9th Circuit upholds California ban on high-capacity ammo magazines

[Savage Hands]

9th Circuit upholds California ban on high-capacity ammo magazines (https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/11/30/9th-circuit-upholds-california-ban-on-high-capacity-ammo-magazines-9427914)

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines, reversing a lower court decision and handing a victory to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The divided en banc ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backed the constitutionality of two California laws banning magazines that can hold 10 or more rounds. The majority opinion bolstered the public safety rationale for the restrictions by noting large-capacity magazines are often used in mass casualty shootings.

“Accordingly, the ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supported California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings,” the majority wrote, adding that the laws do not constitute an illegal government taking because “the government acquires nothing by virtue of the limitation on the capacity of magazines.”


Very disappointed...

[Borderland]

9th Circuit upholds California ban on high-capacity ammo magazines (https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/11/30/9th-circuit-upholds-california-ban-on-high-capacity-ammo-magazines-9427914)

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines, reversing a lower court decision and handing a victory to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The divided en banc ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backed the constitutionality of two California laws banning magazines that can hold 10 or more rounds. The majority opinion bolstered the public safety rationale for the restrictions by noting large-capacity magazines are often used in mass casualty shootings.

“Accordingly, the ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supported California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings,” the majority wrote, adding that the laws do not constitute an illegal government taking because “the government acquires nothing by virtue of the limitation on the capacity of magazines.”


Very disappointed...



I think this will be the norm for all lower courts. States rights regarding public safety will prevail. I don't agree with it but it's always been that way and I don't see anything changing there. I suspect that the SC will see it the same way if a case like this ever makes it that far.

[Savage Hands]

I think this will be the norm for all lower courts. States rights regarding public safety will prevail. I don't agree with it but it's always been that way and I don't see anything changing there. I suspect that the SC will see it the same way if a case like this ever makes it that far.


Any of these cases from Judge Benitiz have been steering in our favor for awhile, this battle is lost but the war is not over. For example: Roger Benitez: Meet the federal judge who overturned California's decades-old assault weapons ban - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/09/us/roger-benitez-california-judge-guns/index.html)
"The federal judge who overturned California's decades-old assault weapons ban (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/05/us/california-gun-ban-overturned/index.html) last week opened his 94-page ruling with an eye-opening analogy."Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment," US District Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote.
In another section, he downplayed the risk of an assault rifle being used in a mass shooting as an "infinitesimally rare event." He added: "More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California."






Benitez has consistently ruled against California's gun control laws by using these sorts of attention-grabbing analogies. In a March 2019 ruling (https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf) against the state's limits on large-capacity magazines, Benitez opened with the dramatic stories of three women who ran out of ammo while shooting home intruders -- none of which took place in California. In a page 5 footnote, he cited Kristallnacht (https://www.history.com/topics/holocaust/kristallnacht), the 1938 night of anti-Semitic violence in Nazi Germany."

[Suvorov]

Sucks!

Not that I was expecting much from the 9th.

I suspect this makes freedom week magazines illegal as well?

[Savage Hands]

Sucks!

Not that I was expecting much from the 9th.

I suspect this makes freedom week magazines illegal as well?


I'm waiting for official word from CRPA and maybe joshs

[elsquid]

Status page for case:

https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

Opinion:

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-11-30-Opinion.pdf

— Michael

[alamo5000]

The divided en banc ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Does anyone know how many judges were on this case and what was the breakdown of yes vs no...?

Edit:

Other sources say the ruling was 7-4.

[Savage Hands]

Does anyone know how many judges were on this case and what was the breakdown of yes vs no...?

Edit:

Other sources say the ruling was 7-4.


