In CA, but expect an appeal to the 9th. So 10 more years...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Hawaii’s interpretation

Hawaii’s interpretation

I may know of a HK fuk boi who has this...

NM, he owns no firearms or magazines or paper magazines.

I hope this goes to the 9th, cause then it makes Abbott vs. Lopez (HI mag lawsuit) easier if the 9th rules in favor of the 2a, which they have shown is going in that new direction.  Or is HI calling CA and telling them to take the loss. I'm sure OR is doing the same with their mag lawsuit also pending.

4 boxes DIner did a good review on this. He mentions Benitez did make it harder than it has to as the burden was on the plaintiff to show that mags are in "common use", which luckily they are.  Instead of putting the burden on proof on the state to show history and tradition.  CA filed about 500 "historical tradition" evidences to show their mag ban is constitutional under the Bruen test. None applied.  All Benitez had to do was put the proof on the state and lawsuit is over. Not sure why he made it harder than he had to.  Maybe he's prepping for future challenges and this helps?

4 Boxes goes on to say that the Heller ruling in 2008 should have made this possible, but anti 2a states weren't obeying that SCOTUS rulig, so Bruen had to make the ruling even narrower. Which means it took 15 years to get to where we are.  So when will we have true freedom?  Maybe in another 15 years, that's if the SCOTUS judges don't rotate out and loaded with anti 2a judges.

I hope this goes to the 9th, cause then it makes Abbott vs. Lopez (HI mag lawsuit) easier if the 9th rules in favor of the 2a, which they have shown is going in that new direction.  Or is HI calling CA and telling them to take the loss. I'm sure OR is doing the same with their mag lawsuit also pending.

4 boxes DIner did a good review on this. He mentions Benitez did make it harder than it has to as the burden was on the plaintiff to show that mags are in "common use", which luckily they are.  Instead of putting the burden on proof on the state to show history and tradition.  CA filed about 500 "historical tradition" evidences to show their mag ban is constitutional under the Bruen test. None applied.  All Benitez had to do was put the proof on the state and lawsuit is over. Not sure why he made it harder than he had to.  Maybe he's prepping for future challenges and this helps?

4 Boxes goes on to say that the Heller ruling in 2008 should have made this possible, but anti 2a states weren't obeying that SCOTUS rulig, so Bruen had to make the ruling even narrower. Which means it took 15 years to get to where we are.  So when will we have true freedom?  Maybe in another 15 years, that's if the SCOTUS judges don't rotate out and loaded with anti 2a judges.

From what others have posted in videos, the anti-gunners misinterpreted the Heller decision's "in common use" to mean "actually used for self defense -- must have been a discharge to qualify as 'use'".

Benitez destroyed that argument in his rulings, explaining that the defendants are cherry picking the words from the decision.  The common use test includes all legal purposes, including self defense in which the gun owner does not have to discharge the weapon.

So, yeah, they've been playing word games as usual, and they finally got this game ripped apart.  hopefully it sticks this time.

newsom's retaliation https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gavin-newsom-signs-california-law-doubling-taxes-guns-ammo-small-price-pay

newsom's retaliation https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gavin-newsom-signs-california-law-doubling-taxes-guns-ammo-small-price-pay

No one advocating for higher taxes has been able to adequately describe in any detail what that tax money would go to fund.

It's always, "To offset the cost to society of gun violence."

Really?  How much in taxes do gangs and career criminals pay to offset that violence? Punishing the law abiding to pay for the consequences of criminals seems rather stupid -- assuming they are actually offsetting anything other than their states gigantic budget deficits.

That's just the financial side.  It doesn't touch on the unconstitutionality of it, nor the hidden agenda of pricing low wage earners (usually minorities) out of affording gun ownership and use.

No one advocating for higher taxes has been able to adequately describe in any detail what that tax money would go to fund.

It's always, "To offset the cost to society of gun violence."

