"Large Capacity" mags protected, 9th circuit
- Thread starter Edwardteach72
- Start date
I get it though. The standard mag in AR rifles were 20 rounders. 30 is higher capacity.
thegatman
.308 Win
An “old friend” of mine once said, “It don’t take more than 7 boolits to keel s deer”
Jcp123
.357 mag
I’ve never really liked the guy, but he’s spot on. The anti-gun lobby has learned from the anti-abortion lobby and moved to the states. He’s also kinda right about the gun community’s optics.
Do I know if he’s right that the law wasn’t well-intentioned to begin with? He probably is right, but I try not to guess about the nature of folks and their intentions who I haven’t met.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Your friend seems very knowledgeable. It doesn’t take 7.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Amazing that something can be constitutional in one state and not in another.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
No, it would allow us to have our standard capacity mags that our firearms were sold with.
My P99 should have had 12rd mags, I want them back!
Right. Never mind. We don't want SCOTUS to rule limited mags unconstitutional. You still wouldn't have your 2 12 rounds mags. My bad. Silly me.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
seen posts the a few shops will send mags to Cali .. one was i think its called big daddy something .. and a few will let you order then put on hold ..
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
The issue is the BS term "hi capacity". Why keep allowing the media keywords to be present in the conversation. No different than assault weapons.Right. Never mind. We don't want SCOTUS to rule limited mags unconstitutional. You still wouldn't have your 2 12 rounds mags. My bad. Silly me.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Well said right there.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
but they left out rifle / shot gun .. .. should have just said guns .. or better yet .. ARMS ..
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Have a good nap, Mr. Van Winkle.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Do you live in California?
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
That was meant for a hypothetical situation that Cali's case made it to SCOTUS and trickled down to us. You know, hypothetical and unicorns and all that. We'll never see any unicorns.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Almost certainly it will be reviewed en banc and reversed in the 9th, and never see the light of day in D.C.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
There's going to be another rush on freedom in CA!
www.ammoland.com
Brownells Resumes Standard Capacity Gun Magazine Sales To California
Effective immediately, Brownells will once again ship standard capacity gun and rifle magazines to California customers!
www.ammoland.com
While strict scrutiny was applied, and rightly so, there are still nuggets in the decision that concern me:
"The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. "
This suggests that this judge believes waiting periods and "other limitations" on a Right are Constitutional. "Other limitations" could include things like licensing, permitting, etc.
It was also stated in the bearingarms article that the next step is up to Becarra. He could go en banc, or he could petition the SC.
"An en banc review of the case by a broader panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit also carries some risk for Becerra, given the shift in the balance of the court. Long considered to be the most left-leaning of all the circuits, thanks to President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments over the past four years the Ninth Circuit has become much more balanced, "
But, ultimately, the judge's written decision could be used in other arguments in front of courts:
"the law in question strikes at the core of the Second Amendment and poses a substantial burden on law-abiding gun owners "
Having to ask the government's permission to exercise a Right, with regard to licensing and permitting, as well as prospective gun owners choice in what firearm they choose to use for defense, is directly contradictory to the wording and idea of the Second Amendment.
"The nub of the state’s position is that even though it bars Californians from owning one of every two magazines in the United States, that restriction is not substantially burdensome because Californians can still possess other magazines. But no court would hold that the First Amendment allows the government to ban “extreme” artwork from Mapplethorpe just because the people can still enjoy Monet or Matisse. Nor would a court ever allow the government to outlaw so-called “dangerous” music by, say, Dr. Dre, merely because the state has chosen not to outlaw Debussy. And we would never sanction governmental banning of allegedly “inflammatory” views expressed in Daily Kos or Breitbart on the grounds that the people can still read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal… "
This statement puts the lie to every judge that upheld unConstitutional firearms restrictions by stating that firearm X is ok to ban since a person can buy firearm Y.
Unfortunately, Californians may not be able to purchase standard capacity mags yet. The article states that Benitez's stay of his own decision is still in effect until such time as he releases it. They predict that will not occur until after an en banc or SC appeal is resolved.
Nice to know their Rights are subject to the whim of one man.
bearingarms.com
"The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. "
This suggests that this judge believes waiting periods and "other limitations" on a Right are Constitutional. "Other limitations" could include things like licensing, permitting, etc.
It was also stated in the bearingarms article that the next step is up to Becarra. He could go en banc, or he could petition the SC.
"An en banc review of the case by a broader panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit also carries some risk for Becerra, given the shift in the balance of the court. Long considered to be the most left-leaning of all the circuits, thanks to President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments over the past four years the Ninth Circuit has become much more balanced, "
But, ultimately, the judge's written decision could be used in other arguments in front of courts:
"the law in question strikes at the core of the Second Amendment and poses a substantial burden on law-abiding gun owners "
Having to ask the government's permission to exercise a Right, with regard to licensing and permitting, as well as prospective gun owners choice in what firearm they choose to use for defense, is directly contradictory to the wording and idea of the Second Amendment.
