CGF: The Silvester v. Harris (10-Day Waiting Period Case) Appeal – Part III: The Plaintiffs/Appellees Fire Back in Defense of Your Second Amendment Gun Rights
CGF reports again on the Silvester v. Harris case:
Defendant/Appellant California Attorney General Kamala Harris had her chance to explain why she believes the original ruling in favor of Second Amendment rights should be overturned, and now it’s our turn to respond.
When an appellate court (such as the Ninth Circuit) hears an appeal following a trial — such as in the case of Silvester — it is important to remember that the court generally reviews the legal, not factual, decisions of the lower court.
An appeal following a trial is not a “do-over” of the entire trial; unless the appellate court finds that the lower court made a “clear error,” it will generally accept the lower court’s findings of fact as true.
In our answering brief, we spend a significant amount time patiently pointing out the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that Harris’ opening brief [conveniently] ignores.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit should be mainly interested in deciding whether the lower court was correct in its legal reasoning as applied to the facts of the case. Absent “clear error,” it should refuse to “re-weigh the evidence and overturn the district court’s evidentiary determinations – in effect . . . substitut[ing] [its] discretion for that of the district court.”
Read the full article at Calguns Foundation.
