The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Second Amendment Roundup: Injunction Against Washington Magazine Ban Stayed Within Minutes
The stay was issued without time to review the opinion and the motion to stay, and without allowing an opposition brief.
On April 8, Judge Gary B. Bashor of the Superior Court of Washington for Cowlitz County issued a summary judgment order finding Washington's ban on magazines holding over ten rounds violative of Washington's Declaration of Rights ("The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired") and the federal Second Amendment, and enjoined enforcement thereof. The 55-page ruling in State of Washington v. Gator's Custom Guns is one of the most thorough analyses issued by a court to date of why such a ban infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.
As Gator's counsel Austin F. Hatcher informed me, Judge Bashor's order was emailed to counsel at 3:04 p.m. At 4:15 p.m., the Assistant Attorney General emailed a motion to stay the injunction to counsel and said it was simultaneously being filed with the Washington Supreme Court. The 32-page motion was obviously prepared in advance in anticipation of an adverse ruling.
Without giving Gator's an opportunity to respond, Commissioner of the Court Michael E. Johnston emailed an order to counsel at 5:04 p.m. staying the injunction. That was only 49 minutes after receiving the motion to stay.
Either the Commissioner is a world-record speed reader or (more likely) didn't bother to read the opinion or the motion, for he issued the stay in lightning speed. Maybe he needed just enough time to read which side the state was on.
In his ruling on the stay, Commissioner Johnston recited "the public safety issues concerning the proliferation of large capacity magazines compatible with assault weapons…." He did not mention the public interest in enforcing constitutional rights. Those factors together with the speed with which the stay was issued gives the appearance of automatic bias in favor of the magazine ban.
Under the Washington Constitution, the Justices of the Supreme Court are elected. The office of the Commissioner was merely the creation of a Supreme Court rule. The Commissioner screens a large volume of petitions for review and makes recommendations to the Court for what to accept or deny.
For a state in which the Justices of the Supreme Court must be elected, that is an incredible amount of power and discretion to delegate to an appointee. This case seems to illustrate how that power can be applied.
Meanwhile, further briefs are being filed and there will be an actual hearing on April 17 before the Commissioner.
Based on the information he received, Washington Gun Law President William Kirk determined that the injunction was in place for 88 minutes. According to a news report, for the 88 minutes the injunction was thought to be in place, the Gator's store was overwhelmed with gun owners who swarmed in to purchase magazines holding over ten rounds. There were lines up to 10-people deep and the parking lot was full. The customers even included two city councilmen; no gangbangers here.
To the extent Washington has a crime problem, it's partly the state's own doings. Remember CHOP, Seattle's police-free neighborhood where murder and mayhem ran free? And the fun continues, as 2023 marks Seattle's bloodiest year in recent memory.
As everyone knows, criminals will no more abide by a magazine ban any more than they will comply with the more serious mala in se offenses like rape, robbery, and murder. Hopefully the Washington Supreme Court will give Judge Bashor's decision the careful attention it deserves.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Or they colluded ahead of time. Which is most likely when it comes to Democrats.
Remember. The Democrats care about three things, killing unborn babies, mass immigration of low IQ peasants, and men ejaculating into other men.
Nothing else is a concern to them.
Lopping off genitals?
No Thanks, I'm rather attached to mine
And they are attached to you as well.
That too, thanks!
Gotta add; ..., "All guns are Icky ... unless we control them"
Partisan non sequitur responses? How shocking!
I can do it too. "Remember. The Republicans care about three things, fucking their cousins, being fake christians, and electing orange colored criminals to high office." Am i doing it right?
This quick entry of the stay is highly troublesome for completely legitimate reasons. Multiple legitimate legal reasons exist to question how and why this happened. This being a legal blog, is it too much to ask to fucking comment on the g-damn legal issues instead of partisan circle jerking each other to completion?
Which seems likely. Remember, there was 88 minutes between the issue of the order and the issue of the emergency stay. A rough timeline ought to be:
1. AG’s office reviews order
2. AG’s office drafts and reviews motion for an emergency stay
3. Commissioner reviews motion and superior court order
4. Commissioner drafts and reviews emergency stay
The superior court order was 50+ pages. How could both offices complete meaningful and honest reviews of all the documents in such a short time? The only way this timeline works is if the AG’s office had an draft stay already written and didn’t care about the contents of the order. And the Commissioner already had his stay drafted and just waiting for the AG’s motion.
I wonder if the Commissioner's actions were in keeping with the judicial canon 2.6. It would not have been hard to schedule a call to allow Gator's counsel to at least make a phone call.
Worth saying this again: The Court needs to stop with this 'remanding for a decision not inconsistent with' business, and start handing out summary reversals; They're not dealing with mistakes at this point, they're dealing with outright rebellion.
Perhaps the Court could rule that some of these issues are so clear that lower court judges ruling contrary to precedent on them are subject to Section 1983 lawsuits.
You say this is clear outright rebellion against the Supreme Court and then say the Court should clarify the issues here.
You can’t have it both ways.
No, I very clearly did NOT say that the Court should clarify things. I said that they should inform the lower courts that the issues are ALREADY so clear that they're putting themselves in legal jeopardy by ruling contrary to the precedents the Court has set.
So the issues are clear, but the clarity of the clear issues is not clear.
This is what happens when you fill in the gaps in the law yourself, and then assume everyone including the Supreme Court agrees with you but doesn't want to say so - you get into some weird demands in order to make reality align with your world.
I don't really know enough about firearms to know the contours of the 2A/right to self defense. But Bruen is an awful vehicle to vindicate that right, no matter it's extent.
'Go do originalism' with no further clarity is always going to end like this. Including the part where Brett thinks it's super clear and aligns exactly with his preferred policies and why isn't everyone going hard to the paint on this super clear law everyone agrees with him on.
No, Sarcastr0. We're not talking clarification here, because the lower courts damned well know what they're doing.
I'm advising them to threaten the lower courts. Tell them to cut it out or else. Because they're on a glide path to losing control here, facing whole circuits of Reinhardts if they don't do something to stop the trend.
