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

[ajc4]

Wait, what?

The 9th majority (Clinton & Obama appointees) say:
"The provisions of state law at issue were in effect for more than nine months before the district court’s preliminary injunction. Appellees do not contend that they were unable to purchase ammunition lawfully and with minimal delay while those provisions were in effect."

Isn't that EXACTLY what appellees DID contend and aren't the strong merits of that contention exactly what Benitz spent most of 100 pages explaining in great detail? Can judges just make up alternate facts that more conveniently fit their political preferences or am I missing something?

[kuug]

They also stated that the AGs office is likely to succeed on the merits when Benitez stated the exact opposite

[champu]

Juries are for criminal trials afaik, and have nothing to do with this kind of court case.

[RickD427]

^^^THIS^^^

In court, the judge decides issues of law, the jury decides issues of fact, there ain't no issues of fact in dispute here.

[SkyHawk]

Can we now appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the stay, or en banc 9th, or are we in purgatory for the long and foreseeable future?

[kuug]

Can we now appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the stay, or en banc 9th, or are we in purgatory for the long and foreseeable future?

The 9th won't take up a PI en banc and the Supreme Court has little interest getting involved in injunctions and temporary restraining orders, especially if it involves guns. See Guedes v. ATF

[BillyMays]

I think you nailed it here. The majority argument had hardly any reasoning to back it up. It was just two pages of "Yep, all requirements met." Meanwhile, the dissent had nine pages of material with valid and well reasoned arguments- all of which were not addressed by the majority. The majority just IGNORED anything that didn't fit their rubber stamp of approval. Very frustrating, but I suppose not surprising.

[BeAuMaN]

Right, thanks.

[ajc4]

Isn't that EXACTLY what appellees DID contend?

They also stated that the AGs office is likely to succeed on the merits when Benitez stated the exact opposite

The likelihood of success is, to a degree, a matter of "judgement". I'm accustomed to the 9th circuit having judgement that is quite politically motivated but these things do have an element of subjectivity and that's why we call these things "opinions".

The comment from the majority about what appellees did or did not contend is a new low, even for the 9th. We've moved from politically motivated subjective reasoning to simply ignoring (to the point of taking the negative of) plain letter fact. Appellees very clearly DID contend exactly what the majority say they DID NOT contend. The majority either didn't read Benitz's order nor the complaint nor the reply brief or they are being flat-out dishonest about the most basic parameters of the case on purpose. Both of these seem close to or over the line of judicial misconduct.

As to whether the complaints contented in the case have merit or likelihood of success is a matter of judgement and it is possible for the majority and Benitz to have a different opinion given the subjective nature of opinions. It should not be possible for Benitz and the majority to have a different set of plain letter, black and white facts. This order is much worse and vastly more dishonest than the usual slap in the face we get from the 9th.

[Librarian]

... However we do it, it is time to put the fear God and the Second Amendment in them.

I understand the feeling. However, such posts are off topic for the threads on the proceedings of legal efforts.

Start your own thread, please.

[Lifeisgood]

"Appellees do not contend that they were unable to purchase ammunition lawfully and with minimal delay while those provisions were in effect."
How can he say that when:
"approximately 101,047 instances in which “residents who are not prohibited persons . . . failed a background check.”

Does that not qualify as minimal delay?

Collins is the only one of the three who ses reason.

[ugimports]

Those are stats. They are not an injured party as part of the case. Much like the US Veteran example I pointed out earlier in the thread. Those other 101,047 people or the US Veteran would need their own lawsuit (I doubt they can be added to this one, but have no idea).

[Librarian]

We'll. we're really bored and really frustrated by the (in)actions of the court, so the thread has truly veered off into the weeds.

Temporarily closed; I'll clean it up some this evening.

First person who finds a new case doc filed with the court or by the court, please PM so I can open the thread.

[Librarian]

APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
(PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION APPEAL –
NINTH CIRCUIT RULE 3-3)

From the state, opposing the injunction.

Thanks to 2 PMs.

Open!

[champu]

From the state, opposing the injunction.

Thanks to 2 PMs.

Open!