Really?  How much in taxes do gangs and career criminals pay to offset that violence? Punishing the law abiding to pay for the consequences of criminals seems rather stupid -- assuming they are actually offsetting anything other than their states gigantic budget deficits.

That's just the financial side.  It doesn't touch on the unconstitutionality of it, nor the hidden agenda of pricing low wage earners (usually minorities) out of affording gun ownership and use.

The sad part is that none of his appointments affected HI or the 9th.

californians better pay up, if they dont, they might experience some gun violence. and we wouldnt what anything bad to happen, now would we?

Law abiding citizens always end up getting shafted by governments such as the one that exists in kommifornia.

Led by an advocate for climate change governor who flies here and there in his carbon producing private jet.

Sensible but fed up law abiding citizens are leaving kommifornia in droves.

Only to be replaced by illegal migrants looking for hand-outs.

The 9th issued a stay until 10/10 for Benitez ruling. I hope this doesnt mean that the 9th thinks CA has a chance of winning.

This case just went to the 9th en banc 11 member panel, bypassing the usual 3 member panel.

We have greater odds of winning in a 3 member panel vs a 11 member one.  A lot of people see this as a bad thing.  However I see it as a good one as it can accelerate this to SCOTUS faster.  If we won in the 3 member panel, it would've just been appealed to the 11 member panel anyways.

All the other 2A 9th Cir decisions should be put on hold pending the outcome of this....Abbott v Lopez (magazines), Yukutake v Lopez (registration), Tetter v Lopez (knives), 2 CA lawsuits on open carry, Wolford v Lopez (sens places), etc

This case just went to the 9th en banc 11 member panel, bypassing the usual 3 member panel.

We have greater odds of winning in a 3 member panel vs a 11 member one.  A lot of people see this as a bad thing.  However I see it as a good one as it can accelerate this to SCOTUS faster.  If we won in the 3 member panel, it would've just been appealed to the 11 member panel anyways.

All the other 2A 9th Cir decisions should be put on hold pending the outcome of this....Abbott v Lopez (magazines), Yukutake v Lopez (registration), Tetter v Lopez (knives), 2 CA lawsuits on open carry, Wolford v Lopez (sens places), etc

I agree, cause CA would appeal to the en banc anyways.  I hope SCOTUS takes this up when the 9th rules in favor of CA and settles the mag ban once and for all. But then anti 2a states will place sensitive places for standard cap mags like only allowed at your home and not even at the ranges.

This case just went to the 9th en banc 11 member panel, bypassing the usual 3 member panel.

We have greater odds of winning in a 3 member panel vs a 11 member one.  A lot of people see this as a bad thing.  However I see it as a good one as it can accelerate this to SCOTUS faster.  If we won in the 3 member panel, it would've just been appealed to the 11 member panel anyways.

All the other 2A 9th Cir decisions should be put on hold pending the outcome of this....Abbott v Lopez (magazines), Yukutake v Lopez (registration), Tetter v Lopez (knives), 2 CA lawsuits on open carry, Wolford v Lopez (sens places), etc

Going to SCOTUS is assuming the en banc ends in a finding against Duncan.  Maybe the court sees the benefit of rolling over and ruling correctly this time knowing if they decide as they did before, SCOTUS will then decide it in accordance with the Bruen test.  That does two things.  It adds to the list of cases the 9th will have had reversed which no judge likes.  Also, a SCOTUS decision for Duncan would become a higher precedent than one decided in the 9th circuit.

The case would not have been sent back down if SCOTUS didn't think the 9th's ruling was beyond being changed due to Bruen. If the 9th blatantly decides in direct opposition to the Bruen tests, it's probably going to be overturned on appeal.  Wasting the Supreme Court's time just to push a political agenda might get some judges impeached and removed for not following the Constitution.

Going to SCOTUS is assuming the en banc ends in a finding against Duncan.  Maybe the court sees the benefit of rolling over and ruling correctly this time knowing if they decide as they did before, SCOTUS will then decide it in accordance with the Bruen test.  That does two things.  It adds to the list of cases the 9th will have had reversed which no judge likes.  Also, a SCOTUS decision for Duncan would become a higher precedent than one decided in the 9th circuit.

