I'm amazed how much time they spend on precedents when the 2nd Amendment says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It's not a nuanced statement. ALL infringements, precedents or not, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I know they've been going on for decades, but it should have been nipped in the bud decades ago.
So did more reading, Benitez as stated below is canonized as St. Benitez.
This was a 3 judge panel and they applied strict scrutiny to a 2A case for the first time that I can tell even though Heller requires strict scrutiny.
The state WILL appeal for En Banc. Then they will appeal to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS hasn't taken a 2A case in about 10 years even though multiple Circuits disagree with another.
From the Firearm Policy Coalition:
WHAT'S NEXT: The California ban remains partially in effect until the district court issues a new order that lifts the stay of the judgement. Remember that in April 2019, following his ruling that the California magazine ban was unconstitutional, Judge Benitez ordered:
that the Judgment is stayed in part pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
...that the preliminary injunction issued on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) shall remain in effect.
and that
...the permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
Thus, until a new order is issued, the above is the state of the law in the State of California. It is possible that Judge Benitez issues a new order and allows sales to re-commence, but it seems more likely that the status quo is maintained until the resolution of any en banc petition, sua sponte call for rehearing en banc, en banc proceedings, or perhaps even a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I believe the Second Amendment protects far more than mere Self Defense at hearth and Home. It also provides the means to end a Government that has ceased to conform itself to the consent of the governed, a principal enshrined by the oldest document in our Republic. The Declaration of Independence.
Am I crazy or is this the second time, maybe with another ruling in between that invalidated the first? I definitely remember youtube gun channels discussing this a few years ago and asking a friend about it.
9th Circuit! T-Minus 20 mins until the Hawaiian judge issues an injunction. 🙄
HAWAIIAN JUDGE INTENSIFIES
HE KNEW THIS WAS COMING
HE'S GOT AN INJUNCTION CUCKED AND LOCKED
I'm amazed how much time they spend on precedents when the 2nd Amendment says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It's not a nuanced statement. ALL infringements, precedents or not, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I know they've been going on for decades, but it should have been nipped in the bud decades ago.
So did more reading, Benitez as stated below is canonized as St. Benitez.
This was a 3 judge panel and they applied strict scrutiny to a 2A case for the first time that I can tell even though Heller requires strict scrutiny.
The state WILL appeal for En Banc. Then they will appeal to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS hasn't taken a 2A case in about 10 years even though multiple Circuits disagree with another.
From the Firearm Policy Coalition:
and that
Fuck yea. No commies here!
The Trial Judge in San Diego was a Regan Appointee who fled Cuba and is based as fuck
Meanwhile Colorado Supreme Court ruled magazine ban perfectly fine.
Until SCOTUS settles this nothing will change.
SCOTUS will punt on it, just like they always do when it comes to 2A litigation.
I believe the Second Amendment protects far more than mere Self Defense at hearth and Home. It also provides the means to end a Government that has ceased to conform itself to the consent of the governed, a principal enshrined by the oldest document in our Republic. The Declaration of Independence.
Three judge panel, Trump Korean judge along with a Bush and a Clinton judge.
Expect the 9th Circuit to allow this to be re-heard by an en banc panel that will magically be mostly liberal anti-gun judges.
They gotta work on the laws kumala put in place, banning the sale of guns manufactured after a certain year (2003 I think)
Am I crazy or is this the second time, maybe with another ruling in between that invalidated the first? I definitely remember youtube gun channels discussing this a few years ago and asking a friend about it.
Dont worry, the Final Form of Mecha-Hawaii-Judge, Chief Justice John Robert's will intervene....
Waiting for the retards to come out screaming "feee! Da NRA duz hap uz"