The 9th Circuit rules in our favor!

[GaryS]

I have to wonder if once Judge Barrett become Justice Barrett if ban states will pressure CA NOT to try to bring this case to the Supreme Court?

That would likely include not pursuing a request for an en banc rehearing.

Upholding this decision would be bad for those magazine ban states, but good for the citizens therein.

 

[Racer X]

One thing that is baffling is that only a few percent of all firearms homicides are with rifles. So why a ban on long rifle mags? FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

 

[Hondo44]

One thing that is baffling is that only a few percent of all firearms homicides are with rifles. So why a ban on long rifle mags? FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

We must try to always keep in mind at all times that none of this has anything to do with firearms crimes, safety, logic, nor common sense. It's all only about political idealism, power, and control!

Firearms crime stats, safety stats, logic, and common sense are tools that we must use to defeat this nonsense! And with more non-activist judges on the bench it works better and better, thank goodness!

 

[BC38]

One thing that is baffling is that only a few percent of all firearms homicides are with rifles. So why a ban on long rifle mags? FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Because they look SCARY - which makes a restriction on them more palatable to the masses. Of course once they have a ban on "high" (actually NORMAL) capacity magazines for scary black rifles in place it is a much smaller and easier step to impose them on other kinds of guns, including handguns.

 

[stansdds]

One thing that is baffling is that only a few percent of all firearms homicides are with rifles. So why a ban on long rifle mags? FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Because they look scary and look a lot like the select fire carbines and rifles issued in the military. The battle cry here in Virginia is that weapons of war (military style weapons) have no place on our streets. It's all about optics and catch phrases and can (will) open the door to bans encompassing even more firearms and ammunition.

 

[CH4]

Hmm
With the likelihood of SCOTUS getting another, solidly conservative justice it may cause certain AGs and circuit courts to rethink their odds of success before risking a case being overturned by SCOTUS and having an unfavorable outcome incorporated against all 50 states and DC.

 

[ladder13]

Looks like next year will be the time to bring 2A cases to the court.

 

[banger]

Looks like next year will be the time to bring 2A cases to the court.

Yes, but you can't make the court take up the cases.

There have been many "good" cases over the years that the Supreme court simply refused to hear.

 

[tops]

One thing that is baffling is that only a few percent of all firearms homicides are with rifles. So why a ban on long rifle mags? FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

I wasn't around until 1941 but I've read it was machine guns in the 30s. I remember the 60s and it was cheap pistols. Now it's large mags and auto rifles. They just do one step at a time. They know if they do enough inches eventually it will be a mile. Larry

 

[stansdds]

The issue with machine guns in the 1930's was due to organized crime and the prohibition on alcoholic beverages. I'd wager that had prohibition not been enacted, there would not have been such violence.

Prohibition gives rise to the black market.
The black market goes under the control of criminal organizations.
Criminal organizations battle and wage war over territory.

 

[SpikeIDMT]

Petition for en banc hearing was filed by California AG on August 28, 2020

So, nothing further? No latest news on this?

Are gun owners running out and buying high cap mags, legally?

 

[CH4]

With SCOTUS likely to go 6-3, Bacerra and the 9th may rethink their position. If SCOTUS overturns Duncan, it would incorporate their silliness against ALL the states and DC.

 

[bushmaster1313]

So, nothing further? No latest news on this?

There is a website (Thank you Michel & Associates, P.C. !!!) with links to documents from the Docket at the 9th Circuit and the District Court:

Links to 9th Circuit and District Court documents

Here is the brief of the Pro-2A Plaintiffs saying the full 9th Circuit should not rehear the case

Brief of the Pro-2A Plaintiffs saying the full 9th Circuit should not rehear the case

To me, this is a dangerous case to the 2A because the full 9th Circuit could decide to apply intermediate scrutiny, reverse the panel and uphold the statute on that basis. The Supreme Court could then affirm the full 9th Circuit on that basis, making intermediate scrutiny the law and undermining all future attempts to overturn restrictive firearm legislation. A very bad result for the 2A.

 

[Erich]

I am.

That could happen, but it seems unlikely given the present U.S. S.Ct.

 

[GaryS]

I don't know if those are typos or not. Strict scrutiny works in gun owners favor as it requires courts to look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the most literal sense.

Intermediate scrutiny is a lower standard and has often been applied to 2A cases with bad outcomes for our side. It's a lower standard and gives judges "more flexibility" to interpret the framers intent.

It's been applied most often to 2A cases which leads some legal scholars to refer to the 2A as a second class right.

IANAL, but I read a lot of these cases and discuss them with people who ARE lawyers.

