TRO denied in Ventura Gun Store Closure litigation

KingClown said:

We need to be able to personally sue the people that make these decisions. Thats the only way it stops. If the county gets sued it wont change things for themn a bit. They will just create a new tax to pay for it.

PLain and simple when a gov agency is found to violate rights the people involved should be able to be sued personally and there should be consequences for the agency up to shutting it down permanantly. If we could do that we wouldnt have these problems because politicians would actually be afraid to trample our rights like they do now.

Click to expand...

delaware_export said:

A question here to the lawyers.

On the church vs casino rulings with regard to limits and having churches more limited than a casino, iirc, scotus eventually said that the ruling infringed in religious grounds with the more severe limits.

Being that a right was questioned here, 2a, vs things like bicycle shops and stuff noted in the article, how can the lower courts get away with ignoring the similarities?

Aside from the fact that the Cali based 9th circus just hates real rights … religious, 2a, and others…

It seems that once scotus said limiting a church more than other businesses would be the same application of logic as this case. A link for the scotus church ruling..

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/...oor-worship-services-to-resume-in-california/

Be nice. Just a non legal layman trying to understand the legal gymnastics

Click to expand...

Allen65 said:

See:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

Click to expand...

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Click to expand...

Bob A said:

Does "judicial" refer solely to the courts and law enforcement, or does it apply to Congress and elected officials as well?

Click to expand...

Mr H said:

Looks like the 9th Circus finally got one right??

Click to expand...

Absolutely hilarious, especially for those who have watched the Ninth Circuit’s en banc machinations on Second Amendment issues for some time. Last week, a three-judge panel overturned a Ventura County, CA emergency measure that closed all gun stores at the beginning of the pandemic while allowing other “essential businesses” to operate. The ruling shredded Ventura’s attempt to preclude exercise of the right to bear arms, albeit on the relatively modest basis that it fails under any and all levels of scrutiny.

But as our RedState colleague Streiff points out today, that’s where the fun begins. Judge Lawrence Van Dyke authored the controlling opinion, but in an unusual step, wrote a separate concurrence to his own ruling. In it, Van Dyke predicted that the Ninth Circuit would vote for yet another en banc hearing to justify the unconstitutional and decided to pre-empt it with a scathing bit of satire...

Click to expand...

Occam said:

Well, two judges on a three-judge panel on the Ninth did, and have before. If it ruffles left coast feathers, they just come back for another bite and ask for it again en banc from a wider circuit court historically eager to squash stuff like this. Then, whatever rational finding we got from those two sensible judges gets tossed into the en banc blender and comes out as a constitution-gagging toxic smoothie.

Then, if the people who've been on the roller coaster care enough, they drag it slowly and expensively up to the SCOTUS where it probably won't get cert, but if it does (in this case, with this court) it might just get set right again. Years go by - tick tick tick - and the stores that were wounded (if not ruined) and the Californians who wanted to buy a gun back when this all happened are but a distant memory. If this stands as-is, I'll be pretty amazed.

Click to expand...

BeoBill said:

One judge has snapped, it seems...

Ninth Circuit judge rebukes court: I'll write your en-banc bad take on the Second Amendment for you
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/202...-take-on-the-second-amendment-for-you-n443720

Click to expand...

Allen65 said:

See:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

Click to expand...