Jump to content
CJack

Mag Ban down to District Court now ?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Bomber said:

Yes, and unneutered AR's.  Flim-Flam Florio gave us N.J.'s AWB in 1990 (four years before the Clinton AWB).

He got bounced out on his ass after one term but the AWB remains. (Dems didn't have ballot drop boxes and voting that went on for weeks back then).

wow. i hadn't realized. thanks! sorta.

 

 hopefully this whole thing means that we can go back to he normal that the free country gets to experience. it would be cool to experience that for the first time, as i've only been shooting for about 10 years.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

What do you think remand means? It means to be sent back. You can't send the case back to yourself. It's been remanded to the district court. 

Right.  But the way it is worded the circuit court is recalling their decision because scotus vacated and remanded.   SCOTUS is the court that is remanding.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bomber said:

Yes, and unneutered AR's.  Flim-Flam Florio gave us N.J.'s AWB in 1990 (four years before the Clinton AWB).

He got bounced out on his ass after one term but the AWB remains. (Dems didn't have ballot drop boxes and voting that went on for weeks back then).

I remember buying an HK-91A3 (with a Single Point Red Dot sight!) in the early 80's and telling Mrs. 45Doll I was doing it specifically because 'they're going to get around to banning these some day'.

It's still funny that Florio got bounced the next election. But IMO the invented 'assault weapon' ban wasn't the biggest reason, or even a significant reason. A big reason was the tax he imposed on toilet paper.

Not everyone had an 'assault weapon', but everybody had an...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Right.  But the way it is worded the circuit court is recalling their decision because scotus vacated and remanded.   SCOTUS is the court that is remanding.  

Scotus remanded the case to the circuit court of appeals. 

Rather than change their ruling in any way, which they could have done, the circuit court recalled their decision and awarded the plaintiff their costs for the appeal. They then remanded it back to the district court for a ruling. That's what it says. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Scotus remanded the case to the circuit court of appeals. 

Rather than change their ruling in any way, which they could have done, the circuit court recalled their decision and awarded the plaintiff their costs for the appeal. They then remanded it back to the district court for a ruling. That's what it says. 

 

I read it differently, and typically a remand would mention the lower court it's being remanded to for clarity. The order references SCOTUS actions, not the circuits. Based on SCOTUS actions, the original opinion was vacated, and the remand will lead to further proceedings.... aka they will rehear the case. 

I dont beleive they can just change their opinion.  Since scotus remanded the cases, the opinion must first be vacated, then it will be reheard using the original arguments, possibly leading to a updated opinion.  

Also, I beleive there is a more "proper" way to remand a case back down to lower courts. I dont beleive they can just pen an order stating it is remanded. The court would accept the case, typically read the oral arguments, and either grant the case, uphold lower courts or remand. 

A remand also typically has instructions to the lower court as to what they possibly did wrong. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To note, 

This is kind of an unusual remand. SCOTUS didn't have to remand this case back down if they felt it would overturn the lower court rulings. 

Most remands I've seen, were to prevent overturning a decision. Consider a criminal trial and conviction, where maybe something was inadmissible as evidence, but the courts allowed it. Instead of overturning the decision, they decided the case should be reheard without it. By doing so, it would actually prevent the overturning of the decision. It's not to get the "ruling/opinion" right, but rather to ensure the process was correct that lead to the decision. 

In this case, either SCOTUS felt a reversal was bad for their image, or they had enough cases it wouldn't have been timely to hear it. Considering 3 gun cases were remanded I feel it was the latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JackDaWack said:

To note, 

This is kind of an unusual remand. SCOTUS didn't have to remand this case back down if they felt it would overturn the lower court rulings. 

Most remands I've seen, were to prevent overturning a decision. Consider a criminal trial and conviction, where maybe something was inadmissible as evidence, but the courts allowed it. Instead of overturning the decision, they decided the case should be reheard without it. By doing so, it would actually prevent the overturning of the decision. It's not to get the "ruling/opinion" right, but rather to ensure the process was correct that lead to the decision. 

In this case, either SCOTUS felt a reversal was bad for their image, or they had enough cases it wouldn't have been timely to hear it. 

No, not really. 

A remanded case pretty much always means the court finds the legal reasoning to be wrong. That takes two flavors typically. First, where the conclusion isn't necessarily disapproved of, but the legal reasoning is (or less common, some form of error has been disclosed in the interim, or change in the law.). Then there's the other, where the legal conclusion is garbage because the legal reasoning is garbage. 

These were GVRed because they could not be consolidated. They just aren't similar enough. Given the volume of the cases vs the fact we still have one court and a growing legal system, GVRed is typically used for when a case has been impacted by precedent they just set with a similar case. 

In the case of Bruen, they have stated clearly you cannot get to your conclusion via the method used in every one of these cases. They are very much "you can't get there from here" situations. They will have to start their reasoning over. They are free to try and get to the same destination, but it's going to be really hard given the constraints spelled out in the ruling. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 45Doll said:

I remember buying an HK-91A3 (with a Single Point Red Dot sight!) in the early 80's and telling Mrs. 45Doll I was doing it specifically because 'they're going to get around to banning these some day'.

It's still funny that Florio got bounced the next election. But IMO the invented 'assault weapon' ban wasn't the biggest reason, or even a significant reason. A big reason was the tax he imposed on toilet paper.

Not everyone had an 'assault weapon', but everybody had an...

I remember seeing one and done signs everywhere.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, raz-0 said:

Scotus remanded the case to the circuit court of appeals. 

Rather than change their ruling in any way, which they could have done, the circuit court recalled their decision and awarded the plaintiff their costs for the appeal. They then remanded it back to the district court for a ruling. That's what it says. 