The case would not have been sent back down if SCOTUS didn't think the 9th's ruling was beyond being changed due to Bruen. If the 9th blatantly decides in direct opposition to the Bruen tests, it's probably going to be overturned on appeal.  Wasting the Supreme Court's time just to push a political agenda might get some judges impeached and removed for not following the Constitution.

In a circuit that obeys the constitution, I would say this would be a good thing that it speeds up the processes.  But until recent, the 9th has never ruled in favor of the 2A.  Which makes me not hold my breath that this is the intent.

But the bigger picture is that it also sets precedent of by passing a 3 judge panel for any future case that isn't time sensitive.  So either way, it should have gone to the 3 judge panel.  But in reality, the 9th shouldn't have remanded it back to Benetiz in the first place after SCOTUS told them they're wrong.

When the people don't have trust in the judicial system, this is the outcome.

Going to SCOTUS is assuming the en banc ends in a finding against Duncan.  Maybe the court sees the benefit of rolling over and ruling correctly this time knowing if they decide as they did before, SCOTUS will then decide it in accordance with the Bruen test.  That does two things.  It adds to the list of cases the 9th will have had reversed which no judge likes.  Also, a SCOTUS decision for Duncan would become a higher precedent than one decided in the 9th circuit.

The case would not have been sent back down if SCOTUS didn't think the 9th's ruling was beyond being changed due to Bruen. If the 9th blatantly decides in direct opposition to the Bruen tests, it's probably going to be overturned on appeal.  Wasting the Supreme Court's time just to push a political agenda might get some judges impeached and removed for not following the Constitution.

Odds are the en banc panel will decide against the 2a.  I give it a 65 to 35% chance against, with the 35% being a minimal win with a lesser effect on other lawsuits in the pipeline.
I base those odds on this is the 2nd time it is going en banc.  The 1st time Benitez in district court decided for the 2A based on history and tradition so the 9th en banc should have decided in favor of the 2a after the SCOTUS Bruen ruling.   Instead it was remanded back to district court.
The 9th Cir judge makeup hasn't changed since then.

There should be a law that if a judge's decision has been reversed by a higher court, after the 10th time, they automatically lose their position.  Obviously they are not qualified.   I was watching a Senate confirmation hearing and Senator Kennedy R-LA, brought a list of about 30 cases where a Biden nomination had her decisions reversed.  She still got the confirmation.   Bad liberal judges screw up the judicial system and are not held accountable.

Odds are the en banc panel will decide against the 2a.  I give it a 65 to 35% chance against, with the 35% being a minimal win with a lesser effect on other lawsuits in the pipeline.
I base those odds on this is the 2nd time it is going en banc.  The 1st time Benitez in district court decided for the 2A based on history and tradition so the 9th en banc should have decided in favor of the 2a after the SCOTUS Bruen ruling.   Instead it was remanded back to district court.
The 9th Cir judge makeup hasn't changed since then.

I agree that the membership of the 9th Circus hasn't changed.  But, what has changed are:

- the increased number of pro-2A parties willing to appeal to SCOTUS now versus previously when the justices were mostly anti-2A,

- the willingness of the SCOTUS to take on 2A cases that would have been declined in the past, and

- the likelihood that the 2A side of cases will prevail on the merits now versus the convoluted and subjective "interests of the state" arguments.

Bruen reshaped the playing field, so I have a gut feeling -- nothing more -- that states are going to see their increased number of anti-gun laws as only creating a massive wall of precedence they will have to live with long after the makeup of the SCOTUS changes.

Jusitces pass away, but sound Constitutional precedents live on for decades -- if not centuries.

The corrupt 9th issued a stay against Benetiz ruling until a 9th hearing and ruling can be made.  This means mags still not legal until the corrupt 9th makes a final ruling.

The 9th also used public safety to justify this.