Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #481  
Old 07-03-2017, 6:36 PM
noozeyeguy's Avatar
noozeyeguy noozeyeguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 546
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
Another aspect of the case that strikes me is that all sophisticated legal arguments aside, ANY fair minded individual should see the irreparable harm in NOT issuing the PI. This is a highly unusual circumstance in which, except for a small portion of affected individuals who can store their magazines out of state, any other form of compliance (turn in for destruction, permanent modification, sale out of state or to a dealer) for even a single second, causes a permanent lost of rights even if the law is overturned because those magazines can never be replaced. That should turn the balance completely in favor of the PI until the merits are reviewed.
100% correct, which makes the opposing finding in the PI request in Weise (sp?) all the more perplexing. The opinion there agreed that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were NOT issued, then proceeded to cite Sandy Hook, the Denver theater shooting, the Pulse nightclub shooting, and San Bernardino as reasons for the State to have an overriding and compelling public-safety interest in letting the law take effect. This, despite the fact that only one of those incidents occurred in California to begin with, and in that instance it was post-ban and the perpetrators willingly and knowingly broke California law by procuring their LCMs out-of-state.

Sigh. Liberal logic.
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 07-03-2017, 7:23 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,416
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noozeyeguy View Post
Sigh. Liberal logic.
While I'd like to agree, I can't. Not in this case.

Notice how the judge had to dance around Fyock case, where the court denied PI under virtually the same circumstances. The judge found that the *supporting evidence* was different, implying that if the state in this case presented the same evidence as in Fyock, he'd be forced not to grant the PI. Now, from the rest of the ruling it seems that he'd find a way to grant the PI, but read carefully what he is saying about that case.

This is very important because once bad decisions such as Fyock become precedent, a lower court judge must follow the precedent in the same circuit. In most cases it doesn't matter since these cases are designed to move up the food chain and eventually reach SCOTUS, but where it matters is when it comes to preliminary injunctions. That's where it matters a lot what the District Court judge does, as we've seen in this case.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 07-03-2017, 9:25 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
While I'd like to agree, I can't. Not in this case.

Notice how the judge had to dance around Fyock case, where the court denied PI under virtually the same circumstances. The judge found that the *supporting evidence* was different, implying that if the state in this case presented the same evidence as in Fyock, he'd be forced not to grant the PI. Now, from the rest of the ruling it seems that he'd find a way to grant the PI, but read carefully what he is saying about that case.
The basis of his grant of a PI even if the evidence presented were identical to that in Fyock is that in Fyock, the damage is limited to a wealthy area with excellent police response times, whilst here the damage would be statewide and, especially, in areas where police response might be 30 minutes away or more.

So yeah, he'd grant the injunction anyway on the basis of the above even in the face of identical presented evidence.

Even so, it was a real pleasure to read his evisceration of the "evidence". And you have to give him mad props for busting out Kozinski's Silveira v Lockyer dissent.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 07-03-2017, 10:31 PM
9M62 9M62 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,338
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The basis of his grant of a PI even if the evidence presented were identical to that in Fyock is that in Fyock, the damage is limited to a wealthy area with excellent police response times, whilst here the damage would be statewide and, especially, in areas where police response might be 30 minutes away or more.

So yeah, he'd grant the injunction anyway on the basis of the above even in the face of identical presented evidence.

Even so, it was a real pleasure to read his evisceration of the "evidence". And you have to give him mad props for busting out Kozinski's Silveira v Lockyer dissent.
Exactly.

I saw this law as the State of California saying "Good, banning them in cities held as legal according to the 9th, let's see if they say we can ban them statewide."

My personal opinion was that a judge would likely find that the infringment would be significantly harsher requiring people to remove their property from the state, and thus requiring to do so without compensation or with the threat of criminal prosecution was in fact, unconstitutional.

While I don't agree with the citywide ban laws, this was easy to argue against as all the person had to do was "simply put his magazines in a storage unit in a neighboring city."

We'll see if it sticks in the end... should be an interesting case.
__________________
Warning: Nothing on the Internet is true, including this post.
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 07-03-2017, 10:53 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,241
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
It takes a while. But suggest you read all 66 pages of the Judges Finding.

