Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 17,562
- Reactions
- 31,747
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not much help here for ya, but a quick and dirty brake down of the Good Judge goes something like this:I wouldn't know because...I'm deaf, and so, can't quite read lips through a phone screen either. All I could see is how he seems more proficient with handguns than most Judges but that's about it.
The one thing I always hope for is that it personally affects them. Basically saying, what if these judges own "large cap" magazines that are standard to the firearm they belong to? Completely flies in the face of what it means to be a judge but if a judge can be an activist on one side (clearly, many are) then a judge can also be victimized by his colleagues decisions. This country is skidding downhill quick. This is why, IMO, Trump is being so ruthless. He sees all the special interests and activism that have entrenched various levels of government and how it is costing everyday people. Whether or not you like Trump or agree with him overall, it's possible you align with him on at least this one thing.It is asinine, yes. It might explain why SCOTUS has continually relisted the Ocean State Tactical v Rhode Island cases (mag ban) instead of just rolling up sleeves and get to working on it,..... They (Alito and Thomas) aren't sure they can get even a 5-4 decision to overturn mag bans. Again like I said, if there's "no controversy", no "circuit split", the three leftist Justices might only need to get Roberts and one other Justice to go along and say "States can ban mags". We've seen Barrett express some things about letting States decide things unless it really infringes on Federal matters![]()
Precisely!Interest balancing in a matter of law. Prohibited by Bruen.
Looks right from my reccolection...Tell me if my memory is correct here.....
1. California passes magazine ban.
2. Judge Benitez rules ban unconstitutional.
3. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
4. 9ths ruling appealed to SCOTUS.
5. SCOTUS sends it back to the lower courts with a "Try again." note attached.
6. Judge Benitez again rules ban unconstitutional.
7. 9th Court of Appeals again overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
8.
9.
Do I have this correct?
BasicallyTell me if my memory is correct here.....
1. California passes magazine ban.
2. Judge Benitez rules ban unconstitutional.
3. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
4. 9ths ruling appealed to SCOTUS.
5. SCOTUS sends it back to the lower courts with a "Try again." note attached.
6. Judge Benitez again rules ban unconstitutional.
7. 9th Court of Appeals again overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
8.
9.
Do I have this correct?
What is the essence of "try again?" Make modifications, carveouts, etc?Tell me if my memory is correct here.....
1. California passes magazine ban.
2. Judge Benitez rules ban unconstitutional.
3. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
4. 9ths ruling appealed to SCOTUS.
5. SCOTUS sends it back to the lower courts with a "Try again." note attached.
6. Judge Benitez again rules ban unconstitutional.
7. 9th Court of Appeals again overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
8.
9.
Do I have this correct?
Redue with Bruen ruling in mind.What is the essence of "try again?" Make modifications, carveouts, etc?
It might take some time but I have a strong feeling the Supreme Court is going to smack down the 9th Circus. Ignoring the very reason the case was remanded back certainly won't sit well and deserves a good reminder who ultimately makes the decisions.Tell me if my memory is correct here.....
1. California passes magazine ban.
2. Judge Benitez rules ban unconstitutional.
3. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
4. 9ths ruling appealed to SCOTUS.
5. SCOTUS sends it back to the lower courts with a "Try again." note attached.
6. Judge Benitez again rules ban unconstitutional.
7. 9th Court of Appeals again overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
8.
9.
Do I have this correct?
The 9th Circus need more than just smacking down. A lot of the Judges there need to be removed for violating 18 USC Sections 241 and 242, IMO. Along with all the anti2A politicians in the whole DistrictIt might take some time but I have a strong feeling the Supreme Court is going to smack down the 9th Circus. Ignoring the very reason the case was remanded back certainly won't sit well and deserves a good reminder who ultimately makes the decisions.
