LiveLife
Member
Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) Continued from post #400 with summary of arguments - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12860340
Adding to summary of arguments of post #400 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12860340
9th Circuit oral argumentsEn Banc (Entire bench) hearing is scheduled for 3/19/2024 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco - https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/
23-55805 Virginia Duncan v. Rob Bonta
www.youtube.com
Adding to summary of arguments of post #400 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12860340
- At 23:30 minute of video, interesting question was posed to CA attorney that since semi-auto action is particularly more "dangerous" than lever action/bolt action/revolver action so how does five round difference between 10 round and 15 round magazines make the 15 round magazine "dangerous"? [and 10 round magazine not dangerous] And if that reasoning is correct, then all semi-auto firearm could be banned because semi-auto firearms are "dangerous" than other action firearms whether they are fed from detachable magazine or not.
- Then at 25:50 minute, CA attorney admits that "We cannot ban all semi-auto [magazine fed mechanism] weapons and Heller makes that clear"
- At 27:00 minute, while CA attorney mentioned there is long established tradition of firearm regulation and ban but keep in mind from District Court ruling from judge Benitez that CA lawyers were NOT ABLE to come up with historical tradition of "analogous" regulations that banned AW/magazine as illustrated by spreadsheet CA lawyers presented to judge Benitez (As post Bruen, now burden shifts to the state) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12528071
- At 34:00 minute, plaintiff attorney answers "commonly used ... for self defense use" question by stating "Heller speaks of use as possession" ... "unusual means not in common use". And at 37:30 minute, "Dangerous AND unusual ... has to be both ... as stated by Supreme Court".
- At 42:30 minute, plaintiff attorney explains "dangerous and unusual" as applied presently and historically
- At 42:50 minute, plaintiff attorney poses an interesting point that 11 round magazine must be banned by CA because it is simply larger than 10 round magazine therefore dangerous.
- At 52:30 minute, judge states CA has to provide evidence how and why larger than 10 round magazine fed semi-auto firearm is dangerous and unusual
Last edited: