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

[Librarian]

======== Feb 2023 ========

Current docket - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...can-v-becerra/

Newest at the bottom.

======== Nov 2022 ========

Benitez to hold hearings on this one and others, 12-12-22 in San Diego
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...desc#entry-116

======== 09 23 2022 ========

Remanded to District Court

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-Remanding.pdf


======== 08 02 2022 ========

Order for supplemental briefs after GVR

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...g-re-Bruen.pdf

======== 03 01 2022 ========
Petition for certiorari filed.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...tion-FINAL.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/21-1194.html


Supreme Court Docket

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/21-1194.html


======== 12 20 2021 ========
Mandate stayed at least 150 days, and during certiorari process if any.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VX7...ew?usp=sharing

Thanks, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


======== 11 30 2021 ========
En banc court rules against Duncan
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...30-Opinion.pdf




======== 6 3 2021 ==========
Oral arguments scheduled for 6 22 21



Rob Bonta, appointed AG of California, substituted for Becerra


======== 3 2 2021 ==========

Oral arguments scheduled

Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) The prior order scheduling oral argument is vacated. Virtual en banc oral argument is rescheduled to take place during the week of June 21, 2021. The specific date and and time will be determined by separate order.

======== 2 25 2021 ==========

En banc GRANTED

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...banc_order.pdf

======== 8 28 2020 ========

Petition Opposing Rehearing En Banc.

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ng-En-Banc.pdf




============= Original Post =============

Press release

NRA and CRPA Supported Federal Lawsuit Challenging California’s Ban on Standard Capacity Magazines Filed


Docket page: (all docs for the case): http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/


Today, NRA attorneys representing the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and several California gun owners filed the second in a series of important lawsuits that challenge California’s ban on the possession of standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

The lawsuit, titled Duncan v. Becerra, challenges California’s ban on possession of these standard capacity magazines because the law violates the Second Amendment, due process clause, and takings clause of the United States Constitution.

Duncan is the second in a series of long and carefully planned lawsuits challenging the package of gun bans passed last year that have collectively become known as “gunmageddon” among gun owners.
To stay up-to-date on the Duncan case, as well as other important lawsuits and Second Amendment issues, make sure you are subscribed to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And don’t forget to register in advance for CRPA/NRA’s upcoming free webinars explaining the pending DOJ “assault weapon” and “large-capacity” magazine regulations and future legal challenges, and view the current webinars on these laws at crpa.org/webinars.

Help us Fight California’s Illegal and Unconstitutional Anti-Gun Laws
Beware of imitators. As NRA and CRPA continue their legal efforts in the courts and political efforts at every level of government, we need all California gun owners standing with NRA and CRPA. We cannot be successful without your help.

By donating today to the CRPA Foundation, and volunteering to help the fight at volunteer@crpa.org, you can help undo “gunmageddon” and the anti-gun Proposition 63, and begin the process of restoring firearms freedoms and the right to choose to own a firearms to defend yourself and your family in California!

NRA/ CRPA’s first lawsuit, Rupp v. Becerra, was filed in Federal District Court in Orange County and seeks to declare California’s “assault weapon” ban unconstitutional. Additional lawsuits challenging the other “gunmageddon” bills, including the new laws enacted by Proposition 63, are currently being prepared and will be filed soon.

Complaint: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/..._Complaint.pdf


ETA: see also the Calguns thread on Wiese v Becerra, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1329280

[Maltese Falcon]

Yay!

$$ on the way.

.

[darkshire]

librarian;
the title of this thread says "Duncan V Becerra - CRPA suit on large cap mags 5/18/17"

yet the press release specifically says "standard capacity"
you should fix your title.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by darkshire

librarian;
the title of this thread says "Duncan V Becerra - CRPA suit on large cap mags 5/18/17"

yet the press release specifically says "standard capacity"
you should fix your title.

The legal definition in the questioned law is 'large-capacity magazines'. Until this suit or similar removes that from the law, the current definition is required,

[Cincinnatus]

The California definition of "large-capacity" is different than the definition in the sane part(s) of the US, so there's that.

[Write Winger]

Any notable differences between Duncan v Becerra and Wiese v Becerra? Giving both a read again.

Duncan
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/..._Complaint.pdf

Wiese
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1493395430

[nicky c]

Given that Wiese v. Becerra also addresses the same issue, should we anticipate the two merging? The two are very similar in their arguments, save for a few nuances.

Is there a perceived advantage to having two concurrent cases litigated simultaneously at this time?

[nicky c]

Originally Posted by Write Winger

Any notable differences between Duncan v Becerra and Wiese v Becerra? Giving both a read again.

