WIESE v Becerra, Large Capacity mags - Alive again, 11-7-22

[manfred]

If every conservative voted, and all voted for Travis Allen we might have a chance at the general election. A lot of young dems don't vote.

[Hoop]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Yes. The passage of Prop. 63 is what opened my eyes. Before then, I could not grasp just how so many could be so stupid. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. What is especially disheartening is that, except for Thomas, bless his soul, the SCOTUS has shown no interest in protecting the 2A rights of those of us in states like CA. And, this is dangerous, because this vile disease seems to be contagious. Just look at the Florida students who seem to believe that preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms, especially the most popular modern sporting rifle, would have done more, or even anything, to protect them more than having several of their teachers armed with firearms would have done. It does not take much imagination to think that the situation would have turned out much different if that courageous coach had been armed when he confronted the shooter.

The only thing that will fix it is if our side starts fighting for the freedom we want. If we could organize "Sanctuary" cities/counties for gun owners that would be a start.

Otherwise get ready for all out firearms bans because the Left will never, ever stop.

[eswrite]

Originally Posted by mooseboy84

Yes, but that was an especially pathetic and lame argument, and at the time I thought it made little sense. The first brief filed that was originally posted was bad lawyering, and I say that because the arguments weren't in any way persuasive.

I recall they we're arguing it was forfeiture which is fine and had merit, but there was some straight NRA jingoism in the original brief that amounted to "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with 30 round magazines to help us defend ourselves." That's a paraphrase of one of the original arguments filed in the original brief, and if someone such as myself who is pro 2A can easily realize the flaws and baseless claim that is, what would a crazy liberal judge think?

That's why when it was dismissed by judge he basically laughed the NRA jingoism argument off.

The best argument may well be that 10 is an arbitrary, capricious number. On what evidentiary basis did the government pick 10 as the right number? Why not 11, 9, or (gasp!) Zero?

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by eswrite

The best argument may well be that 10 is an arbitrary, capricious number. On what evidentiary basis did the government pick 10 as the right number? Why not 11, 9, or (gasp!) Zero?

Bill Ruger sold guns with 10rd magazines. He was happy to screw us all to try and get a few more points if market share.

[CalNRA]

Originally Posted by taperxz

There hasn't been much good for any gun owner in CA in the last 40 years. Let's face it, even if these CASESgo to SCOTUS, Gorsuch needs help on 2A stuff. He can't do it alone

What's your point?

Well now do you see my point?

[GW]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

Bill Ruger sold guns with 10rd magazines. He was happy to screw us all to try and get a few more points if market share.

For God's sake. Bill Ruger is dead 15 years now.
Time to get over what a dead man did over 20 years ago to preserve his company, however misguided he was.
The new management is of a different mindset.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by GW

For God's sake. Bill Ruger is dead 15 years now.
Time to get over what a dead man did over 20 years ago to preserve his company, however misguided he was.
The new management is of a different mindset.

I agree. I didn't have a problem buying a new 10/22. But the question was "why ten", the answer is the only gun industry guy that was on the grabbers side at the time said, ten and he just happened to have 10rd guns to sell. Remember that was before the bx25, all the larger capacity 10/22 magazines were third party.

[monkeshine]

Originally Posted by eswrite

The best argument may well be that 10 is an arbitrary, capricious number. On what evidentiary basis did the government pick 10 as the right number? Why not 11, 9, or (gasp!) Zero?

Originally Posted by ironpegasus

There's a point in the complaint where they start to develop a good equal protection case... but then they never truly develop it further...by USSC precedent, the only reason anybody is armed is for their own personal self defense as there exists no duty to defend another individual even for police officers.

Originally Posted by Citizen One

Uh.... this has to be the dumbest quote of the judgement. Judge Shubb cites case law from magazine-banning states.... as evidence of "every other court to examine 'LCM' bans". Really....? He does realize that is a circular logic fallacy?

