DUNCAN V. BONTA 9-22 Magazines, STAYED until appeal, ORAL ARGS week of 3-24-24

[ExuberantRaptorZeta]

So the first 2021 en banc panel ruled 7-4 for the state. That means that this time with Bruen's new methodology AND with this case already being GVR'd, we only need two judges to switch their vote, right? I know it's a long shot, but not outside the realm of possibility when we've seen so many other Clinton, Obama, and Biden judges rule pro-2A post-Bruen.

[darkwater34]

Yes we only need a few of the judges to flip, but with all the money that Sorros and Bloomberg have dumped into their anti 2A agenda. There is no telling how far they have gone to accomplish this agenda.
We are having to deal with rich and powerful people, no telling what they are capable of.

[tedw]

Our court are corrupt

Mark posted that the September motions panel was Bade, Lee and VanDyke. It?s almost certain they would have denied the emergency motion.

Our courts are corrupt, at least the 9th Circuit is. If they are going to go rogue , it's time the house impeached some of those idealogues. They do not serve for life; they serve only as long as they have good behavior.

[AlmostHeaven]

Our courts are corrupt, at least the 9th Circuit is. If they are going to go rogue , it's time the house impeached some of those idealogues. They do not serve for life; they serve only as long as they have good behavior.

The impeachments would all die in the 51D-49R Senate. Subsequently, the mainstream media would excoriate House Republicans and use the maneuver as propaganda to support Democratic candidates running against them.

[TruOil]

The court seems to rotate these judges either due to ethics reasons or the selection could be for a sinister agenda. But I really think that a good majority of the judges that sit on the ninth have been compromised after all they are all human and have weaknesses, they are not Gods. It would be a real good idea to have a good peek into some of these judges backgrounds.
*
*
*
.

Judges rotate through the motions panel monthly to spread the work load. The three judge panels are assigned through a randomization program, and in theory, so are the ten of the eleven judges on an en banc panel (the chief judge is the eleventh. The position of chief judge also rotates.) In the current case, the majority members of the prior en banc panel decided that this was a "come back" case and do assigned it to the same 11 judge panel that decided the appeal before that reversed the three judge panel that had affirmed Benitez's first opinion. (It will be interesting to see if that panel gets a clue since its reversal was reversed by the Supreme Court in light of Bruen, which should be a suggestion to the en banc panel that it got it wrong.) Moreover, an en banc decision that adopts a analysis that differs from that recent 3 judge decision that follows Bruen to a T would be overruled as well. That is, unless and until the Supreme Court decides it is time for a more overt spanking of the Ninth.

[Oldjedi]

Counting En Benc Votes

There are 11 judges on the En Benc panel. Ikuta, Bumatay, Nelson and VanDyke have voted against hearing the appeal. Let's assume all 4 will vote against CA. Need 2 more to flip.

2023 En Benc Judges - Wardlaw is New Replacing Watford from 2020

MURGUIA, THOMAS, GRABER, WARDLAW, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, HURWITZ, NELSON, BUMATAY, and VANDYKE, C


2020 En Benc that Vacated Judge Benitez's First Ruling

Thomas, Graber, Paez, Berzon, Ikuta, Murguia, Watford, Hurwitz, Nelson, Bumatay, VanDyke

Opinion by Judge Graber;
Concurrence by Judge Graber;
Concurrence by Judge Berzon;
Concurrence by Judge Hurwitz;
Dissent by Judge Bumatay;
Dissent by Judge VanDyke

[abinsinia]

There are 11 judges on the En Benc panel. 4 of them have voted against hearing the appeal. Let's assume all 4 will vote against CA. Need 2 more to flip.

You're not going to have to wait very long to find out. They will rule on the stay request on or prior to Oct. 10. They will show you how they are going to vote, and an argument preview.

[BrokerB]

FJB and his treasonous crew

Hip Hip hooray

[randomBytes]

Judges rotate through the motions panel monthly to spread the work load. The three judge panels are assigned through a randomization program, and in theory, so are the ten of the eleven judges on an en banc panel (the chief judge is the eleventh. The position of chief judge also rotates.) In the current case, the majority members of the prior en banc panel decided that this was a "come back" case

Well it WAS a "come back" when SCOTUS GVR'd it for a do-over, but they punted it back to district court... so don't see how they can call it one now - they had their chance to "do over", they blew it in the interests of delaying.

[tast101]

Well it WAS a "come back" when SCOTUS GVR'd it for a do-over, but they punted it back to district court... so don't see how they can call it one now - they had their chance to "do over", they blew it in the interests of delaying.

That?s what I don?t get, if it was a case you really wanted why send it back down when Benitez first ruled using THT and also providing info based on interest balancing. But now it?s not swinging your way, you call an audible that goes outside the rules or maybe I should say illegal formation. The do over should have been when it came back from SCOTUS and if you passed on that then it should go the normal course.

[NATO762]

Because circuit courts and therefore circuit court judges, don?t do any actual trial work. They only opine on process, fact, and law. In order for a new trial or re-hearing of the case under the new Bruen rules it had to go to an actual trial court i.e. the district court with a judge that actually does trial work.

[SteveinHNL]

The need for an historical analogue is for the purpose of showing that the FA regulation is consistent with the 2A drafters' intent. The "best" historical analogue for us is that there no analogous regs.

I wish we had a better historic analogue supporting our case. Then again, it's not our job to find those historical analogues. It's the government job to prove us wrong.
All the state historic analogues are complete miss. They don't have any substantiation, thus the law is unconstitutional.

[SteveinHNL]

But of course they can pass new laws much faster that the courts can process challenges. There are zero consequences for the azz hats.

Once there is binding precedent in the Circuit, that would no longer be true. Infringing laws could be enjoined fairly quickly at that point.

[SteveinHNL]

That?s what I don?t get, if it was a case you really wanted why send it back down when Benitez first ruled using THT and also providing info based on interest balancing. But now it?s not swinging your way, you call an audible that goes outside the rules or maybe I should say illegal formation. The do over should have been when it came back from SCOTUS and if you passed on that then it should go the normal course.

From where I sit, the reason the 9th remanded to Benitez was because some fact finding needed to be done, i.e., evidence received on the issue of history and tradition. The Circuit Court of Appeals does not receive new evidence. The job of making a record and issuing a decision on the record is with the trial court. The Circuit Court of Appeals is merely a reviewing court.

[AlmostHeaven]

From where I sit, the reason the 9th remanded to Benitez was because some fact finding needed to be done, i.e., evidence received on the issue of history and tradition. The Circuit Court of Appeals does not receive new evidence. The job of making a record and issuing a decision on the record is with the trial court. The Circuit Court of Appeals is merely a reviewing court.

The Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded Bianchi v. Frosh back down to the Fourth Circuit, and the 3-judge panel did not remand further to the district court. The Ninth Circuit plays dirty.