Annnnnd in this ring, Judges Clifton and Thomas of the 9th Circuit
Judge Benitez wrote a powerful final judgement in Rhode v. Bonta. He said, "Ammunition is within the scope of the Second Amendment, see [xCite item="3GPYVIGP" pos=0 pos=0 pos=0]" and [xCite item="6R5C4HCQ" pos=1]. Besides, we had testimony provided by Robert Spitzer and Michael Vorenberg, this proves that the Second Amendment is implicated.
Not only that, it was remanded to Judge Benitez to evaluate in light of the Bruen opinion. All pretty good indicators that the conduct, purchasing ammunition, is within the scope of the Second Amendment.
He explained clearly that this met the first step of the Heller, the plain text of the Second Amendment.
On December 12, 2022, he ordered the state to bring forth "relevant statutes, laws, and regulations" from the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment (1791) through 20 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868+20=1888). He further required that the state provide that in a spreadsheet, in chronological order.
The state refused to follow instructions. Instead of 1791 through 1888, they provided 54 entries from 1403 through 1787. They then provided 53 entries for the allowed time period.
2 possession by a minor 1 without cause to carry or drunk 50 Racist restrictions
That's it within the allowed time frame. All 50 of those racists laws were declared unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
They provided another 40 that were after 1888.
In other words, for "history and tradition", the state could bring forth only 3 regulations, from 1853, 1868, and 1881.
The Judges with clown noses, Clifton and Thomas, wrote:
The motion to stay the district court’s January 30, 2024 permanent injunction and judgment (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (defining standard for stay pending appeal). — Rhode v. Bonta 24-542 (9th Cir.)
Nken v. Holder is a 31-page opinion from the Supreme Court in 2008. The question is about stays vs. injunctions and if the Fourth Circuit had the power to stay a deportation of an illegal alien.
The Supreme Court said,
Traditional stay factors, not the demanding § 1252(f)(2) standard, govern a court of appeals’ authority to stay an alien’s removal pending judicial review.
[xCite item="FYFEG2K6" pos=2].
The "traditional stay factors" are outlined in [xCite item="C97QH2PX" pos=3]. The most important Winter factor is the likelihood of success on the merits.
For these to judges to suggest that the Winter factors were not properly used is a profound error. To not even bother to say why, these homo sovieticus prove they are more interested in putting their thumbs on the rights of The People than they are in following the law.
Judge Callahan, on the other hand, understands that he is a member of an inferior court, sworn to uphold The Constitution above petty tyrants.
I would deny the motion for a stay pending appeal. I do not believe appellant has met his burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits or that irreparable injury will occur absent a stay. — Rhode v. Bonta 24-542 (9th Cir.)
[xCiteBib]