Poll

What do you think the State of California will do?

Appeal En Banc
77.3%
Ask SCOTUS to grant certiorari (hear the case)
13.6%
Rill over like good little Kommiefornians and play dead.
9.1%
Total Members Voted
21

Voting closed: November 12, 2020, 11:02:54 AM

9th Circuit issues ruling; Large Capacity Magazines are protected under the 2A (Read 4424 times)

Bota-CS1

« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 07:18:56 AM by Bota-CS1 »
No one is coming, it’s up to us.

Legislation should never be about depriving law abiding citizens of something, but rather taking those things away from criminals.

6716J

You beat me to it!!!

This is an awesome announcement. Now the question is will Hawaii quietly just abide by this or will California go for the en banc review.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

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

6716J

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

Bota-CS1

You beat me to it!!!

This is an awesome announcement. Now the question is will Hawaii quietly just abide by this or will California go for the en banc review.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

That’s a good question. Cal lost their case in front of Benitez, and now have lost to the 3 judge appeals panel.  Do they go for the En Banc and risk losing again?  Each ruling against the state IMO strengthens the plaintiffs position.  Hopefully some of our members with trial experience can weigh in.

I’ve only gotten to page 62 of the 80 or so pages but from what little I’ve read of the dissenting judges opinions her main argument is this ruling goes against the 9ths ruling Foyck -someone correct me here if I’m off base.
No one is coming, it’s up to us.

Legislation should never be about depriving law abiding citizens of something, but rather taking those things away from criminals.

6716J

That’s a good question. Cal lost their case in front of Benitez, and now have lost to the 3 judge appeals panel.  Do they go for the En Banc and risk losing again?  Each ruling against the state IMO strengthens the plaintiffs position.  Hopefully some of our members with trial experience can weigh in.

I’ve only gotten to page 62 of the 80 or so pages but from what little I’ve read of the dissenting judges opinions her main argument is this ruling goes against the 9ths ruling Foyck -someone correct me here if I’m off base.

I'm still at page 14....
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

6716J

Post haste, make your way to your defensive emplacement and banish those heathens to the next world.... Tally Ho!



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

6716J

OK so the real question here is... does this ruling make the current Hawaii statute invalid as this is a 9th Circuit ruling and not a State of CA ruling?
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

changemyoil66

CA is adamant about keeping the ban and so are the people who fund them.  So they will take this to the next level.  Because if they don't then it's still a loss and all mags are legal.  FREEDOM WEEK #2?

zippz

OK so the real question here is... does this ruling make the current Hawaii statute invalid as this is a 9th Circuit ruling and not a State of CA ruling?

It doesn't apply to Hawaii until we file a lawsuit to apply the 9th ruling here.  Gotta wait to see if it's taken up En Banc
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

waterhome

I would be willing to support if I knew which date we would file. What would be the harm in filing now?

hvybarrels

Great news! Hopefully it will be handgun mag shopping time soon.
“Wars happen when the government tells you who the enemy is. Revolutions happen when you figure it out for yourselves.”

drck1000

Great news! Hopefully it will be handgun mag shopping time soon.
Yup! If handgun mag restriction changes come around here, there are a few handguns I would pick up.

hvybarrels

There will probably also be a lot of semi-functional 1911s hitting the used market.
“Wars happen when the government tells you who the enemy is. Revolutions happen when you figure it out for yourselves.”

idespisecryptomining

Hey guys, im super stoked that Commiefornia lost, and the residents have won some of their rights back

I had a question, but a post answered it for me. Gotta wait for the dust to settle, then we collectively submit requests to match circuit policy, and if they decline, file lawsuit. Thanks!
Hopefully Becerra stops his losing battle and lets it be.

Of all things we learned in HS Government class, this is not ringing a memory on how it works.

All i can say, is if this does get appealed and taken to SCOTUS, they do their danged job and affirm the lower courts rulings, meaning we ALL win!

Bota-CS1

Tomorrow is the deadline for the state to submit it's response to the decision from 08/14.  :thumbsup:
No one is coming, it’s up to us.

Legislation should never be about depriving law abiding citizens of something, but rather taking those things away from criminals.

Brystont1

Tomorrow is the deadline for the state to submit it's response to the decision from 08/14.  :thumbsup:

I watched “Armed Scholar” on YouTube. Even if Becerra does nothing it still ain’t over. A whole bunch of things need to happen before California can start buying. I believe he said best case scenario if everything goes our way September 8th will be the day.

macsak

Tomorrow is the deadline for the state to submit it's response to the decision from 08/14.  :thumbsup:

I bet they get an extension

because














COVID!

Bota-CS1

I watched “Armed Scholar” on YouTube. Even if Becerra does nothing it still ain’t over. A whole bunch of things need to happen before California can start buying. I believe he said best case scenario if everything goes our way September 8th will be the day.

What’s probably more important than the ruling itself is the fact that strict scrutiny was used to determine if the law violated the constitution versis intermediate scrutiny before.  Strict scrutiny is a much higher threshold to meet for the State.


No one is coming, it’s up to us.

Legislation should never be about depriving law abiding citizens of something, but rather taking those things away from criminals.

6716J

Attorney General Becerra Continues Defense of California’s Ban on Acquisition and Possession of Large-Capacity Magazines
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-continues-defense-california%E2%80%99s-ban-acquisition-and

Friday, August 28, 2020
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov
Petition filed in appellate court to rehear decision in Duncan v. Becerra

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra today filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking en banc review of a recent decision in Duncan v. Becerra. On August 14, 2020, a divided three-judge panel upheld a federal district court’s ruling that California’s ban on the acquisition and possession of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) was unconstitutional. In today’s filing, Attorney General Becerra has taken the next step to defend California’s gun safety laws by asking an en banc panel of the court to review the decision.

“Our commonsense gun safety measures here in California have a track record of success in doing what they were meant to do — keep our communities safe,” said Attorney General Becerra. “We disagree with the Court’s initial decision and will continue to use every tool we have to defend the constitutionality of our laws.”

In today’s filing, Attorney General Becerra argues that the three-judge panel’s decision is inconsistent with existing caselaw and will threaten the safety of Californians.

Large-capacity magazines are defined as gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It has been illegal in California to manufacture, import, keep or offer for sale, give, or lend LCMs since 2000, and illegal to purchase and receive them since 2013. Proposition 63, which was passed by Californians in 2016, added a ban on the possession of LCMs. In March 2019, the District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the law was unconstitutional. In July 2019, Attorney General Becerra appealed the decision. 

LCMs have been used in many horrific mass shootings around the country, including the shooting at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks in 2018, and the shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino in 2015. The use of large-capacity magazines in mass shootings results in more lives lost and more people injured. Attorney General Becerra remains committed to upholding the constitutionality of California’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines to protect the public from these dangerous firearm accessories.

The ban on the sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or acquisition of LCMs remains in effect pending appeal.

A copy of the filing can be found here. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Duncan%20v.%20Becerra%20-%20Petition%20for%20Rehearing%20En%20Banc%20FINAL%20FILED%20VERSION.pdf

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

RSN172

Can that appeal to rehear en banc be denied, or is it automatically going to be a go?