BREAKING: FPC Wins “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit in Historic Victory for Second Amendment Rights

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
19,101
Likes
20,395
Location
North Shore
s4eamxv.jpg


Holding out for a Swiss Army Knife that attaches to an AR-15's bayonet lugs.
Here ya go.
1623100893890.png
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,242
Likes
1,085
Location
Just North of Boston
So as I understand the process and given that the losing party will eventually appeal to SCOTUS, the best of the likely outcomes would be for the three-judge panel that hears the CA appeal to overturn Benitez? This way, the plaintiffs can then move onto a SCOTUS appeal. If the three-judge appeals panel upholds Benitez, CA then asks for an en banc hearing which lengthens the path for this case to reach SCOTUS by another year or so.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
19,101
Likes
20,395
Location
North Shore
I suppose the question is, do they suck it up and try to find some restrictive work around's or risk it going to SCOTUS and maybe take a hit that will burn them nationwide ?
I would like to be a fly on the wall for some of those strategy sessions.
 

rcwhat

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
2,347
Likes
2,120
Location
Assnet, MA
So as I understand the process and given that the losing party will eventually appeal to SCOTUS, the best of the likely outcomes would be for the three-judge panel that hears the CA appeal to overturn Benitez? This way, the plaintiffs can then move onto a SCOTUS appeal. If the three-judge appeals panel upholds Benitez, CA then asks for an en banc hearing which lengthens the path for this case to reach SCOTUS by another year or so.
What makes you think scotus would agree to hear the case on appeal? Lol, I wouldn’t want that at all. The preferred outcome is the panel upholds the decision and then the government has to test scotus’ balls.
 

Davidk

NES Member
Rating - 96.7%
29   1   0
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
3,135
Likes
3,327
Location
Missouri
What makes you think scotus would agree to hear the case on appeal? Lol, I wouldn’t want that at all. The preferred outcome is the panel upholds the decision and then the government has to test scotus’ balls.
Recent history shows we won't like the results of a Supreme Court ball test.
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,242
Likes
1,085
Location
Just North of Boston
What makes you think scotus would agree to hear the case on appeal? Lol, I wouldn’t want that at all. The preferred outcome is the panel upholds the decision and then the government has to test scotus’ balls.
Since the path through the 9th circuit ultimately ends with an en banc panel, it's pretty doubtful that we emerge from the 9th with a victory -- possible but highly unlikely. The shortest path to a SCOTUS appeal would therefore be preferential. Whether they take it nor not, the only likely path to an ultimate victory with this issue is a favorable ruling from SCOTUS. I don't see any other outcome as likely.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
2
Likes
9
 

tcarter01

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
517
Likes
480
Recent history shows we won't like the results of a Supreme Court ball test.
Gotta have Balls to pass the "You Got Any Balls!" test...

Literally (or so I must biologically assume) 6 of the 9 have Balls...

But of those 6, 2 have shown themselves over time to be Ball-less...(figuratively)

But on the other side at least 1 of the 3 biologically Ball-less is potentially with "Balls"...Yet to be determined but I am an optimist. with that Justice..

So that would possibly leave us at a potential SCOTUS "Ball Count" of 5 with Balls, 4 without Balls in a worst case Ball Count decision..(Ball counting based on a figurative analysis that is...)

Though my current confidence on SCOTUS making a "Balls Required" decision being positively 2A is summed up here....


 

bfm

Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
11,120
Likes
18,221
Location
Somerville

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
20,419
Likes
24,919
Location
Some caves off Route 40 past Groton
"I think it's incredibly problematic when a federal judge quotes things that are factually incorrect, because it hurts the integrity of the branch," said Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles who is an MSNBC columnist.​
[rofl2]
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
1,321
Likes
1,192
Justice Benitez:

In another section, he downplayed the risk of an assault rifle being used in a mass shooting as an "infinitesimally rare event." He added: "More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
11,353
Likes
5,631
Location
Green Eggs and...
Justice Benitez:

In another section, he downplayed the risk of an assault rifle being used in a mass shooting as an "infinitesimally rare event." He added: "More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California.

