Other State News out of Califonia

[ma96782]

Yeah......

U.S. appeals court overturns California ban on semiautomatic rifle sales to those under 21

The court ruled that a California ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles to adults younger than 21 was unconstitutional.

www.yahoo.com

Taken from the article......

The ruling reverses a lower court's decision not to issue an injunction to block a 2019 state law that banned the sale of semiautomatic centerfire rifles to young adults, which the appeals court called a "legal error."

"America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army," Judge Ryan D. Nelson, an appointee of President Trump, wrote for the appeals court. "Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms."

Nelson was joined by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, another Trump appointee who issued his own concurring opinion. Judge Sidney H. Stein, an appointee of President Clinton, dissented.

Aloha, Mark

Read More

 

[ma96782]

Doesn't OR have a similar law?

Or was that overturned?

Aloha, Mark

 

[Alexx1401]

Doesn't OR have a similar law?

Or was that overturned?

Aloha, Mark

I had not even thought of that. I think WA passed a law like this too IIRC? This might get interesting.

 

[BrentN]

Why do I have the feeling this is not the final answer?

 

[No_Regerts]

Why do I have the feeling this is not the final answer?

It's only just begun. This one has a long way to go before it really matters.

 

[Xaevian]

It's only just begun. This one has a long way to go before it really matters.

A journey of a thousand miles...





Begins with a lot of whining and moaning!

 

[Librarian]

Typically the state would request an en banc hearing; failing that, some apparatchik on the 9th Circuit will request that "sua sponte", which, when granted, vacates the 3-judge panel's decision. And then the en banc decision reverses the 3-judge panel's decision.

California gun law 3-step -
Get a bad law.
1. Challenge it in Federal court and win at district - takes a year or more.
2. CA appeals to 9th, and 3-judge panel confirms - takes at least another year.
3. CA appeals for en banc and court reverses - takes yet another year or two.

(It also works 'lose at district, appeal, win at 3-judge panel, lose en banc')

Step 4 is 'file for certiorari at the Supreme Court', which can easily take another 2 years and likely is refused.

Remember, CA DOJ is playing with 'house money', taxes; challengers have to use real money.

In the meantime, CA politicians in the Legislature are not idle in producing bad laws, every year ...

 

[ma96782]

It's California. It's in their nature.

Aloha, Mark

 

[sobo]

I had not even thought of that. I think WA passed a law like this too IIRC? This might get interesting.

Yes. It was contained in Section 13 of I-1639, which was passed by useful idiots into law.

 

[P7M13]

Begins with a lot of whining and moaning!

Starts before that with fuktard state legislators voting like self-righteous prigs often do.