On top of the opinion this is what it lists:
Opinion by Judge Graber;
Concurrence by Judge Graber;
Concurrence by Judge Berzon;
Concurrence by Judge Hurwitz;
Dissent by Judge Bumatay;
Dissent by Judge VanDyke

[idahojess]

Here is a good analysis from Reason:

https://reason.com/2021/11/30/californias-ban-on-magazines-holding-more-than-10-rounds-is-constitutional-9th-circuit-decides/

[4RNR]

Judge Susan Graber wrote for the majority today in Duncan v. Bonta. "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms, and the record demonstrates (a) that the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and (b) that the limitation saves lives."

should be applied to all private security. There has been no evidence that anyone ever been unable to defend their famous/rich person due to lack of large-capacity magazine.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[Totem Polar]

Judge Susan Graber wrote for the majority today in Duncan v. Bonta. "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms, and the record demonstrates (a) that the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and (b) that the limitation saves lives."

should be applied to all private security. There has been no evidence that anyone ever been unable to defend their famous/rich person due to lack of large-capacity magazine.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

Clearly, Judge Graber is not familiar with Jared Reston, to name just the first event to come to mind.

[Savage Hands]

https://youtu.be/jh2ewJevnCg

[Wise_A]

Judge Susan Graber wrote for the majority today in Duncan v. Bonta. "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms, and the record demonstrates (a) that the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and (b) that the limitation saves lives."

should be applied to all private security. There has been no evidence that anyone ever been unable to defend their famous/rich person due to lack of large-capacity magazine.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

My litmus test has always been, "Would you apply this limitation to the police?".

[TAZ]

Wonder how much $$ departments could save if they all went to 2 shot derringers. We should field trial this life and $$ saving concept with some PSD for judges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Suvorov]

My litmus test has always been, "Would you apply this limitation to the police?".

Unfortunately, in this day and age, they probably would (as long as it didn't apply to their security detail).

[Sig_Fiend]

It's only a matter of time before that state passes a law to limit passenger car engines to 100hp to reduce climate racism. :rolleyes:

[4RNR]

Unfortunately, in this day and age, they probably would (as long as it didn't apply to their security detail).Just wait. Her logic will soon be used to price people out of ownership. The statute outlaws no weapon .... it's not our fault you can't afford the $10k tax

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[Jim Watson]

My litmus test has always been, "Would you apply this limitation to the police?".

Take it further, I fantasize the Zeroth Amendment.
"All laws and regulations shall apply without exception to all government employees, whether elected, appointed, or hired, in the same manner and degree as to the citizens of the jurisdiction."

That's right, the Secret Service has to have CCW permits and the Army has to FFL ranges, arsenals, and armories.

(It has happened. I worked at a Government agency on a project to manufacture fuel ethanol by novel means. We had to get a BATFE distiller's license just like Jack Daniels.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have several comments:

1. This was to be expected. The comment that they have seen this before and nothing new is telling.

2. The comment on deaths from Covid was gratuitous and weakens the initial decision's PR. Not relevant and makes you look like a partisan judge.

3. The comment that you don't need higher capacity magazines for most self defense usages has been seen before in other cases.

The focus on SD in Heller opened that can of worms as the need for more 'military' type infantry weapons was weakened.

The 5 is enough crowd, AR owners are nuts, show me a case where you need more, etc. can and will be quoted as reasonable evidence for weapons bans. Some will accept the need for the small gun for SD and ban everything else. However, the open carry AR folks didn't help. I note the left side folks are starting to demonstrate with them also. Is that good or bad?

Yes, we carry Js for convenience but acknowledge their limitations which is different from denouncing carry of more.

[Savage Hands]

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/breaking-news-ninth-circuit-en-banc-panel-reverses-historic-gun-rights-victory-in-crpa-challenge-to-statewide-ban-on-standard-capacity-magazines/

CRPA WILL ACT PROMPTLY TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO WHILE CRPA REQUESTS CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT. For now, it appears that gun owners who possess magazines over 10 rounds may continue to possess them while the parties work to exhaust their avenues for rehearing and appeal. CRPA will release additional information on the status for individual gun owners as it becomes available.

