Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[aBrowningfan]

I'm not a lawyer... and unfortunately, I don't understand half the stuff in these briefs. But it would seem to me if the 9th has already reviewed this case (no matter how briefly), & concurred with Benitez... then the State is standing on very shaky ground for an appeal.

The first iteration of the 9th basically turned on whether Judge Benitez abused his discretion to issue a stay blocking enforcement of the possession and surrender provisions that had been added by Prop 63. On last Friday, Judge Benitez went further and ruled the entire PC 32310 to be unconstitutional. The criteria that was applied regarding judicial discretion is different than for a review de novo that is being contemplated when CA-DoJ gets around to filing their actual appeal (as opposed to the current fight over whether to issue a stay of Judge Benitez' order/judgement).

[hoystory]

I addressed some of this here.

It's a new site, so any feedback is always appreciated.

[nagzul]

I addressed some of this here.

It's a new site, so any feedback is always appreciated.

That was a great read.
I see what you mean about it addressed some of the issues. The one thing I think we all want to know is, if Benitez says no, and they appeal, how many days/hours untill the 9th can pull off a ruling?
They couldn't appear to have a decision ready for the asking rght? A few days? Maybe a week? They have to give the planniffs time to respond as well right?
Maybe it's wishful thinking. I have a package scheduled for Tuesday. Lol

Good writing. I didn't miss the part where you suggest a limited ruling, carving out a grace period, might be our best bet. I wouldn't put it past bacerra to require some registration for those mags in that small window.

Finally, by fun I meant seeing judges look like the tyrants they are when taking our rights. At some point, the masks have to come off. To be exposed as the frauds they are.

Don't even get me going on Puerta....

[InfringedInCalifornia]

I found this part interesting:

"For these reasons, the Court should deny the State’s motion for a stay in its entirety. If, however, the Court is inclined to grant the State’s request for a stay of the judgment pending appeal, or if the Court believes that the Ninth Circuit might do so, the Court should exercise its discretion to craft its order in a way that will completely safeguard those people who have sold, shipped, or purchased magazines over ten rounds in the wake of the Court’s March 29 order. "

I hate to say it but the best thing for everyone in this situation might actually be a stay written by Benitez rather than the 9th.

[92E2]

My post is more observational comedy than legal concept, I have no doubt that Chuck, Sean and the rest of the team have something in mind already.

But from a layman's position it sure is amusing to see the 180 turn!

Looks like the lawyers pointed out the DOJ contradicted themselves (read: made an a** of themselves) in writing within 24 hours.

To begin with, the State’s own arguments undercut its claim. For the State’s motion rests on an assurance that magazines over ten rounds will flood into California, irreparably harming the State and its residents by their presence. Id. But the State more recently complained that there is no evidence that anyone has purchased these magazines. Compare id., with Reply. To the extent the State sincerely believes that Californians have not been ordering magazines over ten rounds, it would seem there is no need for the injunction at all.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-03-Plaintiffs-Opp-Brief-to-Defendants-Ex-Parte-to-Stay.pdf

Then, providing PSA's testimony on the number of shipments made and in progress then begs the question, who does that help ?

[InfringedInCalifornia]

Looks like the lawyers pointed out the DOJ contradicted themselves (read: made an a** of themselves) in writing within 24 hours.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-03-Plaintiffs-Opp-Brief-to-Defendants-Ex-Parte-to-Stay.pdf

Then, providing PSA's testimony on the number of shipments made and in progress then begs the question, who does that help ?

If nobody is buying the mags, you don't need a stay. Here is evidence that every gun owner and their mother is buying mags and will be harmed should the court be inclined to grant a stay without protecting these folks.

[Chewy65]

In Michel's opposition to the State's request for a stay... did anyone notice this?



Did the 9th already review this case?

To get a stay the State must show that it is likely to win its appeal. Michel & Associates is arguing that the State is unlikely to prevail, since a panel of the 9th Circuit already found just the opposite. That panel found, in upholding the preliminary injunction issued pending trial, that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits.

[Chewy65]

I think this seals the deal for Plaintiffs:

the State must prove that it “will suffer irreparable harm” without the stay and that the balance of the hardships “tips sharply in their favor.” Se. Alaska Conserv. Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs., 472 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added).

[CurlyDave]

...I hate to say it but the best thing for everyone in this situation might actually be a stay written by Benitez rather than the 9th.

