Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[Ura-Ki]

I haven't put a lot of thought into the hierarchy of judges. Wondering if it's the 9th Circuit we're waiting for instead, of just Benitez to make a decision on the case the Supremes remanded back to the 9th.

As I understand it, we're waiting for Benitez ruling, and THEN California's much expected appeal to the 9th, even after having it GVR'ed from SCOTUS already, so the 9th is very much aware of what Benitez is going to rule ( having already ruled on this before, which Cali hates and will fight) so, the big question is, what will the 9th decide, do they follow Heller/Bruen, or do they buck the law and bounce it back to SCOTUS???

 

[CamoDeafie]

@PiratePast40

From my understanding so far; binding all to least

SCOTUS-binds all Fed and State Courts

Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals(9th Circus)-binds all Federal courts within the Circuit District, may bind State Courts, depending on issues (federal issues, yes. State issues, maybe?)


Federal District Court rulings-(Benitez and Immergut) binds only the Federal Districts they're in (South California/State of California, vs Oregon)

 

[Foreverlost]

Sent more $$$$$$$ to OFF!

Keep those $$$$ rolling!!

Foreverlost,

 

[Ura-Ki]

@PiratePast40

From my understanding so far; binding all to least

SCOTUS-binds all Fed and State Courts

Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals(9th Circus)-binds all Federal courts within the Circuit District, may bind State Courts, depending on issues (federal issues, yes. State issues, maybe?)


Federal District Court rulings-(Benitez and Immergut) binds only the Federal Districts they're in (South California/State of California, vs Oregon)

That's my understanding as well! However, with a split in the district, it absolutely HAS to go before the 9th!

 

[PiratePast40]

@PiratePast40

From my understanding so far; binding all to least

SCOTUS-binds all Fed and State Courts

Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals(9th Circus)-binds all Federal courts within the Circuit District, may bind State Courts, depending on issues (federal issues, yes. State issues, maybe?)


Federal District Court rulings-(Benitez and Immergut) binds only the Federal Districts they're in (South California/State of California, vs Oregon)

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That's my understanding as well! However, with a split in the district, it absolutely HAS to go before the 9th!

This is pretty much where strategy is key.
If Benitez rules following Bruen method, and strikes down Cali's mag ban and roster; the lawyers and politicians for California may decide to not appeal to the 9th.. in order to ensure that Oregon and Washington can still have mag bans among others... if and when Immergut ignores the Bruen method and uses the balancing test... it has to go to 9th District because of the balance test. The lawyers for us could and should use Benitez's ruling to appeal to the 9th District but the 9th District may not grant certiorari to Oregon, if the Cali lawyers dont appeal to the 9th against Benitez.

Edit. If the lawyers for Cali goes stupid nuclear and appeal Benitez to 9th, then whichever way the 9th rules would apply to the whole of the 9th District. If the lawyers play it smart, then by not appealing, they would basically force Oregon and Washington suits to go all the way to conclusions. And then depending on how the Fed Judges for these districts rules, may have to appeal to the 9th; wasting our taxes and time and causing gun sales and mag sales to keep falling in both WA and Oregon.

 

[Librarian]

Immergut is Federal District Judge for District of the State of Oregon. Benitez is Federal District Judge for the District of Southern California. Regardless of Immergut and Benitez's rulings; because of a conflict between two Federal District Judges in the same 9th Circuit District, it will have to go to the 9th District Court for a review/confirmation/decision.. and then either way, if the 9th once again sidesteps Bruen and confirms for the States, the cases will have to go to SCOTUS.

Edit. For Benitez, his ruling would be binding only for the State of California,
Whereas for Immergut, her ruling would be also binding only for the State of Oregon. But because of the high potential for these two rulings to be in conflict; either ruling will be appealed up to the 9th Circuit Court, after which it will be up to the 9th to follow Bruen or not, and if not, up to SCOTUS. Whichever way the 9th decides, would be be binding for the whole 9th District at least that is my understanding?

Already noted the expected results.

Benitez rules for 'us'.

California appeals to the 9th, 3-judge panel; takes about a year to get a ruling. (2024 or 2025, depending on timing). Once accepted for review, the Benitez ruling no longer is in force. I don't think Newsom/Bonta can apply national-strategic over obstinate-political and forbear from that appeal.

Whoever loses there appeals; if CA loses, they ask for an en banc rehearing. Their goals appear to include dragging this out as long as possible. If granted, add another year. If not granted,
- file for certiorari with SCOTUS.

