Conelrad
Member
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/9th-...4wug_vSEJDG1c0LndhzWu2zHtWoHW643zDHfesaX9Ny3I
We can only hope it bears fruit.
We can only hope it bears fruit.
California mag ban reversal 14 Aug 2020
- Thread starter Conelrad
- Start date
- Status
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
To avoid this being a "drive-by" thread, Opinion here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/14/19-55376.pdf
This might begin the great California Mag Rush - phase II. The rest of us should stand down on buying mags, while our California brothers and sisters stock up!
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/14/19-55376.pdf
This might begin the great California Mag Rush - phase II. The rest of us should stand down on buying mags, while our California brothers and sisters stock up!
simonjester
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 34
I wonder if this would have any impact to other state's magazine bans, ie Colorado?
Right now it only applies to states in the 9th Circuit. I'm sure one of the lawyers will be by shortly to explain it fully.
Mauser lover
Member
Watching...
somethingbenign
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2017
- Messages
- 944
Who was heading up this case? I saw something elsewhere claiming this was an NRA victory but I thought it was one of the other 2A originations. Also this really gives me hope. After the supreme court refused to even listen to all those cases a month or so back I kind of gave up on any 2A wins short of miracles.
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,395
Colorado is not a state int he 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so whatever their final judgement is will not apply to Colorado. However, attorneys in Colorado (and other states) can use rulings of the 9th Court to bolster their arguments in similar cases. In any event, this is sure to come before the Supreme Court, however, they may or may not agree to hear it, as we have seen recently.
Old Dog
Member
Given that it appears likely that the Democrats in the Washington state legislature will soon have a super-majority (after the next elections), we were not looking forward to the new house and senate legislative sessions.
Since we are in the 9th circuit, it now appears that we have some hope, as the Dems have had magazine capacity bills pre-written and waiting ...
Since we are in the 9th circuit, it now appears that we have some hope, as the Dems have had magazine capacity bills pre-written and waiting ...
gbw
Member
Can Ca. Ask for en banc review? I assume California’s request to stay the ruling is a given
Poper
Member
Yes, NRA is constantly in court in defense of the 2nd Amendment. In this case, they were there in the trenches with and supporting the CRPA.
There is also the NRA-ILA, the legal arm of the NRA that is the lobbying part of the NRA and is active in nearly all state legislatures (when needed) and in Washington, DC. The NRA-ILA is the redheaded step-child that does lots of the dirty work and gets very little of the glory.
somethingbenign
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2017
- Messages
- 944
Thanks for reminding me. The post I saw earlier claiming it a NRA victory was actually claiming it for the NRA-ILA.
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
The fact you're asking this question underscores how little you know of the NRA.
gbw
Member
Not much hope I’d speculate. I read the decision and it looks awfully weak, for example they hold magazines to be ‘arms’. Nonsense. If this holds I’ll be amazed.
Yep. States under 9th Circuit jurisdiction include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, & Montana. So not just California has been affected by this ruling.
The biggest danger CA gun grabbers face now is it they appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, and lose, then it will repeal every mag ban law in entire US. That would piss-off a lot of liberal states in the rest of US.
I don't know about Roberts, but Clarence Thomas seems to want to address 2nd Amendment issues.
LiveLife
Member
Update from CRPA on purchase of larger than 10 round capacity magazines in light of today's 9th circuit court ruling - https://crpa.org/news/alert/what-does-the-duncan-ruling-mean-for-you/
What Does the Duncan Victory Mean To You Right Now?
"August 14, 2020 - Earlier today, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the CRPA-supported lawsuit Duncan v. Becerra. This momentous decision strikes down California’s statewide prohibitions against magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds as unconstitutional. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit upholds the 2019 decision from the United States District Court in San Diego that resulted in hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of magazines being lawfully purchased by California gun owners.
Today’s opinion, however, should not be read as immediately ending the ban on acquiring magazines over 10 rounds. While possession of these magazines remains legal under the injunction issued by the district court in 2017, it is unclear whether today’s decision lifts the district court’s 2019 order staying the injunction that would have halted the enforcement of the manufacture and acquisition ban. According to the terms of that order, it remains in effect “pending final resolution” of the Duncan appeal. And because the state of California may petition for an 11-judge en banc panel to rehear the case or file a petition directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, it may be months before this appeal is finally resolved. Put simply, take caution! It is unclear whether California residents may begin to purchase magazines over 10 rounds yet.
