Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Go Packers!

Couple of questions:
1.) If we win, the state will appeal to the SC?
2.) If we lose, we will appeal to SC?
3.) If the SC decides not to hear the case, does the En Banc ruling stand?

1. Probably not, but stranger things have happened.
2. Definitely
3. Yes

[riderr]

We have a non-existent chance to win en-banc. Cert by SCOTUS is more likely, since there is a big split between CAs on the issue. Or, as usual, SCOTUS may delegate it back to the locals to regulate

[curtisfong]

My breakdown:
20% chance of win at en banc, 30% chance of cert on loss, 50/50 at scotus on cert

so 20% chance we win now, if we lose, that's 15% chance of win at scotus.

disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor a bookie.

[Bolt_Action]

At this point, our side should just go into the en banc hearing, make a statement that the entire hearing is a fraud and miscarriage of justice. Tell them we’ll see them in the Supreme Court and walk out.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Bolt_Action

At this point, our side should just go into the en banc hearing, make a statement that the entire hearing is a fraud and miscarriage of justice.

That gives us a 0% chance of winning now, which is worse than 20% chance of winning now, which is, in turn, better than the 15% chance of winning at scotus.

No, we have to play the game.

[Bolt_Action]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

That gives us a 0% chance of winning now, which is worse than 20% chance of winning now, which is, in turn, better than the 15% chance of winning at scotus.

No, we have to play the game.

SCOTUS or bust. No interest in compromise.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

That gives us a 0% chance of winning now, which is worse than 20% chance of winning now, which is, in turn, better than the 15% chance of winning at scotus.

No, we have to play the game.

Seems like we'll have a pretty good idea as to whether we're going to win or lose upon announcement of who's going to be on the panel.

[kuug]

Duncan has essentially served it's purpose. The 3 judge panel opinion is now officially confirmed worthless as it was never put into an order. Duncan will likely not be heard by SCOTUS because ANJRPC v Grewal is essentially the same case and is much further along in the process. ANJRPC will either be granted cert or denied cert by the time Duncan has even had oral arguments. If ANJRPC is granted cert, Duncan will be GVR'd eventually. If ANJRPC is denied cert, Duncan will also be denied cert. GG everyone, the 9th circuit wins again.

[IVC]

Our chances at SCOTUS are way higher than 15% - are you saying that the gun grabbers have 85% of winning? I'm pretty sure they are sweating and not sleeping now. This is how McDonald went.

And we have RBG-ACB exchange. Even without Roberts we have 5 votes. This is likely to be a 6-3 easy smackdown unless something happens to any of the justices. That's the about the only unknown at this time - are they going to live long enough and is Biden going to get another term.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by IVC

Our chances at SCOTUS are way higher than 15%

My 15% is 30% cert * 50% win

[IVC]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

My 15% is 30% cert * 50% win

Sure, but it's also prediction of 85% chance of win for the gun grabbers. Would you rather be in their shoes now and expect to win by a factor of close to 6-1? I wish you WERE a bookie...

[JoyfulJoker]

So what happens to our stashes of SCM’s? Possession becomes a felony as soon as the 9th decides?

[Bolt_Action]

Originally Posted by kuug

Duncan has essentially served it's purpose. The 3 judge panel opinion is now officially confirmed worthless as it was never put into an order. Duncan will likely not be heard by SCOTUS because ANJRPC v Grewal is essentially the same case and is much further along in the process. ANJRPC will either be granted cert or denied cert by the time Duncan has even had oral arguments. If ANJRPC is granted cert, Duncan will be GVR'd eventually. If ANJRPC is denied cert, Duncan will also be denied cert. GG everyone, the 9th circuit wins again.

I didn’t know about this case (ANJRPC v Grewal). Thanks for the heads up, it appears you’re right. This case has already been appealed to SCOTUS, and we should be hearing whether or not it’s granted certiorari, in what, a couple months?

[champu]

Originally Posted by JoyfulJoker

So what happens to our stashes of SCM’s? Possession becomes a felony as soon as the 9th decides?

Possession, PC 32310(c), is not a felony.