The Supreme Court isn't doing that, or even making noises in that direction.
I guess they're in on the rebellion as well.
If they were doing it, I'd hardly have to say that they SHOULD do it. I'd say that they should keep it up...
But you should consider why they are not doing it, if everything is as clear as you say.
Why they are not doing it is likely because they expect lower courts to follow the precedent. Of course, when ideologically they do not, bad things result. Something similar happened with desegregation, similar inability of localities to accept what was required, and in that case the lower courts kept smacking them down.
In this case it’s the lower courts refusing to get it. Your protestations to the contrary, they’ve identified an individual right, yet the courts refuse to apply the reasoning of Heller/Bruen to the “new” situations. They’re playing dumb, like my friend who years ago liked to walk around a Dollar Store asking “how much is this?” (Of course that was before Bidenflation because now nothing at those stores is a dollar.)
The other answer to your Q is why conservatives (especially people like Blackman) hate the chief justice. Because contrary to the progressive criticism, he really does have consistent non-partisan judicial principles and apparently has enough of his fellow conservatives on board to avoid overzealous cert grants.
He cares more about his "legacy" meaning getting invited to Georgetown cocktail parties where having gay orgies in the bathroom is celebrated, than about doing his job.
I suppose it has only been 2 years, so maybe the Court isn't moving because they're not yet sure what the lay of the land is, or are shocked at the open defiance.
I don't think that's the most likely reason.
When did I say there is no individual right? That much has been clear since Heller. Lower courts are not finding that there is no individual right. They are finding some restrictions are 'grounded in tradition' or whatever that you don't think are; that's the issue. And I don't think you or the lower courts are to blame for your takes; it's Bruen.
Of course they're not denying there's an individual right. That's been the playbook for gun controllers for decades.
Even Stevens admitted there was an individual "right": To serve in the military when the government ordered you to!
The trick is contracting said right to the point where it might as well not exist.
In fairness, the issue of 'The Second Amendment protects the right to own magazines of up to N rounds' has been in play for 30 years. Eventually the SC will have to say what N is. Maybe they should just go ahead and do that, and we can all move on to some other question.
Which Supreme Court decision said there is a limit couched in those terms?
Which decision says there isn't such a limit?
You can't low-key assume your preferred Court finding has already happened.
How is a court supposed to decide what an appropriate limit is? I get that courts have recently been in the business deciding such minutia, but that is a distraction from the bigger picture: why is any limit legitimate, if self-defense is a right? Legislatures keep presuming the primary customers for these things is criminals. It’s not. If I need to use my firearm as protection (be it bad dude or an oppressive government), I sure as heck don’t want to run out of ammo. The right amount of ammo is as much as I can get. End of discussion.
Of course, people fundamentally opposed to gun rights disagree, but that’s entirely the problem with these laws, treating guns as scary. They’re looking for any pretext to limit the right. If they had their way, they would ban semiautomatics because of their capability to easily fire multiple rounds. That's not a bug, it's feature for self-defense.
How is a court supposed to decide whether N years is a cruel or unusual sentence for a jaywalker or serial killer?
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a jury trial. Does that mean a 1 person jury? A 1000 person jury? Must the jury be unanimous, or a simple majority? How is a court to decide?
How is a court supposed to decide what an appropriate limit is?
Per Bruen, examine the "historical tradition of firearm regulation." Good luck with that project being anything like determinative, IMO.
why is any limit legitimate, if self-defense is a right
Self defense has some inherent limits to the scope of what is required. A warehouse of ammo and daily training is not gonna be about self-defense.
Legislatures keep presuming the primary customers for these things is criminals
I'm not sure they do - the harm they're addressing is when it's criminals. Gun crimes are flashy, and that means it's easy for them to overlook the costs to noncriminals.
They’re looking for any pretext to limit the right
I don't think you get to assume bad faith in everyone who is for gun restrictions, just as they should not assume you're a criminal.
"How is a court supposed to decide what an appropriate limit is?
Per Bruen, examine the 'historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Good luck with that project being anything like determinative, IMO."
In the legislation at the time, there was a limit. It was a minimum, not a maximum, a floor rather than a ceiling.
"I don’t think you get to assume bad faith in everyone who is for gun restrictions, just as they should not assume you’re a criminal."
If they're trying to make me a criminal, I am going to assume bad faith.
Maybe you're right, maybe you're not.
I have no idea and you're a rando on the Internet.
But I'm immediately suspicious when people say 'history is all on my side.'
That's never the case.
Yeah, actually sometimes it IS the case. It's just that, usually, when history is all on one side, the number of people on the other side is small, and they get sneered at a lot.
History is all on the side of the Holocaust happening, for instance. Doesn't mean you don't get Holocaust deniers, but they don't get a lot of respect.
You might reflect on why, in these debates, it's always the gun rights activists pulling out the absolutely on point historical quotes. Shouldn't the collective right people have some quotes to cite of their own, if history wasn't all on one side?
Brett, you see a lot of things as vastly more simple than they are, and coming out exactly like you'd want.
This is a vastly more nuanced inquiry than 'did the Holocaust happen.'
"They’re looking for any pretext to limit the right
I don’t think you get to assume bad faith in everyone who is for gun restrictions, just as they should not assume you’re a criminal."
Maybe not everyone. But every Democratic office holder in California has given up any pretense of anything but bad faith.
"Brett, you see a lot of things as vastly more simple than they are, and coming out exactly like you’d want.
This is a vastly more nuanced inquiry than ‘did the Holocaust happen.’"
Yeah, not really interested on reflecting on why that is, are you?
No, it's not vastly more nuanced.
'Holocaust was real y/n' versus 'What was the historical tradition of X policy.'
If you think those are equally nuanced questions, your flat wrong.
How to define what exactly the scope of the policy in question is for purposes of this inquiry is under debate in this thread - you stumbled off the starting block!