The Wiese complaint makes an interesting argument illustrating how the states' proposed mechanism for disposing of illegal magazines is riddled with pitfalls for the law abiding citizen.

[ironpegasus]

Weise also attacks the "what is a large capacity mag" issue from the angle of "is a 10 round magazine for 458 SOCOM a large capacity magazine?" - something that did nor appear to be addressed in the Duncan complaint.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

The California definition of "large-capacity" is different than the definition in the sane part(s) of the US, so there's that.

In sane parts, there is no definition, because none is needed. Colloquial usage is fine. It's even fine at Calguns, except those narrow topics that discuss CA law.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Librarian

In sane parts, there is no definition, because none is needed. Colloquial usage is fine. It's even fine at Calguns, except those narrow topics that discuss CA law.

A solution: Librarian, just put "large capacity mags" in quotes in the title.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by Paladin

A solution: Librarian, just put "large capacity mags" in quotes in the title.

Better solution just use 10+rd .

[Uncivil Engineer]

So most of the California gun grabs of old they provided a legal method for grandfathering. They weren't forcing people to give up property ala a regulatory taking. So the question is are we likely to see a stay? If the laws are ultimately turned over how will they make the planetiffs whole if they were forced to destroy property?

In a related question with regards to unserialized firearms. Again won't we expect a stay? As the process if serialization isn't really reversible. Since the new aw regs require serialization doesn't that mean another stay?

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

So most of the California gun grabs of old they provided a legal method for grandfathering. They weren't forcing people to give up property ala a regulatory taking. So the question is are we likely to see a stay? If the laws are ultimately turned over how will they make the planetiffs whole if they were forced to destroy property?

In a related question with regards to unserialized firearms. Again won't we expect a stay? As the process if serialization isn't really reversible. Since the new aw regs require serialization doesn't that mean another stay?

+1.

[Prince]

I believe that these laws are in place for the "safety" of others. What is safety? Safety, according to these laws, is a practice to make it harder for people, of all backgrounds, to obtain high capacity magazines. The only problem I see is that criminals buy firearms from handmade, unlicensed, individuals for the illicit purpose of crime. People purchase guns made from licensed manufacturers, and criminals buy them from unlicensed criminal manufacturers. Open carry would deter criminals of all backgrounds. Money talks, criminal weapons are easily purchased. Ask any detective and they will tell you.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by Prince

I believe that these laws are in place for the "safety" of others. What is safety? Safety, according to these laws, is a practice to make it harder for people, of all backgrounds, to obtain high capacity magazines. The only problem I see is that criminals buy firearms from handmade, unlicensed, individuals for the illicit purpose of crime. People buy guys made from licensed manufacturers, and criminals buy them from unlicensed criminal manufacturers. Open carry would deter criminals of all backgrounds. Money talks, criminal weapons are easily purchased. Ask any detective and they will tell you.

I also have a problem with the term safety. If firearm operates as the user intends then it is safe. Anything that is beyond making that true isn't safety and must be labeled something else.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

Better solution just use 10+rd .

Technically it would be ">10rd" or "11+rd, as "10+rd" would indicate "Magazines that are > or = 10rd", c'mon you're an engineer

Anyways, I'm happy to see this lawsuit. I wish CGF would communicate with people, it's almost like they either had no idea CRPA was planning this, or more likely they wanted to shove their lawsuit in before CRPA had a chance since it's well-known CRPA has half a dozen lawsuits in the works aimed at the new laws. Hopefully the CRPA one takes the forefront, IMO.

[JusticeQuest]

Lawsuit Challenges California Magazine Ban:

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/may/19...-magazine-ban/

[baranski]

Bring the pain and bring back my rights.

[Foothills]

It's nice to see some litigation to restore rights. But why this focus on fine shades of meaning with legal definitions? There is a bigger issue at stake that creates an opportunity.

Last year's unanimous Supreme Court decision Caetano vs. Massachusetts made it clear that the Court recognizes a fundamental right to effective self defense and the 2nd Amendment has a role in protecting that capability, state law not withstanding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdf

What needs to be introduced into the factual record at the trial court stage are examples of a legitimate self-defense need. Specifically, the recent trend in home invasion burglaries to be perpetrated by five assailants. These actual cases, and more, should be entered into the record.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...sion/82765512/

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/...me_invasi.html

http://www.click2houston.com/news/hu...n-west-houston

http://www.northescambia.com/2015/01...-home-invasion

http://wavy.com/2016/10/17/police-se...asion-assault/

http://www.wcti12.com/news/local-new...tody/419461125

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...ouver_hom.html

http://abc7.com/news/rancho-cucamong...glars/1396801/

https://www.ci.clovis.ca.us/News/clo...vasion-robbery

http://fox40.com/2015/05/19/5-arrest...home-invasion/

https://patch.com/connecticut/darien...-home-invasion

http://pilotonline.com/news/local/cr...8d4d64fc4.html

Even the Obama justice department prosecuted these:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr...ion-conspiracy

It should be a straightforward discussion with expert witnesses to make it clear that the 10-round limit does not provide effective self defense against that many attackers.

