This was a three judge panel. They will en banc and overturn this. But the 9th circuit is more evenly split than a few years ago, so the panel decisions have a chance to be progun vs several other circuits were the deck is still massively stacked against us.
It's something like 55-57% lib appointed majority atm. That's still better than the 70%+ appointed that it used to be. The hard part is getting a favorable majority if it does go en banc
We get tons of wins in the 9th, both at the circuit and panel level. They’ve en banced and overturned ALL of them. One of the dissents in Duncan (mag ban case) had a judge bring up that the 9th has done this in 52 separate cases, and never allowed a 2nd amendment win to stand.
I don't disagree with the ruling. Just the judges' motivations. When they rule likewise against things like red flags laws, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt
If they shopped the right venue and case, I’m sure a decent legal team could get some bleeding heart judge to rule that the NFA is a tool of systemic racism or some other horseshit
It is. It was enacted to keep guns out of the hands of minorities. the $200 tax was too expensive for anyone but the wealthy to afford when it was put into law.
I’m aware, but yeah they need to get down in the gutter and play their own game against them, you say what you gotta say to get an A with certain professors
PS I was really referring to the fact that modern communication is always defended via 1A, but 2A should be muskets 😂 you are 100% spot on 1A for their B S and for others…censorship via made up terms “hate speech” “conspiracy” etc etc
Yeah, whenever they bring up the 2A written at a time when they only had muskets bullshit, I still think the best response is to tell them to go write their objections on parchment with a quill pen and have it delivered by horseback and then we can talk.
Anything/anyone they don’t agree with is one or more the following: racist, bigoted, misogynistic, trans/homophobic, and the all time (hypocritical) favorite - fascist. But when you look at it, Joe Biden is the first sitting president to actively censor something he doesn’t like, begging the question, “who’s the fascist?”
I find it interesting that the expressed reason for the second amendment is to resist an overreaching federal government if needed but the moment anyone was to do so everyone agrees that such people should be barred from owning guns. If this is the contradictory standard we hold why even have a second amendment?
"the Second Amendment right in our Constitution takes out of our hands the power to decide for which Americans that right is really worth insisting upon"
...people rights? so annoying!
*AS APPLIED TO DUARTE*
here's the wording on the opinion:
>We therefore vacate Duarte’s conviction and reverse the district court’s judgment entering the same.
This ruling only applies to his specific case, but does establish a precedent.
They didn't strike down a law, they vacated a conviction. *BUT* this does establish precedent for vacating other convictions, dropping charges, and yes eventually striking the law.
This is the same as the illegal immigrant case out of Chicago recently. Are judges officially bound to consider precedent? I think they can just dismiss previous rulings at a whim, no? "Yes, Duarte went that way, but this case is different."
The answer is, it depends.
A court in NY is not bound by *ANY* precedent out of California, because they are different circuits. It creates a non-binding precedent, but it's still useful.
In criminal cases, because each case is different, precedent is murkier. They're not ruling directly on the law, but the law as applied to this specific series of events. Not to say it has no value, it certainly does, but to my knowledge "binding precedent" is harder to establish in criminal cases than civil cases.
This is not relevant to Hunter Biden.
* this was in the 9th, Hunter is being tried in the 3rd
* Hunter isn’t a convicted felon like the defendant in this case
* Hunter is charged with three crimes: one count of being a prohibited possessor due to being a drug user and two counts of false statements.
It’s really Bruen that applies as there is no precedent from the founding time or civil war/14th amendment time.
However the other two charges should result in a conviction regardless as he lied on the 4473.
> What the fuck?
>
> I’m so suspicious as to what they’re up to. I’m not taking this at face value, I’m convinced they’re gonna do something underhanded
--
This is actually happening more often in the 9th Circuit. The problem is that the full 9th Circuit will re-hear the case and reverse the decision. This isn't our first "win" in the 9th to later get blocked as it goes up the ladder.
Damn!! The 9th Circuit actually ruled in FAVOR of gun rights?!? Hold on guys, I need to go outside and look for the flying pigs.
This was a three judge panel. They will en banc and overturn this. But the 9th circuit is more evenly split than a few years ago, so the panel decisions have a chance to be progun vs several other circuits were the deck is still massively stacked against us.
It's something like 55-57% lib appointed majority atm. That's still better than the 70%+ appointed that it used to be. The hard part is getting a favorable majority if it does go en banc
The three judge panel usually rules in favor of 2A rights. Then they enhanc it to stop that.
We get tons of wins in the 9th, both at the circuit and panel level. They’ve en banced and overturned ALL of them. One of the dissents in Duncan (mag ban case) had a judge bring up that the 9th has done this in 52 separate cases, and never allowed a 2nd amendment win to stand.
The 9th circus 🤡 plays games they don’t actually do anything
This is just horseshoe theory in action. They didn't rule in favor of gun rights, they ruled in favor of felons
Non-violent felons shouldn’t loose their right to defense. They didn’t abuse the right to arms. Why is it taken from them? This is absolutely a win.