He mentions all manner of "Incremental Infringements" of the 2A in Ca.

I want this guy on SCOTUS.
I read the whole thing th day it came out. I just curious . To whether the suit targets the whole set of large capacity magazine laws or just the relevant parts of Prop 63.
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 07-03-2017, 11:23 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 238
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
I read the whole thing th day it came out. I just curious . To whether the suit targets the whole set of large capacity magazine laws or just the relevant parts of Prop 63.
Just the part of the law that says if you lawfully a possess a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, you must turn it in by 7/1 or become a criminal. None of the other laws are challenged.
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 07-03-2017, 11:31 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,113
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
I read the whole thing th day it came out. I just curious . To whether the suit targets the whole set of large capacity magazine laws or just the relevant parts of Prop 63.
Yes the suit brought by the individual plaintiffs and the CRPA as an org. Asks for relief for all of pc 32310.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/..._Complaint.pdf

But the judge only issued the PI to include the portions of 32310 that had changed after Prop 63, that outlawed all possession of LCMs. No matter if you had legally met all prior LCM requirements or not.

I sincerely hope the judge used this PI as a left jab. And is waiting for his full ruling to deliver the RIGHT CROSS for the knockout.
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 07-04-2017, 11:35 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,123
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noozeyeguy View Post
100% correct, which makes the opposing finding in the PI request in Weise (sp?) all the more perplexing. The opinion there agreed that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were NOT issued, then proceeded to cite Sandy Hook, the Denver theater shooting, the Pulse nightclub shooting, and San Bernardino as reasons for the State to have an overriding and compelling public-safety interest in letting the law take effect. This, despite the fact that only one of those incidents occurred in California to begin with, and in that instance it was post-ban and the perpetrators willingly and knowingly broke California law by procuring their LCMs out-of-state.

Sigh. Liberal logic.
The politicians and the media used the absolute ignorance of the people of this state to pass Prop 63 and the additional legislation.

The people gobbled it up on election day by passing Prop 63. A dangerous precedent to say the least. The passage of Prop 63 allowed the people of this state to vote our rights away. Who knows what the next one will be .

I'm glad the judge destroyed the states' position and evidence.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 07-04-2017, 3:29 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: East of Sacramento
Posts: 1,056
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

When rights are voted away by the majority then concentration camps and "thought" police are not far away. Any state that can have a man like Sawyer in a position of power is indeed in danger of becoming another version of Nazi Germany. who will the new "Jews" be this time. Our revolutionary forefathers would be outlaws in this state if they were alive today. Pray that more judges like this one are sitting on federal and state benches. they will make the difference between a future revolution and a peaceful settlement. cases decided in the past are not decided on the same evidence or circumstances and while they can be a guide it does not say they are cast in granite or stone for all time. Only the Constitution and Bill of rights are worthy of that status as long as men are willing to defend those documents with their lives.
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 07-04-2017, 4:31 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,241
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Yes the suit brought by the individual plaintiffs and the CRPA as an org. Asks for relief for all of pc 32310.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/..._Complaint.pdf

But the judge only issued the PI to include the portions of 32310 that had changed after Prop 63, that outlawed all possession of LCMs. No matter if you had legally met all prior LCM requirements or not.

I sincerely hope the judge used this PI as a left jab. And is waiting for his full ruling to deliver the RIGHT CROSS for the knockout.
I know what the PI was about just not the suit as a whole. I did benefit from the PI; I still wasn't sure what I was goin to do before it was issued.
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 07-06-2017, 4:37 PM
Major Kong Major Kong is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Injunction junction. Yeah boyeee!

An old thread about using the Takings Clause angle http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1290781&page=1

The Takings analysis in Duncan is amazing. Great work!!! I remember a bunch of "folks" said the Takings angle was a waste of time (GBA, you there?)

The uncompensated taking of grandfathered standard capacity magazines would set precedent for the uncompensated taking of "formerly" legal firearms themselves down the road. Of course this isn't about compensation ultimately, but slowing the attack on our rights likely precedes reversing the attacks.