He damages the impact of his factual statement in rarity by making the second erroneous claim. Which, like it or not, isn’t well founded.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,331
Likes
6,652
Since the path through the 9th circuit ultimately ends with an en banc panel, it's pretty doubtful that we emerge from the 9th with a victory -- possible but highly unlikely. The shortest path to a SCOTUS appeal would therefore be preferential. Whether they take it nor not, the only likely path to an ultimate victory with this issue is a favorable ruling from SCOTUS. I don't see any other outcome as likely.

en banc in circuit courts means all judges sit for a rehearing of the case. It’s different in the 9th because there are so many judges. An en banc in the 9th is the chief judge and 10 of the remaining 28 active judges chosen randomly. The circuit is 16-13 D vs R appointed judges. It is absolutely not “highly unlikely “ an en banc ruling won’t uphold Benitez.

I’m not sure you understand the process well at all.

the preferable outcome is the 3 judge panel upholds Benitez and the active judges vote not to take up the case en banc. En banc isn’t something courts do often. The 9th does it more than most especially gun cases but the architect of this chief judge Sidney Thomas will be replaced later this year as her term as chief is expiring

even if the court hears it en banc, the best outcome is a good draw of judges and they vote to uphold Benitez. Why would you ever think losing and hoping SCOTUS accepts the case is a good path.? SCOTUS only hears about 80 cases a year, they deny cert overwhelmingly.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,331
Likes
6,652
Anyone who thinks blindly appealing cases to SCOTUS in a “numbers game” doesn’t understand a thing bout SCOTUS or the courts. It’s not a numbers game, it’s about bringing cases with great legal arguments to the courts and not mindlessly bringing losing cases that create bad case law.

The best 2A cases are years or decades in the making and very smart legal minds are behind them. It’s absolutely not a “numbers game”
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,242
Likes
1,085
Location
Just North of Boston
en banc in circuit courts means all judges sit for a rehearing of the case. It’s different in the 9th because there are so many judges. An en banc in the 9th is the chief judge and 10 of the remaining 28 active judges chosen randomly. The circuit is 16-13 D vs R appointed judges. It is absolutely not “highly unlikely “ an en banc ruling won’t uphold Benitez.

I’m not sure you understand the process well at all.

the preferable outcome is the 3 judge panel upholds Benitez and the active judges vote not to take up the case en banc. En banc isn’t something courts do often. The 9th does it more than most especially gun cases but the architect of this chief judge Sidney Thomas will be replaced later this year as her term as chief is expiring

even if the court hears it en banc, the best outcome is a good draw of judges and they vote to uphold Benitez. Why would you ever think losing and hoping SCOTUS accepts the case is a good path.? SCOTUS only hears about 80 cases a year, they deny cert overwhelmingly.

Anyone who thinks blindly appealing cases to SCOTUS in a “numbers game” doesn’t understand a thing bout SCOTUS or the courts. It’s not a numbers game, it’s about bringing cases with great legal arguments to the courts and not mindlessly bringing losing cases that create bad case law.

The best 2A cases are years or decades in the making and very smart legal minds are behind them. It’s absolutely not a “numbers game”

What I am reading in your replies to people is that in the world of your horribly flawed logic, anyone who holds an opinion different from yours simply does not understand the process. You feel your superior theory of the optimal outcome justifies you in spouting your arrogant BS at posters based on, if I am capable of understanding your superior intellect, your strong belief that:
  • Recent and upcoming changes to the makeup of the 9th circuit mean we must discount the recent history of 2A cases in the 9th Circuit and assume this time must be different
  • Recent changes to the makeup of SCOTUS are totally irrelevant and we must therefore assume that recent history will continue itself -- despite the fact that SCOTUS just granted Cert in a 2A case thus negating recent historical trend.
It sounds to me like your "superior" thinking on the matter is based on a not-insignificant contradiction.

So, thank you for educating me. I look forward to your future teachings.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
16,570
Likes
15,808
Location
Granite State of Mind
Anyone who thinks blindly appealing cases to SCOTUS in a “numbers game” doesn’t understand a thing bout SCOTUS or the courts. It’s not a numbers game, it’s about bringing cases with great legal arguments to the courts and not mindlessly bringing losing cases that create bad case law.

