Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: Benitez hearing 12-12 in SD

[chris]

Originally Posted by Half Cocked

Judge Roger Benitez was born in Havana, Cuba and nominated the the 9th circus court by George W. Bush. This will probably be overturned by some Obama nominees.

Has been my thought for a long time. This judge reaffirmed what many have been saying.

[FrankoUSA]

Thanks Judge Roger Benitez

[Dirk Tungsten]

Originally Posted by FrankoUSA

Thanks Judge Roger Benitez

Same

[dwalker]

Originally Posted by Maltese Falcon

He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while he considers the underlying lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association.

Thats right, and the way he structured his reasoning for the injunction leads one to believe he thinks the law is fundamentally flawed and UN-Constitutional. If he finds the law is actually Un-Constitutional then the law is dead, at least until the State appeals it. They might not, the publicity this is gaining could be very toxic for the Dems, and each and every loss they suffer hurts them more than they will gain by just standing down.
But lets say they do appeal and it goes to the 9th Circuit Court. If the 9th Circuit finds for the State (seems likely) then the CRPA/NRA-ILA etc. will appeal and file for another injunction. This will go back and forth until one side gives up or it hits the SCOTUS. The Dem problem here is that it is very very likely that at least one, maybe two judges will be replaced in the near future and Trump will not likely appoint anyone sympathetic to thier cause. This spells out another loss for them, and honestly means a big risk, as Gunmageddon could very well be seen as a giant overreach by the State and could be ruled entirely Un Constitutional which would just gut the CA anti-gun laws.

[Den60]

Originally Posted by Intel0116

This combined with OAL rejecting AW regulations is bitter sweet news with SCOTUS letting us drown Monday by not hearing peruta. I fear this is a short term win, 9CA will Reverse the block

This is a better case than Peruta. Now just waiting for action on the new ammunition purchase laws.

[underthesun]

Great to hear. I celebrate any good news for gun owners in this state.

[dvs762]

well hells bells..I may crack open a Corona tonight to celebrate...at least until another judge flips his or her wig and reverses this...

[madjack956]

This is great news. Now when I pack my belongings for AZ. in 2 months I wont have to hide the boxes of mags.

[smle-man]

Originally Posted by JackRydden224

I think this one might end up in SCOTUS.

This goes far beyond 2A, it's more about government taking private property without compensation. If they can take away mags then they can take away anything they don't like. The courts cannot allow this to be a precedence of any kind.

I agree completely.

[Smedkcuf]

So does this only apply to grandfathered high cap magazines or does this also overturn the ban on buying/importing high cap magazines?

[Bakerloo]

Is it wrong to have a man crush on that judge?
I mean, I would if I legally owned 30 round mags for my AR's.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by thorium

It won't last in the 9th circuit, but a temporary win nonetheless.

Unfortunately this^^^^^^^^^^^and it may be sooner rather than later. I believe the CA AG can file an appeal of the injunction directly with the 9th District Court of Appeals.

[HollowOfHaze]

I just went into a local gunsmith yesterday and a guy was having his pistol mags pinned at 10.... what a shame.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by Smedkcuf

So does this only apply to grandfathered high cap magazines or does this also overturn the ban on buying/importing high cap magazines?

No, ban on buying/importing was not effected.

[Bull Elk]

Feels good to win one once in a while.

[skyscraper]

Wow... a win for us in the federal courts finally!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by battleon3

so what does this mean for now? Can we continue to use our grandfathered mags? Or does it mean we now purchase those 10+ mags???

Only your grandfathered mags. You cannot buy/import mags more than 10 rounds.

[CandG]

Wow, I just read the injunction in its entirety, which took quite a while since the judge spent 66 pages blasting the LCM ban and the DOJ.

It's fair to say that this case is done... the judge may not have issued a final ruling yet, but he might as well have. The text of this injuction leaves no room for doubt that he will rule in our favor. The question is, what happens in the 9th (since DOJ will undoubtedly appeal).

For now though, let's all scoop those mags back up from the bottom of the lake, and enjoy! I have a fishing net if anyone needs to borrow it.

[OleCuss]

Thank you NRA, CRPA, Sean and the rest if Michel's group!

Yeah, I'd recommend people not yet reverse their boating accidents as I fully expect the 9th to emphatically disagree with this judge.

Then an appeal to the SCOTUS and unless before then we get another Trump appointee to the SCOTUS as a replacement for either Kennedy or a Leftist - I don't think we even get cert. But if we get a good SCOTUS replacement we likely start getting our rights back.

[August]

Originally Posted by John Browning

Please consider donating to CRPA or NRA-ILA, both put a lot of work into this victory. I am donating to both.

Done on a regular basis. I hope others will follow. It's only money folks

Short lived or not, this is a step in the right direction, so all of you Debbie Downers can choke on a bag of D's and quit raining on our parade. Put some money up to help the cause or shut up.

[CandG]

For those asking questions such as "Does this mean I can buy LCMs now?" and "Does this mean LCMs are legal in XYX city now?"

The injunction ruled that the status quo is to be maintained. So whatever was legal yesterday, will be legal for the foreseeable future. Likewise, whatever was illegal yesterday, will continue to be illegal for now. In essence, nothing will be different after 7/1 than it is now, with regards to LCMs, until the final court ruling.

