JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
if Californians had the balls, they'd put in their 30rounds and go protest to the capital with their firearms in hand...... They work for you not the other way around. Newsom keeps Fu^&ing with California because he knows they won't do bubblegum......get the police on your side, request a protest, do it peacefully and get bubblegum done !!!!
Just like the sheeple of OR and WA... :(
 
Bonta got an injunction until October 10th. In violation of their own rules, the 9th is skipping the 3 judge panel and going straight to the 11 member appellate court panel.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.3.0.pdf

I don't have the link available just this minute, but the appeal relied heavily on the OFF v Kotek decision by Immergut.

ETA - Here it is:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.2.1.pdf
 
Bonta got an injunction until October 10th. In violation of their own rules, the 9th is skipping the 3 judge panel and going straight to the 11 member appellate court panel.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.3.0.pdf

I don't have the link available just this minute, but the appeal relied heavily on the OFF v Kotek decision by Immergut.

ETA - Here it is:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.2.1.pdf
This is not surprising. :mad: at the predictability of the 9th District. What's the odds with the 9th's 11-Judge panel overturning Benitez once again, and SCOTUS smacking them down once again? :rolleyes:

Honestly this doesn't bode well for OFF V Kotek or even the Raschio judgement once its appealed to Oregon Supremes 🙄
 
Bonta got an injunction until October 10th. In violation of their own rules, the 9th is skipping the 3 judge panel and going straight to the 11 member appellate court panel.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.3.0.pdf

I don't have the link available just this minute, but the appeal relied heavily on the OFF v Kotek decision by Immergut.

ETA - Here it is:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.2.1.pdf
Hmmm... interesting... and some interesting dissents by some fed judges chastising their colleagues in the 9th's unprecedented action.


Not at all wrong and nice there are at least some judges not afraid to point out the subversion of the legal system for political purposes. Spitting on the legal processes and laws of the land they are supposedly sworn to uphold. A complete mockery from a "lesser court".
 
Last Edited:
Rest assured the sheep are many of the city stupid people that impose their non-bizarre delusions on the rest of the good pro-gun people in Oregon.
I include the non-voting and the other Willfully Ignorant who give this crap their tacit approval by refusing to VOTE AGAINST the people who do it at every opportunity.

#SilenceIsConsent
 
Well, cutting out the en banc stage gets us to SCOTUS faster...
Especially when circumventing the judicial process in order to dictate an unsupported ruling they've already decided in violation of standing law.

That'll get the SCOTUS's attention in a hurry.... and likely earn grounds for an expedited hearing. 😁

Drama, drama, drama.....:s0093:🍻
 
The only way this makes sense is if 9th NEEDS to rule a certain way but WANTS a SCOTUS overturn--BS Detector take, this is part of trying to set up a "Rogue Court" argument and make packing SCOTUS a drive-the-base issue for '24.
 
IMO this on banque review works in our favor. The leftist anti-gun community's only hope is to delay until the makeup of scotus can be changed (via direct attacks on Thomas as they have been doing or until he or other conservative judge(s) pass away).

This makes things move faster so it is therefore in our favor. The only thing that matters in the big picture/long term is to get it to scotus quickly.

I've been saying since bruen that the rabid anti-gun 9th CA has a problem. The old Benitez ruling was quashed under the 2 step interest balancing argument. That argument was removed in bruen. So they have to have some way to deal with it. Imo they have been working with anti-gun attorneys and Immergut since Bruen to find a way they can get anti-gun legislation through bruen. Immergut's first hearing resulted in a 141 page document written between Thursday evening and Tuesday morning. It's pretty clear the 9th and immergut had these arguments worked out ahead of time as a way to try to force their anti-gun agenda through "cracks" in bruen. And this action by the 9th is in continuance of that plan.

The dissenting judge who said they are not acting as judges, but rather political activists, is exactly right. The anti-gun 9th and immergut feel their job is not to interpret the law but to try to steer "the law" into what they personally think is best for the people. It doesn't matter to them if it violates the 2nd ammendment. They are not acting as judges but as political prostitutes to push through their anti-gun agenda.
 
Last Edited:


This makes things move faster so it is therefore in our favor. The only thing that matters in the big picture/long term is to get it to scotus quickly.

….
It may in fact turbocharge it.

By violating procedure so nakedly, it establishes grounds for an interlocutory appeal to the SC.
 
IMO this on banque review works in our favor. The leftist anti-gun community's only hope is to delay until the makeup of scotus can be changed (via direct attacks on Thomas as they have been doing or until he or other conservative judge(s) pass away).

This makes things move faster so it is therefore in our favor. The only thing that matters in the big picture/long term is to get it to scotus quickly.

I've been saying since bruen that the rabid anti-gun 9th CA has a problem. The old Benitez ruling was quashed under the 2 step interest balancing argument. That argument was removed in bruen. So they have to have some way to deal with it. Imo they have been working with anti-gun attorneys and Immergut since Bruen to find a way they can get anti-gun legislation through bruen. Immergut's first hearing resulted in a 141 page document written between Thursday evening and Tuesday morning. It's pretty clear the 9th and immergut had these arguments worked out ahead of time as a way to try to force their anti-gun agenda through "cracks" in bruen. And this action by the 9th is in continuance of that plan.

The dissenting judge who said they are not acting as judges, but rather political activists, is exactly right. The anti-gun 9th and immergut feel their job is not to interpret the law but to try to steer "the law" into what they personally think is best for the people. It doesn't matter to them if it violates the 2nd ammendment. They are not acting as judges but as political prostitutes to push through their anti-gun agenda.
7l1gs4kro6rb1.png
 
Yes, and I hope they finally realize that magazine capacity limitations are unconstitutional. Gavin is a narcissistic politician who has aspirations of becoming President. One reason he is seen more with Sleepy Joe in recent times. One very important thing to think about. If the state governments and politicians can pick apart the 2nd Amendment, there is nothing standing in the way of them doing the same thing with the 1st Amendment and limit what one can say, where and how to pray, etc. This is what is being overlooked. I only hope the Supreme Court accepts the case and rules once and for all that states cannot overrule the 2nd Amendment. And BTW, there is a new proposed bill that will limit the magazine capacity for Law Enforcement and allow them to only acquire guns that are on the roster. This is insane, but considering it originated from the People's Republic of Berkeley, it only makes me understand that Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
 
And BTW, there is a new proposed bill that will limit the magazine capacity for Law Enforcement and allow them to only acquire guns that are on the roster. This is insane, but considering it originated from the People's Republic of Berkeley, it only makes me understand that Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
GOOD! Maybe the cops'll start fighting FOR rights more when they lose their carveouts and have to suffer with the rest of us serfs.
 
Here are my expectations for the 9th Circuit;

Duncan v Bonta, overturned using Immergut reasoning and bs, after waiting as long as possible to replace Thomas and/or Alito

OFF v Kotek, (M114) Immergut bs decision upheld, after waiting as long as possible to replace Alito and or Thomas

Then either case go directly to SCOTUS, if Thomas and or Alito removed and appointed a 4th "liberal" (read Statist/Institutionalist)Justice, maybe also a 5th

Edit, what can realistically be done to eliminate or remove activist Federal Justices from office?
 

Upcoming Events

Central Oregon Sportsmen's show
Redmond, OR
Arms Collectors of Southwest Washington (ACSWW) gun show
Battle Ground, WA
Rickreall Gun Show
Rickreall, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top