Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #801  
Old 07-16-2018, 7:25 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 482
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledReaper View Post
Wait a minute....are you saying you SUPPORT suspending the 4th and 5th ammendments!? IF you are ,you are either out of your frikkin mind or a socialist totalitarian suckup... You need to seriously go take a history refresher class.

If i have read your post wrong,you need to word your posts better...
You miss read it .. If you want to suspend the 2nd and save few lives, then you should want to suspend the 4th and 5th to save few lives, but gun control advocates don't want to suspend the 4th and 5th .. They just want to suspend the 2nd.
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:01 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,965
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

BIG NRA / CRPA Court WIN!

Ninth Circuit just ruled AGAINST the State of California / Cal DOJ's appeal trying to strike down the injunction issued by the San Diego trial court that stops the enforcement of Gavin Newsom's ban on mere possession of mags that hold over ten rounds. Battle won, war goes on.

Read the Ninth Circuit opinions here:

http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...-Affirming.pdf

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...es-Dissent.pdf
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:03 PM
SAD338 SAD338 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Great news! We keep our mags for now.
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:07 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 820
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAD338 View Post
Great news! We keep our mags for now.
+1. However, the fight is not over. As was observed by the panel during oral arguments, the state has a lower burden on appeal of the DC verdict.
Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:26 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Holy crap, so Batts, the lesbian democrat justice from New York, actually voted to keep the injunction?

And Wallace dissented?!?

__________________


Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:51 PM
bullitt3123 bullitt3123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 172
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
+1. However, the fight is not over. As was observed by the panel during oral arguments, the state has a lower burden on appeal of the DC verdict.
this simply allows for the possession of large cap mags but not the use of said magazine, loading more than 10 rounds is still a no-go correct?
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:52 PM
MCubeiro's Avatar
MCubeiro MCubeiro is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default For Immediate Release

Here's the official press release for those interested. Link- https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/ninth...-magazine-ban/

Ninth Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Newsom's Standard Capacity Magazine Ban


In another blow to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-gun agenda, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday, upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of Proposition 63’s restriction on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Following the enactment of Proposition 63, CRPA attorneys sought an injunction against the magazine possession ban, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment, as well as the due process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution. Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction just days before the law was set to take effect. California quickly appealed the decision.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Benitez did not abuse his discretion, holding that he applied the correct legal standards and made reasonable inferences based on the record. But one judge on the panel disagreed. Responding to the dissent, the majority noted that it was not within the panel’s authority to re-weigh the evidence of the case, nor could it substitute its discretion for that of the district court. What’s more, referencing the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Fyock v. Sunnyvale, which affirmed the denial of an injunction against a local magazine ban, the majority held that simply because a judge disagrees with another district court does not necessarily mean the district court abused its discretion on the matter.

Meanwhile, in the trial court, a motion for summary judgment is pending and a ruling on the merits of the case is expected soon. Regardless of the outcome, the case will most certainly be appealed again to the Ninth Circuit. But by that time, the Supreme Court will likely have a new Justice who respects the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

To stay informed on the Duncan case, as well as other important Second Amendment issues affecting California gun owners, be sure to subscribe to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And be sure to visit the NRA-ILA California dedicated webpage at www.StandAndFightCalifornia.com and the new CRPA webpage at www.CRPA.org.
__________________


NRA Certified Instructor- Pistol, Rifle, PPITH, PPOTH, Metallic Cartridge Reloading, Home Firearm Safety, Refuse to be a Victim
NRA Range Safety Officer

NRA Patriot Life Member - Benefactor Level
CRPA Life Member
CGN/CGSSA Contributor

Last edited by MCubeiro; 07-17-2018 at 1:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:54 PM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 3,075
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Color me surprised that the Ninth Circus actually followed the law for once and maintained the injunction on the obviously unconstitutional ex post facto confiscation and violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause that the high-cap mag ban stipulated. I bet one of the liberal justices that voted in favor of maintaining the injunction (in our favor) probably thought that the case would possibly get cert in SCOTUS and then the anti-gunners would probably lose big, especially after Kavanaugh is confirmed and on the bench.

In any case, it's good news, though like anything gun-related in California, it's only a matter of time until Sacramento tries something again.

