9th Circuit Overturns CA LCM Ban

[John Monroe]

Because the Conservatives don/t trust Roberts. The 4 real Conservatives are enough to grant cert and get any case heard before the Supreme Court. They are declining to do so because they don't trust Roberts, not because they don't want to hear the cases.

The 4 don't want to make a bad situation worse.

My guess, which is worth what you are paying for it, is no 2nd Amendment cases until next year. If Biden wins he will do something blatantly unconstitutional regarding gun control. If Trump wins, he will almost certainly have a chance to replace Ginsberg.

I think you're exactly right on everything except the highlighted language. There's only so much he could do with executive orders, and I'm not sure that he even would try. He'd have to have the Senate with him to pass a law, and that's less likely to happen than his getting elected.

 

[spencer60]

That's relative, but Trump has appointed 10 judges to the 9th Circuit. There are 29 total active judges. That's quite a shift. The current court consists of 9 Clinton appointees, 3 Bush appointees, 7 Obama appointees, and 10 trump appointees. That's 16-13 D/R. Of course, judges do not always vote their presumed party affiliation, but the current court's makeup is not so one-sided that the outcome is predetermined. And when they go en banc, they are the Chief Judge and 10 randomly selected judges. After the chief, you're down to 15-13 D/R. It's pretty close.

Yup, I mentioned this in the other thread after doing some research. Like you say, there's almost 50/50 odds of getting a good panel now on the 9th.

If we can get a second term from Trump and keep the Senate, we'll definitely have something to look forward to.

 

[gh1950]

I think you're exactly right on everything except the highlighted language. There's only so much he could do with executive orders, and I'm not sure that he even would try. He'd have to have the Senate with him to pass a law, and that's less likely to happen than his getting elected.

I think you have identified the scenario we can expect. I have little doubt that Biden will attempt to enact gun control measures through executive orders, and the challenges to those will force the Supreme Court to act.

I think that the response to the Covid emergency in regards to suspension of Constitutional rights has established a dangerous precedent. I can see Biden proclaiming that gun violence presents a threat to national security, and attemp to regulate large cap mags, and require universal background checks. If the government can limit how many people can go to church (or whether they can go to church at all), or who can go to work and who can't, then the same logic applies to how many bullets you can put in a gun.

I think that will especially be the case if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, which is looking less likely.

 

[Red Squirrel 556]

My uncle in Sonoma sent me a message at 4am their time. He was ecstatic...

 

[John Monroe]

He was ecstatic...

I bet! It's hard to imagine living there these days.

 

[Red Squirrel 556]

I bet! It's hard to imagine living there these days.

Politics aside, Sonoma Valley is one of the most beautiful places I've been in the lower 48.

He's adapted. Shoots long range and 1911's. But yea i told him I'd mail him some 20rd M1A mags for Christmas.

 

[spencer60]

I've always said that California is wasted on Californians. One of the most fantastic states in the US and it's run by total morons.

 

[Zeake]

 

[spencer60]

Yup, Cleckner did a quick version of this "Trigger Words" podcast addressing this.

The original ruling was by a single judge who struck down the law.

The state (CA) filed a motion that the order striking down the law be 'stayed' until it could be heard by the appeals court (which just happened), and the judge granted that about a week after his initial ruling. That's why it was called 'Freedom Week' in CA.

This appellate court ruling supported the judge's ruling on the matter but it didn't lift the stay, so the CA law is still in effect and probably will be until the full, en-banc ruling is issued.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I have an AR that has a different model number on the lower than it should. I called the manufacturer (Armalite) to find out why. The model is supposed to be DEF15. But instead it states LTC. When I asked why, and I'm not kidding, this was the answer.

"We do occasional runs of complete firearms with different lowers so they don't have the number 15 in them. Certain states like California, won't allow guns to be sold there that have AR15 or 15 on them. So we put a different lower on them to get around it. They go to distributors and the distributors can then sell them to any state they want."
So an AR 15 with the number 15 stamped on it is bad. But one without is fine. THAT is the type of "common sense legislation" that has ended the 2A as intended.

We STILL can't buy a supressor of all things over the counter.