Yeah, you are flatly refusing to understand why the pro-gun side can quote the founding generation all day, right on point, and the anti-gun side has nothing. In your mind, it CAN'T be because we just happen to be right. It simply CAN'T be that simple.
But, sometimes, one side IS just right. And this is one of those cases.
They should just come right out and say that N=∞. Bullshit regulations designed just to inconvenience people, that’s all magazine size limits are. Consciously so, the legislators are deliberately screwing with people.
Gun regulations need to directly address actual harms, not inconvenience people in order to indirectly avert hypothetical harms; If you’re limiting exercise of a constitutional right, the limitation has to very directly address an actual harm.
Imagine if you banned use of the word “rapist” without a license, because it was very useful to libelers. That’s gun control… People have no right to possess assault vocabularies!
Gun regulations need to directly address actual harms, not inconvenience people in order to indirectly avert hypothetical harms; If you’re limiting exercise of a constitutional right, the limitation has to very directly address an actual harm.
It's clear...I'm not sure it incentivizes good policy, but the point is that this isn't what the Court has said.
You're making new doctrine.
Should is not is.
I'm not making a new doctrine, this is how regulation of constitutional rights normally operates. I'm saying that the 2nd amendment should get treated as a NORMAL constitutional right.
With a normal constitutional right, the government can't have discouraging exercise of the right as a goal. It can't prohibit exercises which are themselves harmless, on the basis of making life less convenient for bad actors.
It can punish defamation. It can't punish things that are convenient for defamation; You can get in trouble for lying about somebody being a rapist, you can't get in trouble for having the word "rapist" in your vocabulary.
It can punish counterfeiting. It can't punish having high quality printers.
It can't license exercise of a civil liberty. You don't need a license to buy and sell books.
The right to keep and bear arms got to being treated systematically differently from other civil liberties during the 20th century, because it was under attack. Because there was a sort of fad among jurists of pretending that it wasn't really a constitutional right.
The Court is in the process of undoing that different treatment, restoring the 2nd amendment to normal status. They're not remotely finished doing that, because, frankly, they don't much like it either. But I think they'll get there in time.
You're saying it's ordinary Constitutional doctrine that laws are never prospective, and always deal with some current harm? That's absolutely not true.
There are regs about making sure our policies are based on evidence, but that includes projections of upcoming harms.
And those regs are regulations, not Constitutional requirements.
And we DO license the exercise of speech all the time! And access of the press, and being tax exempt as a church, and all sorts of other stuff.
You're stuck in should-land still. I know you think the Constitution IS what you think it SHOULD be, but that's not how the law works - the law does not revolve around your personal take, no matter how confident you are.
“You’re saying it’s ordinary Constitutional doctrine that laws are never prospective, and always deal with some current harm?”
No, I’m saying that’s ordinary Constitutional doctrine for laws that restrict exercise of a civil liberty. Civil liberties are different from non-civil liberties.
"And we DO license the exercise of speech all the time! And access of the press, and being tax exempt as a church, and all sorts of other stuff."
At this point you're starting to hallucinate, I think.
that’s ordinary Constitutional doctrine for laws that restrict exercise of a civil liberty. Civil liberties are different from non-civil liberties.
Do you have a cite for this? You can have overbreadth, and vagueness, but I've never seen 'there is no past harm in evidence' as legal doctrine.
Though if your take carries the day, you may want to check your take on voter ID...no evidence of harm there either.
I think you're misunderstanding my point.
When some act represents an exercise of a civil right, a law prohibiting it must be directed to preventing a harm by that particular exercise. Not some generalized contribution to harm.
So, the government can punish you for falsely crying fire in a crowded theater. It can't punish you for crying fire, period, because you might falsely do it in a crowded theater. Or, as I say, that the word "rapist" is useful to libelers doesn't mean the word can be generally prohibited.
You can prohibit exercise of a civil right only where it is wrongful or abnormally risky. That's the normal practice for any civil liberty except the one we're discussing here.
Now you're saying the process is punishments.
That's a finding the Court has not yet made on a general or specific basis.
The Court is in the process of undoing that different treatment, restoring the 2nd amendment to normal status
Maybe so, but you've run to the end of that process and insist we're their already.
If it's an ongoing process as you just said, you're wrong to do that.
Maybe not quite infinity. 27 CFR § 555.213 says you can't have more than 20 million detonators in one magazine. I think the Second Amendment allows this.
I come down on the side wanting clarity.
I'm all for spot-welding particular areas of longstanding contention to do so, because by applying their own standard they will give some guidance on what that standard actually is.
"Eventually the SC will have to say what N is."
No they don't. The correct statement is "The Second Amendment protects the right to own magazines. The capacity of those magazines is irrelevant."
Michael, Brett, Matthew: the SC will have to say what N is. It may say N=infinity, or N=0, or N=some positive integer (I don't think a negative number is physically possible :-)).
Today, as we sit, you can be jailed in several states if you have a >N magazine. Do people currently imprisoned for that get released, or not? We have been waiting an entire generation for an answer to that question. It's not like we need another generation of delay to develop the factual record. The SC needs to answer the question.
They need to do a hell of a lot of things they go decades without doing, the lazy bastards.
" the SC will have to say what N is."
Or they could say there is no N. N is an irrelevant red herring.
Sarcastr0, 2A isn't primarily about self defense, which I believe was assumed back in the day, but about protecting against a totalitarian government. And, therefore, the need to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, of the same kind as used by the military. Hence, large capacity mags.
Apart from being unsupported (and IMO a priori insane for any institution to allow), this is your take, it does not appear to be current legal doctrine.
An explicit right self defense is also not legal doctrine, to be fair.
How the hell is his take unsupported? Are you, like, utterly unacquainted with anything the founding fathers had to say?
Or, let's ask Judge Storey:
" The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Gee, that sounds like protection against a totalitarian government to me.
Not a Supreme Court Case
Is pre Civil War
Was back when it was a collective right
Has little bearing on the current very different 2A jurisprudence
"Was back when it was a collective right"
I don't think there has ever been a time when that was the general view.
