Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

26
featureless wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:16 pm Good news. The state's challenge to the preliminary injunction was tossed today. Still need to win the magazine war, but a little victory every now and then is nice in this 2A rights desert...

https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/ninth-ci ... azine-ban/
Nice to see a win, as long as the state doesn't request an en banc review of the panel's opinion and get it reversed.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

27
highdesert wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:51 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:16 pm Good news. The state's challenge to the preliminary injunction was tossed today. Still need to win the magazine war, but a little victory every now and then is nice in this 2A rights desert...

https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/ninth-ci ... azine-ban/
Nice to see a win, as long as the state doesn't request an en banc review of the panel's opinion and get it reversed.
Oh, they'd never do that. :lol: :no: :weep:

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

28
featureless wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:08 pm
highdesert wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:51 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:16 pm Good news. The state's challenge to the preliminary injunction was tossed today. Still need to win the magazine war, but a little victory every now and then is nice in this 2A rights desert...

https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/ninth-ci ... azine-ban/
Nice to see a win, as long as the state doesn't request an en banc review of the panel's opinion and get it reversed.
Oh, they'd never do that. :lol: :no: :weep:
No, it's never happened. :)

Maybe Becerra will forget about it, he will face an actual Republican in November, Steven Bailey a retired judge who had a cloud over him when he left the bench.
https://www.sfgate.com/g00/news/article ... i10c.dv=14
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

30
Volokh:
Second Amendment Injunction Against California Ban on Large-Capacity-Magazines Kept in Place by Ninth Circuit
In Duncan v. Becerra, a federal district court had issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of California's ban on magazines that fit more than 10 rounds, pending a full trial on the merits. Today, the Ninth Circuit upheld this, in a 2-1 nonprecedential decision, though one that heavily deferred to the lower court's judgment, and didn't prejudge the final result after a trial is held and the final judgment is issued and appealed.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Randy Smith, joined by visiting District Judge Deborah Batts; the dissent was written by Judge Clifford Wallace. For those who watch such matters, both Judges Smith and Wallace are Republican appointees, as is Judge Roger Benitez, whose decision is being affirmed here; both Judges Smith and Wallace are known as solid conservatives (I can't speak to Judge Benitez). But the deciding vote on the panel, in favor of upholding the lower court's decision protecting Second Amendment rights, was cast by a judge who sits in Manhattan, was appointed by President Clinton, and is said to have been "the nation's first openly LGBT, African-American federal judge."

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

31
Ah Eugene Volokh! I don't read him very often, but I respect him. He's a good thinker. Also, a bit of trivia: before he went to law school he was a computer programmer who wrote a very popular command shell called MPE/iX for the HP 3000 line of computers. I used to use that software every day back in the 90's.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

39
We'll be hearing more on Duncan vs Becerra. The 9th Circuit panel's decision was only on Judge Benitez's preliminary injunction, he will be holding another hearing on making that injunction permanent. Benitez believed that there was a substantial likelihood that the Duncan et al will win in a full hearing, so granted the preliminary injunction. I don't see that changing.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

45
I got through most of it. Some of the quotes that I liked.
Fortunately, the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to keep and bear firearms. The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. “As interpreted in recent years by the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment protects ‘the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.’”
“[O]ur central holding in Heller [is] that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. City of Chicago
“An unconstitutional statute adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity.” Silveira, 312 at 1091.
But an individual victim gets little, if any, media attention, and the attention he or she gets is local and short-lived. For example, who has heard about the home invasion attack on Melinda Herman and her twin nine-year old daughters in Georgia only one month after the Sandy Hook incident?15 Who has heard of the attacks on Ms. Zhu Chen or Ms. Gonzalez and her husband?16 Are the lives of these victims worth any less than those lost in a mass shooting? Would their deaths be any less tragic? Unless there are a lot of individual victims together, the tragedy goes largely unnoticed.

That is why mass shootings can seem to be a common problem, but in fact, are exceedingly rare. At the same time robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals are common, but draw little public notice. As in the year 2017, in 2016 there were numerous robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals in California and no mass shootings. Nevertheless, a gubernatorial candidate [Gavin Newson] was successful in sponsoring a statewide ballot measure (Proposition 63). Californians approved the proposition and added criminalization and dispossession elements to existing law prohibiting a citizen from acquiring and keeping a firearm magazine that is able to hold more than 10 rounds. The State now defends the prohibition on magazines, asserting that mass shootings are an urgent problem and that restricting the size of magazines a citizen may possess is part of the solution. Perhaps it is part of the solution.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning, acquiring, possessing, or storing a commonly-owned 15-round magazine at home for self-defense is protected at the core of the Second Amendment. Possessing a loaded 100-round rifle and magazine in a crowded public area may not be.
Today, self-protection is most important. In the future, the common defense may once again be most important. Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Needing a solution to a current law enforcement difficulty cannot be justification for ignoring the Bill of Rights as bad policy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law.
The Attorney General argues, even so, that it is permissible to ban common handguns with common magazines holding more than 10 rounds because the possession of firearms with other smaller magazines is allowed.
To the extent that magazines holding more than 10 rounds may be less common within California, it would likely be the result of the State long criminalizing the buying, selling, importing, and manufacturing of these magazines. Saying that large capacity magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning.
Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed. The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.”
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual noticeof this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
DATED: March 29, 2019
Nice to see but it won't last, Becerra is probably now beating on the doors of the 9th Circuit. The 9th will stay the injunction until it can hold a hearing and it will likely overturn it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

48
If you skipped everything above, read my two favorite quotes from it?
Today, self-protection is most important. In the future, the common defense may once again be most important. Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Needing a solution to a current law enforcement difficulty cannot be justification for ignoring the Bill of Rights as bad policy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law.
Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed. The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.”
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

49
senorgrand wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:08 pm some good stuff there...maybe a pitch to SCOTUS?
My thought exactly, another gun case for SCOTUS for next term after the 9th overturns Benitez's injunction.
Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades.

"We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he stuck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps. Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines. The conflicting decisions on extended magazines may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Michel said the decision "recognizes that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and that the state has to meet a high burden before it can pass a law that infringes on the right to keep or bear arms," Michel said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ju ... nd-n989136
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

50
In the court order it states
...are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
That section is on large capacity magazines (LCM) as amended by Prop 63.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... article=1.

Newsom rode this proposition to the governor's mansion, so he had a response.
Gov. Gavin Newsom also weighed in, saying in a statement that the ruling was “indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law. I strongly disagree with the court’s assessment that ‘the problem of mass shootings is very small.’ Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast.”
The issue may not be fully resolved because judges in other states have issued different rulings, potentially setting up a scenario in which the U.S. Supreme Court would have to ultimately decide.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests