|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#6041
|
||||
|
||||
Depends on the judge's specific orders.
|
#6045
|
||||
|
||||
Still waiting for the ruling. No way to know when it'll come out. I would speculate it comes out this month as it's near two months since the final briefs were due, but could still be longer.
|
#6046
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's good to have the step solidly in the books, but eagerness really has no utility. |
#6047
|
|||
|
|||
I have to wonder, if Benitez doesn't stay his ruling and the 9th does, but without the grandfathering of existing magazines, would that likely motivate SCOTUS to step in? Unless I'm mistaken, the initial stay by Benitez is the only thing still protecting our grandfathered in magazines, including freedom week mags. If that protection is not included in a future stay by the 9th, that would then result in harm and may push SCOTUS to intervene.
I could be wrong, but I think that could be interesting. |
#6048
|
|||
|
|||
Odds are there will be a stay since requiring forfeiture of grandfathered magazines is likely a "taking" that requires just compensation. To maintain the status quo therefore requires at least a stay to that extent. But I doubt Benitez would leave us to the wolves without issuing a stay.
|
#6050
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I doubt that would be the case, it?s either going to be no stay, or a stay without a specific limit. If his intention is to protect the people who possess the magazines from freedom week, it would have to be a stay without a limit because once the 7 or 14 days is up, then the 9th decides and gets full control. If he wanted to force their hand and make thousands of people criminals in order to spur Supreme Court review, then he could just not enter a stay. Just because Bonta asked for it, he can ignore the request and deny it. This is one case that was remanded back from the Supreme Court, so they got their ruling wrong, and the 9th knows it. Now we just have to see what stupid things they try. |
#6051
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Not on the possession, the stay will be on the ruling itself taking effect. Don?t expect a freedom week this time to order new mags. |
#6052
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#6054
|
|||
|
|||
This party has gone on long enough. Time to end it.
__________________
ATF Form 4473: If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver, not a handgun or long gun. |
#6055
|
|||
|
|||
Not a Cali or a Federal decision and only trial court level, but a Washington Superior Court judge just ruled per my7 news feed that Washinigton States lcm law did not violate the 2A because a magazines are not arms. I can't find the story, but the judge found that state laws are presumed to be valid and the plaintiff had the burden to proving otherwise. I don't know if the point raised here by Michel was argued there.
Quote:
|
#6056
|
||||
|
||||
This has always been the case and it hasn't changed. The burden is on the plaintiff. What has changed are two things: (1) the type of defense the state can introduce, and (2) the legal framework for evaluating 2A cases.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#6057
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment?s plain text covers an individual?s conduct, the Constitution presumptively pro- tects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation?s historical tradition of firearm regulation." [emphasis added] The only burden the Plaintiff has to bear is straightforward - plain text of the 2A.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools Last edited by Drivedabizness; 04-14-2023 at 9:02 AM.. Reason: typo |
#6058
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, but Bruen raises a presumption of violation of the 2a, which the judge set aside by finding that magazines are not arms. I guess the judge felt that the New Jersey case didn't apply to Washington State's law.
|
#6059
|
|||
|
|||
I guess SCOTUS's GVR was not a big enough clue for them to get.
Some judges will always inject their biases until the populace get's the courage to remove them. Looks like they'll have to wait for Duncan to make its way past the 9th in order for them to get the resolution they deserve. |
#6061
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Saw on the net where some judges think a mag is an accessory because it can function (fire a round) with the magazine removed. This is true of some guns, but not all Califronia models, which must not fire with the magazine removed. Even then a pistol that can only fire the one round in the chamber is a very poor choice for self-defense. Then there are models that won't even allow a round to be chambered absent a magazine. Even if you can fire the chambered round after the magzine is removed, you have to have the magazine to chamber it prior to dropping the mag. |
#6062
|
|||
|
|||
I would think that reduced capacity (from standard) magazines are a kluge just to sell to states requiring them. I can't imagine the gun manufacturers testing them and spending as much development. I know I read about Glock 10 round magazines having feeding issues, especially in 40.
|
#6063
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#6064
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
How do they rationalize mandating a magazine disconnect while considering a magazine as an accessory ?
__________________
|
#6065
|
|||
|
|||
There is zero accountability, so they can rationalize anything they want. The law is the law, it?s not rational or logical. The law is whatever they decide.
|
#6066
|
|||
|
|||
Which is exactly why getting judicial nominations under 2A friendly administrations is the critical link in all this. 9th circuit decisions have nothing to do with logic.
Check out this article. The anti-gunners know this is exactly the case. https://prospect.org/politics/2023-0...-gerontocracy/ |
#6067
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
How do they rationalize a mag is an accessory while also saying others parts are considered a firearm such as slides , uppers and even pieces of medal. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...an-ghost-guns/ The lefts mental gymnastics is incomprehensible. Welcome to America!! |
#6069
|
||||
|
||||
We also have California case law to same effect. Please refer to the California Court of Appeals 1974 decision in People v Hale.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#6070
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
One round maybe is not "functional" in any practical sense.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#6071
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Functional is subjective, you really thing rights are grounded in subjective criteria? I can't seem to find the word functional in there.
__________________
F@$% Joe Biden Quote:
|
#6072
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's been a major theme in the litigation too.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#6073
|
|||
|
|||
Is "useble" more or less subjective than "functional"? The first paragraph of Heller reads:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#6074
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting, there is a theory that St. Benitez is waiting for Washington's new AW ban to pass.
https://youtu.be/7LYpvIjJwzQ |
#6075
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. - Ronald Reagan |
#6076
|
|||
|
|||
The Benitez decision only effects California, but the 9th appeal could liberate Washington
|
#6077
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Washington state's large-capacity magazine ban would remain in place. There would need to be a separate challenge made to Washington's ban in order to overturn it. Such a challenge would be greatly facilitated by a favorable, and published, decision in the Duncan case, but it isn't automatic. In the alternative, a favorable appellate decision in the Duncan case could also persuade the Washington legislature to repeal the Washington ban, but I'll let everyone draw their own opinion as to how likely that will be.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#6078
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Also, even if it did impact WA, which it doesn't, 1 second before - 1 year before wouldn't make a difference. It took the judge 6 weeks to write up his ruling on the previous 1 case, he now has 4 in front of him and needs to make them all water tight individually and collectively (billy club case isn't going to help with that at all). Naturally it's going to take longer to craft 4 masterpieces than it took to conclude with 1. The only reason to delay once already written is if there is a particularly disfavorable appellate panel. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|