quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:

Once the appeal is filed I'm sure the stay will be in place until the appeal is resolved.

Ah, ok. I see.

Well, hopefully this moves down the pipe relatively quickly then. The sooner it gets to SCOTUS the better.

I'm going to get this wrong, so someone can correct me...

Doesn't the case have to go before an en banc panel before the 9th can take it?

And if so, aren't those (3?) Judges chosen randomly? Aren't there more Trump appointee's now, meaning we may actually get a fair shake?

CNN was shitting bricks over this news this morning. (TV was on at the gym.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:
I'm going to get this wrong, so someone can correct me...

Doesn't the case have to go before an en banc panel before the 9th can take it?

And if so, aren't those (3?) Judges chosen randomly? Aren't there more Trump appointee's now, meaning we may actually get a fair shake?

^^^^
No cases are randomly assigned to a three judge panel. After they rule, either party could ask for an even banc hearing. Appeals to circuit courts are not discretionary they will hear it. The exception is an en banc hearing which is discretionary. The USSC is under no such requirement.

It's time to go give my Swiss Army Knives a bath and a hug.

This is far from over, but it's moving in the right direction.

Wow positive news from California for a change. Hope it stands.

Wow. That's good news.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Mutiny:
It's definitely a great step in the right direction. It is too bad for the stays and how it will get tied up for years on appeals...

For years? The stay is only for 30 days, right?

Once the appeal is filed, the stay will likely be in place until the appeal process with etc 9th is complete (2-5 yrs). This has been the case with the standard capacity magazine ban that the same judge overturned. They re-implemented the stay and it awaits an appeal with the 9th. The only difference there was that before the stay was put in place for the magazine ban overturn, there was what Californians call "freedom week" where they were buying all the magazines they could for a week.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:

Once the appeal is filed I'm sure the stay will be in place until the appeal is resolved.

Ah, ok. I see.

Well, hopefully this moves down the pipe relatively quickly then. The sooner it gets to SCOTUS the better.

much of the speculation is that if Benitez' ruling gets reversed by the appeal, then the recourse would be an appeal to SCOTUS. (If they take it up)
Alternatively if the 9th appeal upholds Benitez, then California must decide whether to suck it up, or appeal to SCOTUS. In this second scenario, there may be considerable pressure from other ban states for CA to suck it up, because if SCOTUS takes it up and makes a ruling, those other states' AW bans will fall too. Again, all speculation and strategizing at this point. Regardless, it's a temporary win for CA, and something to give hope to all.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I think it's almost certain the 9th Circuit will overturn this setting up an appeal to the SCOTUS. This needs to happen at some point anyway, to get a final decision on how the 2A applies to AWBs.

And you like others assume SCOTUS would take it. Over the past ten years plus SCOTUS has been overwhelmingly clear they want nothing to do with addressing core challenges to the 2A.

Judge Benitez wrote a very solid, well-reasoned opinion. I don't expect it to survive the Circuit Court of Appeals, but it presents a great record to bring to the Supreme Court.

It will end up at the Supreme Court. Biden has between now and then to attempt to pack the court in order to make sure SCOTUS doesn't rule in favor.

California ego's will appeal it even if other Democratic states want them to back down.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Judge Benitez wrote a very solid, well-reasoned opinion. I don't expect it to survive the Circuit Court of Appeals, but it presents a great record to bring to the Supreme Court.

Agreed. His opinion on the magazine ban was also excellent. Solid foundations to argue at the higher levels.

I’m REALLY hoping this doesn’t get overturned. My fingers are crossed for you guys in California. I cannot begin to expressed how happy I would be for our fellow members in California to be able to exercise their 2A rights as they were intended and without the silly and stupid restrictions.

Cmon California you got this!

They accepted a concealed carry case out of NY for this fall's term. Maybe with Trump's appointees, dam is breaking

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I think it's almost certain the 9th Circuit will overturn this setting up an appeal to the SCOTUS. This needs to happen at some point anyway, to get a final decision on how the 2A applies to AWBs.

And you like others assume SCOTUS would take it. Over the past ten years plus SCOTUS has been overwhelmingly clear they want nothing to do with addressing core challenges to the 2A.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBMW,

Here's to hope...

I really want this to stand but I don't see the CA gun grabbers backing down.

CA has some really zealot whacko politicians as a prime example I give you my congressman Erick Swalwell...

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
No cases are randomly assigned to a three judge panel. After they rule, either party could ask for an even banc hearing. Appeals to circuit courts are not discretionary they will hear it. The exception is an en banc hearing which is discretionary. The USSC is under no such requirement.

You are correct, but punctuation matters.

This might be more clear (or muddier):

No. Cases are randomly assigned to a three judge panel. After they rule, either party could ask for an en banc hearing (or take their appeal direct to SCOTUS). Appeals to circuit courts are not discretionary, they will hear it (a three judge panel of them will). The en banc hearing (which I believe in the ninth circus is an eleven judge panel rather than the whole circus, effectively re-hearing what the three judge panel heard and passing judgement) is discretionary. (The “whole circus” can decline an en banc, much like SCOTUS can deny certiorari). The USSC (SCOTUS) is under no such requirement (can deny certiorari, or decline to hear).

So, I'm hoping that since this was a trial, it ties the hands of the appellate courts more than other lower court decisions. The judge heard the facts, and determined the credibility of the witnesses. A lot of the 94 page decision locks those facts in, and it will take some real mental gymnastics on the part of the Court of Appeals to change the outcome.

This is great news!

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
You are correct, but punctuation matters.

Something about an uncle named Jack and his difficulty dismounting equestrian transport is called to mind.

As for the ruling, it is rather remarkable news. Perhaps I'll see the end of this legal battle before I shuffle off this mortal coil.