To me it is very simple. "Hey Judge, there are 3 armed men heading down the hallway right now! They are going to burst into this courtroom in 5 seconds with guns blazing! Do you want your six shot revolver or 10 shot pistol?"

"I hope you got good aim! Those fixed magazines are difficult to change out while taking fire from 3 directions. Did you bring your wrench?"

"Sorry I can't help defend you, Judge, you forbade me from carrying here. Good luck and godspeed!"

10 is arbitrary and capricious and also contrary to the Heller/McDonald rulings. If a gun's basic utility is self defense, and if that gun is protected by strict scrutiny, then anything that inhibits its utility should be struck down as unconstitutional. Otherwise we get down to "Yes you can have all the guns you want as long as you make them out of corn flakes, see I support the 2nd Amendment!".

This "intermediate scrutiny" bull**** is, well, bull****. "You have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you can use automatic typesetters! And why do you have 3 pens when you can only write with one at a time?"

I know it isn't this simple, but it is this obvious - to me anyway.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by monkeshine

To me it is very simple. "Hey Judge, there are 3 armed men heading down the hallway right now! They are going to burst into this courtroom in 5 seconds with guns blazing! Do you want your six shot revolver or 10 shot pistol?"

"I hope you got good aim! Those fixed magazines are difficult to change out while taking fire from 3 directions. Did you bring your wrench?"

"Sorry I can't help defend you, Judge, you forbade me from carrying here. Good luck and godspeed!"

10 is arbitrary and capricious and also contrary to the Heller/McDonald rulings. If a gun's basic utility is self defense, and if that gun is protected by strict scrutiny, then anything that inhibits its utility should be struck down as unconstitutional. Otherwise we get down to "Yes you can have all the guns you want as long as you make them out of corn flakes, see I support the 2nd Amendment!".

This "intermediate scrutiny" bull**** is, well, bull****. "You have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you can use automatic typesetters! And why do you have 3 pens when you can only write with one at a time?"

I know it isn't this simple, but it is this obvious - to me anyway.

I don't see how we get strict scrutiny until SCOTUS rules it is required. I still don't see how assult weapon bans withstand intermediate scrutiny. With rifles and assult rifles used so rarely in violent crime as compared to handguns how can safety be used to support assult weapon bans. With intermediate scrutiny the government should still be required to show the regulation or law achieves the goal.

[wolfwood]

So the case has been stayed pending the NINTH circuit ruling in Duncan.
The lower court in Duncan will issue a ruling in Duncan down the road so it is very likely that both cases will leave the lower court at the same time.
I have a strong guess that both cases will go up to the Ninth Circuit at roughly the same time and we will have a Peruta/Richards type oral argument down the road

[Philosophical]

Question for my retarded self not being able to interpret legal nonsense. Is "possession" the same as "use"? I don't see this being asked, but can you currently "use" high cap mags in California as of now?

[4GLOCK30]

If I missed this....did the 9th court rule yet on Prop 63?

any search I find just explains the injunction by Judge Benetiz to AG Becerra to not enforce or implement Proposition 63's Section 32310(c) and Section 32310(d).

On July 27, 2017, Attorney General Xavier Becerra appealed the district court's injunction to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

So its been almost a year....has the 9th court ruled yet?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Philosophical

Question for my retarded self not being able to interpret legal nonsense. Is "possession" the same as "use"? I don't see this being asked, but can you currently "use" high cap mags in California as of now?

Yes. But, you can also have them confiscated and destroyed under PC 18010.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...0.&lawCode=PEN

32390.
Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any large-capacity magazine is a nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.

PC 18010: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=18010.

18010.
(a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of, importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a nuisance under any of the following provisions:
(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by 4GLOCK30

If I missed this....did the 9th court rule yet on Prop 63?

any search I find just explains the injunction by Judge Benetiz to AG Becerra to not enforce or implement Proposition 63's Section 32310(c) and Section 32310(d).

