Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[darkwater34]

A government that is afraid of their people is a democracy
A government that the people are afraid of their government is tryany
A quote that I borrowed from somewhere.

[EM2]

A government that is afraid of their people is a democracy
A government that the people are afraid of their government is tryany
A quote that I borrowed from somewhere.

A government that protects individual liberty is a republic.

[ar15barrels]

url]https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23877421-immergutrulingoffmeasure114case[/url]

Pay attention to the Finding of Fact...which are not facts at all

I particularly like this part:

VIII. CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court has held that Second Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense inside and outside of the home. LCMs are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. Even if LCMs are protected by the Second Amendment, BM 114?s restrictions are consistent with this Nation?s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety. This Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant on Plaintiffs? Second Amendment challenge to BM 114?s LCM restrictions.

[ar15barrels]

I?m not talking about SCOTUS. I?m talking about the 9th. What?s to stop them from staying Duncan pending this Oregon lawsuit? We could still be months away from Duncan and the Oregon case will be at the 9th by then.

Why would the 9th even accept the appeal when the 9th agrees with the oregon DC ruling?
The 9th can simply decline it and leave it as standing law.
Then the pro-gun side has to petition the USSC for relief after the 9th declines to do anything.

[BAJ475]

Why would the 9th even accept the appeal when the 9th agrees with the Oregon DC ruling?
The 9th can simply decline it and leave it as standing law.
Then the pro-gun side has to petition the USSC for relief after the 9th declines to do anything.

What makes you think that the 9th could decline to hear the case or am I misreading your words?

[RickD427]

Why would the 9th even accept the appeal when the 9th agrees with the oregon DC ruling?
The 9th can simply decline it and leave it as standing law.
Then the pro-gun side has to petition the USSC for relief after the 9th declines to do anything.

The Ninth Circuit cannot decline to hear a case.

If the facts are nearly identical to another recently heard case they can do the legal equivalent of "Ditto."

But they have to hear the case and issue a decision.

[ar15barrels]

What makes you think that the 9th could decline to hear the case or am I misreading your words?

Maybe they can't but they can certainly pass it through without any relief.
I suppose they would take advantage of creating delays for years while doing that to let the USSC get more liberal first.

[BAJ475]

Maybe they can't but they can certainly pass it through without any relief.

That's true.

I suppose they would take advantage of creating delays for years while doing that to let the USSC get more liberal first.

That is also probably true. But there is relief from all the delays. It is called Idaho! Hopefully, sooner than latter gun people in CA will be able to enjoy their 2A rights, the same as Idahoans, but I doubt that it will ever be to the same extent as we enjoy.

[Bhobbs]

Why would the 9th even accept the appeal when the 9th agrees with the oregon DC ruling?
The 9th can simply decline it and leave it as standing law.
Then the pro-gun side has to petition the USSC for relief after the 9th declines to do anything.

They can use this to delay mag cases for years. I?m not saying they will but I think it?s reasonable. By staying Duncan pending OFF, they can let other courts use OFF as precedent for more anti gun rulings.

Also, not every 9th circuit panel will agree with OFF. Duncan was ruled favorably at the 9th but overturned en banc.

[Sgt Raven]

^^^^^^^^


There is a AW ban & LCM ban that has been heard by a 3 Judge Panel in the 7th Circuit already. A case the 7th knows ACB has her eye on it. A case that was put on the Rocket Docket because of ACB...

[Bhobbs]

^^^^^^^^


There is a AW ban & LCM ban that has been heard by a 3 Judge Panel in the 7th Circuit already. A case the 7th knows ACB has her eye on it. A case that was put on the Rocket Docket because of ACB...

Sure, there is but that doesn?t mean we can expect a ruling any time soon. The hearing was a month ago. The 4th has been dogging Bianchi for a year. Do you expect Easterbrook to rush his ruling out? We already know the 7th will rule against the 2nd amendment. I doubt he?s in any rush to get overturned by SCOTUS again.

[TruOil]

Sure, there is but that doesn?t mean we can expect a ruling any time soon. The hearing was a month ago. The 4th has been dogging Bianchi for a year. Do you expect Easterbrook to rush his ruling out? We already know the 7th will rule against the 2nd amendment. I doubt he?s in any rush to get overturned by SCOTUS again.

In the Courts of Appeals, a month is a very short period of time, and issued opinions typically take much much longer for all cases in general, not just 2A cases.
In California, the state Court of Appeal has 90 days to issue an opinion after oral argument. If there is no oral argument (in most cases oral argument is waived) there is no time limit.
You just have to get used to the fact that since an appeal to a court of appeal is by right, these courts have thousands of cases they have to decide,, most of which are criminal cases. You must learn patience, Grasshopper.

[Bhobbs]

In the Courts of Appeals, a month is a very short period of time, and issued opinions typically take much much longer for all cases in general, not just 2A cases.
In California, the state Court of Appeal has 90 days to issue an opinion after oral argument. If there is no oral argument (in most cases oral argument is waived) there is no time limit.
You just have to get used to the fact that since an appeal to a court of appeal is by right, these courts have thousands of cases they have to decide,, most of which are criminal cases. You must learn patience, Grasshopper.

I?m not saying I expected the ruling already. I?m saying it?s only been a month. We likely have a year or more before the Naperville opinion is out. That case will have little to no bearing on OFF or Duncan.

[AlmostHeaven]

They can use this to delay mag cases for years. I'm not saying they will but I think it's reasonable. By staying Duncan pending OFF, they can let other courts use OFF as precedent for more anti gun rulings.

Also, not every 9th circuit panel will agree with OFF. Duncan was ruled favorably at the 9th but overturned en banc.

I'm not saying I expected the ruling already. I'm saying it's only been a month. We likely have a year or more before the Naperville opinion is out. That case will have little to no bearing on OFF or Duncan.

I think, and I understand that you have valid reasons to disagree, based on its past record on Second Amendment lawsuits, the Fourth Circuit will decide Bianchi v. Frosh by the end of this summer.

If that case gets successfully appealed up to the Supreme Court and granted certiorari, then all other assault weapons ban and large-capacity magazine ban litigation across the country will immediately be held.

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit cannot necessarily delay the California assault weapons ban and large-capacity magazine ban cases forever of its own volition.

[Bhobbs]

I think, and I understand that you have valid reasons to disagree, based on its past record on Second Amendment lawsuits, the Fourth Circuit will decide Bianchi v. Frosh by the end of this summer.

If that case gets successfully appealed up to the Supreme Court and granted certiorari, then all other assault weapons ban and large-capacity magazine ban litigation across the country will immediately be held.

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit cannot necessarily delay the California assault weapons ban and large-capacity magazine ban cases forever of its own volition.

That?s a good point and I agree. The issue is now that SCOTUS granted cert in Rahimi and the federal government appealed the bump stock ban, is SCOTUS going to take 3 2A cases next session? I?m guessing the bump stock case will be a priority due to it being a federal regulation. I?m not so sure Bianchi will be taken in the next session.