Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • abinsinia
    Veteran Member
    • Feb 2015
    • 4093

    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.

    Comment

    • strakill
      Senior Member
      • Jun 2011
      • 1484

      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 superhondaz50
      I 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

      • taperxz
        I need a LIFE!!
        • Feb 2010
        • 19395

        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?

        Comment

        • taperxz
          I need a LIFE!!
          • Feb 2010
          • 19395

          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.

          Comment

          • abinsinia
            Veteran Member
            • Feb 2015
            • 4093

            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.

            Comment

            • Lanejsl
              Member
              • Dec 2017
              • 379

              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.
              Last edited by Lanejsl; 09-07-2022, 8:58 PM. Reason: typo

              Comment

              • taperxz
                I need a LIFE!!
                • Feb 2010
                • 19395

                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.

                Comment

                • taperxz
                  I need a LIFE!!
                  • Feb 2010
                  • 19395

                  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.

                  Comment

                  • johncage
                    Banned
                    • Dec 2018
                    • 993

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

                    Comment

                    • taperxz
                      I need a LIFE!!
                      • Feb 2010
                      • 19395

                      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

                      Comment

                      • ronlglock
                        CGN/CGSSA Contributor
                        CGN Contributor
                        • May 2011
                        • 2670

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

                        By one vote.
                        sigpic

                        NRA/USCCA/DOJ instructor, NRA CRSO, Journalist

                        Comment

                        • moleculo
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2010
                          • 946

                          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.


                          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. -navyinrwanda

                          Comment

                          • abinsinia
                            Veteran Member
                            • Feb 2015
                            • 4093

                            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.

                            Comment

                            • moleculo
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2010
                              • 946

                              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.
                              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. -navyinrwanda

                              Comment

                              • taperxz
                                I need a LIFE!!
                                • Feb 2010
                                • 19395

                                Originally posted by ronlglock
                                By one vote.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                UA-8071174-1