Posted on 10/26/2020 5:29:34 AM PDT by marktwain
Ninth Circuit District Judge Delivers Another Superbly Written Court Order, iStock-1055138108
On 23 September 2020, Judge Roger T. Benitez issued another impressive order in a case involving the Second Amendment.
A number of California residents, firearm businesses, special interest groups, foundations, and a political action committee have organized to sue California AG Xavier Becerra et al, to challenge the constitutionality of California's complex net of regulations for the ownership and use of various firearms the state deems to be “assault weapons”. The lawsuit has been winding its way through the federal legal system in the Ninth Circuit.
In Miller v. Becerra, the defendants moved to summarily dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of lack of standing, and for a failure to claim relief.
The judge, in this case, is Roger T. Benitez, of the United States District Court, Southern District of California. Judge Benitez has become well known for his superb, well reasoned, and exquisitely written opinions in Second Amendment cases.
Judge Benitez demolishes the argument that plaintiffs have no standing because they have not suffered an injury. The chilling of the exercise of a Constitutional right *is* an injury in federal jurisprudence. Judge Benitez gives example after example in case law. From the order:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Future SCOTUS pick perhaps!
He is a little old for SCOTUS.
He is 70.
REPEAL 1934, 1968, 1986 GCAs!
Bkmk
Amen!
Exactly.
“shall not be infringed” is all they need to read.
Hey! I resemble that remark.
But I do wish I could write like this guy. This is a BIG win. It’s the updated version of the 9th Circuit. Well done Mr. President.
You have to smile at the precedents he uses. Some are from left wing groups that have been catered to on prior occasions by the courts. Right back at them!
Does it strike anyone else as odd to see “Superb” and “Ninth Circuit” in the same headline?
In the past articles featuring the Ninth Circuit conjured up words like “dismaying” or “incoherent.”
I remember "The 9th Circus" being used frequently. I also remember talking to 2016 voters that voting for Hillary means LOSING THE JUDICIARY! Imagine (no, not that song) Hillary with these 2 Supreme Court picks on top of Merrik Garland! Any bets as to 'D' votes NOW prior to this Election?
Free California! The state’s GOP won’t.
However, the issue of 'standing' is a low bar. It's unsurprising that the case would survive such a review without the judge being a flaming lefty.
Too bad the government didn't appeal U.S. v. Rock Island Armory or U.S. v. Dalton (both decided in 1991). Either might have done the job.
Which is why they were not appealed.
Totally agree. I would love for the Supreme Court to set the country straight on that.
Actually, that was the way the system was supposed to work.
Until the generation of the Founders passed away, it *did* work that way.
In 1833, the Supreme Court ruled the Bill of Rights did not apply to the State governments, on the "takings clause". Then it was off to the races, as this was interpreted as meaning the entire Bill of Rights did not apply to the States.
The Article IV privileges and immunities clause should have prevented that, but it was ignored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.