Anyone here into firearms?

BettyZ · 04-26-2020, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunk

Here is the ruling from Judge Benitez regarding the Ammo background check in California. He pretty much destroyed the law as written by using....surprise... common sense. Hopefully they wont put a stay on this ruling while it goes through appeals.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...anting-MPI.pdf.

If anyone is familiar with the law process, please correct me in my understanding of the appeals.

1. California can take it up to the 9th circuit

2. In the 9th ckt, it goes through a 3 judge panel to review Judge Benitez decision

At this point, what would determine the case to go to an 11 judge panel? Also, if it goes to the 11 judges, their decision becomes law for all states that fall under the 9th circuit courts jurisdiction. Does this go both ways? If they decide to uphold the ammo background check will it apply to the other states as well?

If CA appeals the preliminary injunction and loses, they can appeal again for an en banc hearing in front of 11 appellate judges of the 9th Circuit. Same goes for if the plaintiffs lose in the 3 judge panel. The 9th can decide not to re-hear the case. Alternatively they can hear it and rule either way.

Regardless of which way the ruling goes, it will not be "law". The motion at hand was for a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from enforcing this law, due to the likelihood of immediate and irreparable injury to the plaintiffs, until the case can be heard on the merits and a ruling made on the constitutionality of the law.

Regardless of how the case goes, it will only apply to CA. However, it will become case law and thus dispositive in any future suits regarding future laws of the same nature passed by other states in the 9th Circuit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

bunk · 04-26-2020, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BettyZ

If CA appeals the preliminary injunction and loses, they can appeal again for an en banc hearing in front of 11 appellate judges of the 9th Circuit. Same goes for if the plaintiffs lose in the 3 judge panel. The 9th can decide not to re-hear the case. Alternatively they can hear it and rule either way.

Regardless of which way the ruling goes, it will not be "law". The motion at hand was for a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from enforcing this law, due to the likelihood of immediate and irreparable injury to the plaintiffs, until the case can be hear on the merits and a ruling made on the constitutionality of the law.

Regardless of how the case goes, it will only apply to CA. However, it will become case law and thus dispositive in any future suits regarding future laws of the same nature passed by other states in the 9th Circuit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Thank you for clearing that up sir!

Immediate and irreparable injury to the plaintifs...
Theres a section in Judge Benitez's ruling that mentions "injury" to the plaintiffs. Makes sense.