This part quoted.
The part in orange. Is that Judge Bumb, or the appeals judge?
When a lawsuit is started it goes through a long scheduled process. Any time after the lawsuit is filed in a case challenging the legality of the law can also ask that the law which is already in effect be put on hold while the lawsuit goes thru the normal process which can take years.
When a motion or application for a temporary restraining order is filed, it cannot win unless the party seeking to stop the law can show a couple of things. First, it must harm somebody. Pretty easy one there, it disarms a lot of people and takes away their right of defense, the one where the second amendment applies, the right to the tools of defense.
The second hurdle that must be addressed is whether or not the group seeking the temporary injunction is "likley to win". The beauty of a case like this is that the Bruen case is pretty simple. It says that you cannot burden the second amendment unless you can show your restrictions of burdens existed back at the time of the constitution. Simply stated, people could carry guns in their pocket or on their horse or buggy anywhere they wanted. So, today, going to the mall, or shopping, or to work or even to the local park, is no different than at the time of the constitution. People could and did carry guns on their person. So, it looks like the state will lose and the Plaintiff will win.
So, at this stage the lawsuit is still moving forward, nothing changes, except the state has had this law put on hold while the lawsuit goes thru it's various stages. At this point the trial judge decides she wants legal briefs on several of the key issues. This is common and a wise move by the judge. She makes them give all of their authority and rationale on both side. In my view, the case is basically decided in our favor, conditioned upon some tweaking. There may be a few places where she might agree with the state and let them do some restrictions.
Meanwhile, the losers/state does not like the temporary restraining order and want a second shot at that issue. So, they file an appeal just on whether or not all of part of the new laws are shut down for the duration of the lawsuit.
The beauty of this deal to me is that the trial judge has asked for legal briefs on certain issues. What that means is that the appeals court is asked to step in and shut down the entire restraining order right in the middle of the trial judge's attempt to get all of the information they really need to make and informed decision. That makes an appellate court look foolish to jump the gun when the key legal issues are being briefeas They will want that same information for the trial court. Why would they just jerk this aways from the trial judge before she gets this additional information?. If they do, then it will look and is purely political.
So, the trial judge basically told the state to put up or shut up. Bruen took away much of the autonomy of the local federal district judge. Most do not like to get reversed and look incompetent when the do so. So, everybody in the process wants to look good, or actually they do not want to look bad. The judge might be anti gun, but the rulings in cases like this are pretty simple, and every lawyer and judge they know will know immediately if there is some political stuff going on. Bruen actually shut the door on many such issues. An anti gun judge can rule that the new gun laws are unconstitutional and throw the law out, and she is totally justified by the Buen case. If she does not and gets reversed, then she has that order from the big court, that in lawyer terms, says she was incompetent. So, I am not worried about this one.
But, I am never surprised when there is some anti gun ruling by a court, it has happened for decades. However, I would be very surprised in this case if the appellate panel throws out the temporary restraining order.
I think we are good on this one. Hope so anyway.