If 'we' lose, file for certiorari with SCOTUS, don't bother with en banc (because don't want to take that time, and 9th has been reversing 'our' favorable 3-judge opinions pretty consistently).

In regular order, again depending on timing and the Court's calendar, add one or two more years.

Similarly, Immergut rules against 'us'. Same pattern, but 6 months to a year later at each stage.

I think the cases are distinguishable and the 9th would not combine them, so we'd wind up with two distinct opinions, and likely from two different 3-judge panels.

SCOTUS could be the wild card, changing the timing to shorter if they choose to intervene in either or both of these cases early.

And next time, I bet it will not be GVR - Grant, Vacate, Remand - from SCOTUS, because the lower courts are not following the Remand command.

If SCOTUS might deny cert, and issue no opinion, then the opinion of the 9th would be the Law in 9th Circuit. I doubt the denial; major differences between circuits are conidered Bad Things.

 

[Mono1]

SCOTUS could be the wild card, changing the timing to shorter if they choose to intervene in either or both of these cases early.

And next time, I bet it will not be GVR - Grant, Vacate, Remand - from SCOTUS, because the lower courts are not following the Remand command.

Exactly! SCOTUS says "we tried to be nice / respectful / professional to you people with the GVR and you're Just Not Gettin' It."

 

[Ura-Ki]

Exactly! SCOTUS says "we tried to be nice / respectful / professional to you people with the GVR and you're Just Not Gettin' It."

Two Words, Summery Reversal,...........With Prejudice! SCOTUS could intervene in any of these cases, especially knowing the Nutty Ninth and their history of being the most GVR'ed District in the nation, and having the highest number of reversals, so it's no real stretch, in fact, I would hope they step in, they almost did, and still can with the Illinois case if the court refuses to follow Heller/Bruen! Time will tell the tail!

 

[PiratePast40]

I wasn't able to make it up to Portland yesterday for the trial, but Derek LaBlanc was there and offered a write-up on his facebook page.

Will be heading up in an hour or so to see what happens today. Monday, the defense was saying that they had 12 witnesses scheduled to testify. Not sure how many they got to yesterday, so today may be a long one listening to drivel about how guns kill people all on their own.

I'll echo something Derek mentioned in his post, and others have pointed out. We're all horrified by these senseless murders and mourn for the pain and suffering endured by innocent victims and their loved ones. There are massive societal problems that must be addressed, but inanimate objects are not the cause of our problems, just tools used by those that seek to destroy us. The defense of our rights is not something we do with cold hearts, it is about railing against those that knowingly push gun control as a placebo for the evil that surrounds us instead of seeking solutions for the root problems.

 

[The Heretic]

Firearms groups rest case in constitutional challenge to Oregon’s new gun laws

Firearms groups who filed lawsuits in federal court in Portland challenging the constitutionality of voter-passed gun laws rested their case Tuesday.

www.opb.org

 

[MatthewDB]

I wasn't able to make it up to Portland yesterday for the trial, but Derek LaBlanc was there and offered a write-up on his facebook page.

I'm unable to view the link. Can you ask that he make it public, or update the link?

 

[MatthewDB]

Firearms groups rest case in constitutional challenge to Oregon’s new gun laws

Firearms groups who filed lawsuits in federal court in Portland challenging the constitutionality of voter-passed gun laws rested their case Tuesday.

www.opb.org

Specifically referring to this section:

The firearm advocates' case was shorter than initially planned because Immergut moved last week to limit the scope of the weeklong trial. The gun groups had hoped to present evidence showing how Measure 114′s permitting process would violate the constitutional rights of those wishing to purchase firearms.

But Immergut set those arguments aside. In the order issued late last week, she writes that evidence about how the law's potential future application may cause harm are "unripe." She writes that the permitting provisions the plaintiffs "challenge as unconstitutional in their application have never been applied."

"A facial challenge challenges the constitutionality of a law as written," Immergut writes in her order. "Evidence outside of the text of BM 114, such as how the provisions may or may not be applied at some future date, is of no consequence to this Court in deciding Plaintiffs' facial challenge."

The order states that plaintiffs are welcome to bring a case about how the law infringes on their constitutional rights if it goes into effect and they can present evidence of harm.

I'm really struggling here to not say things that violate the terms of this website. Measure 114 makes me ANGRY. This BS right here makes me ANGRY.