There wasn't. As near as I have been able to determine, the very idea of any of the Bill of Rights referring to 'collective' rights was invented in the 20th century.
That was the precedent from Miller (1939) till Heller (2008).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.."
"That was the precedent from Miller"
Here's a quote from MIller:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
'all males' and ' arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use' sounds pretty individual to me. You can lean on 'enrolled for military discipline', if you enroll ' all males physically capable'. I don't think you get to say 'you only get guns if enrolled, and BTW we're not enrolling anyone'.
Under Miller, a gun law is constitutional as relates to a group activity - a militia.
How do you think a collective right is defined?
I can tell you I learned in law school, and the LII agrees, that it is collective.
"How do you think a collective right is defined?"
Well, 'all males capable', which today would have to be 'all persons capable' is pretty inclusive, as is 'arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time'. You are the first collective rights proponent I have encountered who is defining collective rights that broadly. All the others don't seem to think that their 'collective right' includes near universal ownership of an AR-15, for example.
But I don't object to your broader definition!
"Under Miller, a gun law is constitutional as relates to a group activity – a militia."
Under Miller, the inquiry is whether the type of gun is suitable for militia use. Not whether the person owning it is actually IN the militia, or proposes to use it for that.
This is not a point gun controllers like to notice, of course, because it underscores that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to weapons suitable for military purposes.
So I'm not a collective rights person, I believe there is an individual right and Heller was rightly decided.
I'm describing Miller and extending that back to the state of affairs in Brett's non-case cite.
I did cite a legal authority on Miller, no just my own take. So I don't know why you're coming at me like I'm out of step with the mainstream on this.
Well, you're not out of step with the gun control movement's interpretation of Miller. But it absolutely was not a collective right decision, or else it would have hinged on Miller being a felon, not on the nature of the gun he'd had.
What we have here is actually an individual right that was guaranteed to secure a collective end.
You have to get back to why the founders wanted a militia system in the first place. They didn't trust standing armies! They thought that standing armies were too subject to being used by the government to oppress the population, as they had been oppressed by the British army. That's why, for instance, the Constitution limits the duration of appropriations for an army to only two years at a time.
In theory, a militia could not be used to oppress the people, because it WAS the people. But this was only true so long as the militia consisted of something like the whole people. A select militia, consisting of only that portion of the population the government thought was loyal to it, was no different from a standing army in its danger.
So, the militia was necessary to the security of a free state, as the preface of the 2nd amendment says. But, suppose the state was run by people who didn't LIKE it being free, and intended to suppress the militia system, and replace it with a standing army ruling over a disarmed populace? That's where the 2nd amendment came in: Even if the government didn't WANT a militia, the 2nd amendment's guarantee of an individual right to be appropriately armed meant that you wouldn't have a disarmed populace for the army to easily subjugate, and a militia could be swiftly raised in an emergency from that armed population.
Granted, this is a collective goal. But the amendment only furthers this collective goal of securing the militia system against a hostile government, if the right itself is individual. Otherwise the government can defeat it by simply deciding not to have a militia, or forming a select militia that looks a lot like the National Guard.
As I always say, a Bill of Rights is NOT an expression of trust in government, it does not exist to aid the government in doing the right thing. You have one because you don't trust the government, and want to obstruct the government in doing the wrong thing.
The wrong thing here is disarming the population, rendering them inferior in arms to the military. That's the evil the 2nd amendment protects against, and it protects against that only if it is an individual right, to military suitable arms.
"I did cite a legal authority on Miller"
And I cited the actual decision :-).
Here is another 'legal authority' on the topic: "Some find Miller adopted an individual right theory of the Second Amendment, some find it adopted a collective right theory, and some find it adopted a hybrid theory, protecting the right to possess a firearm in connection with militia service."
And that's my point: the collective rights interpretation was never universal. Note that Miller ended up in the SC because the lower courts found that the NFA violated the 2A. Those lower court judges are another example of the view not being universal.
"Note that Miller ended up in the SC because the lower courts found that the NFA violated the 2A."
There's actually substantial reason to believe that the Miller case was a set-up job, designed to create the perfect test case for upholding the NFA. The judge who decided in favor of Miller, Judge Raygon, was actually known to be fairly hostile to gun ownership.
Miller and Layton actually tried to plead guilty, and Raygon refused to accept the plea, appointing them counsel who raised the 2nd amendment issue on their behalf, which Raygon immediately ruled in their favor on the basis of.
And the government had their test case, an ideal trial in abstensia, so that no arguments against the law would be raised before the Supreme court.
I'm not an expert on this, and I last looked at it in my Constitutional survey class in law school when Heller was fresh.
That's why I looked up what the general take in the closest to a hornbook I can access.
I dunno, maybe my law school and LII lead me astray - I'm not going to die on this hill.
Especially as it's just a lemma in my disagreement with Brett's thesis that the 2A is properly understood as the right to violently overthrow one's government.
I maintain his take is not the current law, and his pre-14A precedent is not particularly material to the current state of law.
"I dunno, maybe my law school and LII lead me astray – I’m not going to die on this hill."
Probably. As I've said, there was, for a few decades in the middle to latter 20th century, a judicial fad of hostility to the 2nd amendment, that's still working it's way out of the system. It never penetrated very far into the general population, but the law schools could be very dismissive indeed of the right.
Remember Tribe deciding, after years of attacking the individual right as crazy, to write a definitive rebuttal, and finding to his horror when he studied the matter that he'd been wrong?
"Especially as it’s just a lemma in my disagreement with Brett’s thesis that the 2A is properly understood as the right to violently overthrow one’s government."
A right to be capable of violently overthrowing the government. Obviously no government that deserved being overthrown would respect a right to overthrow it, and the founders weren't silly. But they had just violently overthrown a government, and didn't regard the prospect with horror.