Last edited by Major Kong; 07-06-2017 at 4:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 07-08-2017, 8:35 PM
sMp sMp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: California unfortunately
Posts: 206
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2e4eb2bd9dd0
my personal favorite part...
Quote:
the court first had to determine whether the banned magazines are protected by the Second Amendment. For reasons described below, the court so found. With that finding, all the other factors easily fell into place.
Quote:
“quintessential self defense weapon” — come with standard magazines larger than 10 rounds. Thus, the court found that the magazines are protected by the Second Amendment. Because magazines are integral to the function of a firearm, they are covered by the Second Amendment
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 07-08-2017, 9:12 PM
Cato's Avatar
Cato Cato is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Alhambra
Posts: 5,594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sMp View Post

or this one...

"The unlawful deprivation of Second Amendment rights, even temporarily, is an irreparable injury, said Benitez, extrapolating from precedents making this point in a First Amendment context."


If the confiscation of hi caps became law and theoretically everyone disposed of those magazines AND THEN, the confiscation law was struck down, those who possessed the magazines would not be able to get them back.
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 07-08-2017, 10:42 PM
noozeyeguy's Avatar
noozeyeguy noozeyeguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 546
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Kong View Post
The uncompensated taking of grandfathered standard capacity magazines would set precedent for the uncompensated taking of "formerly" legal firearms themselves down the road.
This has always been my belief as to the ultimate motivation behind the magazine "dispossession." An incremental step in a much more nefarious endgame. Registered AWs first, then 80%s of all flavors, then all AWs, then all magazine-fed semiautos -- take it as far as you like. Once the camel's nose is in the tent...
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 07-08-2017, 10:48 PM
Cincinnatus's Avatar
Cincinnatus Cincinnatus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 502
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noozeyeguy View Post
Once the camel's nose is in the tent...
It's time to shoot the camel.
__________________
Active Army 1976-1986, Army Reserve 2005-2015, Afghanistan 2010-2011

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 07-10-2017, 8:47 AM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Setting aside the "takings" argument and/or the high capacity mags being an integral part of a fire arm court statement, has there ever been any discussion of high capacity mags being a government authorized and profited commodity that the Feds have injected into society since the mid 1940s?

It seems to me that if one looks solely at M1 carbine rifles, the Federal government has either directly sold to veterans or indirectly sold to qualified citizens through government entities or government sponsored companies. These sales not only included the rifles but also both 15 and 30 round magazines.

The Federal Government profited from these sales and the sales were made on an inter-state basis including California.

So in the absence of new Fereral law and/or buy back of product by the Feds, how can California ban specifically these federally sanctioned M1 "high capacity" mags?
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 07-10-2017, 2:34 PM
H K corporate assassin's Avatar
H K corporate assassin H K corporate assassin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 620
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Thank you NRA and CPRA.

Last edited by H K corporate assassin; 07-10-2017 at 2:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 07-11-2017, 10:47 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 126
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noozeyeguy View Post
This has always been my belief as to the ultimate motivation behind the magazine "dispossession." An incremental step in a much more nefarious endgame. Registered AWs first, then 80%s of all flavors, then all AWs, then all magazine-fed semiautos -- take it as far as you like. Once the camel's nose is in the tent...
This slow creep of laws isn't really good for the gun grabbers. While it sucks to live under the these laws each new one allows for more challenges. Each challenge can give us a ruling that removes not only the new law but others as well. See Heller where we got a huge win or McDonald which says the 2a applies to the state of California. The microstamping rules allow a new chance to toss the entire roster. So while there gun grabbers add on more there is a real chance their overreach will set them back to square one.
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 07-12-2017, 5:51 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,113
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
This slow creep of laws isn't really good for the gun grabbers. While it sucks to live under the these laws each new one allows for more challenges. Each challenge can give us a ruling that removes not only the new law but others as well. See Heller where we got a huge win or McDonald which says the 2a applies to the state of California. The microstamping rules allow a new chance to toss the entire roster. So while there gun grabbers add on more there is a real chance their overreach will set them back to square one.
The most recent 26 yrs of CrapOfornia history says you are mistaken.
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 07-16-2017, 11:00 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 126
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
The most recent 26 yrs of CrapOfornia history says you are mistaken.
We only got Heller and McDonald when the grabbers went too far. Then when they lost they lost big. They haven't learned that these laws can set them back as well.
Reply With Quote
  #501  
Old 07-16-2017, 11:03 AM
JCHavasu's Avatar
JCHavasu JCHavasu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: That's classified...
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
If you didn't get it at first reading, there'd be no point in me "explaining" it.
I got it at first reading. The reference to oppressive government was obvious.
__________________
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt

