"Rich," the Old Man said dreamily, "is a little whiskey to drink and some food to eat and a roof over your head and a fish pole and a boat and a gun and a dollar for a box of shells." Robert Ruark
They need to take a case or two that does two things:
1. Clearly eliminates state bans on weapons and magazine types
2. Clearly supports that states must be at least easily obtained shall issue on concealed carry.
Yes, there's OC, constitutional carry, SBRs, reciprocity, suppressors, etc. - but these are the two. No futzing around with lesser importance nuances. Do the progun justices have the fire in the belly for sweeping decisions and not get lost in the weeds or put in poison pills like Heller had. That will be determine in about 300 years.
Legislative solutions like the SAGA act are impossible as the Demcrats wouldn't and Mitch and company wouldn't get rid of a fund raiser, send a check point or two.
9th upholds the lower court. CA appeals. SC upholds the 9th and bingo, no more state AR bans in the US. Who's going to bet on that?
9th does what every other US district court does and doesn't uphold the lower court. They have a history.
AR's are banned in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. They got there by US district court decisions. The 9th isn't any different.
Lets not get carried away here folks. 10 % of the population of the US lives in CA and most of them love their AWB. Oh, and don't forget the VP is from CA.
Last edited by Borderland; 06-08-2021 at 08:30 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
California will appeal to the Ninth Circuit. When appealing to a circuit court, a three judge panel hears the case. If California wins, the plaintiffs/petitioners would likely appeal to SCOTUS. If the panel were to uphold the district court decision, California would likely seek en banc review of the panel decision. In normal en banc review, the all the judges of the circuit hear the case, but the Ninth is so big, that they instead use 11 judges (10 randomly selected judges and the chief judge) for en banc review. So far, any positive panel decisions in 2A cases have been overturned en banc in the Ninth Circuit. If that were to happen, the plaintiffs could then petition SCOTUS to hear the case, but as I mentioned up thread, SCOTUS generally looks for cases where there is a circuit split (there wouldn't be here) or where the government is appealing from an adverse decision from a circuit court.
If SCOTUS decides an issue, then all the circuits are bound by that decision. States might attempt to preemptively change their laws or they could wait to be forced to by plaintiffs filing an action in a federal district court, which would now be bound by the new SCOTUS decision.
As an example, D.C. lost Heller at the D.C. Circuit and appealed to SCOTUS. D.C. then lost at SCOTUS and created precedent that the 2A protects an individual right and forecloses a ban on handgun possession or a storage requirement that requires firearms to be kept in a nonfunctional condition. When D.C. lost on carry outside the home, it chose not to appeal to SCOTUS rather than risk a SCOTUS decision that would have recognized a clear right to carry.
Court of Appeals blocks it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...t-weapons-ban/
"The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so."
― Ennius
Was this the en banc review that @joshs talked about? Asking if this is where it goes to SCOTUS? (I assume only if they take the case - IANAL and all that).Originally Posted by Guerrero;[URL="tel:1234851"