"I dunno, maybe my law school and LII lead me astray"
My sense is this is one of those blind men and the elephant things. Over the years I have certainly encountered people who say things like "I've never known anyone who thinks owning a gun is a right!". Pre-Heller that was fairly common. And I think they are telling the truth - but when you ask where they have lived they say New Jersey or whatever. I'm the converse - I grew up outside a bunch of army bases across the southeast, and there you only heard the strong individual rights interpretation.
If you grew up in pre-Heller NYC or Jersey, aside from some hunters perhaps, guns may well have been something only crooks and cops had, and that's your worldview. But in other places, guns were as normal as shovels or lawn mowers.
@Sarcastro (right to overthrow the gov theory)
You seem to buy into Adam Winkler's take on 2A. He refers to the people defending themselves from tyranny as an “insurrection” and does so to purposefully mislead his audience. However, the framers knew the difference between insurrection (see Federalist 28) and defense against usurpation by the rulers. How is it that a lawyer could be unable to make that distinction?
Unlike Winkler, the framers explained in detail “insurrection” (an unfortunate illness which republics often suffer) and the people defending themselves and the laws from usurpation by the rulers (a right paramount to all positive forms of government). Winkler conflates those two very different concepts in order to gaslight his audience.
The very first commentator on the second amendment, Tench Coxe, made the argument Winkler intentionally mischaracterizes.
“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
As did Joseph Story:
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
As did the court in Aymette vs Tenn:
“The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution”
and…
“so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority.”
"Not a Supreme Court Case"
No, it's constitutional commentary. By a guy who actually MET the founders, and was regarded as his era's preeminent constitutional scholar.
"Is pre Civil War"
Yeah, and thus fits with the time frame for Bruen's historical inquiry.
"Was back when it was a collective right"
It never was a collective right. The whole idea of it being a "collective" right was invented in the 20th century.
"Has little bearing on the current very different 2A jurisprudence"
It has a great deal of bearing on whether ThePublius' take is "unsupported", which is the point I cited it concerning.
Holy shit Brett quit making up your own law and calling it doctrine.
Maybe you're right, maybe you're cherry picking. I have no idea.
But neither do you.
Which part of Brett's comment led you to believe that he said this?
Bruen simply isn’t as clear as you say it is.
Bruen merely expanded Heller to say that weapons necessary/suitable for home defense can be carried and established a standard for evaluating restrictions on possession and carriage.
But it didn’t even touch the question of what weapons are actually necessary/suitable for home defense, let alone establish a standard for how disputes should be evaluated.
You’re extrapolating Bruen well beyond what it actually decided.
Bruen is a lot clearer than people who don't like it want to pretend.
It didn't have to touch the question of what weapons are actually necessary/suitable for home defense, because it didn't declare that the right to own a weapon was contingent on such suitability.
"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Get that? Gun laws start out with a presumption of unconstitutionality, because they bear on constitutionally protected conduct. You have to overcome that presumption, by demonstrating by historical practice that the conduct in question was not regarded as being within the scope of the right.
Removable gun magazines were invented just prior to the Civil war, integral magazines holding more than 10 rounds date back to before the founding of this nation. Magazine capacity limits are of VERY recent origin, first showed up with the '94 AWB.
That sucker doesn't clear the bar, it doesn't even clear the bar's shadow.
There are many issues where liberals routinely took isolated sentences out of previous decisons and claimed slam-dunk wins that turned out to be partial losses. The Establishment Clause (remember the people who claimed it was obvious that you couldn’t put mottos on coins and such), abortion (even in the 1970s abortion proponents occassionally lost), many others.
For example, Bruen suggests that the standard for types of weapons is “in common use today” – history and tradition don’t apply. So all the isolated statements that history and tradition provide the standard would appear inconsistent with Bruen.
You consistently complain that but for 20th century regulation, more powerful weapons woild be common. But so far as the text of the opinion reveals, accepting and incorporating 20th century gun regulation into the constitutional standard, which as you say had significant influence on what is in common use today, is an intended feature, not a bug.
This alone suggests that Bruen just doesn’t say what you think it says.
What it suggests is that the Court is pathologically reluctant to notice that federal laws are unconstitutional, especially if they've been around for a while.
In other words, you acknowledge that what the Court actually says doesn’t go nearly as far as what you think it should say. Fine. I understand you think the Supreme Court is “pathologically reluctant” for doing this.
But nonetheless, the Washington state courts are bound only by what the Supreme Court actually did say, pathological reluctance and all, not by what you or I think it should say.
No, what I'm acknowledging is that the Court hasn't yet, and probably won't, apply to federal law the principles it has explicitly enunciated in these cases. It doesn't mean they haven't enunciated them, and won't apply them to state law.
Federal law just generally gets a pass from constitutional enforcement, unless both novel AND egregious, no matter how clearly it violates express doctrine.
The Court doesn’t act like it said what Brett is sure it said, but that just shows a different BrettLaw thing is true.
Do you notice how complex your parallel legal doctrine of law only you can see is getting?
“Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The NSA would not survive actually being judged by that standard, not in a thousand years. None of the federal gun laws would.
What right of the federal Constitution is infringed when a state interprets its own constitution in state courts? Why would WSSC have any authority to declare what conduct is covered by a federal tort statute?
Why would WSSC have any authority to declare what conduct is covered by a federal tort statute?
I think by saying “the Court,” Brett is referring to the United States Supreme Court. That would align with his statement about invoking federal law for deprivation of rights under of law.
Yes, exactly.
That kind of thing has happened to me in New York at the Appellate Division. When moving for a stay, opposing counsel are supposed to be notified at what time tomorrow the stay will be argued at the courthouse. The purpose is to give you a chance to oppose the stay at least verbally. But when I get there at the designated time I see the stay has already been granted.
"for the 88 minutes the injunction was thought to be in place, the Gator's store was overwhelmed with gun owners who swarmed in to purchase magazines holding over ten rounds. There were lines up to 10-people deep and the parking lot was full."
And that's why there was a stay quickly granted.
"Meanwhile, further briefs are being filed and there will be an actual hearing on April 17 before the Commissioner."
So yes, there will be a full hearing and opportunity to respond and argue.
