krucam
Ultimate Member
Thread Bump. GVR from SCOTUS back to CA9
Duncan v Berrcerra
- Thread starter wolfwood
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
CA (Bonta) brief to the en banc court on the impact of Bruen
So they want it reheard from the ground up, and also want the order restraining CA from enforcing the law vacated while that's happening. That probably gives CA several years of being able to enforce the ban in spite of Bruen, once the case has gone from District through 3-judge panel, to en banc, finally to get smacked down again by SCOTUS, assuming enough of the Bruen 6 are still on the Court.
Last edited:
Why do you assume the judge will go along with it? Given the strong language in Bruen, you’d be delusional to think it’s not getting smacked down.
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,229
Delay is Cali goal, one of them. hope thomas drops out. And a wishy washy 5th.
also, already there was a legal reply on one of the gun cases citing .. I think it was cavanaughs concurrence which said no doubt is cast in existing regulatory schemes. It ignored the 6 judge ruling and focused on his concur.
that’ll be used at the basis for activist judiciary folks to resist now. Maybe I am cynical.
under the 9th, and Hawaii, they delayed roughly 6 years (16-22) on stun guns and rather than admit defeat, after 4 years since the case was filed (18-22) now try to moot without ruling.
Not being a lawyer, I marvel how .gov can do this. If I ignored a scotus ruling, my butt would be jailed, like a kentucky county clerk and a gay marriage license issue.
also, already there was a legal reply on one of the gun cases citing .. I think it was cavanaughs concurrence which said no doubt is cast in existing regulatory schemes. It ignored the 6 judge ruling and focused on his concur.
that’ll be used at the basis for activist judiciary folks to resist now. Maybe I am cynical.
under the 9th, and Hawaii, they delayed roughly 6 years (16-22) on stun guns and rather than admit defeat, after 4 years since the case was filed (18-22) now try to moot without ruling.
Not being a lawyer, I marvel how .gov can do this. If I ignored a scotus ruling, my butt would be jailed, like a kentucky county clerk and a gay marriage license issue.
I'm not assuming what way the judges will go, just saying what would happen if their request was granted and why they would have asked for that type of relief.
As for delusional, we are talking 9CA, after all. They get SCOTUS smackdowns like I get extended car warranty spam calls.
Lol. I know the calls, sir.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Duncan's Brief on the issue as well as an amicus (FPC)
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
CA (Bonta) 28(j) letter (Citation of Supplemental Authorities)
Apparently the CA3 just remanded the ANJRPC case (NJ mag ban) to the district court.
CA attached the opinion to the letter.
Apparently the CA3 just remanded the ANJRPC case (NJ mag ban) to the district court.
CA attached the opinion to the letter.
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,290
Dissenting Judge is a Trump appointee... good read.
There is a long running philosophical debate over whether there is more power in writing the law, or interpreting it.
And in 2A jurisprudence, we're going to find out over the next 5 years or so which will dominate. Bruen rewrote the law at the top level, but the Antis own most of the governmental machinery that interprets and derives from it at the lower echelons.
And in 2A jurisprudence, we're going to find out over the next 5 years or so which will dominate. Bruen rewrote the law at the top level, but the Antis own most of the governmental machinery that interprets and derives from it at the lower echelons.
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,290
Did Bruen re-write it... or reiterate it...?
It erased the "2A Two-Step" as a legitimate way to (mis)interpret COTUS.
The complete body of law includes both statutory and common law. Bruen created a template for new common law. The problem is the template gets to be filled in by some of the same lower courts that created the pre-Bruen mess. Does anyone really think the majority of 2CA and 9CA are suddenly going to see the light, or will they just try to justify continuing to implement their pre-existing anti2A biases with more twisted logic to provide a patina of Bruen compliance?
SCOTUS also still hasn't really addressed the deference issue. It's hard to get a law overturned in court when the court treats the State's arguments as presumptively correct, like the District Judge did in Kolbe.
Last edited:
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Kolbe though can no longer be used as any form of precedent. It was at one time. But I can no longer be anymore.
Read the dissent on the Bianchi V Frosh case being pushed back down to district court.
Pushing all of the GVR’d cases and others back down to the District level is just a delaying tactic that the states, the federal government and even the liberal courts are using to keep their laws in place as long as they can.
They know their laws will get overturned. Especially on the GVR’d cases coming from SCOTUS. If those 4 cases end up back in front of SCOTUS for a second time. They know he’ll will break loose.
There are some that are using the delaying technique in hopes that SCOTUS May under go somewhere changes in the mean time. Which won’t happen unless their is an unexpected death.
Ginsbergs death wasn’t unexpected. She was just hoping to hang on for longer. But god played his hand.
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Go read Judge Benitez original opinion. He foresaw what Justice Thomas was going to write in Bruen.
In his original opinion, he wrote about the two step approach, AND the one step approach using TTH. He was already prepared.
