Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

377
DispositionMatrix wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:21 am
featureless wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:07 am
highdesert wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:28 am Republicans and Democrats go judge shopping all the time, why not 2A supporters.
Yup. Pretty funny thing for Everytown to get its knickers in a twist over.
And it's probably much ado about nothing anyway. Ultimately, firearm prohibitionists are going to get their way regardless of how courts rule.
Also yup.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

378
Just looking and so far the 9th Circuit hasn't made a decision on Becerra's request for an en banc hearing since plaintiff Duncan et al won in the district court and in a 9th Circuit panel. Nothing since Duncan's lawyers Chuck Michel and Paul Clement submitted that they were opposed to an en banc hearing back in September of this year. Internal debates with the new Trump judges, weighing if they want to be eventually overturned by SCOTUS or just let Becerra go there directly. Becerra wants to keep Newsom happy, his name is mentioned as a potential successor to Harris in the US Senate when she resigns.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

381
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:41 pm To be reheard en banc the week of 3/22/2021.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... _order.pdf
THOMAS, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that
this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a)
and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated.
Fuck Thomas. He never met a gun law he didn't love.

Edited to add: just as a reminder this case started in 2017. We won in the district court. Then we won in the appeal to CA9. We'll most likely lose en banc. Then it will go to SCOTUS. So, probably 2 to 4 years (2023-2025), at best, for either denial or a possible win at SCOTUS. Justice delayed and all that... But at least it keeps standard capacity magazines out of the hands of the miscreants who don't steal them or buy them in Nevada. Doing God's work.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

383
Duncan v. Bonta.

Supplemental brief filed by the AG.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachm ... 0FILED.pdf
ARGUMENT
I. CALIFORNIA’S LCM RESTRICTIONS DO NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT
1. Plaintiffs’ central argument is that “because magazines that can hold
more than 10 rounds are ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes,’ the Second Amendment protects them.” Plaintiffs Opening
Supplemental Brief (PSB) 1 (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570,
625 (2008)). In plaintiffs’ view, California’s ban on the “possession of such
magazines” is categorically unconstitutional because “the state cannot banish what
the Constitution protects.” PSB 1. But the core concern of the Second
Amendment is “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in
defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635. And California’s LCM
restrictions do not “banish” that right; to the contrary, California generally allows
law-abiding adults to possess and defend themselves and their homes with as many
approved firearms, as much ammunition, and as many authorized magazines as
they want. See Attorney General’s Opening Supplemental Brief (ASB) 2, 21.

Nor is Section 32310 “[j]ust like [the] ban on handguns” that the Supreme
Court invalidated in Heller. PSB 7. Unlike handguns, LCMs are not the
“quintessential self-defense weapon,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 629; indeed, their
popularity has spiked only in the last few decades, see ASB 11-12. And unlike the
D.C. law, California has not “ma[de] it impossible for citizens to use
[handguns]”—or approved long guns—for the “core lawful purpose of self-
defense.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 630. All California has done is to limit the number
of rounds per magazine to no more than 10. That is (far) more than the 2.2 rounds
that individuals typically need to defend themselves in a self-defense situation, see
2-ER-286-93; and in those rare instances in which persons need additional rounds
for self-defense, they may reload with a fresh magazine or continue firing using
another firearm, see infra pp. 5-6.

Given those differences, it plainly does not “follow[] . . . from Heller” (PSB
7) that California’s LCM restrictions are invalid. Instead, Section 32310 must be
reviewed under the two-step framework that this Court has articulated for
reviewing Second Amendment claims. See Young v. Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765, 783
(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Plaintiffs do not appear to question that the two-step
framework is an appropriate means of constitutional analysis in this context. And
a proper application of Section 32310 under that framework confirms that the law
is constitutional

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

385
Oral arguments heard in the 9th, as a precursor to the court ultimately upholding California's standard-capacity magazine ban. They just need to write the opinion that gets them there.
An appeal from the district court's summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in their action challenging California Government Code section 32310 which, in relevant part, bans possession of large-capacity magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