It is not uncommon for appellate courts, when a lower court does not include a stay with the ruling on certain issues, to issue a stay very, very quickly to maintain the status quo until they can have a hearing.
In other words, this is a lot of complaining about nothing.
(That said, I know close to nothing about how Washington state operates. In my experience, it is rare in practice for clerks and other non-judges to be able to issue anything other than non-routine orders in appellate matters, such as uncontested extensions of time etc. While I am not surprised at the result and timing, I am always amazed at how different states can operate their court systems.)
“for the 88 minutes the injunction was thought to be in place, the Gator’s store was overwhelmed with gun owners who swarmed in to purchase magazines holding over ten rounds. There were lines up to 10-people deep and the parking lot was full.”
Scary.
Why do they need all that extra ammo?
You might enjoy Cheryl Wheeler's song "Don't Forget the Guns".
Why do cops???
So they can murder black people?
There in lies my problem. I will not even think about any new gun control laws that exempt civilian law enforcement.
If you can't pass it without exempting the police, just don't.
You will get much more traction with guns for personal defense against criminals than the argument that the 2A exists so sovereign citizens won't be disadvantaged when they shoot it out with the cops.
"than the argument that the 2A exists so sovereign citizens won’t be disadvantaged when they shoot it out with the cops."
It's a good thing then that I didn't make that argument or any argument that remotely resembles it.
Non-police have exactly the same needs as police when it comes to personal defense against criminals.
Personal defense isn't why police have access to military-grade weapons.
seriously?
There it is again! An inability to understand someone who believes differently. You ridicule others about their failure to understand trans rights, or how a pregnant woman needing an abortion might feel, yet apparently you are incapable of understanding why some might want high capacity magazines. Actually, they don’t need to provide any reason. But it’s illuminating that you ask.
Scared of what you don’t understand. How typical, insular, provincial.
So tell me -- why would someone need high capacity magazines? And in such a hurry?
Citizen Joe Smith has exactly the same need for high capacity magazines as Police Officer Bob Jones, and for exactly the same reason.
Why does a newspaper need a "High Capacity Printing Press"?
Why does someone publishing a blog need "High Capacity Fiber" rather than a dial up modem?
I'm all for the 2A, but these parallels between guns and speech do guns no favors to anyone who isn't a maximalist on gun rights.
The problem here is that what you mean by "maximalist on gun rights" is just anybody who insists that the right get treated like a normal civil right.
I get that you find these parallels deeply inconvenient. That's because they shine a light on just how radically differently you want this particular right treated from other rights.
True. The Hoplophobes are seriously afraid of people who legally own firearms.
I mean the extreme positions you take are unpopular as a matter of practically, rights, and culture.
And there's a certain of angry idealist who thinks such things are not an issue worth thinking about because of how right they are.
You do your cause no favors ignoring politics and pragmatism.
Abortion folks chalked a *ton* of wins leading up to Dobbs because for all their rhetoric they were actually practical and willing to compromise.
"Unpopular"?
Ahhh, that must be the reason that all 50 states have Concealed Carry, 46 states also allow open carry and 29 states have Constitutional Carry, with more expected later this year.
Not to mention record high NICS checks.
"Compromise"? A word that Gun Control a-holes can't spell, let alone grasp. Every new gun law is always described as "A Good Start".
So what do you think maximalist means?
You can read in the thread what they want, and it's a lot more than concealed carry.
Constitutional carry is a dumb name; some silly virtue signaling there.
But yeah, part of being a maximalist is constant paranoia over the other side.
You'll never get any lasting policy change if you're too busy demonizing the other side.
"You’ll never get any lasting policy change if you’re too busy demonizing the other side."
please put that on the Reverend's mirrors. All of them.
Oh noes the Rev is in my side so I gotta defend him and adopt Al, his arguments that I’ve not seen for years.
No dude quit nitpicking and stay in topic.
captcrisis 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
IOW only violent psychotics need them.
This was in response to a post positing
1) a movie plot that is never going to be real
or
2) a bloody revolution
Yeah, dudes who that's their motive to have guns should be called out as having issues.
Both are constitutional rights. The same 'logic' that says the government has a compelling interest in restricting magazine capacity says the government has a compelling interest in limiting printer capacity or bandwidth. People that pretend otherwise do no favors to anyone who isn't a maximalist on free speech rights.
I get your logic, even if I disagree with it. (All our rights are handled differently; comparing one to another and saying no fair is not generally a winning argument)
I'm more talking about the elision of the distinction between speech and killing.
A maximalist on free speech rights is not at all happy with the status quo of 1A.
IMO, the general public should be allowed to own and carry anything carried/used by most civilian law enforcement. (I'll weasel out a small carve out for equipment carried/used by specialized SWAT type units as they aren't in regular use). If we're going to trust civilian law enforcement with a 17 round magazine like I have in my duty weapon then we should trust John Q Public with the same.
That sounds pretty legit to me, and I'm no maximalist.
It's not what the law is yet, though.
That is what the law is now in most of the country.
Right, these gun cases are all dealing with a handful of outlier jurisdictions, it's worth remembering. Most of the country had no problem at all with Bruen.
By law I mean national 2A precedent, not statutes.
Were you talking policy and not Constitution?
I was talking about statutes. In most states standard capacity magazines, semi-auto pistols and rifles, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and fully automatic firearms are legal to own by non-felon adult citizens.
Captcrisis, you’re engaged in a fundamental error here, even asking that question.
Once something is found to be a right, it becomes legally irrelevant whether somebody “needs” it. Because the choices aren’t the government’s any more, you don’t need to justify the choices to the government.
Yes, you can legally buy alcohol. But it's scary when a guy runs into a store to get 20 bottles of Jack Daniels, quick.
If in 88 minutes the sales of Jack Daniels would become illegal, I wouldn't think it strange at all for someone to buy 20 bottles.
"If in 88 minutes the sales of Jack Daniels would become illegal" again.
"If at any hour or day . . {it} would be illegal" Nobody (but the Commissioner?) knew that it would be only 88 minutes.