It is, by the way, possible for the en banc panel to rule that (c) and (d) are unconstitutional for non-second-amendment reasons and (a) and (b) are fine because “something something, legitimate government interest in public safety.” Basically making the current status quo permanent if they felt that gave the best chance for cert denial. It would also allow the legislature to try again with a mandatory state buy-out of magazines along with a ban.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

What about getting that many pro-gun judges? My understanding is that the number of pro-RKBA judges is smaller than the number of Republican appointees such that depending on who exactly gets picked, a Republican majority may still result in an anti-RKBA-majority panel.

No idea of the number of R-appointed judges who are not proRKBA.

There might even be one or two D-appointed judges who are proRKBA.

[Drivedabizness]

(IANAL) But it would seem the 9th's predictability in second-guessing triers and retriers of fact would merit not going en banc in the first place and correction by SCOTUS in the second.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by IVC

Our chances at SCOTUS are way higher than 15% - are you saying that the gun grabbers have 85% of winning? I'm pretty sure they are sweating and not sleeping now. This is how McDonald went.

And we have RBG-ACB exchange. Even without Roberts we have 5 votes. This is likely to be a 6-3 easy smackdown unless something happens to any of the justices. That's the about the only unknown at this time - are they going to live long enough and is Biden going to get another term.

No, we don't.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Librarian

No idea of the number of R-appointed judges who are not proRKBA.

There might even be one or two D-appointed judges who are proRKBA.

Trump's appointee from Hawaii has an anti-gun record, as I recall. Not sure if there are any others out there. Wouldn't surprise me.

Are there any Democrat appointees with a known pro-RKBA record?

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by IVC

Sure, but it's also prediction of 85% chance of win for the gun grabbers. Would you rather be in their shoes now and expect to win by a factor of close to 6-1? I wish you WERE a bookie...

I'm sure the antis feel fine or they never would have asked or en banc. Win or lose here, its going to SCOTUS. They must be pretty confident that SCOTUS won't hear it and I don't blame them. The conservative majority on the court hasn't had any impact on the 2A yet and I doubt it will be what most people are expecting.

[XDJYo]

Once it's heard by the judges, at 2:00 am there will be a final vote of 287,153 to 3.

[faris1984]

So the mags we bought during the freedom week are gonna be illegal?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by faris1984

So the mags we bought during the freedom week are gonna be illegal?

Originally Posted by JoyfulJoker

So what happens to our stashes of SCM’s? Possession becomes a felony as soon as the 9th decides?

Magic 8-Ball says, "Ask again later".

We don't know, and can't know. We have to wait for the ruling, which unfortunately means there is a chance (small or large, I don't know) that everyone could become instant felons without any advance warning. That seems like an unlikely choice for them to make, but I've been wrong lots of times before.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I'm sure the antis feel fine or they never would have asked or en banc. Win or lose here, its going to SCOTUS. They must be pretty confident that SCOTUS won't hear it and I don't blame them. The conservative majority on the court hasn't had any impact on the 2A yet and I doubt it will be what most people are expecting.

That's what mayor of Chicago thought too when he pushed over the edge and got us McDonald.

Never forget that we wouldn't be where we are with 2A if it weren't for these hard-core antis who deeply believe they are right.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by JoyfulJoker

So what happens to our stashes of SCM’s? Possession becomes a felony as soon as the 9th decides?

Originally Posted by faris1984

So the mags we bought during the freedom week are gonna be illegal?

Above, Champu pointed out that 32310(c) sets the penalties for possession at infractions or misdemeanors, with fines and potential jail time. Additionally, section 32310(d) describes mandatory disposition of owned LCMs.

LCMs are currently illegal, as the language is still in the Penal Code. We are living under the District Court’s (Benitez) injunction (Page 6) against enforcement of that section.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part
10 pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent
11 injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is
12 hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.

13 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued
14 on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and
15 (d) shall remain in effect.

If enbanc loses, one could expect an appeal to SCOTUS, along with a continued injunction to maintain status quo until SCOTUS either denies cert or takes the case.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by IVC

That's what mayor of Chicago thought too when he pushed over the edge and got us McDonald.

So?
What has McDonald actually done, that is measurable to the every-day lives of the California gun owner?.....Not ****. We are still subjected to an ever increasing amount of tyrannical gun laws, with no end in sight, while the players just keep extending the game. Now with the proven track of “mooting”, and a gutless SCOTUS that continually ducks 2A cases, does anyone honestly think things are going to get better?

[SharedShots]

The first priority of democrats is doing away with the 2nd Amendment. The first priority of Republicans is not supporting the 2nd Amendment. The democrats know this and that is why things are the way they are. Until republicans make supporting the 2nd A as important to them as the democrats make it to themselves, its just all a long slow slide and over time gets faster.

Trying to predict which judge(s) will vote pro-2nd Amendment is rather worthless, once a judge is appointed they have the job for life so they often change their views longer term and often vote contrary to expectations. Judges are not affected by their decisions, neither are courts. Judges all have guns, they do not care if you do and most prefer you don't.

Sit back and watch because speculation and hope doesn't matter, it only serves to create anxiety, frustration and fear. That doesn't mean not to have interest, be active or apply effort but all the what if this and that opinions don't matter, rulings, decisions and judgements matter. Anything that simply extends the process means nothing. Percentage of chance means nothing either, if there is a certain percent chance of something that doesn't happen who cares? Percentages are a figment of the imagination.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by IVC

That's what mayor of Chicago thought too when he pushed over the edge and got us McDonald.

Never forget that we wouldn't be where we are with 2A if it weren't for these hard-core antis who deeply believe they are right.

Sure, they might lose one or two cases. The courts will never embrace the 2A like they should. Heller and McDonald have had almost no significant impact on the trajectory of 2A lawsuits.

[Calbix]

Originally Posted by kuug

Duncan has essentially served it's purpose. The 3 judge panel opinion is now officially confirmed worthless as it was never put into an order. Duncan will likely not be heard by SCOTUS because ANJRPC v Grewal is essentially the same case and is much further along in the process. ANJRPC will either be granted cert or denied cert by the time Duncan has even had oral arguments. If ANJRPC is granted cert, Duncan will be GVR'd eventually. If ANJRPC is denied cert, Duncan will also be denied cert. GG everyone, the 9th circuit wins again.

Did ANJRPC file a cert petition yet? The last I heard on the case that en banc was denied Nov 25.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[MCubeiro]

ICYMI

https://crpa.org/news/alert/breaking...51LOPpubHhsdL8

BREAKING NEWS: 9th Circuit to Rehear Duncan Case

The rights of California gun owners are once again under attack in the Ninth Circuit. Just today the Court issued an order that the CRPA-supported lawsuit Duncan v. Becerra be reheard by a larger 11-judge “en banc” panel. This is exactly what we have been fighting against and if this case were in any other jurisdiction, an “en banc” review would be a rare occurrence.

As reported previously, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit recently held that California’s ban on standard capacity magazines is unconstitutional. That decision struck down California’s statewide prohibitions on such magazines and, in doing so, upheld a 2019 decision from the United States District Court in San Diego that resulted in hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of standard capacity magazines being lawfully purchased by California gun owners through what we have all come to know as Freedom Week.

Now that the Ninth Circuit has ordered Duncan to be reheard, the three-judge panel decision has been vacated. In other words, it is as if that decision never existed. Thankfully, however, the lower court’s order from Judge Benitez prohibiting enforcement of the State’s attempted ban on possession of such magazines remains in effect.

This means lawful owners of standard capacity magazines may continue to possess and use such magazines while the case continues to be litigated.

CRPA’s efforts in Duncan and the many other lawsuits fighting for the rights of California gun owners would not be possible without the support of our members and the public.

Please help CRPA continue the fight against California’s unconstitutional laws by donating to the CRPA Foundation.

And make sure you are subscribed to CRPA email alerts and visit the CRPA website for the latest developments in Duncan.

Read the 9th Circuit Order

You can help support litigation just like this that makes a real difference to the average gun owner.

[GI Combat]

Does this mean that the panel will retry the case de novo?

[Calbix]

Originally Posted by GI Combat

Does this mean that the panel will retry the case de novo?