387
DispositionMatrix wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:21 am
featureless wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:07 am
highdesert wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:28 am Republicans and Democrats go judge shopping all the time, why not 2A supporters.
Yup. Pretty funny thing for Everytown to get its knickers in a twist over.
And it's probably much ado about nothing anyway. Ultimately, firearm prohibitionists are going to get their way regardless of how courts rule.
I was told I'd never be able to carry a gun legally concealed in the state of my birth. I can now. People are waking up to the racism and astroturfing of the Anti "movement". There's a lot of space right now to build a real grass roots, broad coalition of people who support the 2nd amendment across all walks of life. The problem is that no one is currently doing it.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

390
California ban on high-capacity magazines reinstated by U.S. appeals court

(Reuters) - A divided U.S. appeals court on Tuesday reinstated California's ban on high-capacity magazines, calling it a reasonable means to try reducing gun violence following a spate of mass shootings nationwide.

By a 7-4 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by firearms owners that banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition violated their right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

The majority opinion by Circuit Judge Susan Graber called the 2017 ban a "reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence" that interfered "only minimally" with the right to self-defense.

Tuesday's decision is a temporary victory for gun control advocates, as they await a U.S. Supreme Court decision on a New York law imposing strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. The Supreme Court signaled https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 2021-11-03 during oral arguments on Nov. 3 that it might strike down the law, while appearing open to gun limits in schools, sports stadiums and crowded public settings. It is expected to rule by June.

A lower court judge had struck down the California ban in 2019, and a divided three-judge appeals court panel upheld that decision in August 2020. The appeals court set aside https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-cou ... 2021-02-25 that ruling in February so that 11 judges could consider the dispute.

One of Tuesday's dissenters, Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, said high-capacity magazines have been used for centuries, with millions in use today, and deserved protection under the 2008 Supreme Court decision giving individuals a right to bear arms.

The California Rifle & Pistol Association, which challenged the state ban, said it will seek to put Tuesday's decision on hold while it appeals to the Supreme Court.

California Governor Gavin Newsom welcomed the decision.

"Weapons of war don't belong on our streets," the Democratic governor tweeted. "This is a huge victory for the health and safety of all Californians."

Democratic presidents appointed the seven judges in Tuesday's majority, while Republican presidents appointed the four dissenting judges. The judges issued six opinions totaling 156 pages.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Brendan O'Brien in Chicago and David Shepardson in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Leslie Adler)
https://www.rawstory.com/california-ban ... als-court/
"Weapons of war don't belong on our streets," the Democratic governor tweeted. "This is a huge victory for the health and safety of all Californians."
Then take them and the armored MRAP vehicles away from the police. If the people can't have neither should the police. Equal protection under the law. :sarcasm:
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

392
That was an en banc opinion of the 9th Circuit - 11 judges. US District Court Judge Roger Benitez found the ban on standard mags unconstitutional and so did a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit, US Court of Appeals. Little doubt that the CRPA will petition SCOTUS for cert in hopes of overturning it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

393
sikacz wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:48 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:15 pm Today, CA9 ruled the mag ban is just dandy. Shocked, I tell you. Now on to SCOTUS.
This wasn’t a surprise agree. Yet, NPR coverage could have been a bit more unbiased.
Magazine size beyond maybe three has no change on the function of the weapon, goes the rationale.

Change my mind.

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
They say that Cain caught Abel rollin' loaded dice
Ace of Spades behind his ear and him not thinkin' twice

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

394
CDFingers wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:45 pm
sikacz wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:48 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:15 pm Today, CA9 ruled the mag ban is just dandy. Shocked, I tell you. Now on to SCOTUS.
This wasn’t a surprise agree. Yet, NPR coverage could have been a bit more unbiased.
Magazine size beyond maybe three has no change on the function of the weapon, goes the rationale.

Change my mind.

CDFingers
I dunno, man. Legislatures and CA9 seem to think it critical that LEO have access to these "weapons of war" (so called by great leader Newsom). They are in the business of gunfight`n. So, if LEO (who is trained, armored, awake, expecting the confrontation and has backup) needs them to respond to someone breaking into my house in the middle of the night, why don't the rest of us law abiding citizens who were just rudely awakened from our slumber by said perp have the same right to equip ourselves?

