California Magazine Ban Struck Down & Ruled Unconstitutional By Judge Benitez! Duncan

[Racer X]

I noticed that Rainier Arms, up here in western Washington, announced it is taking stand-by orders for those in CA, and if after the 3rd, there isn't an injunction, they will be shipped with first priority in the queue.

I so wish I could be in Judge Karen's courtroom next month when the federal case is heard for the OR magazine ban. She did everything the exact opposite of Bruen, and no attempt to pretend she wasn't biased.

 

[dsf]

I'm being a touch lazy and borrowing from a post I made at Calguns. Edited a bit.

Much as I would like that, whether now or if the 9th folds, we'll be able to get standard capacity magazines, I'm not dismissing CA legislature's ability to stonewall. Remember, CA is a state that never gives up denying gun rights. The CA AG not so long ago argued that a state provided single handgun for self defense satisfied the core right of the 2nd Amendment. And CA requires a background check for the purchase of a box of 22s-

We suppose that whether the 9th picks up the appeal or not that when we win the result will be ordering mags through the mail, picking them up at the local Big 5 or WalMart, certainly at the LGS, etc. I'm concerned that won't happen.

This decision addressed magazine capacity only. CA law prohibits a fixed magazine of greater than 10 rounds on certain "assault weapons", which would seem to conflict with this decision. Would removing the 10 round limit but still requiring the magazine to be fixed per CA AW law be compliant with the decision?

Would new CA legislation requiring magazines to be "fixed" or non-detachable in all semi-auto firearms be compliant with the Benitez decision?

CA requires a background check for ammo purchase = would the same for +10 round magazines be compliant with this decision?

Speculation, I know. I expect the Governor and others in the CA legislature, the Bloomberg and Moms types already have such things ready to go.

 

[Racer X]

Judge Benitez is also in the middle of the lawsuit about ammo purchase scheme. This ruling bodes well for the ammo case. And possibly he is the judge hearing the AWB case. His federal district had a policy for a while of assigning similar cases to the same judge as they became sort of subject matter experts on the applicable underlying laws.

Most of his research on magazines, and his ruling verbage, can be cut and pasted into the ammo lawsuit. And if he is involved in the AWB, which he originally ruled on, same for it.

 

[BRL40]

...and so much for the Washington State magazine ban injunction.

 

[Racer X]

...and so much for the Washington State magazine ban injunction.

If an emergency appeal get filed with the 9th, it could piggyback on Duncan v Bonta.

We also have the Western WA lawsuit up for summary judgement on 10/18. You know Duncan v Bonta will be brought into it.

 

[BRL40]

I was beginning to think I might have to go to California to get a 30 round magazine. HA!

 

[Old 44 Guy]

I often think if these anti gun laws apply to criminals, too. According to our courts it doesn't.

 

[Bruce51]

Having watched these bans and court cases for as long as I can remember I can tell that we will never win a sure victory.

Every decision is stayed for review and as soon as a positive win is in sight a new law is passed.

The end game is to keep everything tied up in the judicial system forever.

That is a win for the gun, magazine and ammunition background check proponents as there will never be a restoration of our rights.

Shall not be infringed means absolutely nothing to those in power here or in New York or Massachusetts.

It is not right or fair or Constitutional but it is what people in power do to limit our rights.
Rant off!

Bruce

 

[Racer X]

So, for the time being, the standard capacity mag ban in CA is still on. The 9th en banc panel allowed the ban to stay in effect through the appeal. Judges are furious at the 9th for completely ignoring Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen, and thumbing their nose at SCOTUS. This is not my opinion, the judges wrote dissents and it is their opinion.

Here is their appeal ruling from 10/10/23 https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...nts-Emergency-Mtn-for-Stay-Pending-Appeal.pdf Fantastic dissenting opinions from judges who did the actual analysis and showed their work. And concluded that the ban is unconstitutional, and should be ended, and obviously the stay shouldn't be granted. The 9th actually used as justification that other jurisdictions are doing it, but those jurisdictions and rulings aren't binding on the 9th. That's a 5th grader justifying skipping school sort of argument. They never did the work.

And here is the ruling from 9/29/23 when the 9th announced the unprecedented move of the original 9th en banc panel that heard it will hear it again. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.3.0.pdf Dissenting judges wrote scathing words calling out the 9th for their egregious behavior

Now, the 9th ignoring the obvious 2A Rights and ruling counter to the Constitution is a longstanding issue that some judges have been pointing out for 2 decades at least. I have a ruling with dissenting comments from judges dated 2003 Sean Silveira; Jack Safford; Patrick Overstreet; David K. Mehl; Steven Focht, Sgt.; David Blalock, Sgt.; Marcus Davis; Vance Boyce; Keneth Dewald, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California; Gray Davis, Governor, State of California, Defendants-appellees, 328 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2003) :: Justia Multiple judges call out the 9th for ignoring the Constitution.

I urge everyone to read these links and let it all sink in. The 9th Circuit, when rulings get to SCOTUS get overturned 80.4% of the time. SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present - Ballotpedia) Being in Washington, their behavior disturbs me to my core.

4 Boxes Diner video breakdown. He becomes unglued. [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeQwzRjqulE[/ame]

Washington Gun Law breakdown [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4ft5aeR-9k[/ame] [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUrUl2yZ9iI[/ame] He points out that the 9th Circuit has already been sanctioned once before by SCOTUS, 4 years ago, for the same type of shenanigans. He is very restrained.

If I get dinged, or get a time out, so be it. But this needs to be heard. Not my opinions, these are court documents

Love this place, and I might be silent for a while.

I honestly don't know what you or I can do about this. Judges aren't held accountable.

 

[HeyJoe]

as in the New York case, which has been languishing in the second circuit, even after Alito and Thomas warning them, the Supreme court needs to move quickly and decisively.