9th Circuit just released decision on Duncan v. Bonta

[Capybara]

"...the affliction of apathy is now a full onset epidemic?"

Uh, yes, for about a decade or two. People are ADD, have zero attention span, ignore history, cannot connect causation and effect. My company creates TV and film programming for adults. Supposedly smart adults with degrees and high paying careers in important industries. When I write, produce, edit, our target informational structure and pacing aims for 3-4th grade kids for these "adults", and even then, it's amazing how little the audience pays attention. If it's not staring at their phone for social media, or sports, the majority of supposed adults these days are completely tuned out from reality.

[Mauserguy]

"Freedom week no longer matters because the statute of limitations on filing charges based on the magazine capacity law is 3 years."

Thanks, but would freedom week or grandfathered mags be banned under this ruling, making it an ongoing crime? The effect today is my concern.
Mauserguy

[MajorSideburns]

"Freedom week no longer matters because the statute of limitations on filing charges based on the magazine capacity law is 3 years."

Thanks, but would freedom week or grandfathered mags be banned under this ruling, making it an ongoing crime? The effect today is my concern.
Mauserguy

It depends entirely on how the state views your political allegiance. Are you politically aligned with Bonta, Newsom, and the ruling Party of the state? Then you have nothing to fear. Are you a dissident? Well, then you can be charged with up to a misdemeanor under current law.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=32310.

ARTICLE 1. Rules Governing Large-Capacity Magazines [32310 - 32390]

( Article 1 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

32310.

(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.
(c) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;
(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or
(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

[MajorSideburns]

The ignorant crap you’re wolfing here is ongoing misinformation. If any District Attorney’s Office in the State is using voter registration files (or anything similar) as a file/no-file determining factor, please share your factual information. I challenge you to provide facts. Here’s a fact: justice is the similar and injustice the dissimilar treatment of two similar cases.

I guess you fell asleep during 2020.

[TimRB]

I guess you fell asleep during 2020.

Why not answer the challenge? I also would like to know which, if any, California prosecutor has used political affiliation as a factor in filing charges.

Tim

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Why not answer the challenge? I also would like to know which, if any, California prosecutor has used political affiliation as a factor in filing charges.

Tim

Are you saying that if it's not officially part of the argument presented, on paper, it's not a factor?

Uh...???

[Rotnguns]

I've a strong feeling that his one is going to SCOTUS and they are not going to pass on it.

[BAJ475]

I've a strong feeling that his one is going to SCOTUS and they are not going to pass on it.

It is definitely going. The only question is will SCOTUS grant cert. I am hopeful that this is the case that Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been waiting for.

[RickD427]

"Freedom week no longer matters because the statute of limitations on filing charges based on the magazine capacity law is 3 years."

Thanks, but would freedom week or grandfathered mags be banned under this ruling, making it an ongoing crime? The effect today is my concern.
Mauserguy

Here's what has changed as a result of this decision:

1) Manufacturing, Importing, Selling and other forms of receiving a large-capacity magazine - These all remain illegal, and with no practical change from last week.

2) Simple Possession - This has been illegal since PC 32310 took effect. Enforcement was enjoined by federal court order during the pendency of the Duncan case, but possession was never made legal (with the potential exception of "Freedom Week") during the litigation. The injunction was not lifted by the Ninth Circuit (at least in my scanning of the 147 page decision). The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to Judge Benitez, with instructions, and we'll have to see what he does with the injunction. I don't see that he has many options. Look for a big change in things when Judge Benetiz enters judgement in the case.

PC 32310 makes simple possession illegal, and without regard to when, or how, the magazines were obtained. There is no "Grandfathering" of magazines owned prior to the effective date of PC 32310.

Since it is the "Possession" that is proscribed, you can think of it as being a "continuing" offense. The SOL would start to run when your "possession" ended.

3) Required Removal/Sale/Surrender of Large Capacity Magazines - Because there is no "Grandfathering", folks who currently possess large capacity magazines were provided three options in the statute - a) Remove them from the state, b) Sell them to a licensed broker, or c) Surrender them for destruction.

[RickD427]

It is definitely going. The only question is will SCOTUS grant cert. I am hopeful that this is the case that Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been waiting for.

