Big 2A Win in CA!

[Metal god]

All we can hope for now is that it blows up in their faces!

Not going to happen at the 9th . I haven't read over it all but it appears the 3 judge pannel ignored 9th circuit precedent and split with other circuits . That's all the judges need to rationalize reversing everything . It's to bad because keeping the status quo means the SCOTUS will not likely grant cert . A win for us would really force the SCOTUS hand which with Roberts , who knows how that would go .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 50 shooter

CRPA has posted on their site that the state has requested an en banc hearing!

Nothing like taking it right down to the wire.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Not going to happen at the 9th . I haven't read over it all but it appears the 3 judge pannel ignored 9th circuit precedent and split with other circuits . That's all the judges need to rationalize reversing everything . It's to bad because keeping the status quo means the SCOTUS will not likely grant cert . A win for us would really force the SCOTUS hand which with Roberts , who knows how that would go .

They may have ignored 9th circuit precedent, they may have split with other circuits, but they quoted Heller extensively and followed Supreme Court precedent. Which is what they're supposed to do. It will be interesting to see what semantic gymnastics the en banc panel uses to try and rationalize overturning it.

[Metal god]

Lol , yep the anti’s quote Heller all the time as well and we all know the line the use . That line once again is all they need to rationalize their anti Decisions

[natman]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Lol , yep the anti’s quote Heller all the time as well and we all know the line the use . That line once again is all they need to rationalize their anti Decisions

Duncan v Becerra repeated that firearms "commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes" are protected by the Second Amendment. Strict scrutiny. All things we've been saying for years. Best of all:

But the ruling in Heller was “not unlimited” and rejected the idea that citizens may “keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ... Heller thus recognized that certain exceptions to the Second Amendment apply. For example, weapons that are “dangerous and unusual” fall outside the Second Amendment’s protection.

[T]he Court cited an open-ended list of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” that constitute acceptable “longstanding prohibitions” on firearm ownership....Such prohibitions include possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, prohibitions on carriage in sensitive locations, and conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.Such prohibitions on carriage in sensitive locations, and conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.
https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/w...rraOpinion.pdf, pages 17-18

NOT an ability to ban whatever you like, as so many desperately want to believe.

[Metal god]

Natman , not sure where you live but I’m in CA and I’ve been watching the 9th pretty close for the last 10yrs . If the en-banc panel does not ignore just about everything the 3 judge panel put forth and overturn there ruling . I’ll donate $100 to the charity of your choice .

I’ve watched it over and over again they either ignore our arguments or rationalize why they don’t hold water . Need not look any furter then the descent in this case to see where the full panel will go with this . Only way this goes are way is blind luck and we get a panel that is more favorable to us . My guess is the make up of the panel will be looked at as a 6 against to a 3 for us at the start based on who appointed them or there previous rulings . And the vote will pretty much be the same . It might go 5-4 against .

[natman]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Natman , not sure where you live but I’m in CA and I’ve been watching the 9th pretty close for the last 10yrs . If the en-banc panel does not ignore just about everything the 3 judge panel put forth and overturn there ruling . I’ll donate $100 to the charity of your choice .

The dissent hinges on two things: First that the decision conflicts with other circuit decisions on the same subject, which it does. However, the decision is very much in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller.

Secondly, the dissent tries to make a case that strict scrutiny does not apply. The majority made a very convincing case that it does. The dissent differs. If strict scrutiny does not apply when dealing directly with a right specifically protected by constitutional amendment, when does it apply?

Finally, the dissent relies on the notion that a constitutional right is fulfilled if there is any shred of a way to fulfill it, i.e. if you can own any magazine of any capacity, then it's OK. No other constitutional right is fulfilled this way. It would be like saying you have a right to free speech if you are allowed to stand on a soapbox in Central Park on Tuesdays, but at no other place or time.

All that said, I'm from CA also and I'll be very pleasantly shocked if the en banc panel doesn't overturn it nevertheless.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Natman

Secondly, the dissent tries to make a case that strict scrutiny does not apply. The majority made a very convincing case that it does. The dissent differs. If strict scrutiny does not apply when dealing directly with a right specifically protected by constitutional amendment, when does it apply?

The majority decision also makes the point that, although they think strict scrutiny applies, the ban would fail even if viewed through the lens of intermediate scrutiny.

[Metal god]

Natman , I’m not disagreeing with you , only pointing out the anti’s don’t care . They only need one little tid bit to go on a rant like the 2nd does not allow any weapon to be owned for any reason or what ever that specific wording is . That’s all they need to rationalize any restrictions as being lawful as long as you can still own a firearm in some way .

I don’t remember the case specifically but our side argued and actually showed facts that the law that was being challenged actually did nothing for public safety . The judge actually said something like the law doesn’t need to produce the safety intended as long as it has the appearance of doing so . They will rationalize it anyway they can , it doesn’t matter what the facts are .

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The majority decision also makes the point that, although they think strict scrutiny applies, the ban would fail even if viewed through the lens of intermediate scrutiny.

Good point, and they were wise to do so. But trying to apply anything less that strict scrutiny is just another way of saying that the Constitution is served a la carte; you can pick and choose which parts you want to follow.

[Metal god]

It is a la carte and there is many precedent to “rationalize” doing so . Was it Thomas that said it’s like the 2nd is treated like a second class right ? I’m not a fan of Trump but thank god he got two relatively Center right justices appointed . At least we know in the near future the supreme court will not likely go full woke on us .

I’m all for some change but shoving it all down our throats at once will only create divisions that may never be able to be reconciled . That is something that those on the extreme ends don’t seem to understand .

[Python2020]

I'm new to guns and all this legal mumbo jumbo; can we buy larger than 10 clips now? I bought a revolver so it doesn't affect me right now...

[Metal god]

No not at this time in CA . In California magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are not even available. If you were to ever try to buy any you would have to do it online from out of state which you cannot do at this time legally .

[Aguila Blanca]

In the wake of the recent ruling that the entire California AWB is unconstitutional, I've received questions about this previous magazine capacity case. Can someone give us an update? Has the en banc hearing been held yet?