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

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

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?

No, I'm stuck in the 9th circuit which doesn't want to rule per Bruen. I'm a realist.

yes I know what Mandamus means, it's not a point that matters.

[strakill]

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 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.

And how exactly is SCOTUS going to enforce? NY and CA already are thumbing their nose at them.

Who is going to make them follow SCOTUS rulings? We are long past the rule of law.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

No, I'm stuck in the 9th circuit which doesn't want to rule per Bruen. I'm a realist.

yes I know what Mandamus means, it's not a point that matters.

So, you think that possible sanctions from the SCOTUS means nothing to a subordinate judge?

Did you see how fast Benitez acted on this?

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by strakill

And how exactly is SCOTUS going to enforce? NY and CA already are thumbing their nose at them.

Who is going to make them follow SCOTUS rulings? We are long past the rule of law.

I’m not going to splain this to you. I suggest you study up a bit on how this stuff works.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

So, you think that possible sanctions from the SCOTUS means nothing to a subordinate judge?

Did you see how fast Benitez acted on this?

You haven't followed the other cases. They are not moving fast. i don't think the 9th cares at all for SCOTUS .. They never have, that's why they entirely ignored the Heller case.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I’m not going to splain this to you. I suggest you study up a bit on how this stuff works.

I think you need the splaining to pal. Polling shows that half the country doesn't believe SCOTUS is legitimate. If you think that the 9th is concerned about a reprimand from the high court then you haven't been paying attention. The only reason Benitez is fast tracking is because he's pro 2A and he isn't an activist judge.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

You haven't followed the other cases. They are not moving fast. i don't think the 9th cares at all for SCOTUS .. They never have, that's why they entirely ignored the Heller case.

They didn’t ignore the Heller case, they found a loop hole in a case that used the words “especially in the home” which limited carry cases from progressing. It didn’t come close to addressing what Thomas wrote.

The antis literally are now using King George laws to make a point in their cases.

When it comes to the Ninth, I’m pretty sure Justice Kagan has correspondence to the Ninth on what this all means

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

I think you need the splaining to pal. Polling shows that half the country doesn't believe SCOTUS is legitimate. If you think that the 9th is concerned about a reprimand from the high court then you haven't been paying attention. The only reason Benitez is fast tracking is because he's pro 2A and he isn't an activist judge.

Let me know when you have something to offer that’s actually not claiming you know something when all you’re really doing is parroting “all judge bad”

[johncage]

barring arrest orders for contempt of court and national guard deployment, the 9th will not budge

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by johncage

barring arrest orders for contempt of court and national guard deployment, the 9th will not budge

Yet, CA Sheriffs are issuing CCWs all over the state and SB 918 failed with a supermajority

[ronlglock]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Yet, CA Sheriffs are issuing CCWs all over the state and SB 918 failed with a supermajority

By one vote.

[moleculo]

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.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1662567526

There was no en banc panel. This was remanded by a typical 3 judge appeals panel. The en banc appeal was denied. They also didn't issue any reasoning for the remand - they just did it. It could have been one faulting reasoning (the hunting thing) or something else the panel felt was inconsistent with Bruen.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by moleculo

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1662567526

There was no en banc panel. This was remanded by a typical 3 judge appeals panel. The en banc appeal was denied. They also didn't issue any reasoning for the remand - they just did it. It could have been one faulting reasoning (the hunting thing) or something else the panel felt was inconsistent with Bruen.

As I said before I don't think we can know what influence the whole court had in that case. Something clearly changed on that panel.

[moleculo]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

As I said before I don't think we can know what influence the whole court had in that case. Something clearly changed on that panel.

Yes we do know what influence the "whole court" had. The "whole" court was the 3 judge panel and that was it. There was no en banc panel selected to influence anything.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by ronlglock

By one vote.

Ya, so? In California! Clearly NY v Bruen has had an effect on some politicians. That’s how we start winning.

A win is a win regardless of how many points or in this case votes

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by moleculo

Yes we do know what influence the "whole court" had. The "whole" court was the 3 judge panel and that was it. There was no en banc panel selected to influence anything.

They would have to provide the request for en banc to the whole court, because that's what was requested. So I don't agree, the whole court was involved in this.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

They would have to provide the request for en banc to the whole court, because that's what was requested. So I don't agree, the whole court was involved in this.

[ASD1]

Originally Posted by taperxz

some just don't read do they Tape