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

[norcal77]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Straight to the source

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

Thanks man!

[norcal77]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

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.

No worries, I'll donate to the main source and they can allocate as needed, thanks though

[SpaceMan]

Read about it here. Hope this isn't a repost, but this article was updated 50 minutes ago.


http://abc7.com/news/federal-judge-b...llets/2165386/

[elSquid]

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.

Yup!

It's important that everyone who cares donates something, 'cause this litigation is just beginning.

-- Michael

[CandG]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's a very defeatist attitude coming from someone named ColdDeadHands1

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

That's a very defeatist attitude coming from someone named ColdDeadHands1

No kidding. Gotta love all the Debbie downers. They must be a joy to live with.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[THBailey]

Just read the ruling, all 66 pages. Judge Benitez clearly wrote an opinion for the SCOTUS to read. Awesome read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_T._Benitez

[CandG]

There's always a chance this could win the 1st round at the 9th, as Peruta did (just citing the example that seems to keep getting brought up), and then NOT be granted en banc with the 9th nor cert with SCOTUS.

En banc hearings are relatively rare (only around 0.1% of cases get heard en banc), they aren't going to just grant it to every 2a case that comes their way - especially with the massive quantity of them that have been filed as of late.

[Cortelli]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

There's always a chance this could win the 1st round at the 9th, as Peruta did (just citing the example that seems to keep getting brought up), and then NOT be granted en banc with the 9th nor cert with SCOTUS.

En banc hearings are relatively rare (only around 0.1% of cases get heard en banc), they aren't going to just grant it to every 2a case that comes their way - especially with the massive quantity of them that have been filed as of late.

This is an order on a PI, not a final judgment. Waaaayyyy to early to start speculating on final decisions from the 9th, en banc reviews, SCOTUS, etc.

But still a win!

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Cortelli

This is an order on a PI, not a final judgment. Waaaayyyy to early to start speculating on final decisions from the 9th, en banc reviews, SCOTUS, etc.

But still a win!

It's never too early

Someone was gonna do it, I just wanted to be the first!

[THBailey]

Originally Posted by Cortelli

This is an order on a PI, not a final judgment. Waaaayyyy to early to start speculating on final decisions from the 9th, en banc reviews, SCOTUS, etc.

But still a win!

You bet. All 66 pages of it. The judge really threw the gauntlet down in front of the 9th circuit. I'm going to stick my neck out a bit and say a ruling granting a prelim usually is pretty short and sweet.

[gcvt]

I hope Gavin's best friends wife has some extra cocaine tonight. His must be soaked in his tears

[IVC]

Originally Posted by 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.

More like the high we felt after we got PI on AB 962 in 2013. That injunction is still in place...

[IVC]

Originally Posted by 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.

Saying "it's just a PI" misses the point that this judge will now be deciding the case on merits. How would you bet he's going to rule?

The most likely path is that in a few years the lawsuit reaches 9th circuit with the injunction still in place. That's a lot of time for the composition of the SCOTUS to change.

[Bhobbs]

Good work to everyone involved. I hope this is just the tipping point.

[BajaJames83]

great news just gotta have some faith that it holds going forward

[Cortelli]

Originally Posted by IVC

Saying "it's just a PI" misses the point that this judge will now be deciding the case on merits. How would you bet he's going to rule?

The most likely path is that in a few years the lawsuit reaches 9th circuit with the injunction still in place. That's a lot of time for the composition of the SCOTUS to change.

It's an impressive order and I can guess where Judge Benitez's thinking is with respect to the suit (see some of the quotes from his order I posted earlier in the thread after the order came down and I had read it). I disagree that a final decision will be issued, it will be appealed and reach the 9th, and then get appealed to SCOTUS in *a few years*.

But I think the injunction will around for awhile. And I believe time is on the side of those with a more expansive view of what the 2A means.

So I am happy with the decision, the detail that went into the decision as represented in the order, and the prospects for future litigation in this case (especially in comparison to the order issued in Wiese, as noted by BumBum in the other forum).

I'm symbolically having a toast or two in response to the order and suggest we all do but also am not willing to race ahead and declare this as some great, binding, final decision on Prop 63 in CA. Let's enjoy a nice Thursday night

[Merovign]

It's never a good idea to think you know what's going to happen in courts or in California, or especially courts in California.

But, for what it is, this is good news on the surface, and then you look under the surface and it's also good news.

It ain't over, but it's a start.

[ronlglock]

So riddle me this. Was this good luck, a good judge, or a good offensive team?

Compared to Wiese, which found exactly the opposite (ban has no 2A impact, it could help safety, although not really proven), should The Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation still be getting funding from us, or should we go all in with CRPA and NRA?

[toro1]

Outstanding! Time to send more money.

[mosinnagantm9130]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

There's always a chance this could win the 1st round at the 9th, as Peruta did (just citing the example that seems to keep getting brought up), and then NOT be granted en banc with the 9th nor cert with SCOTUS.

En banc hearings are relatively rare (only around 0.1% of cases get heard en banc), they aren't going to just grant it to every 2a case that comes their way - especially with the massive quantity of them that have been filed as of late.

I think a major difference between this and other 2A cases, at least from a SCOTUS perspective, is that it's not just a 2A case. It's also a property rights case

[Fox Mulder]

Originally Posted by 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.

The great thing about rebellious peasants is they tend to not recognize edicts issued from on high, if they conflict with what those peasants know to be true...

[Half Cocked]

Originally Posted by ronlglock

So riddle me this. Was this good luck, a good judge, or a good offensive team?

Compared to Wiese, which found exactly the opposite (ban has no 2A impact, it could help safety, although not really proven), should The Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation still be getting funding from us, or should we go all in with CRPA and NRA?