[Sig_Fiend]

The factor I've seen less discuss (not just here) on this subject is the arbitrary nature of such limits. 10 rounds is based on precisely nothing. There is no hard data, it's purely an arbitrary limit derived out of thin air. This would be like placing a daily word limit on free speech in the "public interest" of reducing "hate speech". After all, there has never been any need ever for anyone to have more than say 100 free speech words per day! So it would be perfectly reasonable to limit you to 100 per day in the public interest of reducing the literal ear violence of your potential "hate speech".

So why not 11 rounds? Next year it will be 9. Equally as arbitrary, and in their mind, should be equally as justified as long as it's always the same or LESS than they want to allow. Eventually it will be just one single round, which can only legally be allowed for the purpose of ending yourself and silencing the wrongthink.

I'm no legal scholar, but I could have sworn I've heard of case law and/or precedence before that deals with attempts to institute arbitrary limits on constitutionally-enumerated rights. It just seems like the very definition of a "slippery slope".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The 10 round limit comes from several things:

1. We have 10 fingers. On the world of octopi, the limit is 8.

2. The argument against higher capacity is the ease of rampages without reloads. It is argued that with lower cap guns you can disarm on the reload. Gun folks say that you can reload fast so let us have higher caps as capacity doesn't make a difference. You do have folks disarmed during reloads and if you say that ten works fine as you can reload quick then you get the SAFE act original 7, 5 is enough.

3. It's all appearance and wanting to ban all the semis eventually. See Australia.

Once you get a Mini-14, repeated 10 round rampage, the call will be to ban them. Norway and Canada have. The smarter antis propose banning all semis and not just reinstating the original AWB.

Fortunately or unfortunately, with the world going to Hell in a Handbasket, I don't see a Fed AWB unless we have some true horror show again. Supposedly we were close after Las Vegas and the random neural pathways of the Donald.

[OlongJohnson]

The factor I've seen less discuss (not just here) on this subject is the arbitrary nature of such limits. 10 rounds is based on precisely nothing.

I always assumed it was based on the tradition of single stack .22LR pistols for target and utility having ten rounds as standard capacity going back at least to the Colt Woodsman starting in 1915. Try to ban those, and people would #RESIST (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=RESIST) .

[Bergeron]

I would enjoy seeing a discussion on that 10-round (or whatever-round) topic.

Agreed that lots of 10-round .22 pistols are out there, and I think it's the whole base-10 number system, 10-fingers sort of arbitrary.

"Why 10?"

"No-one needs more than 10"

"Let's start looking a videos of a great many different defensive gun uses where people go slide-lock. Law enforcement and private security certainly appear to want more than 10"

In my tiny and hopeful mind, the far greater validated data sets and recording of defensive gun uses, data and evidence that we've never had access to like this before, really drive home the arbitrary-and harmful- nature of 10-round limits.

[Balisong]

Is "interferes minimally" the new "mostly peaceful"?

[Jim Watson]

Ironic that the judge said banning your full capacity magazine does not represent a loss, you can always sell it.
Outside his jurisdiction, that is. Isn't that nice; he says it is a danger to society but it is ok to let it be a danger someplace else.

[Sig_Fiend]

You guys failed. ;) My point was, magazine capacity restrictions are not even a valid discussion to be had. By attempting to discuss them in good faith to "prove our case" or disprove theirs on its merits, we effectively legitimize that there is a debate to be had. That starts down the path of turning a right into a privilege, and the outcome becomes a moving goal post. In my opinion, there should be no "debate". Merely ruthless, aggressive, one-way discourse that continually attacks, delegitimizes, and ultimately destroys any possible position of capacity restrictions being a valid issue.

When control proponents bring it up in the future, a more leftist-style response to them would be that their policies promote the murder or imprisonment of Americans, and theft of their wealth. Same concept as barrel length + NFA. 15.99 inch barrel minus tax stamp and I lose EVERYTHING in my life. 16.0 inch and I'm fine. It's heartless, unjustifiable, and serves no purpose.

These are all my opinions, and maybe I'm wrong and that's not the most effective way. I can't help but think that, playing "defense" sure doesn't seem to work for us when the other side only ever plays offense...

