JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Just got done watching, YUGE question, William states if the 9th ( Likely) decides NOT to hear this on appeal, then it's GOOD LAW affecting the entire 9th, which includes Oregon and Washington, SO, does this mean Immerguts ruling gets overturned or what?
Because Oregon and Washington are part of the 9th's jurisdiction it should unless and until it gets overturned by SCOTUS which is not likely. Unlike Immergut's seemingly LSD infused twist on Bruen, Benitez correctly nails it to the wall with ten inch spikes.

The 9th certainly knows if they take it for review it WILL make it to SCOTUS, so their best anti 2A move is to ignore it until SCOTUS gets packed to the left.
 
Last Edited:
It's possible. Not 100% sure if Benitez's decision would affect whole 9th, or if only applies to CA State alone. If 9th Court upholds Benitez's ruling and decides against Immergut's ruling (long shot?) Then yes it affects whole 9th District. But if 9th doesn't hear Benitez's ruling case on appeal, maybe it only applies to CA only?
My thinking is that because it already made it's way to SCOTUS, who remanded it back down to the 9th, is that it is good law, so it should stand for the entire 9th district!
 
My thinking is that because it already made it's way to SCOTUS, who remanded it back down to the 9th, is that it is good law, so it should stand for the entire 9th district!
It also makes it potentially applicable nationwide since SCOTUS briefly kissed it. Perhaps just a matter of time? Also, did you catch the reference to firearm types in Benitez's decision? This has HUGE implications for firearm bans in the 9th Circuit as well.
 
Just got done watching, YUGE question, William states if the 9th ( Likely) decides NOT to hear this on appeal, then it's GOOD LAW affecting the entire 9th, which includes Oregon and Washington, SO, does this mean Immerguts ruling gets overturned or what?
He directly contradicts himself. He says "if 9th refuses to hear it then we are done in the 9th circuit and this is good law forever".

But then he says "this may hold legal precedence in or and wa and may affect their mag bans" (not verbatim quote).

So it's a direct contraction.

The truth is the result is exactly the same as the previous Benitez ruling years ago when CA had a freedom week. Its no different in its short term effect (its was correct before and is now correct again). What's different is the long term effect cuz all other appeals/reviews will be done under the bruen landscape and CA 9th no longer has their 2 step (I.e. "societal good" vs individual's rights) process to justify anti 2A rulings.
 
Last Edited:
My thinking is that because it already made it's way to SCOTUS, who remanded it back down to the 9th, is that it is good law, so it should stand for the entire 9th district!
My understanding is that scotus vacated the previous ruling and said do it over. So now is the post-bruen do-over. What I mean is it's not a scotus stamp of approval for previous or this case. Scotus eliminating previous case and said do it right this time.

William Kirk is wrong as he so often is unfortunately. I don't question his intent but I do question his experience and competence legally. I don't think WA gun owners understand how he and his business partner nick sarranto's lack of experience and foresight screwed you guys over by being so easily outmaneuvered by wa state in the 1240 case. But they are raking in the $ just the same. They get paid even if they lose and are not as experienced and competent as GOA, FPC, SAF, etc. I'm not saying they aren't trying their best, or that their intentions aren't good, only that the recently created "silent majority foundation" is meant to look like GOA etc but without the vast experience of those organizations.
 
Last Edited:
Wait, I thought attacks on judges were 'dangerous rhetoric,' and 'a threat to 'our' democracy'… Something change?

View attachment 1492468
The lack of any critical thought by this governor is amazing. There has never been a constitutional convention held. But if one were ever held, we only need to look at constitional carry. 27 states permit it, 23 do not. That makes a majority that is in support of the second. If the topic came up, the majority would be for better protections of the right to be more, not less.
 
Duncan was a win at the federal district court level, and then a win at the 3-judge federal appellate level. Then the 9th took it
en banc and overturned. Then it went to the USSC. The USSC had recently decided Bruen. So then the court did a GVR on
Duncan -- Grant review, Vacate existing ruling, Remand for reconsideration. The key point here is that the loss at the en banc
level was vacated, expunged, evaporated, whatever. So Duncan has a win, a win, a win at the USSC, and on remand a win.