Yep especially when they're cooperative with activist groups funded by billionaires like Bloomberg. Lobbying the judicial branch is influencing the outcomes of these rulings.The 9th Circus need more than just smacking down. A lot of the Judges there need to be removed for violating 18 USC Sections 241 and 242, IMO. Along with all the anti2A politicians in the whole District![]()
Skipped a step -Tell me if my memory is correct here.....
1. California passes magazine ban.
2. Judge Benitez rules ban unconstitutional.
3. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
4. 9ths ruling appealed to SCOTUS.
5. SCOTUS sends it back to the lower courts with a "Try again." note attached.
6. Judge Benitez again rules ban unconstitutional.
7. 9th Court of Appeals again overturns Judge Benitez's ruling.
8.
9.
Do I have this correct?
Except it does infringe on the entire 2nd Ammendment which is a federal issue and governs the States. It's the 2nd Ammendment , that isn't a state right..... ARMS dont' fall under 10th ammendment. Do people even learn or read the Constitution..... we know Democrats dontIt is asinine, yes. It might explain why SCOTUS has continually relisted the Ocean State Tactical v Rhode Island cases (mag ban) instead of just rolling up sleeves and get to working on it,..... They (Alito and Thomas) aren't sure they can get even a 5-4 decision to overturn mag bans. Again like I said, if there's "no controversy", no "circuit split", the three leftist Justices might only need to get Roberts and one other Justice to go along and say "States can ban mags". We've seen Barrett express some things about letting States decide things unless it really infringes on Federal matters![]()
And.... Tell me... Why do you think SCOTUS have consistently upheld NFA/GCA since Miller, why SCOTUS so far haven't taken up the Ocean State Tactical case, or the MD AWB case... And why they haven't gotten involved with the Illinois FOID case...?Except it does infringe on the entire 2nd Ammendment which is a federal issue and governs the States. It's the 2nd Ammendment , that isn't a state right..... ARMS dont' fall under 10th ammendment. Do people even learn or read the Constitution..... we know Democrats dont
And.... Tell me... Why do you think SCOTUS have consistently upheld NFA/GCA since Miller, why SCOTUS so far haven't taken up the Ocean State Tactical case, or the MD AWB case... And why they haven't gotten involved with the Illinois FOID case...?
as long as WE THE PEOPLE comply, why wouldn't they continue doing it............. here come the "easy for you to say" weak beta boysWhat really chaps my hide, states trying ( and being allowed) to use preemption to side step the B.o.R. in legislating, or putting it on a ballot, the authority to abridge our constitutional rights!!!
No state can ( Or should be allowed to) to claim preemption or otherwise sidestep constitutional rights, that isn't even allowed to Congress, and while we have seen them make laws against the 2nd through our our nations existence, it abridges the process that exists for doing exactly that, so the whole thing needs to be shut down and all anti 2nd laws repealed, if states want to make changes, we have a process for that, if Congress wishes to make changes, we have the same process available!
The bottom line here, the anti gun folks have been getting away with all of this because of either a weak SCOTUS or We the People have not held Feet to Fire enough to cause serious Burns, something that we really need to do, this bullbubblegum!t of having to wait for SCOTUS to eventually get around to it, whilst not taking up anywhere near enough cases per year, shows just how bent to the will of the antis we have become! We need to force the gooberment to hold the 2nd to the same levels of protections as all the other rights, and deny them 10 or 14 protections, or workarounds against the rest, including the 2nd, it's time the 2nd got the same protections as the others, and not treated as a second class right, subject to changes sor modifications via Congress or the Phuckin States!
That's the whole gist here, we have been compliant, and we have allowed infringements to the point where we will be loosing what left of our 2nd, so, we have two choices now, we organize and fight back, or we sit on our thumbs and await the SCOTUS pleasure! We all know what the answer here is, it's the same thing that got us here in the first place, we won't do anything because we haven't suffered enough personally, so, it's business as usual, until it ain't, then what?as long as WE THE PEOPLE comply, why wouldn't they continue doing it............. here come the "easy for you to say" weak beta boys