Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: Pet for Cert filed 3-1-22

[spectralhunter]

Originally Posted by exnds

SCOTUS is well aware of all the games the 9th likes to play and if they GVR Duncan/ANJRPC the outcome will be the same, and will end up right back in their lap a few years down the road. Knowing this and since the magazine cases are already up for consideration is there a decent chance they will simply take the cases and rule once and for all? Seems like it's the expeditious thing to do rather than GVR and waste more court time.

I did predict Justice Thomas wanted to retire with a landmark 2A case as his signature case and it happened. Yeah, yeah, it wasn't a tough guess but I did guess it. I did suspect he wanted to at least force strict scrutiny for future 2A cases. I was pleasantly surprised he went even further.

I don't think SCOTUS made such a huge ruling and letting all these other 2A cases stuck in limbo. I hope and I am guessing they will take at least a few waiting for cert and GVRing them back to the circuit courts to show they mean business. I don't think they will actually take any 2A cases now that they've set the standard.

[Flight4]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

I don’t think most of you get it. The 9th circuit doesn’t care one wit about what the law says or what SCOTUS says. They don’t care if an antigun law is blatantly unconstitutional. They’ve already reached their conclusion, and nothing is going to change their mind. The ONLY way we are going to win on any 2A issue in the 9th’s jurisdiction will be to lose, petition to SCOTUS, and win there. That’s the only way.

Well that's exactly where we are with this case, isn't it?

1. Summary Judgement, Ban is unconstitutional
2. Judgement Affirmed by Appeals Panel
3. Judgement Reversed by En Banc Appeal (Using WRONG test)
4. Appealed to US Supreme Court
   

[Bolt_Action]

Originally Posted by Flight4

Well that's exactly where we are with this case, isn't it?

1. Summary Judgement, Ban is unconstitutional
2. Judgement Affirmed by Appeals Panel
3. Judgement Reversed by En Banc Appeal (Using WRONG test)
4. Appealed to US Supreme Court
   

We’re not there until they grant cert. If they remand to the 9th, they’ll just find some way to justify the same conclusion they came to earlier, and we’ll be right back to where we are now, just a few years later.

The Supreme Court needs to take one more case and spell it all out in black and white, once and for all. They need to state that all bans on any features of any firearm, cosmetic or functional, are all illegal. All of them. Bans on silencers, barrel lengths, pistol grips, firing modes, magazine capacity, etc etc. All of these laws are unconstitutional. If any branch of the military, any police force has ever used it or anything like it, it’s protected by the 2A and it cannot be banned. End of story.

[IronsightsRifleman]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

We’re not there until they grant cert. If they remand to the 9th, they’ll just find some way to justify the same conclusion they came to earlier, and we’ll be right back to where we are now, just a few years later.

The Supreme Court needs to take one more case and spell it all out in black and white, once and for all. They need to state that all bans on any features of any firearm, cosmetic or functional, are all illegal. All of them. Bans on silencers, barrel lengths, pistol grips, firing modes, magazine capacity, etc etc. All of these laws are unconstitutional. If any branch of the military, any police force has ever used it or anything like it, it’s protected by the 2A and it cannot be banned. End of story.

In Bruen I think they have already said as much.
"To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Try as they might, there are no plausible 1789-era analogs to be found for the 9th to justify restricting magazine capacities or pistol grips, especially against the "dangerous and unusual" standard outlined. Yes, it would be more expedient for us if SCOTUS grants cert and rules as they have in Bruen, but it is far better in the long term to force the 9th to start making 2A decisions as they have now been explicitly instructed.

[Batman]

Originally Posted by Flight4

I find it very interesting when considering the Bruen clarity that 2 steps is one step too many, in Duncan v. Bonta the important "Step 1" has already been determined at every level of review. (9th en banc "assumed without deciding.")

“any law that comes close to categorically
banning the possession of arms that are commonly
used for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on
the Second Amendment,”

Surveying the historical record,
the (9th 3 member) panel found no evidence that magazine capacity
restrictions have any historical pedigree. While
“firearms capable of holding more than ten rounds of
ammunition have been available in the United States
for well over two centuries,” restrictions on such
magazines have been rare, relatively recent, and
short-lived: “Only during Prohibition did a handful of
state legislatures enact capacity restrictions,”

They cornered themselves with the 2 step approach, and by conceding step 1 and focusing on step 2. Therefore, IMO it is already clear and written into the record everything that shows the magazine law is unconstitutional. Seems like it should be just a formality for that law to go away.

