|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 14, 2020, 02:39 PM | #26 |
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, 03:13 PM | #27 |
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 |
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. |
August 14, 2020, 04:00 PM | #29 |
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 |
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.
|
|
|