Other State Saint Benitez about to lob the holy hand grenade onto CA gun laws

[ilikegunspdx]

Great video here on CA mag ban, assault weapon ban, and ammo background check which will be likely be overturned very soon. This could be huge for both WA and OR in the future.

With a nod to @solv3nt for recent reminder of this classic

Read More

 

[solv3nt]

I only just dropped that gem into the ether.

 

[Stomper]

I only just dropped that gem into the ether.

Do you mean the porcelain ether?

 

[Artilleryman]

Just don't drop a Sig

 

[Unicykle]

Just don't drop a Sig

That is a last-ditch defensive feature designed in by Sig. You can always surrender and when they tell you to drop the gun you can be like Ok…..

 

[Snip]

I can see Benitez ruling the laws unconstitutional, but then I also can see that the state will tie up the rulings in ever increasing lawsuits effectively delaying our rights. Rights delayed, etc.

 

[L84Cabo]

I can see Benitez ruling the laws unconstitutional, but then I also can see that the state will tie up the rulings in ever increasing lawsuits effectively delaying our rights. Rights delayed, etc.

If I were a betting man, I would also bet that this ^^^^ is how it's going to go down. St. Benitez will rule favorably for us and then the cases will get appealed...again...up to the 9th. Maybe the rulings will initially be upheld by the 9th, but the state will then petition for an 11 judge en banc, where the rulings will be overturned...and then they'll go back to SCOTUS AGAIN.

Now with that said, maybe we'll get lucky and you and I will both be wrong here. The 9th no longer has their two step "means of scrutiny" ability to overturn the rulings, which is what they've been relying on for the last decade or so to overturn gun cases...so they're going to have to get pretty creative on coming up with a justification to overturn. But they're more than creative/corrupt enough to do this.

The plus here is that SCOTUS is watching these gun cases VERY closely. They are WELL aware of what the handful of rogue tyrannical anti 2A states (CA, New York, New Jersey, etc.) are doing with respect to thumbing their noses at Bruen. So maybe SC OTUS will intervene much quicker than normal if it comes to that.

As a side note, these cases are some of the most important cases to Oregon and Washington as they should resolve a lot of current anti 2a crap going on in both states...or at least provide a legal remedy if the Oregon and Washington laws/cases are upheld. Please support 2A entities fighting these cases if you are able.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

If I were a betting man, I would also bet that this ^^^^ is how it's going to go down. St. Benitez will rule favorably for us and then the cases will get appealed...again...up to the 9th. Maybe the rulings will initially be upheld by the 9th, but the state will then petition for an 11 judge en banc, where the rulings will be overturned...and then they'll go back to SCOTUS AGAIN.

Now with that said, maybe we'll get lucky and you and I will both be wrong here. The 9th no longer has their two step "means of scrutiny" ability to overturn the rulings, which is what they've been relying on for the last decade or so to overturn gun cases...so they're going to have to get pretty creative on coming up with a justification to overturn. But they're more than creative/corrupt enough to do this.

The plus here is that SCOTUS is watching these gun cases VERY closely. They are WELL aware of what the handful of rogue tyrannical anti 2A states (CA, New York, New Jersey, etc.) are doing with respect to thumbing their noses at Bruen. So maybe SC OTUS will intervene much quicker than normal if it comes to that.

As a side note, these cases are some of the most important cases to Oregon and Washington as they should resolve a lot of current anti 2a crap going on in both states...or at least provide a legal remedy if the Oregon and Washington laws/cases are upheld. Please support 2A entities fighting these cases if you are able.

I think the 9th has been thrown a massive curveball by Rashcio in terms of timing. IMO Immergut/OR114 was to be their test case to see how much they could push the boundaries of Bruen. CA 9th knew Benitez ruling(s) were coming and they had to have some way to deal with it as all the old arguments won't work post Bruen. Immergut supposedly wrote her 148 page ruling between thursday evening and tuesday morning. No way that happens without most of it being pre-written. If you look at Immergut's arguments they are all rehashes of the old two-step arguments and some others that are not allowed post-Bruen. But Rashio put a complete stop to the Immergut process. So the 9th no longer has their guinea pig and they will be in the fore front. I agree the 9th will drag this out as long as humanly possible after Benitez's ruling. Whether they will go so far as putting an "emergency stay" (Which CA AG will seek) after Benitez's rulings is hard to say. If they do grant the "emergency stay", then the lawyers have a legit reason to ask SCOTUS for an emergency stay of the 9th's stay.

 

[gmerkt]

CA mag ban, assault weapon ban, and ammo background check which will be likely be overturned very soon.

Yada, yada, yada. In our lifetimes? The other side has the public purse to support an infinite delay of the process.

I'm suspicious enough to wonder what goes on behind the scenes. What powers and influences are used by the players involved that we have no way of knowing about.

I get that the anti-gun people have a huge PR stake in this thing. It's not just about the guns, it's about public perception of a cause. In that sense, a lot of it is about winning a case and a lot less to do with public safety.

We hold our US Constitution dear and often cite the Second Amendment. But in one area, in my own humble opinion, the Founding Fathers made a mistake in Article III, Section 1. That part relating to lifetime appointments.