On July 27, 2017, Attorney General Xavier Becerra appealed the district court's injunction to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

So its been almost a year....has the 9th court ruled yet?

Read post #130.....

[mjmagee67]

Originally Posted by GW

For God's sake. Bill Ruger is dead 15 years now.
Time to get over what a dead man did over 20 years ago to preserve his company, however misguided he was.
The new management is of a different mindset.

You beat me to it.........

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by eswrite

The best argument may well be that 10 is an arbitrary, capricious number. On what evidentiary basis did the government pick 10 as the right number? Why not 11, 9, or (gasp!) Zero?

Right question, but wrong approach. This is an old, flawed line of thinking. It's not your burden to make that argument. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and the state must show that their law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. So if small cap mags further public safety or reduce killings or whatever the important govt interest is claimed to be, the govt bears the burden of showing that the law under review furthers that interest -- how effectively do small cap mags reduce killings? Sure didn't seem to be a problem for Seung-Hui Cho, so the govt needs to show studies which prove that small cap mags are saving lives, not just make the claim.

And that's intermediate scrutiny. Another Trump pick or two and you might be looking up at something more..."strict".

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

I don't see how we get strict scrutiny until SCOTUS rules it is required.

Correct, we won't, but SCOTUS won't, so we never will

I still don't see how assult weapon bans withstand intermediate scrutiny.

Try being intellectually dishonest, and you'll immediately see how

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

Right question, but wrong approach. This is an old, flawed line of thinking. It's not your burden to make that argument. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and the state must show that their law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. So if small cap mags further public safety or reduce killings or whatever the important govt interest is claimed to be, the govt bears the burden of showing that the law under review furthers that interest -- how effectively do small cap mags reduce killings? Sure didn't seem to be a problem for Seung-Hui Cho, so the govt needs to show studies which prove that small cap mags are saving lives, not just make the claim.

And that's intermediate scrutiny. Another Trump pick or two and you might be looking up at something more..."strict".



Correct, we won't, but SCOTUS won't, so we never will




Try being intellectually dishonest, and you'll immediately see how

The real problem it's immediate scrutiny has been water down to nothing. The "state interest" can be as lose as letting people feel safer even if it doesn't make them safer. We even have impossible regulations doesn't negate them. I don't even see how these stand up to rational basis. These courts have shown they are ready to find and exploit every argument for the state. Our only hope are some rulings the side of Heller and McDonald or more. Or a federal preemption securing our second amendment rights from the tyranny of the majority ala voting rights act.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

The real problem it's immediate scrutiny has been water down to nothing.

In the 9th, sure. Worrying about what the 9th says on any gun-related issue is simply a waste of time. Just laugh at whatever stupidity they vomit up and move on. Same for other anti-2A circuits.

Intermediate scrutiny, or better, will be alive and well for any 2A cases which get to SCOTUS, and that's where it matters. If Winkler, et al, are right and Kennedy was the reason no cert was granted these past years, then that problem has been solved and we can expect to start the long process of re-claiming our lost civil rights.

[Unbekannt]

By the time this case gets to the Supremes, Trump will have made three appointments. It will be seven to two. Knowing this, the Prayer should have asked for Beccera to be imprisoned.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

Bill Ruger sold guns with 10rd magazines. He was happy to screw us all to try and get a few more points if market share.

Ummm......No.

Here’s a bit more background. Ruger believed that negotiating mag capacity would stop the anti-gun grabs. And SAAMI was in on it. The intent was to support banning 15-round+ Mags.

Sturm, Ruger & Company General Counsel (later CEO) Steve Sanetti defending Ruger’s and SAAMI’s (Small Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute) support for a ban on over-fifteen-round magazines.