"We are well aware that it is going to violate your rights, but until the actually commit the infraction we're not going to consider it."

How about we apply that standard to the Left's favorite cases and see how they like it?

 

[MatthewDB]

The single portion of 114 that I see that the courts could rule on now:

(4)(1)(b)(C) Does not present reasonable grounds for a permit agent to conclude that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely
to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant's mental or psychological state or
as demonstrated by the applicant's past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence

Right here it doesn't mention "if convicted". It says "reasonable grounds for a permit agent to conclude". That is a subjective, not objective standard. Because the law permits subjective judgement of the reviewer, it is unconstitutional under Bruen.

(4)(3)(a) Within 30 days of receiving an application for a permit under this section, if the permit agent has verified the
applicant's identity and determined that the applicant has met each of the qualifications described in paragraph (1)(b) of
this section, the permit agent shall issue the permit-to-purchase

(Emphasis added)

That use of terms was a VERY SPECIFIC choice with the intent to deceive. "You see, it is a 'shall issue' law." It's Bruen compliant because it is "shall issue."

Continuing my analogy, some state like Idaho or Utah should write a law:

If a pregnant woman gets a letter from two doctors stating that her life is in danger if the pregnancy is continued, she may have an elective termination.

The people can argue: "See, it is elective abortion. Those words are right in the law."

 

[Ura-Ki]

The biggest problem here, and WHY immergut is taking such an Obtuse view, is the Fatal Flaw of the Heller/Bruen rulings leaving the whole "PERMIT to Purchase" or "May Issue" infringements intact, in Bruen, even going so far as to say, OPEN to Challenge, but of no consequence to that ruling! LEVO knew full well after Bruen that they would never get any of the more Draconian anti gun stuff through, along with the challenges in Southern Cali under Judge Benitez, their ONLY hope was the Mag Ban and Permit to Purchase, and as we see, Judge Immergut is hell bent to stick it to us OryGunions, the Voters Passed it, it MUST STAND! She knows full well that any challenge on appeal will be slow walked through the 9th ( Unless SCOTUS intervenes) so the State gets it's way for several years until it is finally settled as unconstitutnal, and her name is never attached to it!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Firearms groups rest case in constitutional challenge to Oregon’s new gun laws

Firearms groups who filed lawsuits in federal court in Portland challenging the constitutionality of voter-passed gun laws rested their case Tuesday.

www.opb.org

Thx for posting that article. I don't think anything anyone says in court will make any difference. Immergut had her mind made up and it has been since before the very first hearing. She supposedly wrote a 142 page ruling between Thursday night and Tuesday morning, or a total of 2 business days. That means it was already written ahead of time and her questions in the first hearing show that because they were directly from the text.

This time she is asking basically the same two questions, including a two part balancing test. She knows all of this is against what the Supreme Court said but she doesn't care. She is on an anti-gun crusade and will just pick out info to support that. This case for her is only to find away around the bruen ruling. It is not about law, rights, justice or any of that.

The plaintiffs in this case are not actually writing/testifying to immergut because her mind is already made up. This case is already done. The plaintiffs are however testifying for scotus, who will review their arguments in the future. I hope they do a good job of it.

 

[MatthewDB]

But what does this trial mean anyway (outside of future scotus overturning it) when the Harney county state track case still has it enjoined?

It is a matter of timing. I expect the state case in Harney county to go our way, but eventually be overturned on ideology grounds by a state supreme court packed by democrats.

This is reversed in the federal case. It looks like the fix is in from Immuergut, and of course the 9th won't help us either. I would expect SCOTUS to overturn. So it is a race of supreme court vs supreme court and who will get it done sooner to determine if we remain free or have a period of our rights being stripped.

 

[Ura-Ki]

You guys are absolutely correct, immergut has had this all pre positioned the whole time, and is just going through the motions to "Look Like she is doing her job" when in fact, she is as crooked as any in this State!

Just as we saw in the western district of Warshington, the Judges are more then willing to push Bruen/Heller to see how far they can go and what they can get away with, and I suspect SCOTUS will intervene at some point ahead of the Fed District Courts to get out in front of all this and stop the slow creep as these challenges wend their way through the inferior courts!

 

[Librarian]

Oh, let's not call Immergut 'crooked'.

How about 'not a neutral arbiter as our system of law requires'?

 

[CZP07]

Trump must have lookin' to get a piece o' that when he nominated her