Unconfigured Ad Widget
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	|  |  |  | 
|  |  |  | 
Jones v. Bonta - Age-Based Ban on Firearm Purchases
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	X
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 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.Originally posted by superhondaz50I should note, I have a hookup..., just trying to determine the cost to put it in.Originally posted by beerman...He comes out while I'm at work to **** the wife..I shall name him Sancho.Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 So, you think that possible sanctions from the SCOTUS means nothing to a subordinate judge?
 
 Did you see how fast Benitez acted on this?Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 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.Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 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.Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 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.Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 
 
 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.Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming yet refusing to disclose some "master plan" is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwandaComment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 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.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.Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 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.Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming yet refusing to disclose some "master plan" is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwandaComment
Calguns.net Statistics
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	
			
			
			Topics: 1,857,208  
			Posts: 25,029,143  
			Members: 354,385  
			Active Members: 6,317
		
		
			
			
			Welcome to our newest member, JU83.
		
	What's Going On
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	There are currently 3697 users online. 149 members and 3548 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.

 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	
Comment