[Bergeron]

You guys failed. ;) My point was, magazine capacity restrictions are not even a valid discussion to be had. By attempting to discuss them in good faith to "prove our case" or disprove theirs on its merits, we effectively legitimize that there is a debate to be had. That starts down the path of turning a right into a privilege, and the outcome becomes a moving goal post. In my opinion, there should be no "debate". Merely ruthless, aggressive, one-way discourse that continually attacks, delegitimizes, and ultimately destroys any possible position of capacity restrictions being a valid issue.

When control proponents bring it up in the future, a more leftist-style response to them would be that their policies promote the murder or imprisonment of Americans, and theft of their wealth. Same concept as barrel length + NFA. 15.99 inch barrel minus tax stamp and I lose EVERYTHING in my life. 16.0 inch and I'm fine. It's heartless, unjustifiable, and serves no purpose.

These are all my opinions, and maybe I'm wrong and that's not the most effective way. I can't help but think that, playing "defense" sure doesn't seem to work for us when the other side only ever plays offense...

Oh yeah, absolutely you are correct. I don't want some kind of a grand national debate on where my rights end, and I loathe the nit-picky "that's Ok, that's felony" aspects of gun control.

The kind of discussions I think that we're actually talking about wanting are those on a private, individual basis with fence-sitters who really can be convinced with reason.

[High Cross]

The factor I've seen less discuss (not just here) on this subject is the arbitrary nature of such limits. 10 rounds is based on precisely nothing. There is no hard data, it's purely an arbitrary limit derived out of thin air. This would be like placing a daily word limit on free speech in the "public interest" of reducing "hate speech". After all, there has never been any need ever for anyone to have more than say 100 free speech words per day! So it would be perfectly reasonable to limit you to 100 per day in the public interest of reducing the literal ear violence of your potential "hate speech".

So why not 11 rounds? Next year it will be 9. Equally as arbitrary, and in their mind, should be equally as justified as long as it's always the same or LESS than they want to allow. Eventually it will be just one single round, which can only legally be allowed for the purpose of ending yourself and silencing the wrongthink.

I'm no legal scholar, but I could have sworn I've heard of case law and/or precedence before that deals with attempts to institute arbitrary limits on constitutionally-enumerated rights. It just seems like the very definition of a "slippery slope".
As a former New York Resident and current New Jersey resident, I remember Andrew Cuomo scream "no one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer" while he signed the safe acts 7 round limit. Here in NJ, the Newark star ledger has been pushing a 5 round limit. There is already a bill written that had been pushed by now former Assemblyman Jimmy Cryan. Ironically his son is a firearms enthusiast

[Bergeron]

Even spending my high school years in northwest rural Louisiana, I’ve never met anyone as devoted to and knowledgeable about spreading death and destruction among deer as anti-gun politicians.;):rolleyes:

[Totem Polar]

Tangentially germane to the current topic:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?46717-Maryland-Shooting&p=1293228&viewfull=1#post1293228

Note both the shot placement, and the tox report. Nobody needs 10 rounds for defense, my foot.

[Savage Hands]

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/32310/


https://youtu.be/lGeTVlIB_T4

[ViniVidivici]

Judge Susan Graber wrote for the majority today in Duncan v. Bonta. "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms, and the record demonstrates (a) that the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and (b) that the limitation saves lives."

should be applied to all private security. There has been no evidence that anyone ever been unable to defend their famous/rich person due to lack of large-capacity magazine.

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

This shows what an illogical cunt she is, because I could turn that argument backwards and posit that: the increased (normal) capacity only minimally enhances the mass shooters ability to kill.

[Stephanie B]

This shows what an illogical cunt she is, because I could turn that argument backwards and posit that: the increased (normal) capacity only minimally enhances the mass shooters ability to kill.

If you can't make your point without using that disgusting and offensive word, then bless your heart.

[HeavyDuty]

If you can't make your point without using that disgusting and offensive word, then bless your heart.

Unless he’s British… and even then, read the room.

[ViniVidivici]

If you can't make your point without using that disgusting and offensive word, then bless your heart.

HA! I calls 'em like I sees 'em, that's what she is.

