CA Dunkan vs Bonta High capacity magazine ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Metal god]

Levergunfan : correct and the 3 judge panel normally would hear both of those .

We’ll see how this goes . My prediction is they stay and vacate his ruling , put a hold on the proceedings until they join the Washington case. Then they allow the Washington lawyers and whoever to file briefs blah blah blah delay, delay delay, blah blah blah delay, delay delay. Then by the time they finally get around the ruling, maybe the Supreme Court make up will have changed.

[raimius]

This seems like a transparently unethical move to achieve a desired outcome in defiance of SCOTUS precedence, that I wish there was some appropriate remedy that could be quickly applied. Unless the Democrat elected officials and their supporters suddenly decide judicial integrity is more important than denying the people their civil rights, I don't think anything will happen. What a sad state.

[44 AMP]

... is more important than denying the people their civil rights,...

Well, see, that's part of the problem, those folks don't consider gun ownership (and all that goes with it) to BE a valid civil right.

Our Founders had good intentions, but they were, after all, slave owning white men, who were woefully undereducated by today's standards, and so, could not be expected to get everything "right" and some folks consider it their obligation to make things "right" (as they see it) and don't consider our feelings, thoughts, and beliefs relevant or important, because they are convinced that they are right, and we are not.

I think gun control laws are like drilling holes in the hull of a leaking ship to let the water out. They don't do anything about the leaks, and they don't let the water out, in fact, they tend to do just the opposite, and let more water in. Despite the law (Constitution) saying "don't put holes in the hull" these people keep doing it, because they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. Eventually this will sink the ship, and then, we drown...in the water they claimed they were protecting us from while they were drilling holes in the ship.

For the first time in over half a century, SCOTUS and some of the lower courts are actually trying to plug some of those holes. Others keep right on drilling...

Time will tell if we can keep the ship afloat, or if the efforts are too little, too late.

[armoredman]

Nice analogy.

[Aguila Blanca]

Nice analogy.

Indeed it is.

44 AMP, can I "borrow" that analogy for a book I'm working on about school security and school shootings?

[44 AMP]

AB, go right ahead. and thank you both for the kind words.

I'll be here all week, try the veal!!

[Metal god]

The 9th circus stayed Judge Benitez’s ruling until the appeals process is complete , I have not read it but it’s my understanding the decision was six pages and the descent is 35 pages

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...45123.10.0.pdf

[Aguila Blanca]

If it were any court other than the 9th Circus, I would have said "Unbelievable." Unfortunately, though, it IS the 9th Circus.

In his decision, Judge Benitez spent 70 pages eviscerating the State's arguments under the lens of Bruen. And now a majority of the judges on the 9th Circus decided that "we conclude that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits."

Sheesh!

[Metal god]

I believe there’s a way for the plaintiffs to appeal to SCOTUS to by pass the en-banc panel . The question is will they ? Normally I’d say that would be a bad move . However in this specific cases and it’s history of already being to SCOTUS with a GVR and what appears to be some funny business with the 9th , it might be worth a shot .

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

If it were any court other than the 9th Circus, I would have said "Unbelievable." Unfortunately, though, it IS the 9th Circus.

In his decision, Judge Benitez spent 70 pages eviscerating the State's arguments under the lens of Bruen. And now a majority of the judges on the 9th Circus decided that "we conclude that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits."

Sheesh!

I think it's a foregone conclusion that the AG will succeed on the merits, at least with this panel, given the flamboyant intellectual dishonesty the en banc panel has displayed.

Having been instructed by SCOTUS to abandon interest balancing and use Text, History and Tradition, they start my taking parts of Heller out of context: “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”. The original quote went on to list several existing laws that were beyond the scope of Heller. It was NOT a blank check to impose any limit you want.

Then they try to cite the fact that similar cases are pending elsewhere (because the other courts are stalling, just like the Ninth will). None of those PENDING cases establish any precedent.

Then they regress into using interest balancing again, despite the crystal clear prohibition from SCOTUS: "Finally, we conclude that the public interest tips in favor of a stay. "

SCOTUS doesn't usually get involved in inferior court appeals before the inferior court issues a ruling, but the Ninth's behavior is so blatant they might in this case.

Here's a link to the ruling. The ruling ignores SCOTUS, the dissent rigorously follows SCOUTS, Bruen and THT:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...45123.10.0.pdf

[44 AMP]

Consider this, SCOTUS sent the case back down because they determined the ruling was wrong. (under the post Bruen guidelines, it was). What will SCOTUS do, when the case comes back to them with the wrong ruling AGAIN???

I expect them to be most put out with the 9ths failure to correctly interpret the law in the case.

I also expect their displeasure will be made known and felt throughout the court system. It seems unlikely that the 9th courts judges will be replaced, but I don't think its impossible, and would certainly be something a lot of us would be happy to see.

More likely is that we see some "voluntary resignations" or retirements, but even that isn't a given.

Judges can be...well.. judgmental, and protective of their kingdoms and rulings, but when the high court says "do it this way" and a lower court does not, because they know they are right and high court is wrong, someone is going to lose and its not going to be the SCOTUS.