My "Crystal Ball" also sees this one going for a Supreme Court review. It does seem to be the type of "clean" Second Amendment case that those four have been looking for. But it also has a secondary appeal.

It may be just me. I've only given the 147 pages a first read, but I was troubled by the structure of Judge Graber's writing. She seems to start off by taking the NYSRPA case as controlling, but then says we don't have to really follow NYSRPA, it's only required that we come close enough to it's holding..... The problem there is that you really eviscerate the principle of precedent. That opens a secondary axis of attack on the decision. We need at least one more justice to join. You need five votes to win a review.

[abinsinia]

Here's what has changed as a result of this decision:

1) Manufacturing, Importing, Selling and other forms of receiving a large-capacity magazine - These all remain illegal, and with no practical change from last week.

2) Simple Possession - This has been illegal since PC 32310 took effect. Enforcement was enjoined by federal court order during the pendency of the Duncan case, but possession was never made legal (with the potential exception of "Freedom Week") during the litigation. The injunction was not lifted by the Ninth Circuit (at least in my scanning of the 147 page decision). The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to Judge Benitez, with instructions, and we'll have to see what he does with the injunction. I don't see that he has many options. Look for a big change in things when Judge Benetiz enters judgement in the case.

PC 32310 makes simple possession illegal, and without regard to when, or how, the magazines were obtained. There is no "Grandfathering" of magazines owned prior to the effective date of PC 32310.

Since it is the "Possession" that is proscribed, you can think of it as being a "continuing" offense. The SOL would start to run when your "possession" ended.

3) Required Removal/Sale/Surrender of Large Capacity Magazines - Because there is no "Grandfathering", folks who currently possess large capacity magazines were provided three options in the statute - a) Remove them from the state, b) Sell them to a licensed broker, or c) Surrender them for destruction.

Your missing request to stay the mandate to the En Banc court which CRPA has already stated they will request. (This was granted the last time we had this En Banc court in Duncan) I think they also enjoined their opinion pending appeal to SCOTUS.

[RickD427]

Your missing request to stay the mandate to the En Banc court which CRPA has already stated they will request. (This was granted the last time we had this En Banc court in Duncan) I think they also enjoined their opinion pending appeal to SCOTUS.

I have not seen a request to stay the mandate. But if one were to be requested, that would be very welcome news.

But as it stands now, the case is headed back to Judge Benitez once the time period for the mandate has run.

[abinsinia]

I have not seen a request to stay the mandate. But if one were to be requested, that would be very welcome news.

But as it stands now, the case is headed back to Judge Benitez once the time period for the mandate has run.

starting at minute 18 and 55 seconds he describes they're going to fight the mandate being issues.

[BAJ475]

Here's what has changed as a result of this decision:

1) Manufacturing, Importing, Selling and other forms of receiving a large-capacity magazine - These all remain illegal, and with no practical change from last week.

2) Simple Possession - This has been illegal since PC 32310 took effect. Enforcement was enjoined by federal court order during the pendency of the Duncan case, but possession was never made legal (with the potential exception of "Freedom Week") during the litigation. The injunction was not lifted by the Ninth Circuit (at least in my scanning of the 147 page decision). The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to Judge Benitez, with instructions, and we'll have to see what he does with the injunction. I don't see that he has many options. Look for a big change in things when Judge Benetiz enters judgment in the case.

PC 32310 makes simple possession illegal, and without regard to when, or how, the magazines were obtained. There is no "Grandfathering" of magazines owned prior to the effective date of PC 32310.

Since it is the "Possession" that is proscribed, you can think of it as being a "continuing" offense. The SOL would start to run when your "possession" ended.

3) Required Removal/Sale/Surrender of Large Capacity Magazines - Because there is no "Grandfathering", folks who currently possess large capacity magazines were provided three options in the statute - a) Remove them from the state, b) Sell them to a licensed broker, or c) Surrender them for destruction.

Unfortunately, I cannot find a flaw in your analysis. The whole situation makes my decision to move to Idaho look like pure genius.

[gose]

It is definitely going. The only question is will SCOTUS grant cert. I am hopeful that this is the case that Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been waiting for.

Im not getting my hopes up. The "new" SCOTUS has had many opportunities to right wrongs and they havent done much at all, so my money is on them passing on this one as well.