I think the AG and his office knew is would be quite quick. And we have folk on here defending the swiftness of the stay. And I think many, including those at Gator Guns, had a reasonable suspicion it would be swift.
So, again, what’s the issue here? If one knows something is going from legal to illegal very soon (regardless of any previous state), it’s not weird or scary that folks would line up and take advantage of the waning availability.
"But it’s scary when a guy runs into a store to get 20 bottles of Jack Daniels, quick."
Why? Maybe he's stocking his liquor cabinet with a two year supply before the prices go up (or he heard new owners were changing the flavor).
If you are subject to a home invasion, with multiple perps, you certainly might need more than 10 rounds.
If the government goes rogue, and there's a civil war or some such thing, you would want the army is using; I am pretty sure they use 20 round mags, but maybe 30.
IOW only violent psychotics need them.
Victims of home invasions are violent psychotics?
"Why do they need all that extra ammo?"
If not clear, they weren't buying ammo. They were buying magazines. Not the same thing.
When is a rhetorical question just an attempt to form an argument without including an actual assertion?
"Shall Not Be Infringed"
Next Case!
SHALL: Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
NOT: In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition.
BE: To exist in a certain manner or relation, -- whether as a reality or as a product of thought;
INFRINGED: Violated, transgressed, or encroached upon, as a regulation, restriction, or right:
Yes, you don't read very well, but you don't have to brag about it.
I'm looking forward to this reasoning being applied to ICE vehicles: Sure you can own a Hummer but you're limited to a one gallon gas tank.
This is not about a 10 round limit. Ten is just an arbitrary number. If a ten round limit is constitutionally kosher, then why not a nine round limit? Or an eight round limit after that.
That's actually the point of the 10 round limit: Once they establish that the right can be arbitrarily restricted, they're free to start ramping up the restrictions.
It was the same reasoning behind the '94 AWB: Once you established that guns could be arbitrarily banned, you could go back and keep adding to the list. But first you need to clear that threshold, getting a precedent that you can act arbitrarily against the right.
Bellmore, Supreme Court 2A jurisprudence skirted the edge of legitimacy for years. With Bruen it went over the edge.
A method of legal reasoning which insists, "No factual analysis will be entertained unless it justifies a result pre-determined by the Court," can never be taken as legitimate law. Nor can it be legitimate law to insist, "The Court will judge the quality and relevance of legal reasoning case-by-case, according to outcomes the Court prefers in each case."
Bruen committed the former offense when it gerrymandered history, cutting out notably more than half of relevant history because the disfavored part contained facts which embarrassed the decision Thomas wanted to deliver. Bruen committed the latter offense when it insisted on accepting as legal reasoning only the texts of a specific selection of laws, without other regard to case records, outcomes, locations, persons and their circumstances, or other contextual analysis relevant to history and tradition.
Thomas aggravated both offenses by arbitrarily dismissing as irrelevant whatever contrary examples came up within the tortured scope he designated.
It should surprise no one when an illegitimate decision calls forth illegitimate resistance. Get back to me with your complaints after:
1. The entire span of this nation's history is restored to relevance in every decision purportedly based on history and tradition.
2. The Militia Clause has been reinstated as the basis for the 2A.
3. Questions about other bases to protect gun rights have been restored to state discretion, to match the actual original intention of the founders.
Or:
4. Gun advocates concede that the line of gun cases from Heller onward were decided contrary to originalist principles—and that gun control advocates are as entitled as anyone else to legal consideration on the basis of non-originalist reasoning.
"cutting out notably more than half of relevant history because the disfavored part contained facts which embarrassed the decision Thomas wanted to deliver. "
What you're complaining about, essentially, is the principle of fixity, that constitutional language has the meaning it had when adopted, regardless of subsequent developments, barring amendment. So, if you want to know what an amendment means, you look at what it was understood to mean at the time of adoption.
Of course, anybody who wants gun control is going to find that objectionable, because gun control really only got a serious start at the state level with Jim Crow, and at the federal level with the NFA, so restricting applicable precedent to the correct era excludes almost all gun laws.
Properly so, since they were adopted to violate the right.
"2. The Militia Clause has been reinstated as the basis for the 2A."
Cool, I wouldn't mind being able to buy a select fire M-4 at the corner gun store.
"3. Questions about other bases to protect gun rights have been restored to state discretion, to match the actual original intention of the founders."
Man, you really hate that 14th amendment, don't you?
IANAL, but nonetheless, I'm confused and upset about the logic here.
The 10 round limit is a new law or regulation, no? So, why would the courts insist that it go into effect, and require injunctions to stop it, rather than hold off on implementing or enforcing the law until it rattles through the courts. The "status quo," as loki 13 mentions, is NOT the ban, but the non-ban.
Please explain.
"GUNZ ARE SKEERY"?
Well, the answer AFAICT (and again, this isn't an issue I have followed, or particularly care about) from briefly skimming the order is that the law took effect July 1, 2022.
It hasn't been enjoined. So the status quo prior to the order (again, afaik) is that the law is in effect. The stay would keep that status quo in effect, at least until a full hearing on the issue.
(This is why I prefer that trial court judges provide, at a minimum, a temporary stay of the order to at least provide time to request a stay and have it granted or denied on the merits when they are overturning a law- because that's the best approach as a general rule.)
"There were lines up to 10-people deep and the parking lot was full. The customers even included two city councilmen; no gangbangers here."
OP forgets the world we currently live in. Rightwing nationalists are today's gangbangers. Shooting up everything in sight across the nation.
Only according to their political opponents, i.e., the Democratic party, the FBI, the DoJ, and every other deep-state federal agency that's been weaponized by the Dem/prog left.
"Rightwing nationalists are today’s gangbangers. Shooting up everything in sight across the nation."
And they all shout "This is MAGA country!".
Wikipedia has an article about "List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024." The descriptions don't seem to involve to many "Rightwing nationalists".
All cut from the same cloth. You want me to list the ideation of every adult mass shooter from the past decade?
