Duncan vs. Becerra (Read 654 times)

changemyoil66

Duncan vs. Becerra
« on: November 30, 2021, 08:07:19 AM »
Lost in the 9th. This was the mag limit case.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

drck1000

Re: Duncan vs. Becerra
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2021, 09:18:25 AM »
Lost in the 9th. This was the mag limit case.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Elaborate? As in did the 9th rule that CA's ban on standard cap mags did not violate Second Amendment?

Quote
On Tuesday, June 22nd, attorneys from the law firm Kirkland & Ellis will argue that California’s ban on standard-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment before an 11-judge, en-banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an NRA-backed case.

Our attorneys have already successfully argued this case before a three-judge panel that struck the ban last summer. Then California requested and was granted a re-hearing before an en-banc panel of the Ninth Circuit. This action vacated the previous decision. This is not surprising as it is the fifth time that the Ninth Circuit has granted en banc review in a Second Amendment case, all of which were either brought by or supported by the NRA. The hearing will take place on Tuesday and can be streamed on the Ninth Circuit’s website, at 9:30 am Pacific Time. 

The NRA is committed to defending the Second Amendment in California and anywhere else that it is threatened.

The case is called Duncan v. Bonta. The case was previously called Duncan v. Becerra. The change in names is due to the Attorney General of California having changed since the lawsuit began.

changemyoil66

Re: Duncan vs. Becerra
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2021, 10:18:20 AM »
They applied "immediate scrutiny" and upheld the current law.

Basically a "reasonable" gun control in the name of  "public safety" (where did we hear this excuse before).  Guns themselves are not outlawed, but only magazines. This causes minimal interference with the core right to self defense.

Also since the law doesn't stop people from owning and modifying to comply, it places no financial burden on owners of standard cap mags and have them convert to 10rd mags.

When "In the name of public safety" or "For the continuation of our nation" is used, basically any right can be suppressed/denied. 

powerlessbump

Re: Duncan vs. Becerra
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2021, 11:12:50 AM »
Meanwhile, follow-home robberies are up. Keep on disarming your law abiding citizens CA. Good luck if you live there. On to the supreme court I hope.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-23/alarming-rise-in-follow-home-robberies-in-upscale-l-a-prompts-police-crackdown

Brystont1

Re: Duncan vs. Becerra
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2021, 01:59:44 PM »
I don’t see anything on the decision? I thought these cases were all on hold until the Supreme Court issues the NY decision.

changemyoil66

Re: Duncan vs. Becerra
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2021, 02:01:03 PM »
Still got the NJ mag appeal in SCOTUS.

6716J

Re: Duncan vs. Becerra
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2021, 02:58:34 PM »
Whoops sorry. Just added another thread before I saw this one.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

DocMercy

Re: Duncan vs. Becerra
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2021, 04:39:56 PM »
Anthony's video was just posted on youtube.


I see the law as forever being in flux. The second amendment was sloppily written by the founding fathers. Reasoning by justices has also been semi-illogical right up to the Supreme Court.

hvybarrels

Re: Duncan vs. Becerra
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2021, 08:57:10 AM »
Because a government who keeps trying to force me to “voluntarily” poison myself is soooooo concerned about my safety
Anything that can be destroyed by truth will be destroyed by truth.