"The nub of the state’s position is that even though it bars Californians from owning one of every two magazines in the United States, that restriction is not substantially burdensome because Californians can still possess other magazines. But no court would hold that the First Amendment allows the government to ban “extreme” artwork from Mapplethorpe just because the people can still enjoy Monet or Matisse. Nor would a court ever allow the government to outlaw so-called “dangerous” music by, say, Dr. Dre, merely because the state has chosen not to outlaw Debussy. And we would never sanction governmental banning of allegedly “inflammatory” views expressed in Daily Kos or Breitbart on the grounds that the people can still read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal… "
This statement puts the lie to every judge that upheld unConstitutional firearms restrictions by stating that firearm X is ok to ban since a person can buy firearm Y.
Unfortunately, Californians may not be able to purchase standard capacity mags yet. The article states that Benitez's stay of his own decision is still in effect until such time as he releases it. They predict that will not occur until after an en banc or SC appeal is resolved.
Nice to know their Rights are subject to the whim of one man.
9th Circuit Declares CA Magazine Ban Violates 2nd Amendment
A big victory for gun owners, but what happens next?
bearingarms.com
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
I want to change my answer.
@Grimscale - for better or worse the "you can go to the full circuit Court en banc, or SCOTUS" bit of this is the way the system works for everyone. Its baked into the system.
Now theoretically if he goes to en banc and loses. he could then take that loss to SCOTUS for a "final final" determination.
If this gets *reversed* en banc, I *think* that would theoretically tee this up that the plaintiffs could then appeal to SCOTUS. I dont think anyone in the gun control industrial complex wants to see that. Right now taking this to SCOTUS is probably a crapshoot for both sides.
Personally, I am not sure I'd want to roll those dice with Robert's being wishy washy on the issue and Ginsberg still on the Court.
Oh PS- the stay is basically automatic since an appeal of the appeal is likely pending.
@Grimscale - for better or worse the "you can go to the full circuit Court en banc, or SCOTUS" bit of this is the way the system works for everyone. Its baked into the system.
Now theoretically if he goes to en banc and loses. he could then take that loss to SCOTUS for a "final final" determination.
If this gets *reversed* en banc, I *think* that would theoretically tee this up that the plaintiffs could then appeal to SCOTUS. I dont think anyone in the gun control industrial complex wants to see that. Right now taking this to SCOTUS is probably a crapshoot for both sides.
Personally, I am not sure I'd want to roll those dice with Robert's being wishy washy on the issue and Ginsberg still on the Court.
Oh PS- the stay is basically automatic since an appeal of the appeal is likely pending.
Might still make it to SCOTUS either way.
It’s been upheld 3 times now so there’s that.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
What's been upheld three times?
The process is specific to each Circuit. This case is distinct from NY, which is in the 2nd Circuit.
I get your meaning but that's not how it works. The fact that there's (potentially) a split between the 9th and the 2nd Circuits makes it more likely that the Court would take the case if it makes its way to them; note that it's potentially a split as there is not yet a final word on it in the 9th, unless Beccerra declines to appeal to either the 9th en banc, or directly to SCOTUS. The Court can't and doesn't sua sponte look at a case and say "hey, there's a circuit split, we need to resolve it."
And if Beccerra doesn't run it up the chain, there's no live controversy for anyone to bring to the court in D.C.
The mere fact that a seeming split exists doesn't automatically punt it to SCOTUS, someone has to bring it, and the big Court has to actually take the case if they do.
The fact that the decision is stayed at the moment is pretty much automatic; if you lose an appeal and you have a higher court to appeal to, you almost always immediately file leave to appeal to that court, which means the lower court (here the 3 judge 9th cir. panel) has to stay the decision.
It was ruled unconstitutional in the lower court and this is now the 2nd time the 9th Circuit has upheld it. I have a thread here about it from a few weeks ago about the first 9th circuit ruling.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Should ask him how many he recommends for a tyrant.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
I sure the state of California will appeal this ruling to the ninth circuit En banc, betting that they're still enough whack jobs left on the full panel to form a majority and over turn the decision.
Stock up while you can boy's!!!!!
Robin
Stock up while you can boy's!!!!!
Robin
There is a stay. They can’t. Commerce is frozen until they get the green light.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Who has the authority to impose a stay? Er, california, probably someone in Tijuana.
Robin
Robin
The same court who ruled the ban unconstitutional also ruled no commerce my occur and there is a stay until it is resolved for good.