Why do 18-20 year old have the suffer this law any longer? They sent it back to make it start up again and subject people to these laws again.

We won on appeals. The Hunting license requirement is unconstitutional. Do you want to make these people go through hunters Ed and pay $52 a year to buy a long gun? Take the partial win and then file another suit to get rid of the hunting license requirements?

It’s the court system. There is no instant gratification in court. FPC can now ask for PI all the way to SCOTUS.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

We won on appeals. The Hunting license requirement is unconstitutional. Do you want to make these people go through hunters Ed and pay $52 a year to buy a long gun? Take the partial win and then file another suit to get rid of the hunting license requirements?

It’s the court system. There is no instant gratification in court. FPC can now ask for PI all the way to SCOTUS.

I don't think they should be subject to any of it, but the en banc court did not send it back to a corrupt district court to remove the hunting license part.

Maybe you want the hunting license gone also, but that's not why this is happening.

[p7m8jg]

Originally Posted by SonofWWIIDI

So, no for an en banc session that can be pushed back down to the lower court to rethink their view. The case will be re-argued and sent back up, two years later, only to be sent back down and sent back…

I see what you did there!
Oliver Platt as Paul Bunyan in "Tall Tale" 1995.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I don't think they should be subject to any of it, but the en banc court did not send it back to a corrupt district court to remove the hunting license part.

Maybe you want the hunting license gone also, but that's not why this is happening.

Please show me where this was En Banc. This ruling was from the appeals panel.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Please show me where this was En Banc. This ruling was from the appeals panel.

That's how it works, the appeals court made a decision , and the only way to wipe that decision is en banc. They requested en banc to wipe the appeals court case to send it back to the district court.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

That's how it works, the appeals court made a decision , and the only way to wipe that decision is en banc. They requested en banc to wipe the appeals court case to send it back to the district court.

Nope, read the article.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Nope, read the article.

That article that's linked someplace, but your not sure where right ?

[taperxz]

Try scrolling up ?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Opposition to Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc (PDF)

Plaintiffs-appellants’ Petition Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (PDF)

Hmm, so panel rehearing en banc, I wonder what that could mean.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Hmm, so panel rehearing en banc, I wonder what that could mean.

Instead of an En Banc, the 3 judge panel sent it back to district court. There was no En Banc hearing.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Instead of an En Banc, the 3 judge panel sent it back to district court. There was no En Banc hearing.

I don't think that can be known, they don't tell you who the en banc panel is unless there is hearing, and this had no hearing.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I don't think that can be known, they don't tell you who the en banc panel is unless there is hearing, and this had no hearing.

They were not granted an En Banc hearing. The Appeals court sent the case back to district to get it right and consistent with NY v Bruen.

The only thing not consistent with the case is the requirement of needing a hunting license. We already won the case so people 18-20 could buy any long gun. What else is there to get fixed? HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

They were not granted an En Banc hearing. The Appeals court sent the case back to district to get it right and consistent with NY v Bruen.

The only thing not consistent with the case is the requirement of needing a hunting license. We already won the case so people 18-20 could buy any long gun. What else is there to get fixed? HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED

The reason it was sent back to the district court is to re-enable the law for another year and cause delays in the removal of the law. The district court will sit on it for ages , like Rupp, and maybe sometimes in a few years they will hear about your HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

The reason it was sent back to the district court is to re-enable the law for another year and cause delays in the removal of the law. The district court will sit on it for ages , like Rupp, and maybe sometimes in a few years they will hear about your HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED

Or, they get it to district, fix it right and appeals are denied.

Or, they sit on it and a Writ of Mandamus is requested to act accordingly. We don’t really know yet. You can speculate but the SCOTUS is primed for telling obtuse courts to knock it off, they said what they said and they don’t want more 2A cases.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Or, they get it to district, fix it right and appeals are denied.

Or, they sit on it and a Writ of Mandamus is requested to act accordingly. We don’t really no yet. You can speculate but the SCOTUS is primed for telling obtuse courts to knock it off, they said what they said and they don’t want more 2A cases.

You think a recalcitrant district court will do as your like ? It's not going to happen. We've seen this movie many times before. We already know what will happen.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

You think a recalcitrant district court will do as your like ? It's not going to happen. We've seen this movie many times before. We already know what will happen.

You’re stuck pre NY v Bruen in the head.

How come you didn’t comment on a possible Writ of Mandamus? Do you know what that means?