LA, Ventura, attempts to close gun stores during pandemic ruled unconstitutional

[K Frame]

This is good to see, especially out of the 9th circuit, but it was only a 3-judge panel, not the full court.

Interesting how bike shops were ruled to be essential businesses under the closure orders, but gun shops weren't.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/los-angeles-county-9th-circuit-ruling-pandemic-gun-store-closures-unconstitutional

[Brad Johnson]

YES!

Maybe this one will make it to SCOTUS and they can have a clean ruling on 2A constitutionality in the context of personal rights.

Brad

[Devonai]

Reason.com posted that the lead judge on the panel issued his own sarcastic "alternate" dissent explaining why the full 9-member panel will overrule their decision after the inevitable appeal.

[K Frame]

I have no doubt that the full court will overturn the decision, but this is one that I really hope goes up to Dianah and the Supremes.

[kgbsquirrel]

Now tally up how long this ruling took to obtain, the monetary costs, and all the unconstitutional stuff they did anyways in the intervening time.

This looks like a win when it is really a loss for us.  This was the equivalent to a military raid.  Go in, do damage, and leave, never having the expectation of holding the ground.  Y'all were raided by enemy politicians on the legal battleground and this ruling just signals the end to this particular offensive operation.

[Nick1911]

Now tally up how long this ruling took to obtain, the monetary costs, and all the unconstitutional stuff they did anyways in the intervening time.

This looks like a win when it is really a loss for us.  This was the equivalent to a military raid.  Go in, do damage, and leave, never having the expectation of holding the ground.  Y'all were raided by enemy politicians on the legal battleground and this ruling just signals the end to this particular offensive operation.

^^This.

[K Frame]

Now tally up how long this ruling took to obtain, the monetary costs, and all the unconstitutional stuff they did anyways in the intervening time.

This looks like a win when it is really a loss for us.  This was the equivalent to a military raid.  Go in, do damage, and leave, never having the expectation of holding the ground.  Y'all were raided by enemy politicians on the legal battleground and this ruling just signals the end to this particular offensive operation.

So... the next time it happens I take it you'll be at the forefront of the violent armed insurrection that will make them see the error of their ways?

Go forth and take one for the team, then.

According to this logic, gun owners have no rights because every "victory" is actually a loss and our guns were confiscated 150 years ago and we're all just deluded into thinking we have guns because the government implanted memories in us.

[kgbsquirrel]

So... the next time it happens I take it you'll be at the forefront of the violent armed insurrection that will make them see the error of their ways?

Go forth and take one for the team, then.

According to this logic, gun owners have no rights because every "victory" is actually a loss and our guns were confiscated 150 years ago and we're all just deluded into thinking we have guns because the government implanted memories in us.

Shut the *expletive deleted*ck up if you don't have anything intellectually honest to further contribute.

[Brad Johnson]

Shut the *expletive deleted*ck up if you don't have anything intellectually honest to further contribute.

A little on edge today, are we?

Brad

[kgbsquirrel]

A little on edge today, are we?

Brad

Putting words in peoples mouths deserves neither politeness nor tolerance.  Like Bogie I am *expletive deleted*ing done with entertaining dishonest people.

[Brad Johnson]

I saw no dishonesty, simply a reply which took the inferred extremism of your comment and put it in words.

I'd like to hear your reasoning why a judicial step in the right direction can be called anything but a win. Sure, it's taken a long time and shouldn't need to have happened in the first place, but an advance is an advance. Throwing up hands in disgust and calling it a fail because it wasn't 100% of what was presumed proper from the outset is an inherently defeatist position.

Brad

[kgbsquirrel]

I saw no dishonesty, simply a reply which took the inferred extremism of your comment and put it in words.

I'd like to hear your reasoning why a judicial step in the right direction can be called anything but a win. Sure, it's taken a long time and shouldn't need to have happened in the first place, but an advance is an advance. Throwing up hands in disgust and calling it a fail because it wasn't 100% of what was presumed proper from the outset is an inherently defeatist position.

Brad

Forcing the end of a raid is not an advance.  It is merely the end of THAT raid.  We have still suffered a total net loss in time, money, and opportunities in order to end that raid on our rights.

Go get some court condoned infringements repealed from the books. THAT would be an advancement.

[Brad Johnson]

The end of a raid is not am advance.  It is merely the end of THAT raid.

Go get some court condoned infringements repealed from the books. THAT would be an advamcement.

If this makes it to SCOTUS and is ruled in our favor, we will have a tool critical to doing just that.

Brad

[Nick1911]

I saw no dishonesty, simply a reply which took the inferred extremism of your comment and put it in words.

I'd like to hear your reasoning why a judicial step in the right direction can be called anything but a win. Sure, it's taken a long time and shouldn't need to have happened in the first place, but an advance is an advance. Throwing up hands in disgust and calling it a fail because it wasn't 100% of what was presumed proper from the outset is an inherently defeatist position.

Brad

I'm not sure how it's an advance.