A more detailed analysis of today’s opinion and what’s next will be published shortly. To stay informed on the Duncan lawsuit, as well as other important CRPA-supported litigation efforts, be sure to visit the CRPA website and subscribe to CRPA email alerts."
What Does the Duncan Victory Mean To You Right Now?
"August 14, 2020 - Earlier today, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the CRPA-supported lawsuit Duncan v. Becerra. This momentous decision strikes down California’s statewide prohibitions against magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds as unconstitutional. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit upholds the 2019 decision from the United States District Court in San Diego that resulted in hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of magazines being lawfully purchased by California gun owners.
Today’s opinion, however, should not be read as immediately ending the ban on acquiring magazines over 10 rounds. While possession of these magazines remains legal under the injunction issued by the district court in 2017, it is unclear whether today’s decision lifts the district court’s 2019 order staying the injunction that would have halted the enforcement of the manufacture and acquisition ban. According to the terms of that order, it remains in effect “pending final resolution” of the Duncan appeal. And because the state of California may petition for an 11-judge en banc panel to rehear the case or file a petition directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, it may be months before this appeal is finally resolved. Put simply, take caution! It is unclear whether California residents may begin to purchase magazines over 10 rounds yet.
A more detailed analysis of today’s opinion and what’s next will be published shortly. To stay informed on the Duncan lawsuit, as well as other important CRPA-supported litigation efforts, be sure to visit the CRPA website and subscribe to CRPA email alerts."
LiveLife
Member
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer so take my comments for what they are worth
In colonial times, "arms" meant firearm and ammunition (lead ball, powder, patch, etc.) as what good is firearm without the ability to fire projectiles? And it was "common practice" to keep enough supplies for several hundred reloads.
And what are magazines? That's right, modern ammunition storage devices. So magazines are in fact, "arms" protected under the Second Amendment.
In recent years, increasing number of federal judges and Supreme Court justices have not only argued but ruled that modern firearms in "common use" are protected by the Second Amendment and expanded the definition of "arms" to include ammunition storage devices we call "magazines":
Fact is, most "common use" magazine capacity is greater than 10 rounds for semi-auto pistols and 30+ rounds for carbines and rifles so limiting capacity below the "common use" capacities would be an issue and deem unconstitutional.
Of course, IMO.
Depends on how the courts view "magazines".
In colonial times, "arms" meant firearm and ammunition (lead ball, powder, patch, etc.) as what good is firearm without the ability to fire projectiles? And it was "common practice" to keep enough supplies for several hundred reloads.
And what are magazines? That's right, modern ammunition storage devices. So magazines are in fact, "arms" protected under the Second Amendment.
In recent years, increasing number of federal judges and Supreme Court justices have not only argued but ruled that modern firearms in "common use" are protected by the Second Amendment and expanded the definition of "arms" to include ammunition storage devices we call "magazines":
- First Amendment protects modern types of communication such as internet, email, online forums, social media, etc. that did not exist at the time of writing of the US Constitution. In the same manner, Second Amendment protects modern types of "arms" that did not exist at the time of writing of the US Constitution - Justice Scalia in DC v Heller used firearms in "common use" and application of the Second Amendment to modern types of firearms and ammunition storage devices just as the First Amendment applies to modern types of communication - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
- In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
- In Duncan v Becerra, Judge Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" and in "common use" and referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale which also stated large capacity magazines (15+ rounds per federal definition) qualify as "arms for purposes of the Second Amendment" and in "common use" - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf
Fact is, most "common use" magazine capacity is greater than 10 rounds for semi-auto pistols and 30+ rounds for carbines and rifles so limiting capacity below the "common use" capacities would be an issue and deem unconstitutional.
Of course, IMO.
Last edited:
If you read the ruling, it spends a lot of time explaining the commonality of LCMs and how they were designed to go with a firearm, which is one of the reasons for this ruling, so passing an 11-rd limit wouldn't fly.
LiveLife
Member
Video interview with Rick Travis from CRPA on today's 9th Circuit Court ruling and explains judge Benitez's stay and potential 11 judge en banc panel along with when Californians can purchase "standard capacity" magazines with more than 10 round capacity. The way judge Benitez worded the previous ruling of March 2019, the state cannot dismantle the law like New York and was instrumental for the case.
