9th Circuit Hi-Cap Mag Review

[Chevusa]

So most of you know that the 9th Circuit is going to review the California law limiting mags to 10 rounds. One of the judges said the following:

"Callahan said the 10-round ban “seems to be a random choice,” given many firearms commonly owned for self-defense purposes can hold 16 or more rounds.
“It sounds like a pretty slippery slope,” Callahan said"

I'm not sure when they will hear the case, but it seems like they will overturn it. That leaves me to ask, if a federal appeals court rules it unconstitutional, wouldn't that make it so in NY and everywhere else as well? It would at least lay the groundwork. How could it be unconstitutional for some American's but not others?

So here's where I'm going with this. If it is ruled unconstitutional and that affected NY, would that mean that we would have to have 30 round mags fixed into our AR's? The SAFE act would still stand but the magazine provision would not. Interesting thought. I think if it came to that most people would just say the hell with it and go full function and hi-cap.

Ninth Circuit Panel Skeptical About California Ban on Big Gun Magazines

Posing hypothetical questions about the “slippery slope” California’s voter-approved ban on gun magazines with over 10 rounds of ammunition could have on gun owners’ rights, the Ninth Circuit Thurs…

www.courthousenews.com

 

[BDinPutnam]

"Standard", thank you.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Federal overturn of a CA law does not overturn NY law, no. Either needs to happen in federal courts here or at SCOTUS.

 

[Chevusa]

Federal overturn of a CA law does not overturn NY law, no. Either needs to happen in federal courts here or at SCOTUS.

That's why I mentioned "it would lay the groundwork". I think people just wouldn't care anyway. They've had enough and this is an opening.

 

[Elwood]

No, the Northeast falls under the 2nd circus if I recall correctly, even if the 9th overturned it in Commiefornia it would have no bearing on New York. It would create a split on the judicial level that could lead to the supreme circus having to hear a mag limit case but we all know they will just keep punting the case down the road

 

[SmallGameAddict]

Sad but true

 

[dwa12479]

No, the Northeast falls under the 2nd circus if I recall correctly, even if the 9th overturned it in Commiefornia it would have no bearing on New York. It would create a split on the judicial level that could lead to the supreme circus having to hear a mag limit case but we all know they will just keep punting the case down the road

^^^^ Dead nuts right here. Sadly.

 

[Grimscale]

but it seems like they will overturn it.

This is the first point where your argument fails.

Just because a Judge is asking "why 10" doesn't mean they will overturn it.
I hold no hope that any Court out west will slap California on the wrist.

But! On the offhand chance I end up wrong (gawds I hope so!), someone should be ready to sue NY as well. Either we get standard capacity mags (ie: anything we can jam rounds into that will fit a magwell) or we get it sent to SCOTUS due to split decisions.

 

[Saltwater60]

Interesting. Thanks for posting. I guess we will see what happens.
It would help us here in nys but not sure we would get the same result since Cuomo has appointed every appeals judge in nys at this point. With him and the Ag going after guns hardcore I doubt we’d have a favorable outcome in NYs.

Also interesting thought on the 30 round fixed mag in an ar. I won’t do that. I would stick with my 10 rounders as it’s hard to clear jams from 30 round mags. I had this happen once in a double feed and had to remove the baseplate of the 10 round mag. I had to get the jam cleared from the base of the mag. Nearly impossible for a 30 rounder. My featureless hell yeah id stock up on 30 rounders for that.

 

[Chevusa]

This is the first point where your argument fails.

Just because a Judge is asking "why 10" doesn't mean they will overturn it.
I hold no hope that any Court out west will slap California on the wrist.

But! On the offhand chance I end up wrong (gawds I hope so!), someone should be ready to sue NY as well. Either we get standard capacity mags (ie: anything we can jam rounds into that will fit a magwell) or we get it sent to SCOTUS due to split decisions.

The judge wasn't just asking "why 10". Did you read the article? He says 10 seems like some random made up shit and that most guns in use for personal defense hold more like 16. He seems to know what he's talking about. He also dismissed the excuse of "mass shooters will have to stop to reload" as unfounded nonsense.

 

[Chevusa]

t would help us here in nys but not sure we would get the same result since Cuomo has appointed every appeals judge in nys at this point. With him and the Ag going after guns hardcore I doubt we’d have a favorable outcome in NYs.

It would be in a federal circuit court of appeals I believe just like in CA. Nothing Cuomo can do.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It would be in a federal circuit court of appeals I believe just like in CA. Nothing Cuomo can do.

Our Circuit Court, the 2nd, already ruled on magazine capacity laws. The whole safe act was challenged and in regards to magazine capacity laws, they said that 10 was constitutional but 7 in 10 was not.

Taking another case that already covers their ruling on magazine capacity is extremely unlikely.

 

[Modean]

Our Circuit Court, the 2nd, already ruled on magazine capacity laws. The whole safe act was challenged and in regards to magazine capacity laws, they said that 10 was constitutional but 7 in 10 was not.

Taking another case that already covers their ruling on magazine capacity is extremely unlikely.

Yes, but in the unlikely event that the 9th rules against bans, then there is a split in Circuit rulings. That is supposed to get SCOTUS involved to resolve the split. In theory, anyway.

 

[Chevusa]

Yes, but in the unlikely event that the 9th rules against bans, then there is a split in Circuit rulings. That is supposed to get SCOTUS involved to resolve the split. In theory, anyway.

They actually already did rule against limits, but then it was challenged and a stay was issued temporarily. The courts initial decision was the ban is unconstitutional.

 

[Blimey]

No, the Northeast falls under the 2nd circus if I recall correctly, even if the 9th overturned it in Commiefornia it would have no bearing on New York. It would create a split on the judicial level that could lead to the supreme circus having to hear a mag limit case but we all know they will just keep punting the case down the road

2nd circus lol

 

[whatwasithinking]

Question .... has there ever been a legal challenge to the SAFE Act?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Question .... has there ever been a legal challenge to the SAFE Act?

Yes.

 

[prambo]

Federal overturn of a CA law does not overturn NY law, no. Either needs to happen in federal courts here or at SCOTUS.

Besides...

 

[Bozo]

They actually already did rule against limits, but then it was challenged and a stay was issued temporarily. The courts initial decision was the ban is unconstitutional.

This happens occasionally with the 9th. When the 3-judge panel is comprised of the less-liberal justices you see rulings that are inconsistent with the liberal outlook of the full court. Those are immediately appealed to the full court and overturned. That will happen here as well.

 

[Edwardteach72]

No, the Northeast falls under the 2nd circus if I recall correctly, even if the 9th overturned it in Commiefornia it would have no bearing on New York. It would create a split on the judicial level that could lead to the supreme circus having to hear a mag limit case but we all know they will just keep punting the case down the road

Yes we are the 2nd circuit

 

[Edwardteach72]

The 9th will rule the ban constitutional

 

[BDinPutnam]

The 9th will rule the ban constitutional

En bank, yes, yes they will.

 

[RDN]

Doesn't matter, SCOTUS under Roberts won't hear the case.

 

[Chevusa]

Doesn't matter, SCOTUS under Roberts won't hear the case.

It's not up to him to decide. Only a few of them have to agree to hear a case.

 

[BDinPutnam]

It's not up to him to decide. Only a few of them have to agree to hear a case.

Yeah and they haven't been taking the cases because they are allegedly worried Roberts will side with the progressive side of the Court.

 

[Chevusa]

Yeah and they haven't been taking the cases because they are allegedly worried Roberts will side with the progressive side of the Court.

Understood. Just setting the facts straight.

You wouldn't happen to have RBG's address, would you?

 

[BDinPutnam]

Understood. Just setting the facts straight.

You wouldn't happen to have RBG's address, would you?

I believe its being forwarded to John's Hopkins proactively.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I believe its being forwarded to John's Hopkins proactively.

IIRC, she currently resides in a luxury apartment in the Watergate hotel complex in Washington, DC, under armed protective security. She also has a full time daily fitness trainer to keep the formaldehyde flowing...

 

[Modean]

They actually already did rule against limits, but then it was challenged and a stay was issued temporarily. The courts initial decision was the ban is unconstitutional.

Yes, but that was a 3 judge panel. En Banc, I don’t see the 9th doing anything to support 2A.

 

[spat]

Yes, but in the unlikely event that the 9th rules against bans, then there is a split in Circuit rulings. That is supposed to get SCOTUS involved to resolve the split. In theory, anyway.

Someone would have to appeal the circuit ruling.

CA *might* appeal the ruling if they lost, but if they think they'll lose again at SCOTUS they might just decide not to risk it.

If CA doesn't appeal it, then nobody else can. You can't appeal a case you won, and I think the NY cases were too long ago or were already denied cert.

The best case for us might actually be to lose in the 9th circus and then we can appeal to SCOTUS for sure. Possibly with another Trump appointee in place of RBG.