The best 2A cases are years or decades in the making and very smart legal minds are behind them. It’s absolutely not a “numbers game”
Except it is a numbers game. Not a game of getting the most cases to the court, but getting the right cases (like Heller and Macdonald) to the right court at the right time.

Every time that SCOTUS denies cert when there is a circuit split, it's because of numbers. If the justices who want to rule a certain way aren't confident that they have the numbers on their side, they will deny cert.
 

vicorjh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
5,090
Likes
12,007
Newsom called Benitez a “stone-cold ideologue” who writes “press releases on behalf of the gun lobby.” He warned that everyone needs to “call this federal judge out” because “he will continue to do damage.”
Benitez ruled on arguments that have long been discussed by many of us as raising serious questions over the constitutionality of these laws. Again, one can disagree with the arguments but they are not fringe or fanciful positions. Indeed, Newsom’s demand for an appeal may be great news for the gun rights groups. Liberal states and cities have repeatedly pushed appeals that resulted in magnifying their losses. The District of Columbia is a great example of such poor choices in triggering the decisions in Heller. Later the Supreme Court expanded on its pro-gun rights case law in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Supreme Court just took up a new major gun rights case out of New York.

 

rcwhat

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
2,347
Likes
2,120
Location
Assnet, MA
What I am reading in your replies to people is that in the world of your horribly flawed logic, anyone who holds an opinion different from yours simply does not understand the process. You feel your superior theory of the optimal outcome justifies you in spouting your arrogant BS at posters based on, if I am capable of understanding your superior intellect, your strong belief that:
  • Recent and upcoming changes to the makeup of the 9th circuit mean we must discount the recent history of 2A cases in the 9th Circuit and assume this time must be different
  • Recent changes to the makeup of SCOTUS are totally irrelevant and we must therefore assume that recent history will continue itself -- despite the fact that SCOTUS just granted Cert in a 2A case thus negating recent historical trend.
It sounds to me like your "superior" thinking on the matter is based on a not-insignificant contradiction.

So, thank you for educating me. I look forward to your future teachings.
Holy f’ing butthurt
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,331
Likes
6,652
Except it is a numbers game. Not a game of getting the most cases to the court, but getting the right cases (like Heller and Macdonald) to the right court at the right time.

Every time that SCOTUS denies cert when there is a circuit split, it's because of numbers. If the justices who want to rule a certain way aren't confident that they have the numbers on their side, they will deny cert.

good cases are not a numbers game. The moronic post by that person suggested mass lawsuits with no strategy or weeding out the poor ones. That’s stupid and not what you suggest which I agree with ie quality cases.

people who advocate mass numbers of lawsuits in a numbers game have no clue what they’re talking about and are probably on Bloombergs payroll or should be.

When bad cases are filed it makes it much harder in the future even with good cases. If bad cases are filed in a numbers game and they lose, especially at the circuit court of appeals level or en banc, that ruling becomes a binding precedent on that circuit and makes another case an automatic loss. Circuits also have rules they follow where they respect previous decisions and don’t overrule them.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,331
Likes
6,652
TheDuncan v Bonita mag limit en banc panel was announced no it’s not favorable at all. Of the 11 judges for the en banc hearing next Tuesday 7 are Clinton or Obama appointees, 4 bush trump appointees.

there is zero chance 2 of those Obama Clinton judges vote to uphold the district court ruling and the 3 judge panel ruling high declared the mag limit unconstitutional. The decision won’t be until probably this fall, after that it will be onto SCOTUS for cert.

en banc panels in the 9th are randomly drawn, don’t listen to the tinfoil hat brigade who imply or claim the fix was in on the panel composition. The 9th leans left slightly 16-13 democrat vs GOP nominated judges. Pre 2017 20 of the 29 active judges were democrat appointed. It’s a lot more of an even at why michel and associates; FPC etc have filed more lawsuits there recently.
 
Last edited:

dans

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
2,424
Likes
966
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,331
Likes
6,652
I saw this on sfgate.com and I thought “it was quick since the en Blanc hearing hadn’t started yet. Did they already release a decision before the hearing?”

Then I read the article and it was about the 3 judge appeal from ages ago. Nothing new here.

when cases are appealed one of the parties will often ask for an injunction while the appeal continues. CA asked in this case. It just means the law is still in effect while the appeal is heard
 
Top Bottom