California has appealed the most recent win of Duncan, and the 9th must consider this appeal.

The logic in the 4 wins of Duncan certainly applies to the trial of 114 in Oregon. I expect that on Monday there will be a motion
for supplementary authority because the Duncan win, even though stayed, is important for 114.

It would be reasonable for judicial economy for the 114 trial to be stayed until the appeals of Duncan are exhausted. If
California is not grated an appeal (per curium denial) or if California loses in detail, the arguments of Oregon are non-viable.
The reasoning of Oregon is wrong and incorrect as far as it goes, but the state is not able to continue its line of argument if
there is a good ruling in (what might be called) the 5th of Duncan.

OTOH, as in California, the state of Oregon has no problem spending tens of millions of dollars in an anti-civil-rights crusade.
Therefore, expect the state to push for a conclusion of the 114 trial, and delay while the 5th of Duncan is worked through
the federal courts with the loss of the federal trial on 114. The overall strategy is delay, delay, deny, delay, obfuscate. The
recent win on timely appeals of civil rights issues, and the recent re-affirmation that the state has to consider the civil rights
aspects of the 2nd will help. But not in the short term.
 
Last Edited:
With thinly sliced Bleu cheese on top!

Ever tried this? I did recently for the first time and it was excellent!
Closest to that was at Hugo's Cellar off Fremont Street in Vegas….

IMG_3588.jpeg IMG_3587.jpeg

That dinner cost me this much….

IMG_5658.jpeg



Not really.
 
Last Edited:
Before people get their hopes too high for it to apply to the 9th, maybe even nationally (NY, NJ, IL, MA, CT, CO, etc al); let me remind y'all the makeup of the current SCOTUS.


3 Justices who will likely uphold mag bans, and other Statist stuff;
Jackson
Kagan
Sotomayor

2 Justices who will be most likely strike mag bans down
Alito
Thomas

3 Justices who may side with the two above;
Gorsuch-likely side with Thomas and Alito
Kavanaugh-may swing to other side
Barrett-may swing to other side

1 Justice who officially is "conservative" but often sides with the Statists/Liberal Justices

Roberts


So there's basically 3-3 split with 3 wild cards.
More like 4-2 split with 3 wildcards. I permanently include Roberts with the rest of the Deep State's sausagepolishers.
 
Now here is a way to post "news" like this that does not want people to go to someone's YT page to hear them drone on and try to sell you stuff. As little as I like CNN it was simple to read what happened and did not require a talking head selling stuff to read it to me.
 
As little as I like CNN it was simple to read what happened and did not require a talking head selling stuff to read it to me.
note: that was probably the shortest article about gun rights CNN has ever published and rest assured its not in their headline front and center.
lol
 
I am sure it had someone there's hair on fire that they were told to even report it. :D
notice today....
ok, earlier today it was the main headline on their website. Now its still what I call "front page" (what you can see on a computer screen typically without scrolling) an article about the Roseburg Ore. mass shooting at Umpqua.

"you cant ignore what happened"... is it a coincidence they published a headline article on a tragedy instead of what is actually also major news of a huge blow to gun control legislation?

current situation:
1695519660512.png
 
notice today....
ok, earlier today it was the main headline on their website. Now its still what I call "front page" (what you can see on a computer screen typically without scrolling) an article about the Roseburg Ore. mass shooting at Umpqua.

"you cant ignore what happened"... is it a coincidence they published a headline article on a tragedy instead of what is actually also major news of a huge blow to gun control legislation?

current situation:
View attachment 1492866
Well of course since something happened in the courts they don't like they HAD to post something like that. It is still CNN after all :(
 
@Moderators can we merge this with the earlier thread on it (shown below)?

 
@Moderators can we merge this with the earlier thread on it (shown below)?

Done.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors February Gun Show
Portland, OR
Central Oregon Sportsmen's show
Redmond, OR
Rickreall Gun Show
Rickreall, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top