“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 07-16-2017, 11:14 AM
JCHavasu's Avatar
JCHavasu JCHavasu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: That's classified...
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is my favorite quote, "However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

"...it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ." That right there!
__________________
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt

“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken

Last edited by JCHavasu; 07-18-2017 at 7:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 07-16-2017, 3:36 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,113
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
We only got Heller and McDonald when the grabbers went too far. Then when they lost they lost big. They haven't learned that these laws can set them back as well.
They can, but historically have not. Not in CrapOfornia anyway. Both Heller and McDonald rulings predated the Peruta ruling. Yet the gungrabbing 2A haters in Excremento stuck us with Gunmageddon just last year. Shortly followed by the Bias Steam Media and LeftTard victory of Prop 63.

The Ca legislature and even the Fed Courts in the 9th operate outside the Constitutional constraints placed on them by the 2A. And do so with impunity.

They have NOT learned they cannot get away with it. They have learned that they can. And even publicly proclaim it in open sessions in the State Capitol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A

Yes, this Judge called it right. But when it gets before the 9th. It will be treated just like Peruta was.
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 07-27-2017, 10:31 AM
foxtrotuniformlima foxtrotuniformlima is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,827
iTrader: 178 / 100%
Default

So what's next?

And did the AG ever comply with the judges order to file a declaration establishing proof of notice to LE personnel ?
__________________
California - Come for the taxes, stay for the gun laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll
I am NOT a lawyer, paralegal or anything other than a schmuck....

Last edited by foxtrotuniformlima; 07-27-2017 at 5:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 07-27-2017, 11:02 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
...and ready to rock
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 11,254
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrotuniformlima View Post
And did the AG...
Oh ya! thanks for the reminder!
-Xavier Becerra
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Once in a lifetime, you see a post so stupid that it has to make your sig line...

AW Registration: The Complete Guide - Read BEFORE you register!!!

Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 07-27-2017, 1:17 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,824
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

deceleration - what is that - a slowdown?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 07-27-2017, 5:09 PM
foxtrotuniformlima foxtrotuniformlima is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,827
iTrader: 178 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
deceleration - what is that - a slowdown?
F-ing correct is what that is
__________________
California - Come for the taxes, stay for the gun laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll
I am NOT a lawyer, paralegal or anything other than a schmuck....
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 07-27-2017, 6:06 PM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 187
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Oh ya! thanks for the reminder!
-Xavier Becerra
For once, something posted on Calguns was NOT used against us. The notice was supposedly sent 7/12 per the documentation here:
7/12/2017 Defendant Declaration of Elizabeth Troxel re Notice of Order
http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...e-of-Order.pdf
Read for details and you will find some more ammunition to sink the DOJ. Lawyer types might get this more easily.

Last edited by Citizen One; 07-27-2017 at 7:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 07-29-2017, 3:22 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,113
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrotuniformlima View Post
So what's next?

And did the AG ever comply with the judges order to file a declaration establishing proof of notice to LE personnel ?
Suit filed 5-18........injunction granted 6-29.......Declarations issued to LE on 7-12.......appealed to Ninth Political Circus Court on 7-27.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1360822
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 08-06-2017, 8:09 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 97
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So am I correct in understanding that the order banning enforcement of the law pending the outcome of the actual case is being appealed to the 9th?
__________________
The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 08-06-2017, 8:11 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
...and ready to rock
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 11,254
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
So am I correct in understanding that the order banning enforcement of the law pending the outcome of the actual case is being appealed to the 9th?
Yep. It's only tax dollars after all, they might as well spend as much of it as they can to strip away our rights.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Once in a lifetime, you see a post so stupid that it has to make your sig line...

AW Registration: The Complete Guide - Read BEFORE you register!!!

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:06 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.