IANAL, and quotes come from here

Somehow I can foresee something like this happening in the 9th...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVon5xcDjMU

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

I don’t think most of you get it. The 9th circuit doesn’t care one wit about what the law says or what SCOTUS says. They don’t care if an antigun law is blatantly unconstitutional. They’ve already reached their conclusion, and nothing is going to change their mind. The ONLY way we are going to win on any 2A issue in the 9th’s jurisdiction will be to lose, petition to SCOTUS, and win there. That’s the only way.

I agree with this. There is a chance, though, that there are areas where a police chief or sheriff may release a statement regarding what the police will and will not enforce, and the DA's office may or may not choose to pursue, in the interest of local funding not being available for a protracted (and likely losing) legal battle.

[titan]

So they aren’t going to issue a ruling on magazines this session?

[1911-CV]

Originally Posted by titan

So they aren’t going to issue a ruling on magazines this session?

- No.

[titan]

Well no surprise, lol.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Batman

Somehow I can foresee something like this happening in the 9th...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVon5xcDjMU

Definitely on a parallel with 9th Circus rulings.

[SkyHawk]

Orders and opinions are coming today (Monday 6/27) - let's hope for some GVRs! Too soon?

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Orders and opinions are coming today (Monday 6/27) - let's hope for some GVRs! Too soon?

After more than 5 decades of oppression. It's never "TOO SOON".

[HibikiR]

A remand, even if we win, won't help our fellow gun owners out East, right?

Let's just hope for a grant plus win and be done with this nationwide.

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by HibikiR

A remand, even if we win, won't help our fellow gun owners out East, right?

Let's just hope for a grant plus win and be done with this nationwide.

A remand means our folks win. Even if that isn't exactly precedential (I think) it will be very influential. That's especially true since a remand would almost certainly mean that the case had been vacated by the SCOTUS which means that the appellate courts decision was killed by SCOTUS because it was erroneous.

[Lanejsl]

Does not appear on todays list of orders.

[SkyHawk]

Well we did not get any order for summary disposition for Duncan. But US v Taylor resulted in quite a few GVR today, and that decision was 6 days ago.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...22zor_b97d.pdf

I wonder if, because Duncan also petitions for a hearing on "takings", that it will not be resolved so simply? And would we even want it to be resolved with a GVR on 2A issues alone, or is the "takings" argument just as important? Because Bruen did not cover takings...

Could/would they split the case into a grant for hearing on takings, plus a vacate and remand on the 2A issues? Or does the "takings" issue become moot if the 2A issue makes any "takings" of magazines unlikely?

[ShadowGuy]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Well we did not get any order for summary disposition for Duncan. But US v Taylor resulted in quite a few GVR today, and that decision was 6 days ago.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...22zor_b97d.pdf

I wonder if, because Duncan also petitions for a hearing on "takings", that it will not be resolved so simply? And would we even want it to be resolved with a GVR on 2A issues alone, or is the "takings" argument just as important? Because Bruen did not cover takings...

Could/would they split the case into a grant for hearing on takings, plus a vacate and remand on the 2A issues? Or does the "takings" issue become moot if the 2A issue makes any "takings" of magazines unlikely?

If scotus agrees with its application in this case, the takings argument may be closer to resolutions per this 28j letter.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-v.-Hassid.pdf

[Odd_Ball]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Could/would they split the case into a grant for hearing on takings, plus a vacate and remand on the 2A issues? Or does the "takings" issue become moot if the 2A issue makes any "takings" of magazines unlikely?

The "takings" issue would become moot if the 2A prevents the State from confiscating or requiring destruction of legally owned (standard capacity) magazines. There would be no "taking" for the Court to address in that scenario.

If somehow post-Bruen litigation is unsuccessful in overturning magazine and AWB bans, or the bump-stock and impending ghost gun bans, then we might see cases where the takings issue is front and center.