Rick Travis hopes the case goes to the Supreme Court where the case will receive intermediate and strict scrutiny which will eliminate/resolve legislating from the bench by federal judges on magazine capacity issue for the entire country and CRPA is prepared to go to the Supreme Court.
After a thorough legal review, CRPA will update the information on their website - https://crpa.org/
9th Circuit Strikes Down California Magazine Ban!
Rick Travis hopes the case goes to the Supreme Court where the case will receive intermediate and strict scrutiny which will eliminate/resolve legislating from the bench by federal judges on magazine capacity issue for the entire country and CRPA is prepared to go to the Supreme Court.
After a thorough legal review, CRPA will update the information on their website - https://crpa.org/
9th Circuit Strikes Down California Magazine Ban!
Last edited:
ECVMatt
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,860
I am sure that the AG's from the more liberal leaning states are all speaking to the CA AG. This could have national implications. As much as I think CA is a joke, I have always felt they would get arrogant, over step, and it would be costly. In the legal system this takes time, but could reap great rewards for the rest of the country.
Last edited:
So inform me. Exactly how does the NRA get involved in legal action? The NRA-ILA is the lobbying branch of the NRA that lobbies the legislature. I suppose that could be considered legal action, but we're talking about the judiciary here in this thread. How is the NRA active in the judiciary?
I found some answers at crpa.org:
"THE NRA AND CRPA HAS ALWAYS FOUGHT FOR CALIFORNIANS
NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox announced at the CRPA annual banquet in February 2016 that the NRA would keep every dollar raised in California here to fight for our rights. He’s a little secret: that’s how it’s been for over 20 years. The NRA has contributed millions of dollars to fight for Californians rights via legislative advocacy, litigation, informative publications, and support of local Second Amendment efforts. All of this information is on CRPA’s website www.CRPA.org.
The NRA and CRPA work hand-in-hand in California. Together, we have filed dozens of lawsuits in California challenging restrictions on “assault weapons,” carrying firearms, obtaining ammunition, and so-called “large capacity magazines,” as well as on the state’s misuse of firearm purchaser fees and its improper enforcement of regulations. We have also filed amicus briefs in support of several other important Second Amendment lawsuits, both in California and beyond.
In addition to litigation, we have been at the watchdog over the California Department of Justice’s enforcement of gun laws and protecting California gun owners from its overreach. NRA and CRPA have also been involved in defending hunters’ interests with the Fish & Game Commission, attending meetings and submitting petitions and comment letters. And we have launched the Coalition of Local Gun Owners, which monitors municipal governments and weighs in to defend the rights of gun owners from hostile local ordinances. Without the NRA and CRPA, there would be far more restrictions on firearms and hunting at the state and local level than there are now.
Without NRA’s support, very little of this would have been possible. And these efforts will now increase as a result of the new gun control laws adopted this year. NRA and CRPA are hard at work preparing lawsuits to challenge provisions of Prop 63 and the other new legislation and looking at federal laws that could give California gun owners some relief.
So, no, the NRA has not abandoned California. But, to make NRA and CRPA more powerful in California, we need gun owners to engage. There are 8-12 million gun owners in this state. With one million engaged gun-owners, we can change the political landscape. The fight in California won’t be easy, but, thanks to the NRA, the fight just turned in our favor. CRPA looks forward to continue work with NRA to make the most of it."
Last edited:
Let me address a couple of issues with the admission that I haven't read the decision yet.
It won't automatically strike other state's laws. Someone will have to challenge each state mag restriction on its own merits. If I wanted to challenge, say, Washington's gun laws, I'd have to sue the State of Washington and ask that its mag limit (I'm merely assuming it has one) be held unconstitutional. I would then get the benefit of this ruling. The more similar Washington's law is to CA's, the more likely I would be to succeed.
It's binding precedent in the 9th, but only persuasive in others. So someone in some other circuit can argue, "Judge, even in the 9th Circuit, which is notoriously anti-gun, this kind of legislation has been held unconstitutional."