Bless your heart.

[Tuefelhunden]

Unless he’s British… and even then, read the room.

Agreed. Anyone who wasn't raised by wolves knows that that word is a non starter with most adults in general and the ladies specifically. I'd apologize rather than double down on stupid but hey that's just me.

[ViniVidivici]

"Stupid"? Really?

Damn, some of you guys are cute. The adults I associate with (male and female) don't get butthurt over a little word that's not even directed at them. Pathetic.

Left-wing judges, politicians, governors, AGs, etc., who're instrumental in ruining this Nation in these ways are useless CUNTS, plain and simple.

Get over it and don't be weaklings.

[Tuefelhunden]

Class, courtesy and decorum in the public square equals weakness. Roger that!

Your confusing your sentiment, (which most if not all of us would agree with) with the word you used. Think the N word for women. "All" the women I know would be disturbed by the mere use of that word in their presence. God help the person that actually called them that word. Guess we just run in different circles. Rock on.

[Clusterfrack]

Ok. Some people don’t like the C-word and other people don’t have a problem with it. Can we move on?

[BehindBlueI's]

As a reminder


II. General rules of conduct:

To further the goals of the site as specified in the mission statement, we have developed a code of conduct that we expect members of pistol-forum.com to abide by at all times. Failure to abide by the rules of the site can result in suspension or even termination of your posting privileges.

Under absolutely no circumstances should you ever:

Post derogatory comments of a racial, religious, or sexual nature.
Post comments in support of criminal violence or other illegal activities, including illegal modifications of firearms.
Post comments that threaten harm to law enforcement officers, members of the military, government officials, other members, or the public at large.
Post someone else’s personal information without permission, or attempt to interfere with someone’s personal/professional life based on web forum discussion.
Clutter a thread with extraneous nonsense unrelated to the topic.

As well as political discussion outside of the politics subforum:


*The sole exception to this is specific 2nd amendment politics. These threads must be narrow in scope, such as a specific legislation proposal, lawsuit filed, new law going into affect, etc. General "they are anti-gun" does not qualify for this exception. General complaining about a given candidate does not qualify. Specific and limited in scope.

[rdtompki]

If I still lived in California I'd like having read "The statute outlaws no weapon,..." by judge Graber. If that's the standard for arbitrary anti-2A laws I'd see that used against the infamous handgun roster/microstamping. Every year the list of handguns available for purchase in that hell hole gets shorter and shorter.

[Borderland]

If you can't make your point without using that disgusting and offensive word, then bless your heart.

It's inappropriate and small ball. Mostly it disgusts me. Anyone who uses the term is carrying some excess baggage or plainly was raised to not respect their mother.

[Spartan1980]

“the government acquires nothing by virtue of the limitation on the capacity of magazines.”

So it's agreed that all agencies, municipal, state and fed, operating in the state of CA are hereby limited to low cap magazines too right? :rolleyes:

[Borderland]

So it's agreed that all agencies, municipal, state and fed, operating in the state of CA are hereby limited to low cap magazines too right? :rolleyes:

Nope.

[High Cross]

Tangentially germane to the current topic:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?46717-Maryland-Shooting&p=1293228&viewfull=1#post1293228

Note both the shot placement, and the tox report. Nobody needs 10 rounds for defense, my foot.

Thank you for sharing this. I was taking tac Pistol Operator 1 and Tac Carbine operator 1 with Robert Keller this past June in PA. I was having such a hard time keeping up with the class with my ten round mags that he took off his own mags and let me use them. Then told the class he never saw someone go down with less than 5 rounds in all his gwot tours. Im sure he meant excluding a central nervous system shot. He told me i have enough ammo for basically no more than two adversaries. I know its completely anecdotal but it was interesting and depressing at the same time.

[BehindBlueI's]

Thank you for sharing this. I was taking tac Pistol Operator 1 and Tac Carbine operator 1 with Robert Keller this past June in PA. I was having such a hard time keeping up with the class with my ten round mags that he took off his own mags and let me use them. Then told the class he never saw someone go down with less than 5 rounds in all his gwot tours. Im sure he meant excluding a central nervous system shot. He told me i have enough ammo for basically no more than two adversaries. I know its completely anecdotal but it was interesting and depressing at the same time.

