DUNCAN V. BONTA 9-22 Magazines, STAYED until appeal, ORAL ARGS week of 3-24-24

[ansan12001]

Has anyone read through latest St. Benitez decision? In plain language what does this mean for California 2A rights? What is new or different with this decision, what are the practical implications to our 2A rights? Please explain. Thank you

//
// THIS IS NOW THE NEW DUNCAN THREAD
//
// SEE THE 9-22 DECISION HERE: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...z2263869.1.pdf
//
// Librarian
//
// Michel and Associates page of docs: https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/
//
// Court Listener docket for DISTRICT COURT https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...can-v-becerra/
//
// Court Listener docket for 9th Circuit https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...n-v-rob-bonta/

STATUS OF THE CASE - most recent at the bottom.

9-22-23 Decision - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...z2263869.1.pdf

9-22-23 Stayed in that decision -

The Attorney General respectfully requests a stay of any judgment in Plaintiffs? favor for a sufficient period to seek a stay from the Court of Appeals. Dkt. 118 at 61?63; Dkt. 142 at 25. That request is granted. Therefore, the enforcement of the injunction is hereby stayed for ten days.

... until October 2, 2023 (or, 10 business days, October 6.)

9-22-23 Appealed to 9th - https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...3515.150.0.pdf

9-28-23 Administrative stay GRANTED until Oct 10 https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...345123.3.0.pdf

Holy spit!

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and THOMAS, GRABER, WARDLAW, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, HURWITZ, R. NELSON, BUMATAY, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.1
The en banc panel has elected to accept this case as a comeback.

Never heard of that happening.

10-10-23 Stay pending appeal GRANTED, no timeline.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.10.0.pdf

10-11-23 Oral Arguments before 9th week of March 18, 2024

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67826263/12/virginia-duncan-v-rob-bonta/

1-25-24 Appellant's reply brief

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.69.0.pdf

[ASD1]

wait ten days and check back

[phdo]

It means CA will probably appeal to CA9 and then we wait 2 weeks.

[Kestryll]

Chuck Michel commenting on the ruling

[tenemae]

Michel thinks that the 9CA will uphold the status quo: preserving the injunction that allows freedom-week mags, but we will not be able to newly acquire until the case is ultimately settled

[SWalt]

All that hard work bearing fruit.

[rplaw]

Thank you!

[Metal God]

Anyone else see all the spoiler alert wordings throughout the ruling pointing very hard on how the judge is likely going to rule in Miller , Rhode and the Billy club case ?

[ajb78]

Anyone else see all the spoiler alert wordings throughout the ruling pointing very hard on how the judge is likely going to rule in Miller , Rhode and the Billy club case ?

Seemed to me like he might be hinting at wanting a carry case too.

[m0topilot]

Copper Jacket's Optimism

I like Copper Jacket's optimism:

[Paul49]

Overall a great decision. Minor details: he seemed to accept the prohibition of short barreled shotguns but did not address short barreled rifles, which are common to the special forces for CQB, definitely analogous to home defense. He also opened the door to a prohibition of drum magazines. Why? Should have just left that out from an otherwise excellent decision.

[Librarian]

Bonta, of course, says he will appeal: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releas...large-capacity

Friday, September 22, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

SACRAMENTO ? California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to a district court decision striking down California?s large-capacity magazine (LCM) ban. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California found the large-capacity magazine ban unconstitutional but granted the Attorney General?s request for a stay of the decision to allow the Attorney General to appeal to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At this time, the LCM ban remains in effect. Attorney General Bonta will appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit and will seek a further stay pending appeal to ensure that these vital public safety protections remain in place to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries in California communities.

?In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths,? said Attorney General Bonta. ?We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties. In the meantime, if the Ninth Circuit stays the decision pending appeal, large-capacity magazines will remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California. The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states ? and we believe that the district court got this wrong. We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake. We will not stop in our efforts to protect the safety of communities and Californians? rights to go about their business without fear of becoming victims of gun violence, while at the same time respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.?

LCMs are firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. They pose a substantial threat to the public and law enforcement because they allow shooters to fire scores of rounds from the same firearm in a short period of time without needing to reload. In California, it has been illegal to manufacture, import, keep or offer for sale, give, or lend LCMs since 2000. It has been illegal to purchase and receive them since 2013. Proposition 63, which California voters passed in 2016, added a ban on the possession of LCMs. In 2017, the district court enjoined the possession ban from taking effect, pending resolution of the Duncan lawsuit. However, the ban on the sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or acquisition of LCMs remained in effect during the appeal.

In November 2021, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the Duncan decision and upheld the law under the Second Amendment. However, after New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was decided in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the Attorney General's motion to remand the case back to the federal district court. The Attorney General will now appeal the district court?s latest decision to the Ninth Circuit.

Gun violence remains a growing threat to public safety throughout the nation. Mass shootings are on the rise throughout the country and frequently feature large-capacity magazines, causing more deaths and injuries. On average, there are over 110 gun deaths each day and nearly 41,000 each year in the U.S. Guns are the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, with U.S. children being more likely to die from gun violence than in any other comparable country. In 2021, California was ranked as the #1 state for gun safety by Giffords Law Center, and the state saw a 37% lower gun death rate than the national average. According to the CDC, California?s gun death rate was the 44th lowest in the nation and the gun death rate for children is 58% lower than the national average.

Notice how Rob omits that little trip to SCOTUS.

[rplaw]

Bonta, of course, says he will appeal: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releas...large-capacity


Notice how Rob omits that little trip to SCOTUS.

I also noticed that he's treading heavily on the improper argument post Bruen about public safety and policy.

If that's the basis of his appeal, the panel should be able to see through it quite easily and might even deny his stay request.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit as to 149 Order by Xavier Becerra. ( Filing fee $ 505 receipt number ACASDC-18209456.) (Notice of Appeal electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals.) (Echeverria, John) (mjw). (Entered: 09/22/2023)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.533515/gov.uscourts.casd.533515.150.0.pdf

Wasting no time California just filed a notice of appeal.

[Metal God]

Overall a great decision. Minor details: he seemed to accept the prohibition of short barreled shotguns but did not address short barreled rifles, which are common to the special forces for CQB, definitely analogous to home defense. He also opened the door to a prohibition of drum magazines. Why? Should have just left that out from an otherwise excellent decision.

The one thing that's been bothering me for many years now is ...... How some courts seem to think short barrel whatevers , full auto this or that's etc don't fall under the in common use criteria .

How can a state make something illegal to posses or extremely hard or expensive to posses , then claim those very things they banned or made difficult for the ordinary citizen to posses are not in common use ?

I for one would have at least one full auto firearm and several short barreled anything I could find if it was legal for me to posses or own . I suspect that would be true with the majority of gun enthusiast . Resulting in all of those firearms very much being in common use today .

I thought there was some sort of precedent saying that very thing . The state can't ban something then later justify the ban by show how little the banned product is used or needed anymore ?