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
  #2241  
Old 06-22-2021, 10:15 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 739
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Because it would cost a ton of money that could be better used elsewhere and because there is essentially no chance of success.

The courts seek to maintain the current state of the law while the appellate process moves forward. Ask yourself these three diagnostic questions and you'll see your answer:

1) If the Court were to overturn the stay, how would the condition of the law change during the appeal?
Constitutional Rights would immediately be restored rather than continue as oppressed Rights until the courts "finally get around to it."

Quote:
2) If the Court were to uphold the stay, how would the condition of the law change during the appeal?

The people would still be oppressed by the refusal of the courts to do their mandated Constitutional duty. You can argue whether the Rights exist or apply BUT ONLY IF you can get your day in court.

Quote:
3) Which of the two answers would produce the minimum amount of change?
This is the crux and it shouldn't even be in consideration in answering the question.

When Rights are wrongfully denied ANY legal remedy, either way, the judicial branch abrogates their duties and violate their mandate. IMO, when the courts refuse to settle disputes as they are required to do in order to keep the peace, there is only 1 avenue left. It is, after all, the foremost reason we have our independence.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

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!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.

Last edited by rplaw; 06-22-2021 at 10:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2242  
Old 06-22-2021, 11:02 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,966
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

People seem to not have a grasp on how the process works.

Judge Benitez presides over the US District Court of Southern California.

His decisions only set precedent in that district and are binding at the level of his court and below.

In order to appeal any decision made in his Court, you have to go to a higher court. But in doing so you have to understand that you are not just going to a higher authority, but now you're involving people/lives/decisions OUTSIDE the Southern District of California. You're involving people and situations and laws that are outside of California, in other states that are also part of the 9th.

So - you don't think those states should be able to weigh in on decisions that might affect their residents, their laws, and their court precedents? They HAVE to have that opportunity if the interests of justice are to be served in the entire circuit.

Not only that - The system has a bias for causing as little "sea change" as possible. For every big decision that changes something fundamental, there are a hundred or a thousand "little" issues that now have to be re-decided. This overwhelms the courts, makes law books outdated, makes knowledge that police, prosecutors, judges and others "obsolete". While you may think that's a "good thing" when it comes to setting an issue right (according to YOUR viewpoint) just imagine when the shoe is on the other foot and now you have to re-litigate cases you "won" which are now superseded.

As far as the 9th putting other 2A cases "on hold" pending decisions at SCOTUS - they kind of have to do this when they know a case is in the pipeline that may render a judgment of theirs obsolete. That just wastes a lot of everybody's time, because then the court has to re-hear and re-decide the case. This actually favors us in the long run because our resources are more scarce than the states... and the money spent re-hearing a certain case is better spent on initial litigation for the NEXT case.

People get impatient and are prone to assign the worst possible motives, but the system exists because - imperfect and sometimes frustrating though it may be - it's actually a fairly decent method for deciding big issues and the laws surrounding them with as little general disruption as possible.

If every case coming through the system had the potential to overnight turn everything upside down, there would be a huge bias against such cases being filed/heard.

The way forward here is to work the process, let the 9th do it's worst, and then let SCOTUS make it clear what constitutional criteria any decision of theirs will have to satisfy. In this case that means waiting out NYSRPA and then letting the 9th hear the cases we have in the pipeline presently. Judge Benitez has done an excellent job of showing our team the winning arguments and where the state is vulnerable through errors in logic, procedure, and matters of fact. The job for our side now is to properly exploit that information - get a pry-bar into that crack and really put our back into it.

Yes it's slow. But doing it right means we do it once (one tiny chunk at a time if necessary) and have it done-done. Creating a foundation that not only ourselves but our heirs, and theirs, can build on to secure the future of the 2nd amendment.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.

Last edited by bruss01; 06-22-2021 at 11:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2243  
Old 06-22-2021, 11:15 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,754
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

No, the 9th shouldn’t have that right because they have shown their hostility towards the 2nd amendment, on top of being overturned frequently.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2244  
Old 06-22-2021, 11:32 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,056
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yes I'm impatient. I had/have these rights prior to 1989. Then this state decided to take my rights by threat of imprisonment or death. They can decide on gay rights or immigration in a matter of months; yet our 2nd Amendment rights can take decades! At this point I am deciding to no longer abide by the abuse of this state..
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #2245  
Old 06-22-2021, 11:50 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,424
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
... in doing so you have to understand that you are not just going to a higher authority, but now you're involving people/lives/decisions OUTSIDE the Southern District of California. You're involving people and situations and laws that are outside of California, in other states that are also part of the 9th.
Not really. Other than HI, we don't have AW bans.

Quote:
So - you don't think those states should be able to weigh in on decisions that might affect their residents, their laws, and their court precedents? They HAVE to have that opportunity if the interests of justice are to be served in the entire circuit.
There is nothing to weigh in about, other than to point out how violative of the 2A California laws are.

Quote:
Not only that - The system has a bias for causing as little "sea change" as possible. For every big decision that changes something fundamental, there are a hundred or a thousand "little" issues that now have to be re-decided. This overwhelms the courts, makes law books outdated, makes knowledge that police, prosecutors, judges and others "obsolete". While you may think that's a "good thing" when it comes to setting an issue right (according to YOUR viewpoint) just imagine when the shoe is on the other foot and now you have to re-litigate cases you "won" which are now superseded.