It won't automatically strike other state's laws. Someone will have to challenge each state mag restriction on its own merits. If I wanted to challenge, say, Washington's gun laws, I'd have to sue the State of Washington and ask that its mag limit (I'm merely assuming it has one) be held unconstitutional. I would then get the benefit of this ruling. The more similar Washington's law is to CA's, the more likely I would be to succeed.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
To answer some questions:
The California law is still on the books. The trial court issued an injunction finding the law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. A few days later, the trial court stayed the injunction (so the California law can still be enforced) until resolution of the appeal (if it didn't the 9th Circuit would have done so -- and more). Now, a three judge panel has also found the law unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. At this stage the appeal is not resolved, because the State of California can either appeal to a larger 9th Circuit panel, or to SCOTUS.
A couple years ago, an en banc appeal to the 9th Circuit would have been inevitable. However thanks to this President's judicial picks an en banc appeal is not a guaranteed loss-- like it was with Peruta (the 9th circuit concealed carry case). Now there is a good possibility (but not guarantee) that enough conservative judges will be randomly selected for an en banc panel to affirm the ruling. The other alternative is to skip the 9th circuit, and go straight to SCOTUS. However, given SCOTUS's reticence to hear 2A cases, my money would be on California going the en banc route. Then whomever loses en banc can go to SCOTUS. Also, my gut is that the 9th Circuit will take this en banc, but that is discretionary -- it is not a guaranteed. If SCOTUS ultimately takes this case, that ruling will apply to the entire United States for better or worse.
With respect to other states in the 9th Circuit. This opinion -- if it stands -- sets forth the framework for how future magazine cases will be judged going forward. You can expect Hawaii, Washington, etc., to pass laws with nitpicky differences (think Pierce mag extensions, Beta mags) and hope they get more favorable judges.
Given the ongoing riots on the West Coast, and some local government's complete abdication of public safety, (or selective enforcement). This is the absolute best time to get a 2A case in front of a court. Remember, we NEVER EVER would have gotten SCOTUS to affirm the 2nd Amendment in Heller (2008), if SCOTUS had not decided Castle Rock v. Gonzalez in 2005. In that case, SCOTUS said that police have no duty to protect you, the boxed themselves into a corner and got out of it with Heller. SCOTUS doesn't want to go back there, but if they do it is much better to have imagery of abandoned burning police stations, and looters running rampant than some school shooting.
The California law is still on the books. The trial court issued an injunction finding the law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. A few days later, the trial court stayed the injunction (so the California law can still be enforced) until resolution of the appeal (if it didn't the 9th Circuit would have done so -- and more). Now, a three judge panel has also found the law unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. At this stage the appeal is not resolved, because the State of California can either appeal to a larger 9th Circuit panel, or to SCOTUS.
A couple years ago, an en banc appeal to the 9th Circuit would have been inevitable. However thanks to this President's judicial picks an en banc appeal is not a guaranteed loss-- like it was with Peruta (the 9th circuit concealed carry case). Now there is a good possibility (but not guarantee) that enough conservative judges will be randomly selected for an en banc panel to affirm the ruling. The other alternative is to skip the 9th circuit, and go straight to SCOTUS. However, given SCOTUS's reticence to hear 2A cases, my money would be on California going the en banc route. Then whomever loses en banc can go to SCOTUS. Also, my gut is that the 9th Circuit will take this en banc, but that is discretionary -- it is not a guaranteed. If SCOTUS ultimately takes this case, that ruling will apply to the entire United States for better or worse.
With respect to other states in the 9th Circuit. This opinion -- if it stands -- sets forth the framework for how future magazine cases will be judged going forward. You can expect Hawaii, Washington, etc., to pass laws with nitpicky differences (think Pierce mag extensions, Beta mags) and hope they get more favorable judges.
Given the ongoing riots on the West Coast, and some local government's complete abdication of public safety, (or selective enforcement). This is the absolute best time to get a 2A case in front of a court. Remember, we NEVER EVER would have gotten SCOTUS to affirm the 2nd Amendment in Heller (2008), if SCOTUS had not decided Castle Rock v. Gonzalez in 2005. In that case, SCOTUS said that police have no duty to protect you, the boxed themselves into a corner and got out of it with Heller. SCOTUS doesn't want to go back there, but if they do it is much better to have imagery of abandoned burning police stations, and looters running rampant than some school shooting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
