9th circus ruled what ????
- Thread starter Gunfighter14e2
- Start date
2-1 rulings like this, where it was Reagan and "W" appointees who brought us the majority in a historically liberal court, is all the more reason we need to ensure the justices Trump has nominated get their vote and for progress to begin so the remaining vacancies can be filled. RINO Sen Flake is holding our rights hostage because he cares more about being a "Never Trumper" than doing his duty to the people.
For the full ruling: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/12-17808.pdf
For the full ruling: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/12-17808.pdf
This is a great excuse to enjoy many Beers............. 
As always the comments on Fox's reporting of this epic "WIN" are pretty good. Here's a nice little sample. And right on Brother !!!!
In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.... Judge Clifton needs to buy himself a thesaurus and check the word, 'infringe' - in the list of synonyms he will find the words, 'regulate' and 'limit.' An anti-Constitutionalist like Mr. Clifton has no business in the service of our country in any capacity, least of all as a judge.
Liberal 9th circuit backs right to carry firearms in public, in latest pro-2nd Amendment ruling
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ublic-in-latest-pro-2nd-amendment-ruling.html
We should Cherry Pick and recruit us some new Gun Luv'n Hide Members.
In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.... Judge Clifton needs to buy himself a thesaurus and check the word, 'infringe' - in the list of synonyms he will find the words, 'regulate' and 'limit.' An anti-Constitutionalist like Mr. Clifton has no business in the service of our country in any capacity, least of all as a judge.
Liberal 9th circuit backs right to carry firearms in public, in latest pro-2nd Amendment ruling
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ublic-in-latest-pro-2nd-amendment-ruling.html
We should Cherry Pick and recruit us some new Gun Luv'n Hide Members.
I was doubtful on this so here is the Official 9th Circuit Court Publication.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/12-17808.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/12-17808.pdf
You guys beat me to it.
I want to ask this... in all sincerity. And with an open mind.
Are you guys tired of winning yet? Because... we were supposed to get tired of winning. We'd win so much.... we'd be sick and tired of it.
Personally... I am not yet tired of winning.
WINNING!
Cheers,
Sirhr
I want to ask this... in all sincerity. And with an open mind.
Are you guys tired of winning yet? Because... we were supposed to get tired of winning. We'd win so much.... we'd be sick and tired of it.
Personally... I am not yet tired of winning.
WINNING!
Cheers,
Sirhr
Once again a dissenting judge is trying to get his opinion made into law. His statement "states have long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms" is irrelevant since the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America supersedes all state and local laws and statutes.
I mean, that's kinda the whole reason it's there is to prevent stuff like that.
I mean, that's kinda the whole reason it's there is to prevent stuff like that.
ROTFLMFAO Oh Hell No !!!! The Hit's Just Keep On Coming. And I'm Good With That. Next ?
Now if only the HPA would pass (yeah, I know I'm dreaming)...
The "Attorney" arguing for the State sounds like my 19 year old son trying to justify something.
Ok didn't listen to the whole thing, but by 1:30 the lady judge has shut this guy down and made him look VERY unsure
Wow, you mean it's constitutional for me to keep and bear arms?
What is scary is that it even came up in a question. I bet he figured he already had a win going in. They called him out on a backdoor ban. The quiet guy I'm guessing went for it.
Douchebag lawyer kid perjured himself at the end when he confirmed to the judge that 2A only pertains to carry in the house "and yes, it's the same in other jurisdictions as well." Where exactly?
Why would I carry in my house? It sits on the nightstand, next to a rifle. I carry when I leave the house. But this is the absurd shit you can expect out of these people, like the idiots in CA that make it impossible for you lock and clear your AR at the range in a safe fashion. Or the ones that ban features so an AR is illegal without absurd shit on it, but an M14 SOCOM is still the tits. Idiots.
I wish I could have delivered the news to Pigg myself.
What is scary is that it even came up in a question. I bet he figured he already had a win going in. They called him out on a backdoor ban. The quiet guy I'm guessing went for it.
Douchebag lawyer kid perjured himself at the end when he confirmed to the judge that 2A only pertains to carry in the house "and yes, it's the same in other jurisdictions as well." Where exactly?
Why would I carry in my house? It sits on the nightstand, next to a rifle. I carry when I leave the house. But this is the absurd shit you can expect out of these people, like the idiots in CA that make it impossible for you lock and clear your AR at the range in a safe fashion. Or the ones that ban features so an AR is illegal without absurd shit on it, but an M14 SOCOM is still the tits. Idiots.
I wish I could have delivered the news to Pigg myself.
There was a case for concealed carry in CA that made it through the 3 judge panel, only to get struck down in the full 9th circuit. While this is a good outcome, it still needs to pass the full 9th panel which I'm sure it will go to next.
Welp, I don’t need a court to tell me what my rights are, I don’t care if they agree with me or the deep state, as long as Hilary walks free, the courts and justice system are not t o be trusted with anything not even school crossing guards.
It'll go to en banc panel and be reversed - then to SCOTUS, and we'll see if SCOTUS will take it. They didn't take Peruta (the aforementioned CHL permit case that attempted to strike down California's "good cause" requirement to get a CHL). So... while this looks like a "win", I'd call it symbolic only until it gets through SCOTUS.
Similar threads