Maybe, maybe not.

Somehow I can not see the 9th making instant felons of everyone whose shipment got delayed. And, if they did, the more people in that category, the more likely it would be for the Supremes to review it promptly.

And the 9th does not want that review, because they are liable to say that strict scrutiny, or even stronger is the correct level.

The more LCMs that enter CA under this order, the better off we are.

Essentially, just as Judge Benitez has to be wary of poking the bear too hard with the 9th, the 9th has exactly the same problem with the SC.

Maybe Judge Benitez can schedule hearings before making a ruling? The best of all worlds is a slow roll that is just fast enough to satisfy the 9th that it is moving along and they do not have to intervene, but slow enough that we can get a million legal LCMs into the state.

[92E2]

Maybe, maybe not.

Somehow I can not see the 9th making instant felons of everyone whose shipment got delayed. And, if they did, the more people in that category, the more likely it would be for the Supremes to review it promptly.

And the 9th does not want that review, because they are liable to say that strict scrutiny, or even stronger is the correct level.

The more LCMs that enter CA under this order, the better off we are.

Essentially, just as Judge Benitez has to be wary of poking the bear too hard with the 9th, the 9th has exactly the same problem with the SC.

Maybe Judge Benitez can schedule hearings before making a ruling? The best of all worlds is a slow roll that is just fast enough to satisfy the 9th that it is moving along and they do not have to intervene, but slow enough that we can get a million legal LCMs into the state.

I could see liberals trying to use this to turn thousands of Californians into "prohibited persons" as another way to ban firearm ownership in the PRK.

[SoCalSig1911]

To get a stay the State must show that it is likely to win its appeal. Michel & Associates is arguing that the State is unlikely to prevail, since a panel of the 9th Circuit already found just the opposite. That panel found, in upholding the preliminary injunction issued pending trial, that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits.

Nuisance and Basura must be going nuts right about now

[sl0re10]

Looks like the lawyers pointed out the DOJ contradicted themselves (read: made an a** of themselves) in writing within 24 hours.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-03-Plaintiffs-Opp-Brief-to-Defendants-Ex-Parte-to-Stay.pdf

Then, providing PSA's testimony on the number of shipments made and in progress then begs the question, who does that help ?

and in the next breath... when the state whines that millions of mags did flow into the state... supposedly causing harm to residents of the state... everyone can pile on their claims that these magazines caused any injury to anyone.

[Cortelli]

To get a stay the State must show that it is likely to win its appeal. Michel & Associates is arguing that the State is unlikely to prevail, since a panel of the 9th Circuit already found just the opposite. That panel found, in upholding the preliminary injunction issued pending trial, that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits.

I have high hopes for this case. But also am sensitive to understanding and communicating clearly what has happened already, so we can all have fun speculating on our chances before Judge Benitez (on the stay) and the 9th (on the stay and full appeal).

The 9th hasn't really already found that the state is unlikely to prevail or that plaintiffs were likely to prevail.

Judge Benitez found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits (which doesn't necessarily mean more likely than not, I believe, but it's still obviously good news).

The 9th's previous decision to uphold the PI was an evaluation of whether Judge Benitez abused his discretion in so finding - not that the panel also so found.

Additionally, the original PI only enjoined the bar on possession that was added to the statute by Prop 63. When the 9th looked at the original PI appeal, it was looking at whether Judge Benitez abused his discretion in choosing to enjoin that / those particular sections relating to the possession ban, and not at an injunction on the entire Sec 32310.

[MajorCaliber]

and in the next breath... when the state whines that millions of mags did flow into the state... supposedly causing harm to residents of the state... everyone can pile on their claims that these magazines caused any injury to anyone.

The only injuries these magazines will cause is a number of hernias lifting those big heavy boxes off porches across the state, and a sudden rash of repetitive stress injuries to thumbs. Yup, Public Safety interest right there.

[ronlglock]

Dear Governor Newsom,

As a NRA-licensed firearms instructor, I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your strong promotion of Proposition 63. While there was a law on the books which banned the importation of new standard-capacity firearms magazines, the overreach of Proposition 63 allowed for the filing and subsequent win in Duncan v. Becerra.

I am looking to a longer list of wins in the near future, and they will all be thanks to your illegal efforts to criminalize lawful firearms owners.

Regards,