“After the [1989 Bush] import ban was announced,” Sanetti writes, “and after long consideration, the SAAMI member companies felt that a substitute had to be offered which respected the right of all law abiding citizens to own all firearms of their choice, yet which responded to the public outcry concerning the highly visible shootings involving dozens of shots being fired from so-called ‘assault weapons,’”

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...s-magazine-ban

[wolfwood]

So the motion to dismiss is pending in this case so I think that down the road this case and Duncan will be heard at the same time in front of the Ninth

[CandG]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

So the motion to dismiss is pending in this case so I think that down the road this case and Duncan will be heard at the same time in front of the Ninth

I'm confused, I thought the motion to dismiss was granted months ago, and the case was dead.

Don't tell me CGF appealed that...

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

I'm confused, I thought the motion to dismiss was granted months ago, and the case was dead.

Don't tell me CGF appealed that...

I looked at the docket today. CGF was given leave to amend which they did.
CGF filed a amended complaint and the State filed a mtd.
Then both parties agreed to stay the case pending the outcome of Duncan at the Ninth.

Now that Duncan has been decided the stay should be lifted. The judge should be ruling on the amended complaint shortly and rule how he did before. That should end the case. Duncan is pending a decision on the summary judgement.
So most likely both will go up on appeal at the same time.

That is the most likely outcome.
What also could happen is the Duncan judge could rule against BOTH parties on summary judgement and demand that a jury trial be held. That would take awhile so Weiss would go up first.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I looked at the docket today. CGF was given leave to amend which they did.
CGF filed a amended complaint and the State filed a mtd.
Then both parties agreed to stay the case pending the outcome of Duncan at the Ninth.

Now that Duncan has been decided the stay should be lifted. The judge should be ruling on the amended complaint shortly and rule how he did before. That should end the case. Duncan is pending a decision on the summary judgement.
So most likely both will go up on appeal at the same time.

That is the most likely outcome.
What also could happen is the Duncan judge could rule against BOTH parties on summary judgement and demand that a jury trial be held. That would take awhile so Weiss would go up first.

Thanks for the info, but I have to ask... why the HELL is CGF continuing this Weiss case?? I don't see any good coming from it.

[OC_Gunman]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Thanks for the info, but I have to ask... why the HELL is CGF continuing this Weiss case?? I don't see any good coming from it.

There is only one reason why that case is continuing: Ego on the part of Bill Weiss, and his clique.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by OC_Gunman

There is only one reason why that case is continuing: Ego on the part of Bill Weiss, and his clique.

You should bite your tongue and delete your statement.

Bill is a great guy and supports any and every org that fights for 2A rights.

With a new judge on SCOTUS, both lawsuits can be advantageous to the 2A

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by taperxz

.

With a new judge on SCOTUS, both lawsuits can be advantageous to the 2A

Not when one has already damaged the other.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Not when one has already damaged the other.

That’s not the case when rogue anti judges make rulings. Notice how I was referring to SCOTUS where a new make up will overturn bad judicial decisions as was designed

[BumBum]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

What also could happen is the Duncan judge could rule against BOTH parties on summary judgement and demand that a jury trial be held. That would take awhile so Weiss would go up first.

This is exactly what is happening. Duncan is proceeding on the merits and Wiese has another hearing on a Motion to Dismiss on February 19. See the attached Amicus brief filed by the CRPA. I have a couple of immediate concerns:

First, just WHY IN THE HELL is this case still proceeding?? Duncan is going well, and the preliminary injunction was upheld at the 9th Circuit. As wolfwood points out, if Wiese loses on Wednesday and appeals the dismissal, then this case is going to be taken up first by the 9th. That means we could get bad precedent on Wiese, negating all of the success and hard work on Duncan. That is bad, bad, bad.

Second, this Amicus brief is yet another example of the drain of resources resulting from the duplicate suits. Obviously, CRPA hopes that Wiese is successful on the motion to avoid the situation described above, but this is pulling away resources that CRPA could be utilizing on other issues.