Last edited by Syntax Error; 07-17-2018 at 1:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 07-17-2018, 1:02 PM
BagelBites's Avatar
BagelBites BagelBites is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 254
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullitt3123 View Post
this simply allows for the possession of large cap mags but not the use of said magazine, loading more than 10 rounds is still a no-go correct?
Where on earth did you hear that? I'm genuinely curious.
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 07-17-2018, 1:26 PM
Aces and 8s's Avatar
Aces and 8s Aces and 8s is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 845
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BagelBites View Post
Where on earth did you hear that? I'm genuinely curious.
The guy behind his LGS told him so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 07-17-2018, 1:27 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 516
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCubeiro View Post
In another blow to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-gun agenda, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday, upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of Proposition 63’s restriction on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
Those CRPA dues are paying off!
Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 07-17-2018, 1:35 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,243
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Check out the oral arguments, I thought the lady repping us did a great job. It doesn't really equate to anything I can relate to in terms of being a pro 2A guy, but she seems to have had the better arguments:

I think it was funny to hear how Bercerra had made decisions based on some kind of flim-flam paid for report by "everytown" or some other Sugarman or Bloomberg organization. Old 30 round magazines that so few have from 20 years ago are a public safety risk, huh??

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez


Last edited by Discogodfather; 07-17-2018 at 1:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 07-17-2018, 1:39 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 516
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullitt3123 View Post
this simply allows for the possession of large cap mags but not the use of said magazine, loading more than 10 rounds is still a no-go correct?
Unless and until one of the lawyers chimes in, as I understand it, the challenge is on 2a grounds citing Heller and common use. I.e, a favorable outcome in this case would strike any laws in CA prohibiting possession or use. Therefore, this should also strike portions of 30515 regarding definitions of "assault weapons" with fixed mags which can hold more than 10 rounds.

Quote:
The “arms” protected by the Second Amendment are those “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” today.
See, e.g., id. at 624-25; see also Caetano v. Massachusetts, -- U.S. --, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1027-28 (2016). The Second Amendment’s protection also includes the ammunition and magazines necessary to meaningfully keep and bear arms for self-defense. See Jackson, 746 F.3d at 967-68; Fyock, 779 F.3d at 998. As such, the Second Amendment protects magazines and the firearms equipped with them that are in common use for lawful purposes.
(emphasis mine)
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 07-17-2018, 1:51 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 297
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Those CRPA dues are paying off!
We need to start using them to fund counter studies. In the dissent the Wilson cited studies where 10+ rounds increase leathality. This is wrong on the facts. Parkland used 10 round magazines. Auroa used a drum magazine that malfunctioned allowing escape. So there is a real case let's lethality is inverse to magazine capacity.

Really we need proper studies that show these limits don't reduce leathality. They do burden lawful defensive use as illegal actors plan and can stock pile limtied magazines where defensive users are often limited to one or possibly two magazines. So bad actors are not affected, legal actors are. This is a 'bad fit' and doesn't meet intermediate scrutiny.

We on the pro rights side tend to think the second amendment is absolute. But the courts don't see any right is absolute. The first amendment doesn't portect child porn. The our sending amendment rights are under attack from the scrutiny test. They use bad science and it is here we must fight.
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 07-17-2018, 2:04 PM
SAD338 SAD338 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is the next step a 9th Circuit ruling on the law itself?
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 07-17-2018, 2:05 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,243
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAD338 View Post
Is the next step a 9th Circuit ruling on the law itself?
Yes, shortly. 2 weeks?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 07-17-2018, 2:24 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 516
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAD338 View Post
Is the next step a 9th Circuit ruling on the law itself?
In the video, the judge seems to imply the next action is a hearing in September
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 07-17-2018, 2:49 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAD338 View Post
Is the next step a 9th Circuit ruling on the law itself?
Well the district court still needs to issue a ruling on the case itself, before it goes to appeals court.

But yes, considering this case's history and DOJ's standard operating procedure, we'll win the case at the district court soon (in a couple months, most likely) and the case will be appealed to the 9th circuit, where we won't see any outcome for probably another year or longer.

But that's fine... the 9th can drag their feet for as long as they'd like to, we're in no hurry.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 07-17-2018, 2:55 PM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 3,075
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Well the district court still needs to issue a ruling on the case itself, before it goes to appeals court.

But yes, considering this case's history and DOJ's standard operating procedure, we'll win the case at the district court soon (in a couple months, most likely) and the case will be appealed to the 9th circuit, where we won't see any outcome for probably another year or longer.

But that's fine... the 9th can drag their feet for as long as they'd like to, we're in no hurry.
Would it be the same Federal District Court Judge Benitez ruling on the actual constitutionality of the law, or would it be another judge?
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 07-17-2018, 4:11 PM
erik_26's Avatar
erik_26 erik_26 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,986
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Sorry, the hatefulness in me doesn't see this as a victory or a win.

The 9th will ultimately uphold the law, just as they upheld the micro stamp requirement.

