California restrictions for purchasing ammunition online have been temporarily suspended! - Page 2

KyJim · August 14, 2020, 02:39 PM

Since the opinion only deals with California law, it directly applies only to California. It would carry precedential weight in federal courts located in states comprising the 9th Circuit unless overturned en banc or by the Supreme Court.

Lawsuits would have to filed in each of the other 9th Circuit states since each state law is different and each state might argue there are different facts (hard to see what those might be).

Tennessee Gentleman · August 14, 2020, 03:13 PM

Seems like every time three judges from the 9th make a good ruling the en banc overturns it. Deja Vu all over again.

RETG · August 14, 2020, 03:54 PM

You can bet a large sum that the state's DA is currently typing and getting ready to submit for an en banc review of the full circuit. And in the old days it would be most likely be voided, moved to SCOTUS and then the ninth would be told to stuff it.
However, Trump has been packing the ninth with some conservatives so who knows. But I bet it will end up at SCOTUS one way or the other.

SHR970 · August 14, 2020, 04:00 PM

Either I missed something or this belongs in its own thread. At issue here is CPC32310 which has nothing to do with mail order ammunition sales and everything to do with standard capacity (ie. over 10 round for many guns) magazines.

Bartholomew Roberts · August 14, 2020, 05:18 PM

Oops, SHR970 is correct. Same judge in both rulings; but different 2A cases.

August 14, 2020, 03:13 PM	#27
Tennessee Gentleman Senior Member Join Date: March 31, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 1,775	Seems like every time three judges from the 9th make a good ruling the en banc overturns it. Deja Vu all over again. __________________ "God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier.

August 14, 2020, 03:54 PM	#28
RETG Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2009 Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY Posts: 507	You can bet a large sum that the state's DA is currently typing and getting ready to submit for an en banc review of the full circuit. And in the old days it would be most likely be voided, moved to SCOTUS and then the ninth would be told to stuff it. However, Trump has been packing the ninth with some conservatives so who knows. But I bet it will end up at SCOTUS one way or the other. __________________ I give MY OPINION (not often) based on many years shooting at, other than paper targets. I will not debate my experience vs. your experience based on dreams and "what ifs." I'm 73; I'm too damn old to care.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

August 14, 2020, 02:39 PM	#26
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	Since the opinion only deals with California law, it directly applies only to California. It would carry precedential weight in federal courts located in states comprising the 9th Circuit unless overturned en banc or by the Supreme Court. Lawsuits would have to filed in each of the other 9th Circuit states since each state law is different and each state might argue there are different facts (hard to see what those might be).

August 14, 2020, 04:00 PM	#29
SHR970 Senior Member Join Date: January 24, 2011 Posts: 1,427	Either I missed something or this belongs in its own thread. At issue here is CPC32310 which has nothing to do with mail order ammunition sales and everything to do with standard capacity (ie. over 10 round for many guns) magazines.

August 14, 2020, 05:18 PM	#30
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Oops, SHR970 is correct. Same judge in both rulings; but different 2A cases.