California mag ban reversal 14 Aug 2020

simonjester said:

I wonder if this would have any impact to other state's magazine bans, ie Colorado?

Click to expand...

Complaints have already been filed in 5 other mag ban locations. CO was one of them.

I wonder how hard Colorado will fight it. They have lost a ton of money when the USPSA Nationals pulled out and IDPA said "we are stuck here for this year but we won't be back."
Probably too stupid to care about tourist traffic and income.

So if I understand this right SCOTUS remanded it back to the 9th who remanded it back to the District Court.
So assuming Judge Benitez rules against the ban again, do we go thru the same dance we went thru before?
IE: If we win State appeals to the 9th, if we win with three Judges in the 9th Sate requests en blanc, we lose the en blanc and it's back to SCOTUS?

Dudedog said:

So if I understand this right SCOTUS remanded it back to the 9th who remanded it back to the District Court.
So assuming Judge Benitez rules against the ban again, do we go thru the same dance we went thru before?
IE: If we win State appeals to the 9th, if we win with three Judges in the 9th Sate requests en blanc, we lose the en blanc and it's back to SCOTUS?

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, maybe and yes.

But with a very DIFFERENT TWIST this time as the Supreme Court eliminated the "two step approach".

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson.

With the two step approach eliminated under Bruen ruling, now the burden falls on the state of CA to argue/justify solely based on "text and history" of past court rulings. And since the Supreme Court already ruled "modern" arms such as semi-auto magazine fed handguns/rifles and "modern" technology of ammunition storage devices called detachable magazines, "arms" protected by the Second Amendment in Supreme Court's Caetano v Mass with lower courts following the same ruling such as Fyock v Sunnyvale and case at hand Duncan v Bonta, where judge Benitez so clearly pointed out ammunition/magazine capacity ban is recent infringement on the Second Amendment not supported by "text and history", thus does not pass constitutional muster. (Judge Benitez already ruled using the same approach as stated by justice Thomas in Bruen ruling)

• So essentially, CA has no other option then to hope to delay/stall the inevitable appeals to the SCOTUS and perhaps when that happens, the SCOTUS bench make up will somehow change from current 6-3 make up, which is unlikely.

• Likely judge Benitez will rule CA magazine ban unconstitutional AGAIN with consideration of post Bruen Supreme Court ruling and legalize purchase/manufacture/importation/possession/use of larger than 10 round capacity magazines starting another "Freedom Week" until CA requests a stay

• And when the case gets appealed to the 9th Circuit/En Banc, depending on the judges/panel selected (Remember hundreds of district/circuit court judges were appointed by Trump between 2017-2020?) may rule in line with SCOTUS/judge Benitez.

• Ultimately if the case gets appealed back to the SCOTUS, case will once again be reviewed whether the Supreme Court will take the case and if so, will rule ammunition/magazine capacity ban unconstitutional but this time for the entire nation, not just 9th Circuit states/territories ... Unless the SCOTUS bench make up changes somehow between now and then (Which is highly unlikely).

So the fate of ammunition/magazine capacity ban for 9th Circuit has been sealed and we will win at the District Court level, maybe at 9th Circuit/En Banc level and ultimately at the Supreme Court.

The District Court's first filing upon receipt of the remanding from the 9th Circuit Court:

https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-Mandate-Continuing-the-Prelim-Injunction.pdf