Federal Appeals Court Puts Judge's Ruling Overturning California's Assault Weapons Ban On Hold

[danielpalos]

This is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

 

[mdk]

It's a three-panel ruling, so an En Banc hearing is possible and if they reach the same conclusion it will be appealed to the Supreme Court where the 9th ruling will be likely overturned.

 

[Flash]

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked a federal judge's controversial ruling that overturned California's longtime ban on assault weapons, in which he likened the AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife.

In an order Monday, a three-judge panel on the federal appeals court issued a stay of US District Judge Roger Benitez's order earlier this month that overturned California's three-decade old assault weapons ban.

The state's current assault weapons laws will remain in effect while further proceedings continue, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement on Twitter.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...

Surprise Surprise. That did not take long

That is good in a way because if the shitheads on the 9th overturn the Judge then it should be kicked up to the Supreme Court.

The Judge did such a great job in defending his decision the 9th would have to be idiots to overturn his decision. Of course they are the most overturned district in the country so they very seldom get anything right.

 

[Flash]

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked a federal judge's controversial ruling that overturned California's longtime ban on assault weapons, in which he likened the AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife.

In an order Monday, a three-judge panel on the federal appeals court issued a stay of US District Judge Roger Benitez's order earlier this month that overturned California's three-decade old assault weapons ban.

The state's current assault weapons laws will remain in effect while further proceedings continue, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement on Twitter.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...

Surprise Surprise. That did not take long

Not surprising because other appellate courts which have heard state AWBs have likewise ruled to uphold the measures.

Lower courts were stupid and ruled that Heller and McDonald didn't have the right to own a firearm but the Supremes fixed that, didn't they?

 

[Flash]

What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do the idiots in the 9th have trouble understanding?

 

[westwall]

What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do the idiots in the 9th have trouble understanding?

All of it. The judges on the 9th are known for their statist leanings.

 

[danielpalos]

What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do the idiots in the 9th have trouble understanding?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[blackhawk]

9th circuit hardly a surprise.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The overturn of the assault weapon ban in California has been put on hold. For now.

It will have to make it's way to the supreme court before we know the outcome of the case.

Federal appeals court puts judge's ruling overturning California's assault weapons ban on hold

They typically put those types of rulings on hold pending appeal. This is nothing unusual.

Hell, many prison sentences are stayed pending appeal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do the idiots in the 9th have trouble understanding?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Another Dan Palos cut and past.

 

[Mac-7]

If the supreme court agrees with the 9th circuit the the first judge should be fired

But if the high court agrees with the first judge then fire the 3 judges on the 9th circuit

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the supreme court agrees with the 9th circuit the the first judge should be fired

But if the high court agrees with the first judge then fire the 3 judges on the 9th circuit

While I agree with your sentiment, if that's what were to happen ever time a court got it wrong, we would be out of judges in a matter of weeks.

 

[danielpalos]

What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do the idiots in the 9th have trouble understanding?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Another Dan Palos cut and past.

Right-Wingers hate having to be legal to the laws? Fortunately for y'all this is not a border thread.

 

[Dana7360]

Do you really want it going to the Supreme Court?

It could affect plans for Biden getting an AW ban passed.

It's not up to me to want that or not.

You make the mistake of thinking me or anyone not involved with the case has any power to do anything about the case.

It doesn't matter who wins the appeal.

It will be taken to the Supreme Court no matter who wins at the appeal.

We will have to wait to see what the Supreme Court rules.

 

[Dana7360]

It will have to make it's way to the supreme court before we know the outcome of the case.

Or not.

The 9th Circuit’s ruling is consistent with other circuit courts of appeal in upholding a state’s AWB.

The Supreme Court is not likely to grant cert to a case where all the lower courts are in agreement, satisfied to allow Second Amendment jurisprudence to continue to evolve at the state level, and respecting states’ rights to allow the states to determine what firearm regulatory measures are appropriate and what are not, consistent with conservative judicial dogma.

No matter who wins the case at the appeals court, it will go to the supreme court.

The court could rule to not hear the case. They could hear the case too.

Like I said, we will have to wait on what the Supreme Court says.

Not taking the case is saying something.

 

[freyasman]

What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do the idiots in the 9th have trouble understanding?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

I see this guy (danielpalos) is off his meds and rambling again...... (smh)

 

[freyasman]

If the supreme court agrees with the 9th circuit the the first judge should be fired

But if the high court agrees with the first judge then fire the 3 judges on the 9th circuit

While I agree with your sentiment, if that's what were to happen ever time a court got it wrong, we would be out of judges in a matter of weeks.

I'm okay with that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you really want it going to the Supreme Court?

It could affect plans for Biden getting an AW ban passed.

That's the same argument they made on obamacare.

guess what the supreme court doesn't look like it did in 2010

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do the idiots in the 9th have trouble understanding?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

I see this guy (danielpalos) is off his meds and rambling again...... (smh)

he doesn't even comprehend the meaning of those words.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“This current case will likely go to the Supreme Court, which currently has a conservative supermajority.” ibid

And with such a ‘supermajority’ the Court should either not grant cert or rule in favor of California.

Certainly, as conservatives, the majority will rule in a manner consistent with conservative states’ rights political and judicial dogma.

No true conservative would approve of tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench contrary to the will of the people of California.

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy; conservatives are infamous for being inconsistent.

stupid what they will do is rule on the Constitutional merits of the case nothing more