Rhode v. Becerra (Challenge to CA Ammo Sales) - ORAL ARGS at 9th 11-9-2020

[ProfChaos]

The math should be against them and yet I'm sure it will get the votes.

In a typical year they get well over 1,000 requests....of which only 50 to 60 actually get votes...of which only about 1/3 to 1/2 of those have enough votes to be heard. So on paper any case only has about 25/1000 (or 2.5% chance). Why is it then that 2nd amendment cases score like 98%.

Washington Gun Law called them out. Way too high a rate for accepting 2A cases. Skip to ~5 minutes if you want to get to the point.

https://youtu.be/fnYE-YOzagA

[Sousuke]

What % of petitions from the State, not just 2nd Amend issues, are granted a En Banc?

I started to look and the first thing I noticed ( I could be wrong) but about 1/2 are 2A. Doesn't look like the other 1/2 get as far in the appeal process. (i'm only looking at the last year or so by the way)

[The Gleam]

So are we not going to be able to order ammo online?

No... you'll need to keep making well planned ammo haul trips to Nevada or Arizona for the time being, to avoid the $5.00 fee, 11% hostile Anti-2nd Amendment Spite tax, background check, and inflated CA dealer pricing with inventory limited to pedestrian every-day stuff.... like everyone else, whether prohibited from buying ammo or not.

Skirting this nonsensical law shat from the rectum of tyranny, which defying carries no moral turpitude, is the patriotic civic-duty thing to do.

---

[abinsinia]

For sure they grant En Banc in 2A case which favor 2A right, or immigration cases where the alien is getting removed. So they want no guns and criminal aliens to stay.

[splithoof]

No... you'll need to keep making well planned ammo haul trips to Nevada or Arizona for the time being, to avoid the $5.00 fee, 11% hostile Anti-2nd Amendment Spite tax, background check, and inflated CA dealer pricing with inventory limited to pedestrian every-day stuff.... like everyone else, whether prohibited from buying ammo or not.

Skirting this nonsensical law shat from the rectum of tyranny, which defying carries no moral turpitude, is the patriotic civic-duty thing to do.

---

I agree.

[Mark49]

There are 16 Active Judges appointed by D's to 13 appointed by R's. The 3 longest serving Active Judges were appointed by Clinton.
All we need is to replace or go Senior, 2 Dem Judges to swing the balance to our side.
There is a better chance a Trump appointed Judge would be on our side, than a Bush Judge.

How do they determine what judges are assigned to that 11 panel? draw out of a hat. I know it's not 50/50 D vs Rs.

[sakosf]

How do they determine what judges are assigned to that 11 panel? draw out of a hat. I know it's not 50/50 D vs Rs.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Guide.pdf

[Sgt Raven]

How do they determine what judges are assigned to that 11 panel? draw out of a hat. I know it's not 50/50 D vs Rs.

The Chief Judge is automatically one of the eleven. The other ten members, active judges not senior judges, are to be drawn at random. How truly random is a question we do not have answer.

[7.62mm_fmj]

The 3-judge panel has issued its decision. Ignoring CA DOJ's assertion that the ruling is not valid until a mandate is posted by the court, and seeing that CA DOJ jumped in just before closing time on the Friday of their deadline with their en banc appeal, where does that leave us procedure-wise? Should not the decision take effect now (background checks become invalid) and it becomes the State's responsibility to try to get a stay on the ruling?

[Sousuke]

The 3-judge panel has issued its decision. Ignoring CA DOJ's assertion that the ruling is not valid until a mandate is posted by the court, and seeing that CA DOJ jumped in just before closing time on the Friday of their deadline with their en banc appeal, where does that leave us procedure-wise? Should not the decision take effect now (background checks become invalid) and it becomes the State's responsibility to try to get a stay on the ruling?

The mandate will be stayed for now, so the law remains in affect. If this petition is denied (unlikely...but if we lived under a fair court system here in the 9th it likely would) then the mandate comes out 7 days later striking the law.

[The Gleam]

As a matter of discussion, here's a link to a website that helps you figure out the sales tax in various areas and municipalities throughout Arizona:

https://www.avalara.com/taxrates/en/...s/arizona.html

---

[riderr]

The mandate will be stayed for now, so the law remains in affect. If this petition is denied (unlikely...but if we lived under a fair court system here in the 9th it likely would) then the mandate comes out 7 days later striking the law.

It's the appellate court decision to issue the mandate or to stay it, pending enbanc hearing. In my view the law was struck down twice, so the mandate to the lower court should be issued and the law void. If the state wins enbanc, the law should be re-established.

[TruOil]

The 3-judge panel has issued its decision. Ignoring CA DOJ's assertion that the ruling is not valid until a mandate is posted by the court, and seeing that CA DOJ jumped in just before closing time on the Friday of their deadline with their en banc appeal, where does that leave us procedure-wise? Should not the decision take effect now (background checks become invalid) and it becomes the State's responsibility to try to get a stay on the ruling?

The en banc filing automatically stays the 3-judge decision, at least temporarily. In essence, the former panel has no jurisdiction until the petition is ruled on.