Have at it. We'll wait.
I'll start with 4, not going to put "their" (see what I did there?) names because that's part of the problem, publicizing theses pieces of shit.
The Colorado Springs shooter identified as non binary. (November 19, 2022)
The Denver shooter identified as trans. (May 7, 2019)
The Aberdeen shooter identified as trans. (Sept 20, 2018)
The Nashville shooter identified as trans. (March 27, 2023)
Frank
"You want me to list"
Yes, you must have that data readily available to make your sweeping statement.
I’ve begun a Kickstarter campaign to fund my new gun product. It’s a rifle that shoots multiple whole revolvers which careen through the air like pinwheels, all the time shooting bullets. Any takers?
How in the world does a CLERK issue a judicial ORDER? Did the Court meet and vote? Did they provide notice and opportunity to be heard? This is straight nuts.
From Commissioner Johnston's order:
"Having considered the State’s motion and attachments thereto, the superior court’s order, the debatable nature of the factual and legal issues raised in this case, ...."
Pretty weak sauce. In 88 minutes he had time to read the motion, attachments, a 50+ page court order, and write his own order?
"... and the public safety issues concerning the proliferation of large capacity magazines compatible with assault weapons as defined by RCW 9.41.010(2); taking into account the provisions of RAP 8.1(b)(3) and RAP 8.3; ...."
This assumes the conclusion. This is not an unbiased ruling in any way.
"... and taking into consideration the effective administration of justice under SAR 15(a), I have determined that it is appropriate to enter a temporary stay of the superior court’s order pending resolution of the State’s emergency motion for a stay pending further review of that order"
SAR 15(a) only appoints a commissioner, it doesn't grant the commissioner any powers. Perhaps a typo, and he meant SAR 15(b) which states "The commissioner will hear and decide those motions authorized by the Rules of Appellate Procedure and any additional motions that may be assigned to the commissioner by the court." I'm curious what statutory authority there is in the RCW or WAC that permits judges to delegate their authority.
What Thoreau said.
And Ted Nugent,
and Elton John
Frank "She's got electric boots a mohair suit
and a 50 round mag-a-zine-hine, no oh
Be-Be-Bennie and the Jets"
The whole thing stinks of corruption of the judicial system.
Again, no ... it doesn't.
This is only a temporary stay pending FULL REVIEW of the stay. That's it.
"I have determined that it is appropriate to enter a temporary stay of the superior court’s order pending resolution of the State’s emergency motion for a stay pending further review of that order.”
This is not surprising or unprecedented. This happens ALL THE TIME. Even for run of the mill cases.
For example, not too long ago I was brought in to do the appellate work on what had become a contentious eviction issue (with numerous side issues). When the FJ came in, the tenant filed an emergency stay of the order to prevent the writ of possession to the appellate court, which was immediately granted (on a Friday). Within minutes of the filing.
That night, I filed the response showing that the stay was meritless.
After consideration, the Court lifted the stay on Tuesday.
No big deal. Happens all the time. Not everything is some bizarre and weird plot.
The reason it stinks of collusion is, as keeps being pointed out, the speed with which it happened, without any opportunity at all for the other side to object.
In the ordinary course of events, you'd expect enough time to elapse for the opinion being stayed to have actually been READ, and maybe opposing counsel to say something.
In this case? That he'd stay the order was predetermined before he'd seen the order's reasoning. And that IS a form of corruption.
A practitioner says: "This happens ALL THE TIME. Even for run of the mill cases."
Maybe that's wrong, but no one else here has that authority; y'all just making up a baseline so you can be paranoid.
You can't argue with crazy.
I just gave an example of a completely run-of-the-mill, ordinary case where this happened. And they put in the stay immediately before my response.
And then I was able to respond, and after the Court reviewed all the motion and response, the stay was lifted.
Same here. The relief is temporary, pending full briefing and a hearing.
Yep, they want to believe this miserable thing about America's judicial system.
Halbrook basically sets it up for them to take that bait though.
Irresponsible.
"This happens all the time." and "This is corrupt." are hardly conflicting statements. Our legal system IS corrupt, have you somehow not noticed?
I am going to make this point as simple as possible so that even you might be able to understand it.
The legal system, like any system, is not perfect. Far from it. I am perfectly happy to engage in reasonable conversations about issues and problems in the legal system. But problems are not the same as corruption.
This, however is not a problem, nor is it corruption. It is beyond annoying when someone (like the OP) riles up the usual crowd (like you) by pointing out something that is altogether not that uncommon in terms of PROCESS and that immediately leads people (like you) to start darkly muttering about conspiracies and corruption.
One more time- this is not uncommon. In effect, the appellant is requesting an emergency stay. These are granted quickly (hint- that's why it's called an EMERGENCY) to maintain the status quo. They are only in effect until there is a full response and/or a hearing (depending on the appellate rules of the jurisdiction- most jurisdictions resolve just on the motions).
As I pointed out, in my experience (and this was recent), this can be annoying in routine cases, such as the one I was brought into as appellate counsel, when there isn't any merit to the emergency stay, but it only resulted in a short delay until the motion panel reviewed the response and lifted the stay.
TLDR; it is a feature, not a bug, that appellate courts will sometimes quickly enter brief emergency stays to maintain a status quo for a short period of time to allow the status quo to be maintained until there is a full briefing on the stay. This didn't make the stay effective without a response; this simply entered a stay until there was a response and a consideration of the issue, which will then determine if there will be a stay during the appeal.
Now, when there is a response, and a hearing (or decision on the papers) you are welcome to criticize that on the merits. In addition, if there is some undue delay in that decision, you can criticize that as well. IMO, it IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM when appellate courts abuse process regarding administrative and emergency stays, for example, by issuing them and then sitting on them indefinitely. But I didn't see you up in arms about that when a certain federal appellate court was regularly abusing procedure.
It really helps to understand the underlying issues, instead of flying off the handle based purely on partisan knee-jerk reactions.
People like Brett mutter about conspiracies and corruption without any prompting.