Stay on California Carry Dissolved by Three Judge Panel in Ninth Circuit

AmmoLand ^ | January 12, 2024 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On December 20, 2023, US District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an order granting a preliminary injunction against the defendants (the State of California government). The injunction stopped the state from enforcing the blatantly unconstitutional SB-2 law declaring most of California as “sensitive places” where even licensed concealed carriers were forbidden to carry arms in public.

The state asked for an order to stop the injunction from going into effect on December 22, 2023. The stay was granted on December 30, 2023, by an administrative three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The stay was appealed to the Ninth Circuit three-judge merits panel on January 3, 2024. From the appeal:

With the December 30, 2023, administrative stay of the District Court’s December 20, 2023 injunction, (Dkt. No. 17) the Second Amendment-protected right to carry a firearm outside of the home has been effectively destroyed in California for all people with concealed carry weapon permits (“CCW permits”). 1Plaintiffs-Appellees, as well as all other Californians with existing CCW permits, can no longer carry their handguns in any public place except some streets, sidewalks, and at the few private businesses that have posted signs affirmatively allowing carry on their private-premises. This extraordinary curtailment is the result of Senate Bill 2 (“SB 2”) taking effect this week.

SB 2 was enacted in response to the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that recognized a “general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 31 (2022). SB 2 thus represents California’s attempt to defy the U.S. Supreme Court and it not the district court’s preliminary injunction — interrupts the status quo ante of “where” people with carry permits can exercise their right to armed self-defense.

[marktwain]

District Court: The law is unconstitutional, preliminary injunction issued to prevent enforcement.

Administrative Panel: Issued stay on preliminary injunction.

Merits Panel: Dissolved stay on preliminary injunction.

Net Effect: The enforcement of the unconstitutional law is prevented.

[Ex-Con777]

That was like counting double negatives.

EC

[marktwain]

The merits panel is the three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit which will hear the case. It will hear the case in about three months. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect, at least until then.

[Ex-Con777]

It’s not that I don’t want to not understand it, it’s that not not understanding it isn’t what I didn’t not want to do.

But seriously, thanks for the summary.

EC

[piytar]

Thank you for the summary. I know do not not understand what happened. :^}

[piytar]

I now do not not understand...

[marktwain]

Ping.

[CodeToad]

You took the words right out of my mind. Such legalese of not not in there.

[pas]

I saw that Big Bang Theory episode.

[MeanWestTexan]

Yes, we have no bananas.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Thanks for the explanation. Sometimes trying to understand gubmint lingo is like trying to understand a duck.

[Bonemaker]

Ducks are infinitely smarter. No wasted activity/effort. Everything done with a purpose...like staying alive!

[Gay State Conservative]

There should be an expedited process to challenge violations of basic Constitutional rights...1st Amendment,2nd Amendment,4th Amendment,etc .

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment there are many politicians...and judges...who don't even *try* to hide their contempt for it. A great example...days after the Bruen decision the New York legislature had passed a package of a number of laws which violated 2A rights...and the Governor signed it.

Another example...only a few years after SCOTUS voted (9-0) to overturn a Massachusetts law that violated the amendment ("Caetano v Massachusetts"),the Massachusetts legislature is about to pass a bunch of laws that are breathtaking violations of those rights. And our bull dyke Maoist Governor will surely sign it. And our state courts will surely uphold them,just as they did in "Caetano".

[kiryandil]

original judge at the district level:
Cormac J. Carney, chief judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California - Dubya judge.

administrative panel:
Johnnie B. Rawlinson - Clinton stooge
Jay S. Bybee - Dubya stooge
Andrew D. Hurwitz - Obama stooge

merits panel:
?????

"The two available members of this panel voted on this order. The third member of the assigned panel was unavailable to consider these pending matters."

[Flaming Conservative]

This is truly a miracle!