You still can't acquire them anywhere in CA, and in localities where possession is banned you still can't possess them, but throughout the rest of the state you can continue to possess and use any legally owned LCMs.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

Yeah, I'd recommend people not yet reverse their boating accidents as I fully expect the 9th to emphatically disagree with this judge.

Can a preliminary injunction be appealed, though? I thought only final rulings could.

At any rate, there's plenty more time to go boating this summer, in the meantime enjoy yourselves

[bubbapug1]

Wow the decision really blasted the AG's factual presentation and lack of professionalism in this one. He also covered his tracks to make it very difficult for the 9th to over rule him. This case is definitely going to the Supreme Court to answer, once again, the question of keeping guns and their components, for self defense.

I think the state has bought into its own dogma so heavily they don't even think they need to work hard to argue their cases.

Next shoe to drop will hopefully be micro stamping and the ridiculous roster.

[Half Cocked]

From NRA-ILA:

In granting the injunction, Judge Benitez explained that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in this lawsuit because “public safety interest may not eviscerate the Second Amendment.”

One could also argue that the Second Amendment supports public safety by allowing ordinary citizens to defend themselves.

[LexLuther]

Jeeze read the analysis of the state's evidence around around page 25, what a disgrace, I am ashamed for them...

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[ronlglock]

Originally Posted by Scott Connors

Chances of 9th Circuit CA overturning this injunction on appeal? Remember, this is California, a one party state run by the Dhimmicrats, who really don't "get" the whole Constitution thingie.

You mean like the en banc overruled Peruta? We need to keep that from happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Merovign]

Extremely low-energy and apprehensive happy dance, but *sincere* thanks to those who represented and those who paid for it.

[VL221]

1 down 5000 to go..

[GM4spd]

This isn't going to SCOTUS. Geez

[General]

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by GM4spd

This isn't going to SCOTUS. Geez

Damn dude, let me borrow your time machine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[norcal77]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

If you're happy about the injunction win and being able to keep your standard capacity magazines past July 1st you need to donate now!!
This is a great win but it's still a long fight and fighting for YOUR RIGHTS costs money.

https://www.facebook.com/donate/697828763733607/

What if you don't have a crapbook account?

How else can I donate?

[Cortelli]

I read the whole order. It's just a PI, not a decision on the merits, but the order is really quite hard-hitting on the state's case.

Some powerful quotes that caught my eye (admittedly I have my own view view on the merits):

On this evidence, § 32310 is not a reasonable fit. It hardly fits at all. It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the constitutional rights of other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Statutes disarming law-abiding responsible citizen gun owners reflect an opinion on gun policy. Courts are not free to impose their own policy choices on sovereign states. But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

As a purely public policy choice, a government may declare that firearms of any capacity are dangerous in the hands of criminals, a proposition with which this Court would certainly agree. At the same time, it can also be the case that firearms with larger than 10-round magazines in the hands of law-abiding citizens makes every individual safer and the public as a whole safer. Guns in the hands of criminals are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens ameliorate that danger. The Second Amendment takes the policy choice away from state government.

Sections 2.11 and 2.12 of Proposition 63, in the section titled “Findings and Declarations” addresses “military-style large-capacity ammunition magazines.” It declares, “No one except trained law enforcement should be able to possess these dangerous magazines.” (Emphasis added.) The rationale is anathema to the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. It is a right naturally possessed by regular, law-abiding responsible citizens, whom are neither reliant upon, nor subservient to, a privileged, powerful, professional police state.

Put differently, violent gun use is a constitutionally-protected means for lawabiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. The phrase “gun violence” may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. Implicit in the concept of public safety is the right of law-abiding people to use firearms and the magazines that make them work to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and their state against all armed enemies, foreign and domestic.

I imagine that there are judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that would see these quotes in a final decision on appeal and become apoplectic.

[Kestryll]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Can a preliminary injunction be appealed, though? I thought only final rulings could.

At any rate, there's plenty more time to go boating this summer, in the meantime enjoy yourselves

Yes it can be appealed, it's not the norm but it can happen.
The bar is rather high for overturning a preliminary injunction, from what I've read it would need to be based on an 'abuse of discretion' standard.

[Skip_Dog]

Time to find that map and my shovel. ..


Sweet deal.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

Yes it can be appealed, it's not the norm but it can happen.
The bar is rather high for overturning a preliminary injunction, from what I've read it would need to be based on an 'abuse of discretion' standard.

So it's unlikely, but possible. Thanks

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by norcal77

What if you don't have a crapbook account?

How else can I donate?

Straight to the source

https://californiariflepistol.z2syst....jsp?pageId=1&

[Kestryll]

Originally Posted by norcal77

What if you don't have a crapbook account?

How else can I donate?

I'll get a link for you.

pacrat's link is always good, let me see if there is a specific fund for the Duncan case or not.

[ColdDeadHands1]

This is the high we all felt when the 3 judge panel ruled in our favor in Peruta. Remember how that beautifully written, pro 2A masterpiece ended up for us?

It's only a matter of time until the 9th Circuit puts us back into our place as the lowly, rebellious peasants that we are. I give it three months.

[HLD65]

This is great news!