I have literally never seen anyone put 10 rounds in two adversaries in the US in a defensive shooting or put down two and have more opponents still in the fight. The extended duration gun fight with multiple dedicated opponents is a vanishingly small occurrence in the context the vast majority of us are carrying in. The simple truth of the matter is one side is down and/or fleeing before it gets to that point.

[0ddl0t]

Devil's advocate: did he actually need 12 rounds or did he really need the time in which he fired the last 10-11 rounds for the perp to lose blood pressure?

[Guerrero]

Curtesy of this week's OSD Newsletter (https://opensourcedefense.substack.com/p/osd-147-tfw-the-judge-knows-about?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3Mzk0MjUxLCJwb3N0X2lkIj o0NTM0ODI2MiwiXyI6Ino1cURMIiwiaWF0IjoxNjM5NDEzOTk5 LCJleHAiOjE2Mzk0MTc1OTksImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zMTkzNCIsIn N1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.ctXk7g_7WylQmOUluvSAB ANMH3XMYoFk6vU1Eng-O8c), some pretty "interesting" exchanges between the judges on this case:

Judge VanDyke:

The truth is that what our court calls “intermediate scrutiny” when reviewing Second Amendment cases doesn’t even rise to the level of real rational basis review. That’s a bold claim, I know. But think about it: if your state banned all cars, forcing all its citizens to use bicycles because many people are killed by drunk drivers (not to mention automobile accidents generally), would you think that was rational? No. What if California just banned all large vehicles (trucks, vans, etc.) because on rare occasions some crazed individual intentionally drives his car into a group of people, and large cars presumably do more damage? I doubt it. But that is what California has done here — banned a type of firearm magazine that has obvious self-defense benefits when used against a group of assailants, based on a purported harm that, while high-profile, is statistically extraordinarily improbable. Much more improbable than harm from misuse of a car. And while cars are not expressly protected by the Constitution, “arms” are.

The reason I think most of my colleagues on this court would genuinely struggle more with a car ban than they do with a gun ban is that they naturally see the value in cars. They drive cars. So they are willing to accept some inevitable amount of misuse of cars by others. And my colleagues similarly have no problem protecting speech — even worthless, obnoxious, and hateful speech — because they like and value speech generally. After all, they made their careers from exercising their own speech rights. On the other hand, as clearly demonstrated by this case, most of my colleagues see “limited lawful” value in most things firearm-related.

But the protections our founders enshrined in the Bill of Rights were put there precisely because they worried our future leaders might not sufficiently value them. That is why our court’s “intermediate scrutiny” balancing approach to the Second Amendment is no more appropriate here than it would be for any other fundamental right. As the Supreme Court explained in rejecting Justice Breyer’s “‘interest-balancing’ approach,” noting that “no other enumerated constitutional right[‘s] … core protection” was subject to such a test,

[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.


Judge Hurwitz:

The crucial issue here is what level of scrutiny to apply to the California law. We can respectfully disagree whether the measures California has adopted violate the Second Amendment. But an attack on the personal motives of the members of this Court who reach the same result in this case as every other Circuit to address this issue neither advances our discourse nor gives intellectual support to the legal positions argued by my respected dissenting colleagues. I start from the assumption that Judge VanDyke, whose dissent displays an admirable knowledge of firearms and ammunition, dissents today not because of his personal experiences or policy preferences but instead because he sincerely believes that his oath of fidelity to the Constitution requires that we invalidate what our colleague Judge Lee described in the now-vacated majority opinion for the three-judge panel as a “well-intentioned” law designed by the sovereign state of California to “curb the scourge of gun violence.” I simply ask that today’s majority, each of whom took the very same oath, be treated with the same level of respect.

and they go on from there.

[Balisong]

VanDyke is awesome.