When he issues his new opinion. A Summary judgment. It will be his old opinion, with updates. He will remove the part about the two step. And, He will add in items that cover and reference the Bruen opinion. He will mention issues Brought up by both the plantif and defense in their new briefs as well.
Suffice it to say the end result will be the same.
However, he will also have to mention the new issue of the new letter that the plaintiff has filed, as well. This might also delay the case some more. We shall see.
Keep in mind though. That California can still appeal his new judgment and it will end up back in front of the 3 Justice circuit panel for review again. Which if it goes like the last time. They will uphold his ruling and opinion.
California will request an En Banc Hearing. This may or May not get granted. But in an effort to delay things even more I suspect it will.
At that point is where IT WILL get very tricky for California and the 11 judge En Banc panel. They know either way it will end back up in front of SCOTUS again. If California loses, they won’t take it to SCOTUS for a second time, SCOTUS will hand down a ruling they won’t like, and they know it. Even the LIBERAL justices on the En Banc panel know that.
So they will have to issue a ruling in favor of Duncan against California, that will limit the damage in a much less way then a SCOTUS ruling would be.
The Anti2A people have no desire for another harsh ruling from SCOTUS so they will do their best at keeping another case away from them.
ESPECIALLY A CASE THAT SCOTUS HAS GVR’d Like Duncan v Bonta.
In his original opinion, he wrote about the two step approach, AND the one step approach using TTH. He was already prepared.
When he issues his new opinion. A Summary judgment. It will be his old opinion, with updates. He will remove the part about the two step. And, He will add in items that cover and reference the Bruen opinion. He will mention issues Brought up by both the plantif and defense in their new briefs as well.
Suffice it to say the end result will be the same.
However, he will also have to mention the new issue of the new letter that the plaintiff has filed, as well. This might also delay the case some more. We shall see.
Keep in mind though. That California can still appeal his new judgment and it will end up back in front of the 3 Justice circuit panel for review again. Which if it goes like the last time. They will uphold his ruling and opinion.
California will request an En Banc Hearing. This may or May not get granted. But in an effort to delay things even more I suspect it will.
At that point is where IT WILL get very tricky for California and the 11 judge En Banc panel. They know either way it will end back up in front of SCOTUS again. If California loses, they won’t take it to SCOTUS for a second time, SCOTUS will hand down a ruling they won’t like, and they know it. Even the LIBERAL justices on the En Banc panel know that.
So they will have to issue a ruling in favor of Duncan against California, that will limit the damage in a much less way then a SCOTUS ruling would be.
The Anti2A people have no desire for another harsh ruling from SCOTUS so they will do their best at keeping another case away from them.
ESPECIALLY A CASE THAT SCOTUS HAS GVR’d Like Duncan v Bonta.
I know it's no longer precedent, but the judge's blind acceptance of the ipse dixit arguments from the state made a permanent impression on me about how a court can simply ignore any and all opposing evidence when the judge is biased in favor of the state's position from the get-go. It upended my notions of how courts are supposed to decide based on the evidence presented, not the identity of the parties.
I see that judge's attitude as representative of most of her colleagues in this state.
All these cases should now be asking for immediate injunctions against these laws, since any more delays are infringing on the Right.
Let the Courts deny the injunction. This is a swift path right back up the ladder to the SCOUS, without all the delays. And be sure to ask for costs as well as suffering for all these years of delays of a Right.
.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
Let the Courts deny the injunction. This is a swift path right back up the ladder to the SCOUS, without all the delays. And be sure to ask for costs as well as suffering for all these years of delays of a Right.
.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
How ever if California does not like the ruling against it in Duncan V Bonta,and yes this would not be the first time that the en banc appeals before SCOTUS and gets a major smack down and their is a reason they are called the bastar* child of the federal circuits, they really need to be careful they do not try to pull a NY move like NY did and really get taken to task over that because if they did do a NY move not only will SCOTUS just give them a major smackdown with no wiggle room after they bury CA 6ft under!
Last edited:
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
All three were Republican appointed. Jordan (G W Bush), Matey (Trump), and Roth (G H W Bush)
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
It is going to come down to how the cases get argued. The circuits certainly are not going to see the light, but I don't believe they are going to adopt completely unreasonable arguments either. The courts did not simply defer to the State for no reason, they did it because they perceived the issue as a political issue due to the conflicting evidence that was presented to them.
SCOTUS still has not really addressed the deference issue because it has not really been argued in a way that resolves the issue. It is not really about deference, it is about when it is appropriate to restrict rights and for what reasons. While Bruen took the previously used reasoning off the table, it did not really provide clear guidance on how to figure it out.
I think we need to wait and see how the states begin to argue these cases. I do not know how the states are really going to respond.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
What would be the best Maryland compliant rifle I can buy for under $3000? (7 Viewers)- Latest: BurtonRW
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
What would be the best Maryland compliant rifle I can buy for under $3000? (7 Viewers)
- Started by Tool
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