I'm pretty sure 911 response time in my neck of the woods is likely greater than 15 minutes. A whole lot of shit can go down in 15 minutes while I wait and suggest the perp cool his heals over Graham crackers and milk. Just saying, this "narrowly tailored" bullshit by CA9 leaves a lot of us country bumpkins out waiving in the breeze. Which is to say, there is exactly fuckall`s worth of tailoring to meet the stated goal of reducing mass shootings.

Want bans on high caps in public? Well, that's more tailored than a total ban. Equally ineffective, but more tailored. But stay the fuck out of my bedroom, damnit. :)

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

396
It makes the gun pointless. If you say one can only have a 1 round magazine the gun is pretty much useless for self defense. So how many rounds are needed for self defense and shouldn’t all civilians including police be restricted to the same standard. You might as well start using a revolver, at least a revolver has from 5 to 10 rounds depending on the gun and caliber. That’s a pretty lame reasoning, the functional intent of a semiautomatic is based on being able use multiple rounds, limiting magazine size limits it’s potential effectiveness as a defensive weapon. Of course that is part of the intent and to make it so unpractical that by default it’s no longer useable as a defensive tool. Take away police exemptions and let’s see if these same courts would come to this conclusion.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

397
CDFingers wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:30 am From the ruling:

"“The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms,” the court said in the 7-4 ruling. "

That's going to be hard to legally oppose.

CDFingers
No, it isn't. Is it dangerous and unusual? Is it in common use by law abiding citizens? The problem comes from restricting the rights of all to maybe limit the ability of a mass shooter who maybe choses to follow the magazine capacity law while committing mass murder, a vanishingly small occurrence. By the court's logic, we could ban sights. That would definitely reduce mass shooters' ability to aim, no?. Same with mandating a 20 pound trigger. Gun still works, right?

Really, the state needs to show that there is a problem that can be solved with a blanket ban. The state continues to not be able to do so. CA9, through its full panel review, has, yet again, overturned reasonable lower court rulings, deferring absolutely to the state on restrictions on a fundamental right. It does so every fucking time with regard to gun laws. It's never met an infringement it doesn't support. That ain't the way it's supposed to work.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

398
"Is it dangerous and unusual?" It's not a weapon. It's like a jar of screws as far as the 2A goes. Bigger jars hold more screws. Still can get the screws.

Not trying to be flippant, but the quote I posted shows how the court will pursue. The SCOTUS will defer to the states. Oddly, they are doing that now with the right to privacy, live on the radio. Women will lose. Gun owners will lose. At least gun owners will just have to buy more ten rounders. With women, it's for life.

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
They say that Cain caught Abel rollin' loaded dice
Ace of Spades behind his ear and him not thinkin' twice

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

399
The en banc ruling link below. IIRC Susan Graber will be the next chief judge when Sydney Thomas' term expires. It's Graber's majority opinion vs Bumatay's minority dissent (starting on page 103). Graber was appointed by Clinton and Bumatay by Trump. Bumatay is openly gay.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -55376.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

400
featureless wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:27 am
CDFingers wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:30 am From the ruling:

"“The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms,” the court said in the 7-4 ruling. "

That's going to be hard to legally oppose.

CDFingers
No, it isn't. Is it dangerous and unusual? Is it in common use by law abiding citizens? The problem comes from restricting the rights of all to maybe limit the ability of a mass shooter who maybe choses to follow the magazine capacity law while committing mass murder, a vanishingly small occurrence. By the court's logic, we could ban sights. That would definitely reduce mass shooters' ability to aim, no?. Same with mandating a 20 pound trigger. Gun still works, right?

Really, the state needs to show that there is a problem that can be solved with a blanket ban. The state continues to not be able to do so. CA9, through its full panel review, has, yet again, overturned reasonable lower court rulings, deferring absolutely to the state on restrictions on a fundamental right. It does so every fucking time with regard to gun laws. It's never met an infringement it doesn't support. That ain't the way it's supposed to work.
Spot on.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron