Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[GW]

Any new developments?

[chris]

Any new developments?

stuff like this moves like pond water. If the AG is going to challenge it and our AG is as anti gun and the rest of them. He's gonna have to have his ducks in a row. If he loses it's game over for the ban if I'm correct here?

If he wins a very bad precedent will be set in this state for further legalized taking.

[pistol3]

stuff like this moves like pond water. If the AG is going to challenge it and our AG is as anti gun and the rest of them. He's gonna have to have his ducks in a row. If he loses it's game over for the ban if I'm correct here?

If he wins a very bad precedent will be set in this state for further legalized taking.

I'm not sure it is game over if they lose at the 9th. As I understand it, they are only appealing the injunction issued by the district court, not the validity of the actual law. My assumption with all CA anti-gun laws is that there is an implicit guarantee by the 9th Circuit that they will allow them to stand by any means necessary. Even if you beat the antis at a 3 judge panel at the 9th, they will take the case en banc and overrule the 3 judge panel to make sure the anti-gun law is declared constitutional.

[chris]

I'm not sure it is game over if they lose at the 9th. As I understand it, they are only appealing the injunction issued by the district court, not the validity of the actual law. My assumption with all CA anti-gun laws is that there is an implicit guarantee by the 9th Circuit that they will allow them to stand by any means necessary. Even if you beat the antis at a 3 judge panel at the 9th, they will take the case en banc and overrule the 3 judge panel to make sure the anti-gun law is declared constitutional.

of course he's appealing the injunction that way the law will be in force and we will be once again be forced to surrender or destroy our property. If the injunction is removed IMO it will set a very bad precedent for the state to "take" other property they deem undesirable in the state to posses. Let your imagination go with that one.

[Erion929]

What do the pre-ban standard cap mags look like?

How are they recognized as "pre-2000"....were they manufacturer date-stamped back then? Were they all metal? Or just like a typical present-day Magpul-with-a-block-inside?

Pardon the ignorance....didn't get into ARs til after that.


-

[Librarian]

What do the pre-ban standard cap mags look like?

How are they recognized as "pre-2000"....were they manufacturer date-stamped back then? Were they all metal? Or just like a typical present-day Magpul-with-a-block-inside?

Pardon the ignorance....didn't get into ARs til after that.


-

In most cases, pre-2000 mags are indistinguishable from post-2000 mags, except where new mags were designed and manufactured for post-2000 guns.

And, for mags in CA post-2000, it was legal to repair those mags with post-2000 parts, even if marked with a post-2000 date or code - so it's possible a pre-2000 mag might have the appearance of a post-2000 mag of the same type.

If the mag ban itself is upheld, such distinctions will be moot.

[wolfwood]

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Duncan-v.-Becerra_Answering-Brief-for-Appellees_55.pdf

answering brief filed

[ARFrog]

An interesting read. I appreciate a legal document that is well ordered, cogent and has a "written voice" that is reasonably understandable by the general citizenry and hopefully the Court.

Best wishes for success both in the short and long run on this suit!

[CCWFacts]

This case seeks to overturn both the confiscation, and the underlying ban on acquiring, right? I like how the brief is written and let's hope for success!

[CandG]

This case seeks to overturn both the confiscation, and the underlying ban on acquiring, right? I like how the brief is written and let's hope for success!

Here's what the original complaint says:

acquire, use, or possess firearm magazines that are in common use by the American public for lawful purposes, because such unlawfully infringes on the right of the People to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, unconstitutionally takes property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause, and arbitrarily deprives Plaintiffs of protected property interests under the Due Process Clause.
2. Issue an injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, and employees from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310 in its entirety, or, alternatively, to the extent such can be segregated from the rest of the statute, any provision of section 32310 that prohibits the acquiring, using, or possessing

Note that, while the complaint prayed for relief in the form of an injunction against the laws prohibiting BOTH possession AND acquisition, the injunction that we got didn't cover both. However, the final judgment might.

Here was the (relevant portion of the) injunction text:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants,employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him,and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 32310 (c) &(d), as enacted by proposition 63, or from otherwise requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed.

2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[CCWFacts]

Note that, while the complaint prayed for relief in the form of an injunction against the laws prohibiting BOTH possession AND acquisition, the injunction that we got didn't cover both.

Right, makes sense. The law to dispose of them causing more immediate harm to the owners than the part of the law that blocks acquiring them causes to would-be owners.

However, the final judgment might.

Cool! but I'm pretty sure that we need one more Trump appointed justice on SCOTUS to have a serious hope of winning that.

If I'm reading the page right there are 5 current vacancies in the 9th court of appeals. If Trump would get those filled quickly that might also help us quite a lot here in California.

[CandG]

Right, makes sense. The law to dispose of them causing more immediate harm to the owners than the part of the law that blocks acquiring them causes to would-be owners.



Cool! but I'm pretty sure that we need one more Trump appointed justice on SCOTUS to have a serious hope of winning that.

If I'm reading the page right there are 5 current vacancies in the 9th court of appeals. If Trump would get those filled quickly that might also help us quite a lot here in California.

I'm getting way too far ahead of myself here, but there's always the tiny chance that we win a 3-judge panel in the 9th, and the case doesn't get en banc, nor heard by scotus - which would also be a win. We *almost* had that happen with peruta, except that one actually did get en banc, but historically only about 5% of circuit courts of appeals cases get heard en banc.

But, let's not dive too far down that rabbit hole just yet, we haven't even finished in the lower courts yet

[aBrowningfan]

Note that, while the complaint prayed for relief in the form of an injunction against the laws prohibiting BOTH possession AND acquisition, the injunction that we got didn't cover both. However, the final judgment might.

I think the reason the injunction only applied to the ban on grand-fathered possession was because rolling back the grand-fathered possession would cause irreparable harm. Especially given the perceived high likelihood of success at trial.

[aBrowningfan]

But, let's not dive too far down that rabbit hole just yet, we haven't even finished in the lower courts yet

However, the DC felt that the likelihood of success at trial was high enough to justify granting the injunction....

[CandG]

However, the DC felt that the likelihood of success at trial was high enough to justify granting the injunction....

True, but there's always a bit of unpredictable "luck of the draw" involved with these things, nobody gets to handpick the presiding appeals judges. But one of these days it seems like, just purely based on the laws of probability, that we'd score all the right judges at all the right times and get a win - I'm hopeful that this will be one of those times.