9th En Banc rules we don't have rights.....

This is where we might get screwed over eventually. Might the SCOTUS take this case up? I don’t think so. I expect other circuits to be scared to rule like constitutionalists.
 
The 9th en banc with a liberal result. Shocking, I tell you.

We still need 1) a case to SCOTUS regarding the level of scrutiny due the 2nd, and then 2) they can take a case that "bear" means what it means.
 
The 9th en banc with a liberal result. Shocking, I tell you.

We still need 1) a case to SCOTUS regarding the level of scrutiny due the 2nd, and then 2) they can take a case that "bear" means what it means.
The same 9th En Banc that declared the CA mag ban unconstitutional
 
I'd like to see scotus take a pass on this especially when the 9th circuit was referencing laws from the middle ages. At no point did they reference the actual constitution. If scotus does pass then we are officially living in a failed nation state.
The ruling in depth is straight up nuts in league with the time RGB was citing the South African Constitution as a basis of law in a dissent. Because the monarchy of Hawaii treated carry of weapons by commoners one way the US Constitution doesn't apply? Seriously? I guess slavery is still legal then in that district by that logic.
 
The ruling in depth is straight up nuts in league with the time RGB was citing the South African Constitution as a basis of law in a dissent. Because the monarchy of Hawaii treated carry of weapons by commoners one way the US Constitution doesn't apply? Seriously? I guess slavery is still legal then in that district by that logic.

The sad thing is, the absolutely insane notion that “well we’ve been infringing rights for a long time, therefore it’s okay and too bad if you don’t like it”, has been used many times by many courts.
 
Also, "Appropriate Level of Scrutiny" is literally one of the issues the 9th keeps bringing up in their various opinions (majority and dissenting) on the 2nd. That's issue #1 for the SCOTUS as I said. I hope we get that settled soon (as strict scrutiny, obviously).
 
The ruling in depth is straight up nuts in league with the time RGB was citing the South African Constitution as a basis of law in a dissent. Because the monarchy of Hawaii treated carry of weapons by commoners one way the US Constitution doesn't apply? Seriously? I guess slavery is still legal then in that district by that logic.

This same thing happened a few years ago in the 9th circuit when the court was using text from the magna carta and British orders from the King in the 17th century as the grounds for restricting 2A. Nothing surprises me about this one court even though Trump nominated a crap ton of judges, I wouldn't be surprised if a few screwballs slipped through the cracks.
 
This same thing happened a few years ago in the 9th circuit when the court was using text from the magna carta and British orders from the King in the 17th century as the grounds for restricting 2A. Nothing surprises me about this one court even though Trump nominated a crap ton of judges, I wouldn't be surprised if a few screwballs slipped through the cracks.
Using a brits king as a precedent for an American law should feel real good for a judge with an agenda. A revenge perhaps.
 
This same thing happened a few years ago in the 9th circuit when the court was using text from the magna carta and British orders from the King in the 17th century as the grounds for restricting 2A. Nothing surprises me about this one court even though Trump nominated a crap ton of judges, I wouldn't be surprised if a few screwballs slipped through the cracks.
They went full En Banc rather than drawing a partial panel because the odds were 50/50 that a Trump majority panel would be pulled. He managed to get the 9th something like 60/40 or 55/45 liberal to Constitutionalist judge balance wise.

This ruling has got to be one of the biggest affronts to the Constitution ever in its structure from a district court. If SCotUS wasn't a craven politicized mess they'd absolutely have to take this up in an expedited manner to at least order the 9th Caetano it with a less ludacris legal argument.
 
"We have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces..."
-Judge Jay Bybee

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Taney made a similar argument.

That is, in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

"It would give to persons of the negro race . . . the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, . . . and it would give them the full liberty of speech . . . ; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

That Democrat court held the freed negro without the rights of the citizen, and therefore without the rights to bear arms in public.

This Democrat court has simply chosen to extend that prohibition to all.
 
With over 400 million firearms in the US does it really matter what a Govt. run court said?[rofl2]

Go ahead and arrest us all, hell come and take'em...
That should be interesting and a little bit of a past reminder of the last folks that tried that.[coffee]

While that may end up becoming what happens, I’d prefer the government just respect people’s rights instead of going to war with them. War is never as glorious as movies and history makes it seem to be.
 
Based on the election I recently witnessed, I don’t believe laws matter much if at all anymore. Carry on...
Buy/build/carry what you want. I don’t cling to cases and laws or allow my blood pressure to fluctuate based on them. Our entire judicial system is kangaroo court cluster fornication. Listening to cam & co. On Bearing arms on YouTube and a guy was sentenced to a year probation after shooting two family members. In MA murderers and pedophiles walk with slaps on the hand. I have a moral code and will decide what’s best for me. I don’t cause mayhem or anarchy. I just want to be left alone to live my life and enjoy my family, friends and other good people. For that, I won’t ask permission to do. Had a local cop last weekend tell me it’s people like me and other NES’ers that are the only ones who have a chance at saving our country. Said he had 6 months left before retirement and asked if we could be friends after he retires. That pretty much sums it up.
 
Lol. No he didn’t. He’s appointed 10 of 47 and I’m not sure how many if any are constitutionalists

there are 29 active judges, trump appointed 10 of them. There are 16 Obama Clinton judges and 13 bush trump judges. Only current judges sit on en banc panels, the chief judge always does and 10 randomly picked from the remaining 28
 
They went full En Banc rather than drawing a partial panel because the odds were 50/50 that a Trump majority panel would be pulled. He managed to get the 9th something like 60/40 or 55/45 liberal to Constitutionalist judge balance wise.

This ruling has got to be one of the biggest affronts to the Constitution ever in its structure from a district court. If SCotUS wasn't a craven politicized mess they'd absolutely have to take this up in an expedited manner to at least order the 9th Caetano it with a less ludacris legal argument.

In en banc panels, alll judges in the circuit hear the case except the 9th because it’s so large. In the 9th the chief judge is always on an en banc panel and 10 of the remaining active 28 judges. The decision was 7-4. When the panel was picked a few months ago it was an automatic loss for Young. It was a 6-5 democrat majority panel, bybee joined the commies so it was 7-4 result

when Duncan gets the panel decided over the summer you’ll probably know the result before the case is even heard. If it’s 6 trump bush judges and 5 Obama Clinton, Duncan will be upheld and the mag ban will fall
 
Back
Top Bottom