Judge Benitez wrote a powerful final judgement in Rhode v. Bonta. He said, “Ammunition is within the scope of the Second Amendment, see —Rhonda Ezell V. City of Chicago, No. 10-3525 (7th Cir. Jul. 12, 2011)” and —Espanola Jackson V. City and County of San Francis, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014). 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.Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009).

The “traditional stay factors” are outlined in —Winter V. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). 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.)


Winter V. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)
Rhonda Ezell V. City of Chicago, No. 10-3525 (7th Cir. Jul. 12, 2011)
Espanola Jackson V. City and County of San Francis, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014)
Spread the love

By awa

5 thoughts on “Annnnnd in this ring, Judges Clifton and Thomas of the 9th Circuit”
  1. Is it just me, or am I wrong in thinking that when the State is the appellant, very few harms should be considered “irreparable”? Perhaps none?
    Here’s my thinking: Suppose a State passed a law in 2018 — any law, not just a 2A infringement — that is currently being challenged. The lower District Court declares it unconstitutional, enjoins it from enforcement, and refuses to issue a stay on the injunction pending appeal. The State appeals to a 3-judge District Court panel and again asks for a stay pending appeal.
    If the “irreparable harm” of “not having the law” is so very great, why did it take until 2018 to remedy that? Why didn’t they pass it in the first, say, 150 years of the State’s existence?
    In a 2A context: If — for example — magazines (“ammunition feeding devices”) with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are so inherently dangerous that they MUST be restricted, why did it take until the mid-2000s to pass the law, after such devices have been around for close to a century? If they’re so inherently dangerous, why weren’t they restricted from the get-go?
    (Not that a law from the early 1900s would meet the “text, history, and tradition” from 1791 requirement, but just for the sake of a “novel technology” or “new development” that might prompt an exception.)
    IOW, if the law is sufficiently important that having it enjoined and unenforceable is an “irreparable harm” for the State, why shouldn’t the State have to justify letting a century pass before enacting it? And why shouldn’t that be counted as evidence against the State’s argument?
    IANAL, but if I were, these are questions I’d be putting on the record as the courts hear these cases. Questions I want the judges to consider.

    1. Those are great questions. But we don’t get to ask judges questions. For example, the Hawaii supreme court issued an opinion yesterday that the Second Amendment does not confirm an individual right to keep and bear arms. Because the Supreme Court of the United States is ignoring federalism.
      Judges that make profound errors in interpretation are never punished. There are many judges in the appellate courts that should be impeached for the opinions they issue.
      One of the reasons to issue injunctions or stays is to maintain the status quo. The state will always argue that the status quo is how the laws are at this instant of time. The law has existed for months or even years before the court issues its judgement. The fact that the law changed the status quo doesn’t matter to them. The status quo is always “now”.
      Thanks for the great comment.

      1. Thank YOU for the great articles on the general legal processes and the particular cases! I for one feel like I’m learning quite a bit I didn’t know.
        Even if we don’t get to ask judges questions, I’d still try to introduce the concept of the “questionable” timing for enacting the law into the trial record. Maybe an appellate judge will read it, wonder the same thing, and ask the question of the State. Any extra potential stumbling block for the State’s case can’t be a bad thing. 🙂

        1. The also cited the “Aloha Spirit”, which sounds dangerously close to a government entity both establishing a religion and treating its doctrine as superior to the U.S. Constitution.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.