9th Circuit Strikes down Magazine Restrictions - Breaking

Does the CA en-banc appeal automatically place a hold on the existing 9th appellate decision; was a stay granted; or are dealers just running scared?

The original stay from 2019 remains in place until there's a "final decision" in the case, per the wording of the stay.
 
If the full court rules unconstitutional, let’s hope he appeals to SCOTUS - we might get something out it in the end.......or more proof that Roberts was a passenger on the Lolita Express.
 
If the full court rules unconstitutional, let’s hope he appeals to SCOTUS - we might get something out it in the end.......or more proof that Roberts was a passenger on the Lolita Express.
If this happens, I think there will be significant pressure from NY and MA (among other anti groups) not to appeal to SCOTUS, on the chance it invalidates all mag bans nationwide.

There was a lot of pressure put on DC not to appeal Heller for the same reason.
 
It's fairly common for appellants to be granted a stay of an order if they can successfully argue it would cause "irreparable harm". The best example is the case of of a ticket reseller ordered to disclose the source of the tickets. I don't know the final outcome, but a stay was granted because the bell of disclosure could not be unrung if the sellers won their appeal. I would expect that CA would argue "irreparable harm" if the 9th appellate decision was overturned en banc, and they would be right (speaking legally, nor morally) in that the order would have allowed ore mags into CA based on an order that was eventually overturned.

But, what I do not know (can some attorney chime in please???) is if filing the appeal of the appellate decision automagically places that decision on hold.

I believe that under the Federal Rules of Appllate Procedure, a grant of en banc review automatically vacates the panel decision.
 
I believe that under the Federal Rules of Appllate Procedure, a grant of en banc review automatically vacates the panel decision.
My understanding is that en banc has been petitioned for but not yet granted at this time. Does the petition vacate the panel decision?
 
I'm not sure I'd put it that way. I'd say that voters for whom 2A is a factor are not undecided, and never were.

So wasting time on an esoteric legal issue involving magazine capacity is not a good use of limited messaging dollars in anyone's campaign. If you're a campaign manager with a million dollars to spend to take on Biden, and you use it to buy ads about a specific quote by Harris buried in a circuit court opinion, you're not reaching any Biden voters and turning them Trump. So you'll be fired.

I used to think certain restrictions were not a big deal because guns were for self defense. In the last 10 years it's become obvious that we will soon need the 2A to defend against an out of control government. So 2A has moved up to my top priority when voting, from somewhere much further down.
 
I used to think certain restrictions were not a big deal because guns were for self defense. In the last 10 years it's become obvious that we will soon need the 2A to defend against an out of control government. So 2A has moved up to my top priority when voting, from somewhere much further down.

Same here. Likely the same for most people on NES. Or at least, I'd hope so.

I'm a Trump voter not because I trust him on 2A, but because of SCOTUS. I think trusting him on any one issue is a risky proposition. But I know what I'll get on SCOTUS with Biden, and I don't want it. I do think the gun-control issue is going to be less of a thing this year because of all the unrest. It'll be a third rail.
 
Same here. Likely the same for most people on NES. Or at least, I'd hope so.

I'm a Trump voter not because I trust him on 2A, but because of SCOTUS. I think trusting him on any one issue is a risky proposition. But I know what I'll get on SCOTUS with Biden, and I don't want it. I do think the gun-control issue is going to be less of a thing this year because of all the unrest. It'll be a third rail.

Yes we really need Trump to nominate one more Justice, and to replace the conservative Justices when the left assassinates them. I'm even more concerned about keeping the Senate out of Dem hands though.

I agree, it's tough to go after 2A in this environment, and the old common sense gun control ploy no longer works on anyone.
 
I used to think certain restrictions were not a big deal because guns were for self defense. In the last 10 years it's become obvious that we will soon need the 2A to defend against an out of control government. So 2A has moved up to my top priority when voting, from somewhere much further down.

Same here. Likely the same for most people on NES. Or at least, I'd hope so.

I'm a Trump voter not because I trust him on 2A, but because of SCOTUS. I think trusting him on any one issue is a risky proposition. But I know what I'll get on SCOTUS with Biden, and I don't want it. I do think the gun-control issue is going to be less of a thing this year because of all the unrest. It'll be a third rail.

In the last 10 years...why so late to the fight? Better late than never, I guess!
 
I didn't grow up back here. When you move to MA from somewhere else, it takes awhile sometimes to figure out just how deranged this place is.

The chowder is better here, though.
Same here. Born and raised in Alabama. Nobody messed with our 2A rights at the state or local. My wife, a Cajun girl from the bayous of southern Louisiana, was raised much the same way. We grew up with guns and taught to respect them but not fear them.
 
Yes we really need Trump to nominate one more Justice, and to replace the conservative Justices when the left assassinates them.
Let's hope he nominates an ACTUAL conservative justice though. It's worth noting that since the start of the Eisenhower administration back in 1952 a full 2/3 of all supreme court justices have been appointed by Republicans presidents. Based on this fact we should have a solid conservative majority on the court by now, but we don't. I'm not suggesting we'd be better off having 2/3 of them nominated by Democrat presidents, I'm just pointing out that we need to DEMAND more Clarence Thomases, and ZERO John Robertses.
 
Let's hope he nominates an ACTUAL conservative justice though. It's worth noting that since the start of the Eisenhower administration back in 1952 a full 2/3 of all supreme court justices have been appointed by Republicans presidents. Based on this fact we should have a solid conservative majority on the court by now, but we don't. I'm not suggesting we'd be better off having 2/3 of them nominated by Democrat presidents, I'm just pointing out that we need to DEMAND more Clarence Thomases, and ZERO John Robertses.

And to that end, "NMB" - No More Bushes!
Bush 41 gave us Souter
Bush 43 gave us Roberts
 
And Reagan gave us Kennedy, who turned out to be unreliable on 2A issues after Heller.

I have seen theories that the reason the Heller decision is so weak and leaves so many holes for antis to exploit was to buy kennedy's vote. So he was shitty on 2A period.
 
With Friedman v. Highland Park, there's now a conflict between the circuits, so perhaps the Supreme Court will hear the case. So don't expect any changes on this side of the country until at least October of 2021.
 
And Reagan gave us Kennedy, who turned out to be unreliable on 2A issues after Heller.
Every GOP President nominates a shithead to SCOTUS, yet gives us an equally excellent one and ACB is that one.

The question now is between Kavanaugh and Gorsuch which one is the shithead? My money has been on Kavanaugh since he was nominated because he was too close to Kennedy, but Gorsuch is looking more and more flaky over time. The Oklahoma decision you can chalk up as forcing the US gov't to keep its word to Native Americans, but the LGBT movement being part of workplace gender protection laws or whatever is crap, unless he was playing 999th dimensional backgammon and his idea was that if you're male and you are sexually attracted to women, then you're a lesbian and cannot be fired for being lesbian, which would make all of these minority protection laws null and void.
 
What is the current state of this ruling? I think it's been stayed pending en banc review. Is that correct? Question out of curiosity - can a member of a three-judge panel also be part of a subsequent en banc panel for the same case?
 
Back
Top Bottom