This was just a formality so that the 9th can make a final ruling on the matter and we have to turn them in officially.

We have steadily been losing gun rights since the 90's. We aren't getting anything back. This is just a temporary stay of execution.
__________________
Diversity = Non-white and in some cases more specifically, non-white-male.

Another word that has the same meaning is, Inclusion.
Reply With Quote
  #821  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:36 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erik_26 View Post
Sorry, the hatefulness in me doesn't see this as a victory or a win.

The 9th will ultimately uphold the law, just as they upheld the micro stamp requirement.

This was just a formality so that the 9th can make a final ruling on the matter and we have to turn them in officially.

We have steadily been losing gun rights since the 90's. We aren't getting anything back. This is just a temporary stay of execution.
The 9th Circuit hasn't upheld the microstamp requirement. The California Supreme Court did. The 9th Circuit has had the case under submission for a while, and the 3 judge panel will likely rule in our favor, given the conservative Mormons on the panel. Might be overturned by the circuit en banc, who knows.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #822  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:36 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax Error View Post
Would it be the same Federal District Court Judge Benitez ruling on the actual constitutionality of the law, or would it be another judge?
It would be Benitez.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #823  
Old 07-17-2018, 5:44 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
The 9th Circuit has had the case under submission for a while, and the 3 judge panel will likely rule in our favor, given the conservative Mormons on the panel. Might be overturned by the circuit en banc, who knows.
Shoot, I have to revise that. There were two conservative Mormons--Randy Smith and Clifford Wallace--on this Duncan v. Becerra panel. Wallace is also on the microstamping panel. He dissented on standard-capacity mags, whereas a liberal lesbian judge from New York voted for standard-capacity mags. So we may not be in as good a position on microstamping as I thought.

(The other judge on the microstamping panel is Bybee, about whom I have no concerns whatsoever. The man is a conservative through and through.)
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #824  
Old 07-17-2018, 6:10 PM
erik_26's Avatar
erik_26 erik_26 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,986
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
The 9th Circuit hasn't upheld the microstamp requirement. The California Supreme Court did. The 9th Circuit has had the case under submission for a while, and the 3 judge panel will likely rule in our favor, given the conservative Mormons on the panel. Might be overturned by the circuit en banc, who knows.
Thank you for correcting me.

I am doubtful of a favorable outcome for us in any case.
__________________
Diversity = Non-white and in some cases more specifically, non-white-male.

Another word that has the same meaning is, Inclusion.
Reply With Quote
  #825  
Old 07-17-2018, 6:13 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,243
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Clifford Wallace
That guy is spooky.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #826  
Old 07-17-2018, 8:04 PM
2Aallday 2Aallday is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 239
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow. Attorney for our side absolutely creamed attorney for state. He was all over the road.
Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 07-18-2018, 6:07 AM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 673
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Me today =
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 07-18-2018, 7:08 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Aallday View Post
Wow. Attorney for our side absolutely creamed attorney for state. He was all over the road.
That's because their attorney knows damn well that his position was indefensible. I doubt even he agreed with his employer's position.

I think he did as good as any attorney could when they have to argue a position that has no merits.

I think he knew he was going to lose no matter what, so he was just going through the motions so he could tell his employer "look, I tried."
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 07-18-2018, 7:10 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,753
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

It may just be me. But these court proceedings certainly seem to move along faster when the state isnt on the winning end amd trying to overturn the ruling.

Thanks for all your hard work Michel and Associates
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 07-18-2018, 7:19 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
It may just be me. But these court proceedings certainly seem to move along faster when the state isnt on the winning end amd trying to overturn the ruling.

Thanks for all your hard work Michel and Associates
It's actually not moving that fast, the preliminary injunction was over a year ago and the court still hasn't made a ruling on the complaint itself.

It just feels like it's moving quickly because we're not in any hurry for the outcome. We got our PI, so it's "life as usual" for us unless the court decides otherwise someday
__________________



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-18-2018 at 7:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 07-18-2018, 7:24 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Is it possible that the court could strike down the entire magazine ban (acquisition, etc), or can they only strike down the possession aspect of the ban?
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 07-18-2018, 7:31 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Is it possible that the court could strike down the entire magazine ban (acquisition, etc), or can they only strike down the possession aspect of the ban?
Sorry, answering my own question here:

I just read the complaint again, and in fact it DOES pray for relief in the form of striking down the entire ban, so yes, the court could potentially rule that the entire magazine law is void.

Suddenly I now feel motivated for this case to finish
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 07-18-2018, 8:36 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 820
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Sorry, answering my own question here:

I just read the complaint again, and in fact it DOES pray for relief in the form of striking down the entire ban, so yes, the court could potentially rule that the entire magazine law is void.

