Judge Tosses California Ammunition Purchase Law

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by gvw3, Apr 23, 2020.

  1. TRAP55

    TRAP55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,607
    Location:
    Occupied Territory Of Kalifornia
    joe45c likes this.
  2. howlnmad

    howlnmad Old Guy Doing Things Moderator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    24,160
    Location:
    Harriman, Tn
    Whelp, it is commiefornia.
     
    Rae Harrison and joe45c like this.

  3. Grizzley1

    Grizzley1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    8,326
    Location:
    Oregon.
    Trap, the commies are used to judge shopping to get an activist judge who will ignore the Constitution and rule in their favor.
     
    BlackEagle and joe45c like this.
  4. mseric

    mseric Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    935
    True, but in this case it was the 9th Circuit that made the ruling, that usually is a minimum of 3 judge panel.

    If this is fast tracked to the SC, it will only get worse.

    The SC will refuse to hear the case and the lower court ruling will be upheld. Maybe, most likely.
     
  5. mseric

    mseric Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    935
    Sending this to the SC isn't even close to a guaranteed fix.

    One of the most famous cases since Heller and McDonald was Peruta v San Diego.
    This case started back in I believe 2104, where Ed Peruta a Vietnam vet challenged San Diego County's "Good Cause" requirement to obtain a Permit to Carry.

    The 9th, 3 judge panel originally ruled that San Diego's "good'cause" violated the Second Amendment. This ruling was appealed to en banc ( Full Judge panel) where the 3 judge panel was over ruled and the SD Statute was upheld.

    The en banc ruling was appealed to the Untied States Supreme Court, where the SC Justices refused to grant certiorari . By refusing to grant certiorai (hearing) the lower court ruling is upheld.

    So the way this works is the lower court rules, the SC refused to hear the appeal, thus upholding the lower court ruling without actually upholding the lower court ruling. How convenient.

    It take 4 of the 9 Justices to agree to hear a case (Certioria), only four. Yet the SC hasn't granted a certioria on a single 2nd Amendment case that I can think of since McDonald back in 2010.
    Ask yourselves "why".
     
  6. TRAP55

    TRAP55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,607
    Location:
    Occupied Territory Of Kalifornia
    Can't confirm, but I heard one of those 9th circus judges was a Trump appointee. I sure hope not.
     
    Rae Harrison likes this.
  7. mseric

    mseric Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    935
    From the NRA link.

    So basically they haven't Officially ruled on the statute, they just kicked the can down the road until.....
     
  8. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,659
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Screw the 9th Circuit, we need judges like that on the Supremes!!
     
    AZ2VET and Gudaki like this.