Gun Laws in your state

[HAL Pilot]

Activist federal judges who think it’s their jo make or “fix” laws like to make their rulings applicable nationwide. Non-activist who stick with their defined role of intrepting the law and it’s constitutionality tend to make their rulings applicable only within their circuit or a limited scope.

The Judge in this case was a Trump appointed non-activist so his ruling was only on the California law and not broadened to a nationwide decree.

 

[nittany03]

The Judiciary is the one branch that totally confuses me.

Sometimes a single low-level federal judge can strike down a law instantly and nationally on the grounds if violated another law. In this case, a higher-circuit panel of three judges strike down a law that violated the Constitution - but the law stays in place for a while until some other judges weigh in, and even if it sticks it only applies to a portion of the country?

The only time a Federal judge can "strike down" a law "instantly" is via something called a preliminary injunction, which only comes into play when it's grossly obvious the law is likely to be ruled unconstitutional AND there's ongoing harm demonstrated from the law being enforced. This requires a higher standard of proof. Otherwise, the court has to hear both sides and rule on the merits like any other lawsuit before taking any action, which they still have to do after the injunction anyway.

In this case, the law stays in place because the exact same judge that ruled it unconstitutional also ruled that letting that ruling take place immediately would cause too much churn for CA law enforcement. He made his ruling, the AG asked for a stay until he could appeal, the stay was granted, and now the AG is appealing. The AG lost, but also has the option of asking for an en banc rehearing of the case or an appeal to SCOTUS.

If appeals run out and the AG was still on the losing side, the stay would no longer be a thing.

Also, things only apply to part of the country because the only court with jurisdiction over the whole country is SCOTUS. Every court (usually) has to follow its own prior rulings or precedent. It also has to follow the prior rulings of all higher courts. Everyone has to follow SCOTUS precedent. Higher courts are supposed to take cases in order to resolve blatant splits in the rulings of their inferior courts, but this doesn't happen overnight. Also, courts can only take cases presented to them, so even if there is a split, someone has to sue and appeal up to the higher court for them to resolve the split.

 

[wink]

Except in the era of Trump you have the once incredibly rare occurance of a simple district judge making his injunction binding throughout the land, well beyond his district. It is radical. A tactic only pressed into service in an effort to have single unelected judges serving the resistance by any means.

 

[HokiePilot]

Except in the era of Trump you have the once incredibly rare occurance of a simple district judge making his injunction binding throughout the land, well beyond his district. It is radical. A tactic only pressed into service in an effort to have single unelected judges serving the resistance by any means.

Isn't it great that we have a system like that. The first judge who saw it called it like he saw it. One random district judge said this is not right. We have a system to appeal the preliminary injunction. It took place. Appeals went through. Preliminary rulings overruled the preliminary injunction. It went up and down. What was the harm in the review?

It's OK to not have some executive with unbridled power.

 

[nittany03]

Except in the era of Trump you have the once incredibly rare occurance of a simple district judge making his injunction binding throughout the land, well beyond his district. It is radical. A tactic only pressed into service in an effort to have single unelected judges serving the resistance by any means.

Stop. Just stop with the deep state "unelected" bullshit. This is not Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.

 

[wink]

Isn't it great that we have a system like that. The first judge who saw it called it like he saw it. One random district judge said this is not right. We have a system to appeal the preliminary injunction. It took place. Appeals went through. Preliminary rulings overruled the preliminary injunction. It went up and down. What was the harm in the review?

It's OK to not have some executive with unbridled power.

+1 Something I said back in 2016 when everyone was saying we elected a dictator. System works just fine in spite of him.

Stop. Just stop with the deep state "unelected" bullshit. This is not Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.

Lighten up. No wait...quoting The Dude is pretty light ?. Sorry if "unelected" triggered you. And I don't consider a federal judge part of a deep state. I only stated a verifiable fact. Historically, District judges almost never make injunctions nationwide. They are motivated now by politics. Yes, within the rules. But bowling it ain't.