I respectfully request that Hurwitz eat a bag of dicks. Respectfully. He can even keep the capacity of the bag to 10 or less dicks.

[Mark D]

From the San Diego Union Tribune:


The 9th Circuit agreed on Monday to the advocates’ request to stay the possession part of the law for 150 days to allow time for the writ of certiorari to be filed. If the petition is filed during that period, the stay will be extended until the high court makes a determination on whether it will consider the case.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2021-12-21/gun-magazine-supreme-court (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2021-12-21/gun-magazine-supreme-court)

[vcdgrips]

Edge of my lane re Con Law, especially in the 9th circuit as I have exclusively practiced in the 8th whose reversal rate by the USSC has historically been much lower than the 9th.


That 150 day stay in enforcement is a nuanced position that, in my personal opinion, reflects a tacit acknowledgement that the USSC may overrule the 9th such that enforcement in in the interim would create far more problems than it solves.

I would absolutely defer to those with more Con Law experience, particularly those who have practiced and/or studied the 9th circuit jurisprudence.

[Savage Hands]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220301/nra-asks-supreme-court-to-strike-californias-magazine-ban

Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) partnered with the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) yesterday to petition the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to California's ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

"California’s ban violates the Second Amendment, the Takings Clause, and the fundamental right of self-defense," said Jason Ouimet, executive director of NRA-ILA. "The reason Americans choose these commonly owned magazines is the same reason law enforcement does - to better defend themselves, their loved ones, and their communities from violent attack."


PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2022-02-28-Duncan-Cert-Petition-FINAL.pdf)
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2022-02-28-Duncan-Cert-Petition-FINAL.pdf

The questions presented are:
1. Whether a blanket, retrospective, and confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment.

2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that was lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause.

3. Whether the “two-step” approach that the Ninth Circuit and other lower courts apply to Second Amendment challenges is consistent with the Constitution and this Court’s precedent.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Good let's see if Scotus can actually take this case and have a clear decision. Of course, that will mean that I have to pay good money for more mags for various handguns and long arms. I might have to buy a new higher capacity EDC!

Of course, by the time this gets through the court, we will be up to Glock Gen 8 with XRay Vision Dot sights that project a dot on the vital organs of the enemy.

Seriously, fingers crossed on this one.

[Shotgun]

Of course, by the time this gets through the court, we will be up to Glock Gen 8 with XRay Vision Dot sights that project a dot on the vital organs of the enemy.

This is, of course, the handgun preferred by those of us who can no longer get a hard focus on the front sight.

With five and a half conservatives on the SC, we at least have a hope that the High Court will take this one on.

[joshs]

The most likely scenario is that they will grant, vacate, and remand this case (and several other gun cases) when they decide NYSRPA v. Bruen. That's their normal practice when they have cases before them that could be affected by a decision they make.

[RoyGBiv]

The most likely scenario is that they will grant, vacate, and remand this case (and several other gun cases) when they decide NYSRPA v. Bruen. That's their normal practice when they have cases before them that could be affected by a decision they make.

What's the ETA on a NYSRPA v Bruen decision?

[joshs]

What's the ETA on a NYSRPA v Bruen decision?

Likely not until June. The Court often holds the bigger decisions until the end of the term.

[Suvorov]

Likely not until June. The Court often holds the bigger decisions until the end of the term.

I truly wonder if the unfolding events in Eastern Europe may have some impact on their rulings? Maybe I’m trying to find a silver lining in the tragedy but I do find it ironic that the same people telling us we have no need for semi-automatic rifles that hold more than 10 rounds because there is no way such an armed populace could stand up to tanks are cheering the arming of babushkas in the Ukraine.

[joshs]

I truly wonder if the unfolding events in Eastern Europe may have some impact on their rulings? Maybe I’m trying to find a silver lining in the tragedy but I do find it ironic that the same people telling us we have no need for semi-automatic rifles that hold more than 10 rounds because there is no way such an armed populace could stand up to tanks are cheering the arming of babushkas in the Ukraine.