As far as the 9th putting other 2A cases "on hold" pending decisions at SCOTUS - they kind of have to do this when they know a case is in the pipeline that may render a judgment of theirs obsolete. That just wastes a lot of everybody's time, because then the court has to re-hear and re-decide the case. This actually favors us in the long run because our resources are more scarce than the states... and the money spent re-hearing a certain case is better spent on initial litigation for the NEXT case.

People get impatient and are prone to assign the worst possible motives, but the system exists because - imperfect and sometimes frustrating though it may be - it's actually a fairly decent method for deciding big issues and the laws surrounding them with as little general disruption as possible.

If every case coming through the system had the potential to overnight turn everything upside down, there would be a huge bias against such cases being filed/heard.

The way forward here is to work the process, let the 9th do it's worst, and then let SCOTUS make it clear what constitutional criteria any decision of theirs will have to satisfy. In this case that means waiting out NYSRPA and then letting the 9th hear the cases we have in the pipeline presently. Judge Benitez has done an excellent job of showing our team the winning arguments and where the state is vulnerable through errors in logic, procedure, and matters of fact. The job for our side now is to properly exploit that information - get a pry-bar into that crack and really put our back into it.

Yes it's slow. But doing it right means we do it once (one tiny chunk at a time if necessary) and have it done-done. Creating a foundation that not only ourselves but our heirs, and theirs, can build on to secure the future of the 2nd amendment.
Actually, there is an alternate path forward that is much faster with guaranteed favorable results. It called being an Idahoan.
Reply With Quote
  #2246  
Old 06-22-2021, 12:05 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 669
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
And that decision was made by the ninth. Absolutely nothing changed with respect to merits or the legal part of the appeals process. They just shifted the timeline.

SCOTUS would never waste even their clerk's time to meddle with timelines. It's hard enough to get them to take a serious case on merits. It would be like asking a CEO to organize a meeting about which intern will ensure there are enough coffee filters next to the coffee machine.
Like hell it was. The 9th didn't show that California would suffer irreparable harm nor did they show that California was likely to win on the merits. Do we, as the peasantry, not deserve our fair share of due process in all of this? Or is the government of California and all of it's 2A hostility the only one in this conversation worthy of having proper treatment in the judicial process?

Again I ask, is the bar for an injunction merits/irreparable harm or is it merely "what was the condition before the lawsuit"? Because if it's the second then that is not what the procedure is in the 9th rules and the system is rigged in the state's favor. Nobody should be fine with that.
Reply With Quote
  #2247  
Old 06-22-2021, 12:11 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,708
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
The 9th didn't show that California would suffer irreparable harm nor did they show that California was likely to win on the merits. Do we, as the peasantry, not deserve our fair share of due process in all of this?
We ARE in the "due process." This is what it looks like, and this is why it's called a "process." No point-and-shoot is available with the legal system, it's a process.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2248  
Old 06-22-2021, 12:14 PM
AbrahamBurden AbrahamBurden is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 569
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Actually, there is an alternate path forward that is much faster with guaranteed favorable results. It called being an Idahoan.
The trouble with running away is that sooner or later, you run out of places. Just look at how Nevada's governor signed that bill to ban 80% firearms. You're fooling yourself if you think those "favorable results" will last for perpetuity, especially as many other Californians have the same idea of "becoming an Idahoan" but bring with them Californian (Democrat/****lib/RINO) voting habits; Boise is filled with such rootless cosmopolitans.
Reply With Quote
  #2249  
Old 06-22-2021, 12:25 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 669
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
We ARE in the "due process." This is what it looks like, and this is why it's called a "process." No point-and-shoot is available with the legal system, it's a process.
No, there wasn't a process. California was justifiably called out by the district court to be enforcing the most severe type of burden on an enumerated right, a complete ban. There are rules and procedures for an injunction on that ruling and they were bypassed completely. The 9th did not show one iota of a justification for the ban by the 9th circuits own rules. There was NO PROCESS only a rubber stamp to keep California's desired state of being hidden behind the 9th circuits desire to ignore Heller with this absurd logjam of cases as it's justification. Miller doesn't even challenge the same PCs as Rupp.

We already had this discussion in 2008 and the Supreme Court ruled in our favor of commonly owned weapons like the AR15. Now we FINALLY have a 5-4 majority willing to take on straight 2A cases like Corlett and seemingly nobody has the cojones to even apply for an appeal to see if SCOTUS is willing to back up Heller? I'm so disgusted by all of this.
Reply With Quote
  #2250  
Old 06-22-2021, 12:30 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 739
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Actually, there is an alternate path forward that is much faster with guaranteed favorable results. It called being an Idahoan.
Wait, you're a potato?

Who knew...
__________________
Some random thoughts:

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!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #2251  
Old 06-22-2021, 12:30 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 669
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ONE MORE THING IVC, the Supreme Court showed a very active shadow docket since Barrett came into the picture with these COVID rulings on religious activity. So yes, the Supreme Court does play with timelines. Any illusions presented otherwise are comically out of touch. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo.
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 4:09 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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