Still some time to go before this one finishes playing out, but from where I sit at this time, I don't see the state of CA winning and keeping its ban.

And, when that does finally happen, every other states bans will be on the table and will, hopefully wind up in the trash can.

[Geezerbiker]

I hope you're right. Those of us here in Oregon are on pins and needles waiting for final outcome.

Ttony

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm watching this one with much interest. I read Judge Benitez's second ruling (the one he issued after the case was sent back down to him) and I thought it was well-researched and well-thought out. My initial reaction was, "There's no way the Ninth Circuit can overturn this."

Apparently, I was wrong. But, as one of those old-time baseball managers said, "It ain't over 'til it's over." This latest little fiasco is not a decision on the case -- it's just putting a hold on the injunction, meaning the California magazine capacity law stays in effect at least until the Ninth Circus releases their ruling on the actual appeal (which, I believe, hasn't even been filed yet). They may just be trying to string it out as long as they can, even though they may recognize that the handwriting is on the wall and that they can't possibly justify overturning Benitez's ruling.

Stay tuned. : popcorn:

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

They may just be trying to string it out as long as they can, even though they may recognize that the handwriting is on the wall and that they can't possibly justify overturning Benitez's ruling.

I agree that there's no rational, honest way they can justify overturning Benitez's ruling. However, they have already ruled that the state is likely to prevail on the merits of the case and justified it by quoting Heller wildly out of context and using interest balancing. As absurd as that is in the real world, if they can muster the dishonesty to do that, they can do anything.

[44 AMP]

However, they have already ruled that the state is likely to prevail on the merits of the case and justified it by quoting Heller wildly out of context and using interest balancing.

Point of order question, DID they actually "rule" that?? OR is it just an opinion, of one (or more) of the judges, and not an official ruling???

Sadly I get my information from the popular press and they are notoriously lax in accuracy reporting technical points. And their headlines often bear little or no relation to reality...

right now there a headline reporting the court "upholds" CA Mag Ban, when that is not actually the case. SO, everything they report is, to me, suspect. It's not a new thing.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Point of order question, DID they actually "rule" that?? OR is it just an opinion, of one (or more) of the judges, and not an official ruling???

That was the basis of their overturning the injunction, and enough of them agreed with that view to overturn the injunction. I would classify that as a "ruling." However, it is a ruling on the injunction, not a ruling on the merits of the case.

[Metal god]

The 9th en-banc panel has not given a final ruling but as natman just pointed out .

The 9th in there 6 page stay order justified the stay by saying the state was likely to win on the merits as well as there common interest balancing justifications by saying

Second, the Attorney General has shown that California will be irreparably harmed absent a stay pending appeal by presenting evidence that large-capacity magazines pose significant threats to public safety. If a stay is denied,

[44 AMP]

large-capacity magazines pose significant threats to public safety.

Got to thinking about this, and I'm just not in the same mental class as the CA AG (or a lot of other people, thankfully..)

Just curious, what do you folks consider more of a threat to public safety, a spring loaded metal or plastic box bigger than the state approves of, OR people shooting other people for fun or profit, or just because they feel like it??

What would you consider the earliest "large capacity" (detachable box) magazines???

I can think of the Browning HP (13 rnds) which showed up in 1935. Then 15/30 rnds in the M1 carbines, and 20 rnds in the AR15 and FAL, which showed up on the civilian markets in the early 60s. Various SMG look alike semi auto carbines in the 60s and 70ds with mags of 20/30 rnds or even 50rnds. Then double more double stack 9mm in the 80s, 15 or 17 rnds or even more. Where was the tremendous threat to public safety then??

Also, while I know the real reason is $ and who gives it to whom, don't you think it is at least a bit intellectually dishonest to focus on how many rounds a magazine holds and not even mention how much Hollywood has glamorized, promoted, and sold to us as entertainment mass shootings, hi capacity firearms, machine guns and deadly violence in general, particularly in the pas 50 some years? They have literally TRAINED people that this is acceptable behavior, as not only the bad guys but also the heroes of the movies do it, a LOT.

I don't feel the fact that it is fiction to be a complete defense. Legal, yes, ethical? Opinions vary.

[ballardw]

Thompson Submachine gun magazines starting 1921 production.
Browning Automatic Rifle 1917 20 rounds
Gatling gun magazines of upto 200+ rounds circa 1874 , drums not box...
Mauser M712 variant of the C96 20 rounds 1932, and a carbine variant M1917 with 40 rd

These were just some that came to mind.

[44 AMP]

Thank you, I was thinking primarily in semi auto terms that might have been in the CA commercial market. Entirely correct to include the Tommygun and others prior to 1934.

I also realize I didn't restrict the question to just semiautos, my bad for that.

Don't think the Gatling gun ever had much of a civilian market, though it was, and, i believe, still is legal to own as it is manually operated.

Not sure if legal in CA though, unless you're a Hollywood studio or museum. CA has some "odd" laws.