There is a website (Thank you Michel & Associates, P.C. !!!) with links to documents from the Docket at the 9th Circuit and the District Court:

Links to 9th Circuit and District Court documents

Here is the brief of the Pro-2A Plaintiffs saying the full 9th Circuit should not rehear the case

Brief of the Pro-2A Plaintiffs saying the full 9th Circuit should not rehear the case

To me, this is a dangerous case to the 2A because the full 9th Circuit could decide to apply intermediate scrutiny, reverse the panel and uphold the statute on that basis. The Supreme Court could then affirm the full 9th Circuit on that basis, making strict scrutiny the law and undermining all future attempts to overturn restrictive firearm legislation. A very bad result for the 2A.

 

[Fastbolt]

As you can probably tell from the first link above, there's a very long list of anti-gun groups and states filing Amicus Briefs in support of the Appellant's petition for rehearing en banc.

They're basically pulling out all the stops to try and prevent CA from losing this case, since losing it might result in the Supreme Court deciding to accept the case (if CA fights a loss in the 9th), and that might result in a S.Ct. decision that might start causing some laws in other states to be thrown out.

While this case has naturally become a big deal for CA's citizens, it's also surprised other states (in other circuits) by becoming a potentially big deal that could reach the highest court and affect the whole country.

Who knew?

 

[bushmaster1313]

Although I am a supporter of the 2A, I try to be honest in my assessments. When it comes to Large Capacity Magazines ("LCMs") it is important to realize that there is a big difference betwen banning LCMs and banning handguns. In the Heller case (total handgun ban violated the Constitution), I think the victory for the 2A turned on the fact that 5 Justices agreed that banning handguns prevented some people from exercising their rights under the 2A. On the other hand, banning LCMs does not prevent anyone from owning a semi-auto firearm along with multiple 10 round magazines. It is reasonable to conclude that the difference between allowing and banning LCMs is merely a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Because banning LCMs does not ban a whole class of ordinary weapons and does not completely extinguish the 2A rights of anyone, it is entirely possible that all 9 of the present Supreme Court Justices are willing to let the People of California decide whether they do or do not want LCMs in their state.

 

[Hondo44]

The answer is clear when we cut thru all the chaff and answer these two basic questions about our 2nd A right:

1. “Just exactly against which enemy is the 2nd amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?”

We should know the answer because I learned it years ago in Jr. High School long before I even knew what the Federalist Papers were. Of course that’s when schools taught true history, not revisionist history.

The “enemy” is the US GOVERNMENT. The protection was from tyrannical government. Remember having just fought and died to throw off the tyranny of the king, our forefathers established the 2nd A specifically as insurance against our own government should it become tyrannical! So it’s not to protect us against outside enemies, it’s for we the people’s rebellion were it to become necessary again, as it did in 1776.

2. ”What is a well regulated militia?” It cannot possibly be the National Guard which is PART OF THE GOVERNMENT; that would be absolutely ludicrous (so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous)!

A well regulated militia is of the people and for the people separate from the government!

So just exactly how does diminishing the ability of our militia right by limiting magazine capacity uphold the 2nd A?

Of course it doesn't! It's just plain and simple unadulterated incrementalism to curb our 2nd A right a little piece at a time, period. That's how "rights" are lost over time. And it's what "merely a difference in degree" actually means no matter how you slice it!

How stupid are they to presume we're so stupid as to not recognize incrementalism when we see it?

I sincerely hope the 9th en blanc hears and overturns the decision. I don't think there's a better time in history for this case of "incrementalism" to be accepted and decided by the Supremes. It's an even more originalist* vs. activist court than decided Heller. Any national repercussions will be a bonus, and about time.

*In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted".

That's the only interpretation possible w/o legislating from the bench!

 

[Muss Muggins]

I take a shorter route to the constitutionality of banning LCM's. It has already been done successfully . . .

Although I am a supporter of the 2A, I try to be honest in my assessments. When it comes to Large Capacity Magazines ("LCMs") it is important to realize that there is a big difference betwen banning LCMs and banning handguns. In the Heller case (total handgun ban violated the Constitution), I think the victory for the 2A turned on the fact that 5 Justices agreed that banning handguns prevented some people from exercising their rights under the 2A. On the other hand, banning LCMs does not prevent anyone from owning a semi-auto firearm along with multiple 10 round magazines. It is reasonable to conclude that the difference between allowing and banning LCMs is merely a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Because banning LCMs does not ban a whole class of ordinary weapons and does not completely extinguish the 2A rights of anyone, it is entirely possible that all 9 of the present Supreme Court Justices are willing to let the People of California decide whether they do or do not want LCMs in their state.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I don't know if those are typos or not. Strict scrutiny works in gun owners favor as it requires courts to look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the most literal sense.

Intermediate scrutiny is a lower standard and has often been applied to 2A cases with bad outcomes for our side. It's a lower standard and gives judges "more flexibility" to interpret the framers intent.

It's been applied most often to 2A cases which leads some legal scholars to refer to the 2A as a second class right.

IANAL, but I read a lot of these cases and discuss them with people who ARE lawyers.

Thanks

Yes a typo. I meant to say Supreme Court could make intermediate scrutiny the law. A very bad result