Essentially. The 3 judge panel decision was vacated and it's as if it never happened.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[faris1984]

What are the chances that we win/lose the case?

[hoystory]

Originally Posted by champu

Possession, PC 32310(c), is not a felony.

It is, by the way, possible for the en banc panel to rule that (c) and (d) are unconstitutional for non-second-amendment reasons and (a) and (b) are fine because “something something, legitimate government interest in public safety.” Basically making the current status quo permanent if they felt that gave the best chance for cert denial. It would also allow the legislature to try again with a mandatory state buy-out of magazines along with a ban.

I think this is mostly right. Neither the district nor 3-judge panel ever even got to the point of whether the requirement to dispossess yourself of the magazines in question was an illegal 4th Amendment taking because they found the whole thing violated the 2nd.

My guess would be that the bad result for us at the en banc level would be a finding that the longstanding ban on sales, importation, etc. is legal and remanding it back down to the district court to re-do the analysis on whether the ban on possession violates the 4th.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by faris1984

What are the chances that we win/lose the case?

For the en banc portion of this case:

There's a 24.9% chance that there is a ~100% change of winning.

There's a 75.1% chance that there is a ~0% change of winning.

Once the panel gets chosen, sometime over the next couple weeks, we'll have a pretty good idea if it's 100% or 0%.

It's sad that we can make such predictions based solely on the judges' names, but alas... most of the time, we can. Doesn't ultimately matter if the case is well argued by either side, or what their arguments even are; every single judge in the 9th Circuit already knows which way they'll decide if they get chosen for the panel.

[ShadowGuy]

Originally Posted by CandG

For the en banc portion of this case:

There's a 24.9% chance that there is a ~100% change of winning.

There's a 75.1% chance that there is a ~0% change of winning.

Once the panel gets chosen, sometime over the next couple weeks, we'll have a pretty good idea if it's 100% or 0%.

It's sad that we can make such predictions based solely on the judge's names, but alas... most of the time, we can. Doesn't ultimately matter if the case is well argues by either side, or what their arguments even are; every single judge in the 9th Circuit already knows which way they'll decide if they get chosen for the panel.

Given the outcomes are so certain, it is ever more frustrating that the whole process takes so long.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by CandG

It's sad that we can make such predictions based solely on the judge's names, but alas... most of the time, we can. Doesn't ultimately matter if the case is well argues by either side, or what their arguments even are; every single judge in the 9th Circuit already knows which way they'll decide if they get chosen for the panel.

The worst thing about this is that Sidney Thomas obviously thinks this is a good thing, seeing how often he depends on it being true.

He is a loathsome, corrupt, ethically bankrupt worm. I hold him in complete contempt.

As chief judge, if no other judge is willing to be non-partisan, he, at least, should be.

[sheepdawg]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

What about getting that many pro-gun judges? My understanding is that the number of pro-RKBA judges is smaller than the number of Republican appointees such that depending on who exactly gets picked, a Republican majority may still result in an anti-RKBA-majority panel.

I hate RINOs. How can a true Republican be anti-RKBA?

[johncage]

Originally Posted by CandG

For the en banc portion of this case:

There's a 24.9% chance that there is a ~100% change of winning.

There's a 75.1% chance that there is a ~0% change of winning.

Once the panel gets chosen, sometime over the next couple weeks, we'll have a pretty good idea if it's 100% or 0%.

It's sad that we can make such predictions based solely on the judges' names, but alas... most of the time, we can. Doesn't ultimately matter if the case is well argued by either side, or what their arguments even are; every single judge in the 9th Circuit already knows which way they'll decide if they get chosen for the panel.

what measures are in place to stop the dems from engineering the judge selection process that the majority selected are anti gun

[Syntax Error]

Originally Posted by johncage

what measures are in place to stop the dems from engineering the judge selection process that the majority selected are anti gun

Nothing, just like how we're all told to "trust" Dominion voting systems. Wouldn't surprise me if the 11-judge panel just "happens" to be filled with 11 hardcore partisan Democrat gun grabbers.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by johncage

what measures are in place to stop the dems from engineering the judge selection process that the majority selected are anti gun

They use a secure random selection system made by Dominion Voting Systems.