A good judge. Federal judges are political nominees and have their own agendas. The courts are not unbiased.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by ronlglock

So riddle me this. Was this good luck, a good judge, or a good offensive team?

Compared to Wiese, which found exactly the opposite (ban has no 2A impact, it could help safety, although not really proven), should The Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation still be getting funding from us, or should we go all in with CRPA and NRA?

I say pay for what you get. Performance dictates pay. CRPA/NRA-IL is transparent, Michel and his guys are badasses and are on here answering questions and supporting the community, and they are getting results.

Where is Bweise and the CGF/FPC guys on here? They haven't even updated the news on their websites about the injunction. If you read the other thread I bumped, Bum Bum knows the lawyer in the case and it wasn't the best work.

FPC usually is great with news, but not on this?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by ronlglock

So riddle me this. Was this good luck, a good judge, or a good offensive team?

I would say it's some combination of a good judge and good legal team (and an incompetent DOJ legal team). After reading the 66-page PI, I'd say luck didn't really play into it at all.

The judge readily punched massive gaping holes in the entire stack of citations submitted by DOJ. There's hardly anything left that DOJ can say to support their case anymore, and the case hasn't even gotten started yet

[Urban Achiever]

It doesn't hurt that there is a possible SCOTUS position opening up if Benitez is looking for a change of scenery. This is going to be a high profile case and it will look good for him in the eyes of the current administration. Regardless of the motivation, I'll take it!

[homelessdude]

I am a member of both the NRA and CRPA as well as several others. They are doing a great job and need all the support we can give them. I read all 66 pages twice and this judge set the bar very high for the AG. Everyone should read his injunction it says everything you or I would like to say on this subject. Really tore up the hundreds of pages the state used to prop up there case. Actually used some of the anti-gun groups statements to support overturning it. Very well written by a judge that has it together. Thanks all

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Cortelli

...but also am not willing to race ahead and declare this as some great, binding, final decision on Prop 63 in CA.

I've been to many places and seen many majestic buildings and structures.

Every one of them was built on a solid foundation and with great planing.

Originally Posted by Cortelli

Let's enjoy a nice Thursday night

I'll drink to that. Cheers!

[ColdDeadHands1]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

That's a very defeatist attitude coming from someone named ColdDeadHands1

Originally Posted by skyscraper

No kidding. Gotta love all the Debbie downers. They must be a joy to live with.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Please... I've been around long enough to realize that we are completely outnumbered in CA when it comes to gun rights. You all can get excited about today's temporary victory but make no mistake, standard capacity mags in CA will be outlawed again soon. You just fail to recognize history and what is to come next.

But hey, for today, I will say it is a great win. We can never quit fighting. But our fight in CA is merely to slow tyranny and certainly not to reverse it. There are too many insane libs, nanny state advocates, utopian progressives, and illegal mexican leeches on the dole voting democrat for the dwindling conservative minority to overcome. Oh, don't forget. Gavin Newscum will soon be in charge and he will have a box of pens full of ink ready to sign each and every insane anti gun bill that the democrat super majority puts in front of him!

[lightsunglasses]

Does this mean it's legal to import standard magazines into California or does this only apply to those who had purchased them before 2000?

[nick]

Originally Posted by THBailey

Just read the ruling, all 66 pages. Judge Benitez clearly wrote an opinion for the SCOTUS to read. Awesome read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_T._Benitez

Born in Havana, Cuba

Well, that explains a lot.

[Cortelli]

Originally Posted by IVC

I'll drink to that. Cheers!

And back at you! I've been following / watching Duncan and Peruta, so it is nice to get one win, whatever it is.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by THBailey

Just read the ruling, all 66 pages. Judge Benitez clearly wrote an opinion for the SCOTUS to read. Awesome read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_T._Benitez

The Progs are pulling their hair out. A Cuban immigrant tells Newscum and DeLeon to go pound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gunsandrockets]

So what has the soon-to-be future Governor of Commiefornia have to say about this development?

-----------------------------------------------------------

But Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the primary proponent of Proposition 63, said the law was important to enforce.

“Large-capacity magazines serve only one purpose: efficient and effective mass murder,” Newsom said. “Used in almost every mass shooting in the U.S. since the 1990s, large-capacity magazines enable murderers to unleash dozens of rounds without having to stop and reload. They belong in theaters of war, not peaceful communities.”

-------------------------------------------

Oddly, Newsom had nothing to say about those kinds of magazines in the hands of California police. Apparently Newsom thinks California police should be engaged in "efficient and effective mass murder".

[ojisan]

Originally Posted by lightsunglasses

Does this mean it's legal to import standard magazines into California or does this only apply to those who had purchased them before 2000?

Only applies to the pre-2000 mags.

For now.

[Dutch3]

Outstanding. A good read.

[bobbodaggit]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

I would say it's some combination of a good judge and good legal team (and an incompetent DOJ legal team). After reading the 66-page PI, I'd say luck didn't really play into it at all.

The judge readily punched massive gaping holes in the entire stack of citations submitted by DOJ. There's hardly anything left that DOJ can say to support their case anymore, and the case hasn't even gotten started yet

We drew a good judge. Same DOJ attorneys on Weise and Duncan and similar amicus. I'd say the Eastern District in Sacramento is a poor venue choice for us if I was prognosticating.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by ojisan

Only applies to the pre-2000 mags.

For now.

There is also the statute of limitations. Whatever that means.

[Arreaux]

WOW! Just saw this on the news. Great way to end the day! Finally someone is noticing these overreaching laws.
TY CRPA, NRA and others who have help fight against this. Makes one feel better about all the donations contributed.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by IVC

There is also the statute of limitations. Whatever that means.

Not to mention this terrible case of amnesia I sustained recently