Wiese v. Becerra - 2019-02-12 CRPA's Amicus Brief.pdf

[BumBum]

Motion was taken under submission today. No decision yet.

[BumBum]

The order has issued and the case actually survived the motion to dismiss. While the vagueness and overbreadth claims have been dismissed, the Second Amendment, takings, and equal protection claims survive. This is good news, in that the 9th Circuit will now not have an opportunity to take this case up prior to Duncan.

One thing I couldn’t help but to notice in reading the parties’ briefs is that the Duncan case isn’t discussed in great detail. Yet the court’s order cites Duncan as pretty much the sole reason why the Weise case is surviving here. I get why DOJ wouldn’t focus on it since it is not helpful, but why wouldn’t the Weise attorneys? The discussion of Duncan was the primary focus of the CRPA amicus brief, and to be honest, I’m not sure the case survives without it.

[wolfwood]

Here is the order

https://www.scribd.com/document/4005...ird-12b6-Order

[OleCuss]

Thank you. It makes for a rather interesting read.

[USMCM16A2]

Good read. A2

[Solidsnake87]

Originally Posted by taperxz

You should bite your tongue and delete your statement.

Bill is a great guy and supports any and every org that fights for 2A rights.

With a new judge on SCOTUS, both lawsuits can be advantageous to the 2A

He can be a great, supportive, stand up guy and also make bad legal maneuvers that sink other cases. I used to think the more cases the merrier, but then an attorney on our own forum pointed out the potential for substantive damage that working in competing silos can create. We're on the same team, so both legal teams should be working together.... that includes knowing when to back down and stategically withdraw so as to not sink the more successful case. If Bill's case sinks this one, he'll still be a stand up guy that's done a lot, it's just that he'll have to own up to the fact he sunk his ship and the other ship too.

I truly hope that losing doesn't happen but, if I'm being honest, I can't help but view the relationship between the two legal cases as similar to the relationship between the democrats and the new "justice democrats". Both sides are so convinced of their righteousness that they aren't willing to work together in harmony or back down for the greater good of the cause. We've been applauding dem disunity while not adequately addressing the divisions among ourselves. A divided cause at war with itself simply cannot win.

[Darryl Licht]

Would someone post a Cliff Notes version of what all this means to the CA shooter in March of 2019?

I cant handle reading all this stuff as the vast majority of it is useless back and forth banter.

I'd like to suggest that someone like Librarian or similar post stickies for any IMPORTANT LEGAL STUFF WE ALL SHOULD BE AWARE OF IN PLAIN EASY TO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH!

[Dvrjon]

Duncan v. Becerra:
Challenged the provisions of Proposition 63 and led to an injunction against the implementation of the ban on standard capacity magazines. This prevented thousands of California gun owners from becoming criminals or having to forfeit their lawfully owned property.

The case moves forward retaining 3 bases for action re: banning of LCMs:
-Infringes on 2A;
-Constitutes an illegal "taking" of property. (5A)
-Unequal protection between those who can retain the mags and those who can't. (14A)

[jrr]

This case needs to go away NOW. With the win in Duncan there is nothing more to gain here, and with a more hostile judge there is a tremendous amount to lose. If they don't walk into court Monday morning with a motion to dismiss I am never donating to CalGuns again.

[jj805]

Originally Posted by jrr

This case needs to go away NOW. With the win in Duncan there is nothing more to gain here, and with a more hostile judge there is a tremendous amount to lose. If they don't walk into court Monday morning with a motion to dismiss I am never donating to CalGuns again.

Or at the very least request that the case be stayed until Duncan is fully litigated.

[Non Political Californian]

Originally Posted by manfred

If every conservative voted, and all voted for Travis Allen we might have a chance at the general election. A lot of young dems don't vote.

As an election officer, I'll tell you that I see swarms of so-called students dropping in and having no idea what they are voting for, just that they have a voter guide.
It would be entirely possible to pose as a ****lib organization and give them our voter guides instead, they would never even know.