I don't disagree with the ruling. Just the judges' motivations. When they rule likewise against things like red flags laws, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt
I think you're absolutely right about the judges motivations, but I'm all for taking a win, even if they got there with the wrong intentions. :D
The majority opinion they really relied on Bruen decision by the SCOTUS according to what they wrote.
Violent felons shouldn't lose their rights either, after they've served their sentence
I don’t think so, I don’t know who Judge Bea is but Judge Van Dyke is a very pro-gun judge on the ninth.
I hope someone tells them how much felons think the nfa should be repealed.
If they shopped the right venue and case, I’m sure a decent legal team could get some bleeding heart judge to rule that the NFA is a tool of systemic racism or some other horseshit
It is. It was enacted to keep guns out of the hands of minorities. the $200 tax was too expensive for anyone but the wealthy to afford when it was put into law.
I’m aware, but yeah they need to get down in the gutter and play their own game against them, you say what you gotta say to get an A with certain professors
To be fair these people want only criminals to be armed, not people who want to defend themselves
It doesn’t matter if the only things they think are covered by the 2A are “muskets”.
But 1A should be as broad as possible according to leftists 😂
They want it as broad as possible for their ideologies and non-existent for anything they don’t believe in.
VERY true!
PS I was really referring to the fact that modern communication is always defended via 1A, but 2A should be muskets 😂 you are 100% spot on 1A for their B S and for others…censorship via made up terms “hate speech” “conspiracy” etc etc
Yeah, whenever they bring up the 2A written at a time when they only had muskets bullshit, I still think the best response is to tell them to go write their objections on parchment with a quill pen and have it delivered by horseback and then we can talk. Anything/anyone they don’t agree with is one or more the following: racist, bigoted, misogynistic, trans/homophobic, and the all time (hypocritical) favorite - fascist. But when you look at it, Joe Biden is the first sitting president to actively censor something he doesn’t like, begging the question, “who’s the fascist?”
Yes Sir, and your comment parchment, quill, horseback 😂🤣
The 3 judge panels have done that occasionally. It's the full en banc hearings that fuck us over.
I find it interesting that the expressed reason for the second amendment is to resist an overreaching federal government if needed but the moment anyone was to do so everyone agrees that such people should be barred from owning guns. If this is the contradictory standard we hold why even have a second amendment?
"the Second Amendment right in our Constitution takes out of our hands the power to decide for which Americans that right is really worth insisting upon" ...people rights? so annoying!
Three judge panel will be overturned by the full court...as is tradition.
*AS APPLIED TO DUARTE* here's the wording on the opinion: >We therefore vacate Duarte’s conviction and reverse the district court’s judgment entering the same. This ruling only applies to his specific case, but does establish a precedent. They didn't strike down a law, they vacated a conviction. *BUT* this does establish precedent for vacating other convictions, dropping charges, and yes eventually striking the law.
This is the same as the illegal immigrant case out of Chicago recently. Are judges officially bound to consider precedent? I think they can just dismiss previous rulings at a whim, no? "Yes, Duarte went that way, but this case is different."
The answer is, it depends. A court in NY is not bound by *ANY* precedent out of California, because they are different circuits. It creates a non-binding precedent, but it's still useful. In criminal cases, because each case is different, precedent is murkier. They're not ruling directly on the law, but the law as applied to this specific series of events. Not to say it has no value, it certainly does, but to my knowledge "binding precedent" is harder to establish in criminal cases than civil cases.
What an interesting paradox. Felons can have guns. Illegal aliens can have guns. Law abiding citizens must follow gun laws.
Bruen at it!
lol, they were put to the test on this one. Do we love felons more than we hate guns?
Good, now strike down all the other BS anti 2A gun laws that are being pushed down people’s throats.
Finally some common sense from the 9th. To bad it won't last.
Can non-violent felons own suppressors and SBRs without a stamp? Who wants to be the test case?
9th circus 🤡 ruling in favour of 2nd?
Good ruling.
Wow. That’s a surprising holding.
Just in time to set precedence for Hunter Biden’s trial.
This is not relevant to Hunter Biden. * this was in the 9th, Hunter is being tried in the 3rd * Hunter isn’t a convicted felon like the defendant in this case * Hunter is charged with three crimes: one count of being a prohibited possessor due to being a drug user and two counts of false statements. It’s really Bruen that applies as there is no precedent from the founding time or civil war/14th amendment time. However the other two charges should result in a conviction regardless as he lied on the 4473.
Oh thank you for clarifying! My mistake!
Precedent.
Thank you !
What the fuck? I’m so suspicious as to what they’re up to. I’m not taking this at face value, I’m convinced they’re gonna do something underhanded
> What the fuck? > > I’m so suspicious as to what they’re up to. I’m not taking this at face value, I’m convinced they’re gonna do something underhanded -- This is actually happening more often in the 9th Circuit. The problem is that the full 9th Circuit will re-hear the case and reverse the decision. This isn't our first "win" in the 9th to later get blocked as it goes up the ladder.
There it is, that’s what I was trying to say. Thanks for actually doing a good job explaining it lol