2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on September 23, 2022, 09:05:48 AM
-
The lawsuit was pending a 9th circuit ruling (Duncan). The 9th did what they do best, step on 2a rights and remanded back down to the CA state court. Which means now Abbot needs to go to trial again.
This is unusual for the 9th to do stuff like this in general. But the 2nd time they have done it to 2a related cases.
Had the 9th obeyed the SCOTUS Bruen ruling, then Abbot would be an automatic win. But now more attorney work needs to be done which means more cost involved. This is what the anti 2a movement wants. They don't care or face any cost to them.
Then when HI and CA lose, it will go back to the 9th because they will appeal and cost more time and money. And this could take years. So the tactic of delaying as long as they can is also being used by the anti 2a movement.
Then right before the 9th rules, they will change the law and stiff the attorneys involved with the bill. Like how they did with the Taser law (Roberts vs. Ballard).
FYI, Abbot is a HIFICO director.
-
The lawsuit was pending a 9th circuit ruling (Duncan). The 9th did what they do best, step on 2a rights and remanded back down to the CA state court. Which means now Abbot needs to go to trial again.
This is unusual for the 9th to do stuff like this in general. But the 2nd time they have done it to 2a related cases.
Had the 9th obeyed the SCOTUS Bruen ruling, then Abbot would be an automatic win. But now more attorney work needs to be done which means more cost involved. This is what the anti 2a movement wants. They don't care or face any cost to them.
Then when HI and CA lose, it will go back to the 9th because they will appeal and cost more time and money. And this could take years. So the tactic of delaying as long as they can is also being used by the anti 2a movement.
Then right before the 9th rules, they will change the law and stiff the attorneys involved with the bill. Like how they did with the Taser law (Roberts vs. Ballard).
FYI, Abbot is a HIFICO director.
Their tactics are pretty predictable.
Perhaps we need change ours?
:grrr:
-
Cough, Cough... It's Abbott... just saying :shaka:
-
heads
Cough, Cough... It's Abbott... just saying :shaka:
-
Cough, Cough... It's Abbott... just saying :shaka:
Outer islands.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Would the pending California mag bans case, currently under Judge Benitez overview, have any impact on Hawaii’s case?
-
Would the pending California mag bans case, currently under Judge Benitez overview, have any impact on Hawaii’s case?
None, cause its at CA' court. Thr anti have no play left but to delay. After CA loses and appeals, it will go to the 9th again and lose. So 3 more years.
HI will slowly move abbott long enough so the 9th hears Benetiz. Then stay abbott until the 9th makes a ruling.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
None, cause its at CA' court. Thr anti have no play left but to delay. After CA loses and appeals, it will go to the 9th again and lose. So 3 more years.
HI will slowly move abbott long enough so the 9th hears Benetiz. Then stay abbott until the 9th makes a ruling.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
That case precedent can’t be used in our favor?
-
That case precedent can’t be used in our favor?
No. If the 9th ruled, then yes. But theyre anti 2a, so they made no decision and handed it back to the CA court to decide. This is an unusual hand back down (remand) as well. So again, its the only tactic the anti 2a has, which is to delay as long as possible.
And screw over the attornies from collecting atty fees from the state.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
No. If the 9th ruled, then yes. But theyre anti 2a, so they made no decision and handed it back to the CA court to decide. This is an unusual hand back down (remand) as well. So again, its the only tactic the anti 2a has, which is to delay as long as possible.
And screw over the attornies from collecting atty fees from the state.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Unlimited tax dollars to play with. Why not.