Suddenly I now feel motivated for this case to finish
Be careful what you wish for. Striking down the entire ban could motivate the CA9 to reverse the DC. Personally, I would prefer the entire ban to be gone, but this is the DPRK....
Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 07-18-2018, 8:45 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Be careful what you wish for. Striking down the entire ban could motivate the CA9 to reverse the DC. Personally, I would prefer the entire ban to be gone, but this is the DPRK....
Ya but whatever the outcome, the loser will request a 9th en banc hearing, and then the loser of that will request cert from SCOTUS. So it almost doesn't matter what the 9th ultimately decides.

What matters most, I think, is the opinion that will be published by the district court, which is what will be referenced by the 9th and SCOTUS during their hearings. If the opinion written for the PI injunction is any indication, we'll get a VERY strong and well written opinion at the district court for this case.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #835  
Old 07-18-2018, 9:22 AM
paddyraid's Avatar
paddyraid paddyraid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 124
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkshire View Post
librarian;
the title of this thread says "Duncan V Becerra - CRPA suit on large cap mags 5/18/17"

yet the press release specifically says "standard capacity"
you should fix your title.

Yup i agree. Please be more accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #836  
Old 07-18-2018, 9:25 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So it almost doesn't matter what the 9th ultimately decides.
You got it

The 9th is a waste of time when it comes to 2A rights. It's best to think of them as a fraternity hazing rather than an impartial court
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 07-18-2018, 9:33 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddyraid View Post
Yup i agree. Please be more accurate.
The thread title is factually accurate, considering the Penal Code calls them "large capacity magazines".

A challenge against the state's "standard capacity" magazines would be rather fruitless, since the penal code makes no mention of such a thing.


WE call them "standard capacity magazines", and for the purposes of thread discussions, news releases, etc, it's fine to call them that (even if not totally accurate unless you really do specifically only mean to discuss 20rd AR mags, 17rd Glock 17 mags, 10rd G26 mags, etc - and not their extended-capacity counterparts). But when the Penal Code and the lawsuit complaint that challenges the PC both call them "large capacity magazines", then that's what the thread about said lawsuit should be titled.

Librarian has already been pretty clear about that point.
__________________



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-18-2018 at 9:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #838  
Old 07-18-2018, 10:36 AM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 7,149
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

The opinion actually points out severe flaws in the dissent. The mental pretzel that Wallace had to twist himself into to dissent shows that he's an activist with a strong understanding of what outcome he wants and little understanding or care for the law that may prevent him from getting there. The good news is that Wallace is 90 years old. Anybody who is that Anti-Constitution is an enemy of the US.

This would be a good one for the Supreme Court. If RBG could just be replaced, I think we'll see state by state mag bans struck down. I would guess that AWB stuff would be struck down, too.
__________________
Securing a safe to a Post-tension slab - DIY

For Sale: IHC M1 Garand, Mega Maten .308 AR

Quote:
Originally Posted by KWalkerM View Post
eh why bring logic into this, that makes too much sense... besides when you have bested a fool, you have accomplished nothing and he is a fool.

Last edited by John Browning; 07-18-2018 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #839  
Old 07-18-2018, 10:40 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Browning View Post
... I think we'll see state by state mag bans struck down ...
And all those nixed gun laws would all be thanks to Newsom and his Prop 63, who just couldn't leave "well enough" alone

This lawsuit wouldn't have happened if it weren't for him. If we win this case I'm going to send his office a box of See's chocolates as a thank you.
__________________



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-18-2018 at 10:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #840  
Old 07-18-2018, 11:20 AM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 7,149
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
And all those nixed gun laws would all be thanks to Newsom and his Prop 63, who just couldn't leave "well enough" alone

This lawsuit wouldn't have happened if it weren't for him. If we win this case I'm going to send his office a box of See's chocolates as a thank you.
With one more of the right justice, I don't see how any of the AWB, mag bans or even good cause carry bans stand. Until then, don't waste the See's, bro.

I'd send Gavin a pocket copy of the US Constitution so he could read up, and a big glossy picture of PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump. I'll also include a hand written note that says "Now you know how your best friend felt. You've been F'd by Prop 63, your old best friend."
__________________
Securing a safe to a Post-tension slab - DIY

For Sale: IHC M1 Garand, Mega Maten .308 AR

Quote:
Originally Posted by KWalkerM View Post
eh why bring logic into this, that makes too much sense... besides when you have bested a fool, you have accomplished nothing and he is a fool.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:43 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.