Analogy:  You have $10,000 arrested by civil asset forfeiture.  Six months later, after multiple days in court with your attorney, you get your money back.  You haven't really advanced anything - the structures that were in place still are, and while you made it back to where you started, it entailed considerable time, cost and effort.  Really, a new loss for you.

Obviously injustices should be challenged - they can't be left to stand.  But it's not exactly a win when you expend time and effort to get back to the status quo.

[Ben]

I'm not sure how it's an advance.

Analogy:  You have $10,000 arrested by civil asset forfeiture.  Six months later, after multiple days in court with your attorney, you get your money back.  You haven't really advanced anything - the structures that were in place still are, and while you made it back to where you started, it entailed considerable time, cost and effort.  Really, a new loss for you.

Obviously injustices should be challenged - they can't be left to stand.  But it's not exactly a win when you expend time and effort to get back to the status quo.

I would submit that in your example, we don't even make it back to status quo. The time and money you spent to get the ten grand back is actually a step back, because you lost value. The ten grand isn't ten grand anymore, unless you somehow got the cops and DA to pay your court costs as well as punitive damages for your time.

In the asset forfeiture example, every "arrest" of assets is a step back, even if you eventually recover the asset.

[Brad Johnson]

Obviously injustices should be challenged - they can't be left to stand.  But it's not exactly a win when you expend time and effort to get back to the status quo.

I would agree with you if this was a zero-sum situation. In this case, however, this ruling does far more than simply restore status quo. It gives a nice, clean case than can make it's way to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS and is ruled in our favor, it emplaces firm legal precedent and establishes serious barriers against something like this happening again.

Brad

[kgbsquirrel]

I would agree with you if this was a zero-sum situation. In this case, however, this ruling does far more than simply restore status quo. It gives a nice, clean case than can make it's way to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS and is ruled in our favor, it emplaces firm legal precedent and establishes serious barriers against something like this happening again.

Brad

IF it is challenged there.
IF it is accepted there
IF it is ruled favorably there.

You don't have anything but promises and hopes at this time.

[Brad Johnson]

IF it is challenged there.
IF it is accepted there
IF it is ruled favorably there.

You don't have anything but promises and hopes at this time.

If Heller was challenged.
If Heller was accepted.
If Heller was ruled upon favorably.

Oh wait, it was.

Life is a series of ifs and maybes with no guarantee of 100% satisfaction or positive result. Presuming failure and doing nothing because those conditions don't exist is handing victory to the opponent and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Berating others when they don't capitulate to defeatist mindsets only serves to strengthen the opponent's position.

Brad

[Nick1911]

I would agree with you if this was a zero-sum situation. In this case, however, this ruling does far more than simply restore status quo. It gives a nice, clean case than can make it's way to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS and is ruled in our favor, it emplaces firm legal precedent and establishes serious barriers against something like this happening again.

Brad

Say that the SCOTUS finds that the action of closing gun stores as non-essential during the pandemic is unconstitutional.  Do you think that will actually prevent hard left cities from doing it again in another crisis?  I don't.

[Brad Johnson]

Say that the SCOTUS finds that the action of closing gun stores as non-essential during the pandemic is unconstitutional.  Do you think that will actually prevent hard left cities from doing it again in another crisis?  I don't.

Will it stop them from doing it again? No. Will it give us legal standing to sue them into the Stone Age for it and win, yes.

Brad

[Nick1911]

Will it stop them from doing it again? No. Will it give us legal standing to sue them into the Stone Age for it and win, yes.

Brad

You can beat the rap, but not the ride.  Kinda goes full circle back to what KGB was noting about military raids.

[Ron]

The process as punishment.

[K Frame]

Shut the *expletive deleted*ck up if you don't have anything intellectually honest to further contribute.

You're the one whining about intellectual honesty?

That's a laugh and half if I've ever seen one.

All you're doing is crying crocodile tears about GAME OVER MAN, WE LOSE!


Yeah. REAL intellectual.

REAL honest.

So, if you're over your weeping and crying and pissing yourself over how WE ARE SO *expletive deleted*ed! *expletive deleted*ed MAN! WE'RE *expletive deleted*ed! how about sharing your insightful, honest, and effective methods for resolving such issues?

Mmmm?

[K Frame]

If Heller was challenged.
If Heller was accepted.
If Heller was ruled upon favorably.

Oh wait, it was.

Life is a series of ifs and maybes with no guarantee of 100% satisfaction or positive result. Presuming failure and doing nothing because those conditions don't exist is handing victory to the opponent and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Berating others when they don't capitulate to defeatist mindsets only serves to strengthen the opponent's position.

Brad

No, no, no, Brad!

Armed insurrection! That's the ONLY answer!

[cordex]

Armed insurrection! That's the ONLY answer!

Did I miss where KGB advocated that?

A ruling in our favor is good compared to the alternative, but as has been noted it is nothing like an unvarnished good.  Not sure what is controversial about that.

The opposition gets to use our tax money to attack us.  Even a successful defense costs us far more than it costs them.