 

Nowhere does it mention the District Court.  It just says that since Scotus vacated and remanded, the circuit court is recalling their prior decision (mandate) for additional proceedings.   

Compare that with the 9th circuit, which has remanded the case to the District.  That order specifically says it is the circuit remanding to the district. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, raz-0 said:

No, not really. 

A remanded case pretty much always means the court finds the legal reasoning to be wrong. That takes two flavors typically. First, where the conclusion isn't necessarily disapproved of, but the legal reasoning is (or less common, some form of error has been disclosed in the interim, or change in the law.). Then there's the other, where the legal conclusion is garbage because the legal reasoning is garbage. 

These were GVRed because they could not be consolidated. They just aren't similar enough. Given the volume of the cases vs the fact we still have one court and a growing legal system, GVRed is typically used for when a case has been impacted by precedent they just set with a similar case. 

In the case of Bruen, they have stated clearly you cannot get to your conclusion via the method used in every one of these cases. They are very much "you can't get there from here" situations. They will have to start their reasoning over. They are free to try and get to the same destination, but it's going to be really hard given the constraints spelled out in the ruling. 

 

 

"Legal reasoning" is a pretty broad usage. 

It's is not typical for a remand to occur because a different case set a new precendent.. the lower courts "legal reasoning" is only being challenged because in light of NEW precedent. 

A typical remanded case, ones we see all the time are ussually due to a procedural error by the court. 

The remanding court shouldn't approve or disapprove of any judgement when an error occurred which it was the result of. But there may be an interest in having the case retried vs outright overturning. 

In this case, the district and circuit courts didn't have a procedural error, error in law, or error in judgement of existing precedent. With the establishment of new precedent, SCOTUS should have overturned the lower courts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Nowhere does it mention the District Court.  It just says that since Scotus vacated and remanded, the circuit court is recalling their prior decision (mandate) for additional proceedings.   

Compare that with the 9th circuit, which has remanded the case to the District.  That order specifically says it is the circuit remanding to the district. 

remand

 

verb (used with object)
to send back, remit, or consign again.
Law.
  1. to send back (a case) to a lower court from which it was appealed, with instructions as to what further proceedings should be had.
  2. (of a court or magistrate) to send back (a prisoner or accused person) into custody, as to await further proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 45Doll said:

It's still funny that Florio got bounced the next election. But IMO the invented 'assault weapon' ban wasn't the biggest reason, or even a significant reason. 

 

Yeah I know.

My point was a hated one termer like Florio gave us an AWB thats still around long after he is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, raz-0 said:

remand

 

verb (used with object)
to send back, remit, or consign again.
Law.
  1. to send back (a case) to a lower court from which it was appealed, with instructions as to what further proceedings should be had.
  2. (of a court or magistrate) to send back (a prisoner or accused person) into custody, as to await further proceedings.

Nobody is arguing the definition of Remand. Just that the order is the 3rd circuit reacting to scotus remanding their decision.   It is not the circuit remanding to the district.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bomber said:

Yeah I know.

My point was a hated one termer like Florio gave us an AWB thats still around long after he is gone.

I'm with you. That ban was the biggest complaint I had.

Wasn't there an opportunity to repeal that law but one RINO in the legislature scuttled the deal at the last minute? Or was that at the federal level. I don't remember clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2022 at 10:57 PM, voyager9 said:

Right.  It was SCOTUS doing the remanding.. technically a Grant, Vacate, Remand (GVR) back to the Circuit.  The way I read it is that the District is recalling their previous mandate (ruling) on the case because Scotus told them to.  

Maybe? We'll see. 

Bet You $20 to an RKBA org to be named by the winner that it goes back to the district. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

"Legal reasoning" is a pretty broad usage. 

It's is not typical for a remand to occur because a different case set a new precendent.. the lower courts "legal reasoning" is only being challenged because in light of NEW precedent. 

A typical remanded case, ones we see all the time are ussually due to a procedural error by the court. 

The remanding court shouldn't approve or disapprove of any judgement when an error occurred which it was the result of. But there may be an interest in having the case retried vs outright overturning. 

In this case, the district and circuit courts didn't have a procedural error, error in law, or error in judgement of existing precedent. With the establishment of new precedent, SCOTUS should have overturned the lower courts. 

The history of SCOTUS GVRs is not typically about a procedural error. It is very often about precedent. 

I would argue on your last point that a huge portion of Thomas's ruling was saying that all this intermediate scrutiny stuff that keeps coming to them is a misunderstanding of heller, and they can all now go fuck right off. So arguably procedural? 

The majority of GVR are due to a decision from the docket informing the matter of a case pending cert. There are multiple papers on this. 

The peak year I could find for atypical GVRs, with the addendum that most papers admit that tracking of GVRs is broken to some degree, was 18% being due to procedural error, statute, change, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Maybe? We'll see. 

Bet You $20 to an RKBA org to be named by the winner that it goes back to the district. 

It very well could be. All I see in the current order is acknowledgement of SCOTUS vacating their original judgment and remanding for additional review. 

It's my understanding they have to review the lower courts ruling again. Aka the process has to start over from scratch at the appellate level, and be remanded to the lower court AFTER affirming an error occurred. This would be a judgment from a Judge, not like the Order that see here which is signed by a Clerk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

Maybe? We'll see. 

Bet You $20 to an RKBA org to be named by the winner that it goes back to the district. 

I’m not saying the 3rd won’t remand it.   After all the 9th did for their similar case.  I can certainly see the 3rd pulling the same BS.    I just mean that this current order doesn’t do that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...