Perhaps, it's difficult to know what non-legal factors influence the justices. We're certainly making that argument (as are others): https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220228/isolated-and-under-attack-ukrainians-take-up-arms-to-defend-their-homeland

[GyroF-16]

The most likely scenario is that they will grant, vacate, and remand this case (and several other gun cases) when they decide NYSRPA v. Bruen. That's their normal practice when they have cases before them that could be affected by a decision they make.

For the non-lawyers among us, could you expand on the meaning of “ …they will grant, vacate, and remand…”?

Does that mean something like “send these cases back to the lower courts to reconsider in light of the precedent set by the case we just ruled on”?

[joshs]

For the non-lawyers among us, could you expand on the meaning of “ …they will grant, vacate, and remand…”?

Sure. Granting a petition is how the Supreme Court takes a case. But, rather than their normal process of briefing and oral argument, they just issue an order vacating the decision below. They then remand the case back to the circuit court for a new opinion consistent with the ruling that they issued in the related case. (NYSRPA v. Bruen in this case).

[Totem Polar]

I truly wonder if the unfolding events in Eastern Europe may have some impact on their rulings? Maybe I’m trying to find a silver lining in the tragedy but I do find it ironic that the same people telling us we have no need for semi-automatic rifles that hold more than 10 rounds because there is no way such an armed populace could stand up to tanks are cheering the arming of babushkas in the Ukraine.

[Totem Polar]

For the non-lawyers among us, could you expand on the meaning of “ …they will grant, vacate, and remand…”?

Does that mean something like “send these cases back to the lower courts to reconsider in light of the precedent set by the case we just ruled on”?


Sure. Granting a petition is how the Supreme Court takes a case. But, rather than their normal process of briefing and oral argument, they just issue an order vacating the decision below. They then remand the case back to the circuit court for a new opinion consistent with the ruling that they issued in the related case. (NYSRPA v. Bruen in this case).

Thanks for that, gents. I was wondering the same thing. Makes sense.

[Suvorov]

Thanks for that, gents. I was wondering the same thing. Makes sense.

With any luck - you will be laughing at that Kalifornian who warned you about “grandfathered” magazines as you set upon cases and cases of P-Mags…….

[hufnagel]

With any luck - you will be laughing at that Kalifornian who warned you about “grandfathered” magazines as you set upon cases and cases of P-Mags…….

Here's hoping Magpul is betting on a strike down, and has warehouses full of mags. The best days were when vendors were using their mags practically as packing peanuts.

[Totem Polar]

With any luck - you will be laughing at that Kalifornian who warned you about “grandfathered” magazines as you set upon cases and cases of P-Mags…….

We shall see.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If they send it back to a negative circuit court, even with instructions consistent with whatever NYSPRA says (which may not even be relevant to a magazine case), won't that court try its damnedest to figure out some restrictions? Not my lane.

This will be glacial. I just am frustrated with why on a clear BOR issues - the court cannot act with alacrity and clarity. I guess I slept through the glories of the court back in Poly Sci. 101.

It is clear to me (Haha!) that the decision should be that no state or Federal legislation or regulation can ban the possession or manfacture of igher capacity magazines or the ownership of rifled semi automatic long arms or handguns in calibers .LE. 50 caliber. Why does that take years to decide?

Note, I'm not going near the full auto or bigger bores. Practical decision.

[joshs]

If they send it back to a negative circuit court, even with instructions consistent with whatever NYSPRA says (which may not even be relevant to a magazine case), won't that court try its damnedest to figure out some restrictions? Not my lane.

Probably, yes. But, that's the Court's normal procedure. Most assume that NYSPRA will result in a clearer standard of review for lower courts, so that will likely mean the lower courts will get another shot to apply that standard in any gun case that the Court is holding.

Yes it is frustrating. But, you have to remember that most of the judges on the federal bench were taught in law school that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says and doesn't protect an individual right at all. We've made quite a lot of progress since then. As those judges age out, they will be slowly replaced with judges who have grown up in an era when the Court actually enforces the Second Amendment in a meaningful way.