A RAND Corp study put police accuracy at 18%. So 5 attackers requires 28 rounds to hit all the attackers with one round each (for trained police officers).

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/re...ng-bystanders/

[arnoldd]

+1

[Librarian]

Let us please stick to discussions of the lawsuit identified in the OP.

[colossians323]

I'm curious how the libs always get stays and rulings of unconstitutional when propositions pass that they don't agree with???????????

[Veggii]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

If the laws are ultimately turned over how will they make the plaintiffs whole if they were forced to destroy property?

I was wanting to know about this area, the Compensation
have they put any means of compensation for those who have to surrender there high cap mags?
in the law suit, or too ammend the ban to provide compensation if it stands, or we just loose $$$
I purchased mine legally before ban

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by Veggii

I was wanting to know about this area, the Compensation
have they put any means of compensation for those who have to surrender there high cap mags?
in the law suit, or too ammend the ban to provide compensation if it stands, or we just loose $$$
I purchased mine legally before ban

This is why we have injunctions. If our side prevails the state won't have the ability to return all the magazines. They won't be able to remove the serial numbers we are compelled to engrave.

[00Medic]

Originally Posted by colossians323

I'm curious how the libs always get stays and rulings of unconstitutional when propositions pass that they don't agree with???????????

Liberal judges. Simple as that.

And if we get the one conservative judge that would put a stay on this, a different liberal judge will just overrule it.

[Mesa Defense]

Thanks for posting. Tracking.

[Paladin]

California: Preliminary Injunction Sought Against California’s Ban on Possession of Standard Capacity Magazines

Sunday, May 28, 2017

On Friday, May 26, a motion for a preliminary injunction was filed in the case of Duncan v. Becerra, a federal lawsuit supported by the National Rifle Association, challenging California’s restrictions against standard capacity magazines.

California’s new restriction against the mere “possession” of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds goes into effect July 1, 2017. If granted, the motion will suspend the enforcement of this restriction while the case is pending.

Duncan is the second in a series of carefully planned lawsuits challenging the package of gun laws passed last year that have collectively become known as “gunmageddon.” To help NRA's litigation efforts in California, click here.

To stay up-to-date on the Duncan case, as well as other important Second Amendment issues in California, be sure to subscribe to NRA email alerts or check the California Stand and Fight webpage.

More at: https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...city-magazines

[robertkjjj]

Originally Posted by Veggii

I was wanting to know about this area, the Compensation
have they put any means of compensation for those who have to surrender there high cap mags?
in the law suit, or too ammend the ban to provide compensation if it stands, or we just loose $$$
I purchased mine legally before ban

IMHO, any person who voluntarily throws all his magazines into a bag, and drives somewhere and then hands them over to the government, all the while saying "Here you are sir. All my high-cap magazines. Have a good day!"--should just sever his own testicles and Fedex them to Nepal or the Moon while he is at it.
But hey, that's just me. Whatever floats your boat.

[glilon]

Would'nt a 20 rd. magazine be "standard capacity" since that is what the weapon was designed with, and had never been labelled a "high" capacity magazine?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by glilon

Would'nt a 20 rd. magazine be "standard capacity" since that is what the weapon was designed with, and had never been labelled a "high" capacity magazine?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by glilon

Would'nt a 20 rd. magazine be "standard capacity" since that is what the weapon was designed with, and had never been labelled a "high" capacity magazine?

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Really ...

The law creates a (very silly) definition. In the context of a legal discussion, as in this thread, using the legal term and definition is required to avoid confusion.

[Endless]

Originally Posted by CJ5&G23

Compensation is not an option I would ever select if I had large cap mags. Large cap mags may save someones life someday. An extra $100 (or whatever $) per mag wont. You can work and make another $100, but can't tell a criminal you want a "do-over" when your 10 round mag wasn't sufficient to defend yourself against him and his buddies.

Depends on the magazines. I have some from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban made by HK with LE stamps all over them. I purchased these from HKparts when I lived in Alaska. They are great magazines and the best out there. At one point HKparts had them at $200- $300 a mag until they ran out about 5 years ago.

I would let my standard capacity magazines go for $300+ a piece. You could make $10,000+ in a matter of 30 minutes.. To me thats a nice chunk of change. Then I would move back to Oregon and purchase newer Magpul 30 rounders and a new Barrett 50 BMG and live there and never come back to California.
Where can you sell magazines to fund and pay in cash for a Barrett 50 BMG? Good old California. lol

A bit off topic... I made a list of all the pros and cons of living in California and the Cons were at 62 and the pros were at 11. Thats a huge wakeup call.

[vg247]

Originally Posted by robertkjjj

IMHO, any person who voluntarily throws all his magazines into a bag, and drives somewhere and then hands them over to the government, all the while saying "Here you are sir. All my high-cap magazines. Have a good day!"--should just sever his own testicles and Fedex them to Nepal or the Moon while he is at it.
But hey, that's just me. Whatever floats your boat.

Actually, just place testicles in a blender and grind away..much more cost effective then FedEx

[CaptGrumpy]

Glad to see something being done but why start with High Capacity mags if we can't use our semi auto firearms after Jan 01, 2018. Mine will be and remain disassembled till I can move out of this God forsaken state.
I never understood why a federal lawsuit was not filed against California for regulating Interstate Commerce sales of ammo and reloading components on the internet. Last time I looked that could only be regulated by the Federal Government. I still am able to by ammo from some vendors that refuse to comply with California's rules but it is going to get way worse come January first 2018.
Where is the old windbag POTUS after he promised to support the 2nd amendment with one of his Presidential Executive Orders?
I am all in for California to succeed from the USA so we can have that much needed civil war here so we can take our state back and reunite it with the USA minus the dimwitts that destroyed our state to begin with. That is the only way I am staying.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Originally Posted by CaptGrumpy

Glad to see something being done but why start with High Capacity mags if we can't use our semi auto firearms after Jan 01, 2018. Mine will be and remain disassembled till I can move out of this God forsaken state.
I never understood why a federal lawsuit was not filed against California for regulating Interstate Commerce sales of ammo and reloading components on the internet. Last time I looked that could only be regulated by the Federal Government. I still am able to by ammo from some vendors that refuse to comply with California's rules but it is going to get way worse come January first 2018.
Where is the old windbag POTUS after he promised to support the 2nd amendment with one of his Presidential Executive Orders?

First, another NRA / CRPA supported challenge to the restriction on certain semi-auto rifles deemed "assault weapons" has already been filed: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1327859

Second, a preliminary injunction is being sought against this law (the magazine possession ban) first because there is an impending deadline of July 1 for people to dispossess themselves of their magazines and we would like to stop that.

Third, our office was successful in striking down CA's previous ammo restrictions in another NRA / CRPA supported lawsuit, Parker v. California. Unfortunately, that victory has been stolen by Prop 63 and new ammo restrictions are set to take effect in the coming years (there is nothing illegal under CA law about shipping ammo at this time). New lawsuits to challenge those are in the works.

Finally, there is little, if anything, President Trump can do to help Californians via executive order. But, he has delivered a Supreme Court Justice who, by all appearances, could be favorable to us when seeking review of all the above mentioned cases (as well as all the additional ones NRA and CRPA have going on that are not mentioned). I hardly call that "wind" and, to the extent it is, it's hurricane force.

[aBrowningfan]

@sbrady, one additional consideration if you are involved in litigating the upcoming ammunition ban: the impact of the ammunition ban on prices of ammunition. In addition to the addition of a fee ($10 if memory serves) to cover the cost of performing the background check each time ammunition is purchased, there is a restraint of trade component in the removal of Internet sales of ammunition. When the competitive pressure of Internet sales of ammunition is removed, prices inevitably increase. So, for illustration, a flat of shotgun shells will increase from ~$65 for 12 gauge shells to closer to $75 or $80 (adding in the $10 record-keeping charge gets the cost of the hypothetical flat of shells to $85 or $90) given the absence of competition from Internet sales.

Edit: I didn't know where to put this post, so if mods want to move it, go ahead.

[kevin2]

Was the hearing on the preliminary injunction held today?

[ScottyXbones]

Excellent! Hopefully we can get a favorable ruling within a decade

[rp55]

Originally Posted by Librarian

NRA and CRPA Supported Federal Lawsuit ... was filed in Federal District Court in Orange County

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Nice try and thanks for playing.

Why was this not filed in Fresno or some other venue where we might have prevailed?