 

[L84Cabo]

I think the 9th has been thrown a massive curveball by Rashcio in terms of timing. IMO Immergut/OR114 was to be their test case to see how much they could push the boundaries of Bruen. CA 9th knew Benitez ruling(s) were coming and they had to have some way to deal with it as all the old arguments won't work post Bruen. Immergut supposedly wrote her 148 page ruling between thursday evening and tuesday morning. No way that happens without most of it being pre-written. If you look at Immergut's arguments they are all rehashes of the old two-step arguments and some others that are not allowed post-Bruen. But Rashio put a complete stop to the Immergut process. So the 9th no longer has their guinea pig and they will be in the fore front. I agree the 9th will drag this out as long as humanly possible after Benitez's ruling. Whether they will go so far as putting an "emergency stay" (Which CA AG will seek) after Benitez's rulings is hard to say. If they do grant the "emergency stay", then the lawyers have a legit reason to ask SCOTUS for an emergency stay of the 9th's stay.

The 9th probably has the most experience of all the district courts with respect to crapping all over the Second Amendment. I have complete faith in their level of corruption, that they are more than capable of coming up with some hot garbage to rationalize the overturning of the rulings. I hope I'm wrong on this.

 

[44Brent]

It could very well be that California loses all cases at the district level, and then does NOT appeal them to the 9th. The reason that they might decide to not do so is to avoid establishing a precedent in the 9th Circuit that would be binding on Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I believe the Epic Dick Slapping from SCOTUS on the 3 or 4 cases where they were all GVR'd back down to the 9th put the Nutty Ninth on notice that they better suck it up and start towing the line, and I suspect SCOTUS communicated quietly to them that bad things would happen if they didn't! SOCTUS Can then issue an summery reversal with prejudice on the 9th which is a very strong rebuke upon the 9th! How far they decide to push is going to be telling, and could open them and the state up to all sorts of nasty things they should probably try and avoid!

I see the 9th taking the loss ( Regardless of the Governor and State A.G. wishes) and letting this go, there is too much at risk in incurring the Wrath of SCOTUS, and with the Republicans in charge of things, including a major cleaning of the DOJ in the works, things would get really sporty in Cali!

 

[CamoDeafie]

It could very well be that California loses all cases at the district level, and then does NOT appeal them to the 9th. The reason that they might decide to not do so is to avoid establishing a precedent in the 9th Circuit that would be binding on Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii.

That's very likely. Looking at how Caetano went...

It got appealed up to fed court, then to SCOTUS, who Vacated and Remanded it back to the State of Massachusetts with Honorable Scalia writing the opinion that Honorable Thomas concurred with; that 200,000 stun guns nationally made for "commonly possessed arms" and protected under the 2A; and Massachusetts dropped all charges and let it go quietly until Ramirez case which saw the overturning of Massachusetts's ban on stun guns....


But because Massachusetts dropped the case in Caetano; the "200,000=common use/commonly possessed for lawful purposes" is so far, not quite a doctrine/tested against other arms and laws such as the ones in California.

 

[fmvolume86]

didn't this get thrown back to the lower court by the 9th circuit? why would it go back up to the 9th ?

 

[bradsteen]

didn't this get thrown back to the lower court by the 9th circuit? why would it go back up to the 9th ?

It was pushed all the way back down to district level, but once the judge rules on it the losing party can (will) appeal the decision to a higher court.

 

[fmvolume86]

It was pushed all the way back down to district level, but once the judge rules on it the losing party can (will) appeal the decision to a higher court.

Right I get that, but if it was pushed back from the higher court (9th) then why would it go back to them again....that makes no sense ? didn't it already get appealed and go up to them ?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Right I get that, but if it was pushed back from the higher court (9th) then why would it go back to them again....that makes no sense ? didn't it already get appealed and go up to them ?

Politics maaaaan... it's all politics, maaaaaaan

 

[44Brent]

Right I get that, but if it was pushed back from the higher court (9th) then why would it go back to them again....that makes no sense ? didn't it already get appealed and go up to them ?

Two possibilities:

1) Stalling strategy to keep the bans in place as long as possible using ping pong, in hopes that some pro 2nd justices die and get replaced by Biden.
2) Keep pro-2nd wins contained to only within CA, and not applied to other states within the 9th circuit. This would obviously require CA to be a willing participant to not appeal any subsequent losses to the 9th Circuit.

 

[CamoDeafie]

) Keep pro-2nd wins contained to only within CA, and not applied to other states within the 9th circuit. This would obviously require CA to be a willing participant to not appeal any subsequent losses to the 9th Circuit

This was in fact the reason a case in California regarding 80% receivers was dropped by the BATFE at the time (in 2014)

BATFE Drops 80% Receiver Case in California; Fears Precedent

The BATFE reaches a sweet plea bargain deal rather than have a judge make a ruling on the definition of a firearm legally binding.

www.ammoland.com

And is why the BATFE went and did their "frame and receiver final rule" recently

 

[Yarome]

It could very well be that California loses all cases at the district level, and then does NOT appeal them to the 9th. The reason that they might decide to not do so is to avoid establishing a precedent in the 9th Circuit that would be binding on Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii.

It's a possibility, but I highly doubt Kalifederation cares 2 squirts about any potential affect on any other state/s. If they've proved anything... it's that they flat out refuse to take an L on anything with any grace. Legal standing be damned!

What will be intereting though is to see if the 9th learned anything from the spanking they got from SCOTUS... or not.