9th Circuit Court: Limiting High-Capacity Magazines is unconstitutional

[task0778]

The Ninth Circuit is the most far-left and most frequently overruled federal appellate court in America. A three-judge panel held (14 Aug 2020) that California’s ban on high-capacity magazines violated citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. NOTE: Presidents Trump and George W. Bush appointed the two judges who ruled against the ban and in favor of the Constitution. The dissenting judge, a district court judge sitting by assignment, is a Clinton appointee. Which could mean if this case goes to the full court then the result might be different. If it ends up at the SCOTUS, would they even take the case, and if they did what would they do given the current justices on that court. This is a summary of the 9th's ruling:

California's near-categorical ban of LCMs [so-called "large-capacity magazines," which is to say magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds] strikes at the core of the Second Amendment—the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today's post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount.
California's law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of self-defense. Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California. Even law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years—or face up to a year in jail.
The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. But the Second Amendment limits the state's ability to second-guess a citizen's choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense.
Many Californians may find solace in the security of a handgun equipped with an LCM: those who live in rural areas where the local sheriff may be miles away, law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas, communities that distrust or depend less on law enforcement, and many more who rely on their firearms to protect themselves and their families. California's almost-blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people's right to self-defense. We affirm the district court's summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310's ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

The Ninth Circuit issues a blockbuster Second Amendment decision

The Ninth Circuit, which is the most far-left and most frequently overruled federal appellate court in America, finally produced a decision that is in line with the Constitution. A three-judge panel held that California’s ban on high-capacity m...

americanthinker.com

The politics of this is that if this ruling stands, it would be hard to ban assault weapons or force an involuntary gun buy back program to take effect, meaning that if elected, Biden, Harris, and the Left will not be able to use Executive Orders to attack our 2nd Amendment rights. A Dem in the WH means the legal fight will not be over. So if you want to keep the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property then you need to think twice about who you're going to vote for in November.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Some say it's more likely to be overturned (so the ban will remain in effect) when it goes to 11 judge panel.

Team Trump has been appointing judges like crazy and we're beginning to see the result.
Another reason it is so critical to get off your ass and vote for Trump in November.
He may not get another SCOTUS pick until next year.
If he picks ONE MORE Establishment man for SCOTUS .....grrrrr

 

[task0778]

Frankly I do not doubt that if the case goes to the full 9th that it would likely restore the ban. Given the decisions of the Roberts court lately, including the decisions whether or not to even hear a case, let alone what the rulings are, it could be that the SCOTUS won't even take the case. They seem to be side-stepping some major issues.

That said, a ban on magazines with more than 10 bullets ought not to be constitutional. Violence is beginning to spread into residential areas, and an ordinary person might need more than 10 bullets to defend himself, his family, and his home or business, as the 9th Court summary suggests.

 

[Pete7469]

Some say it's more likely to be overturned (so the ban will remain in effect) when it goes to 11 judge panel.

Team Trump has been appointing judges like crazy and we're beginning to see the result.
Another reason it is so critical to get off your ass and vote for Trump in November.
He may not get another SCOTUS pick until next year.
If he picks ONE MORE Establishment man for SCOTUS .....grrrrr

Even an establishment republicrat would be better than RBG or Breyer if you ask me. As far as I can see though, Trump has had about enough of the establishment.

I just hope he wins in a crushing manner and drags the GOP along to sweep democrooks out worse than 2010.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A ban on high capacity magazines does nothing to stop mass shootings. It's more feel good nonsense from ignorant politicians.

 

[OKTexas]

The Ninth Circuit is the most far-left and most frequently overruled federal appellate court in America. A three-judge panel held (14 Aug 2020) that California’s ban on high-capacity magazines violated citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. NOTE: Presidents Trump and George W. Bush appointed the two judges who ruled against the ban and in favor of the Constitution. The dissenting judge, a district court judge sitting by assignment, is a Clinton appointee. Which could mean if this case goes to the full court then the result might be different. If it ends up at the SCOTUS, would they even take the case, and if they did what would they do given the current justices on that court. This is a summary of the 9th's ruling:

California's near-categorical ban of LCMs [so-called "large-capacity magazines," which is to say magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds] strikes at the core of the Second Amendment—the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today's post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount.
California's law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of self-defense. Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California. Even law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years—or face up to a year in jail.
The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. But the Second Amendment limits the state's ability to second-guess a citizen's choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense.
Many Californians may find solace in the security of a handgun equipped with an LCM: those who live in rural areas where the local sheriff may be miles away, law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas, communities that distrust or depend less on law enforcement, and many more who rely on their firearms to protect themselves and their families. California's almost-blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people's right to self-defense. We affirm the district court's summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310's ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

The Ninth Circuit issues a blockbuster Second Amendment decision

The Ninth Circuit, which is the most far-left and most frequently overruled federal appellate court in America, finally produced a decision that is in line with the Constitution. A three-judge panel held that California’s ban on high-capacity m...

americanthinker.com

The politics of this is that if this ruling stands, it would be hard to ban assault weapons or force an involuntary gun buy back program to take effect, meaning that if elected, Biden, Harris, and the Left will not be able to use Executive Orders to attack our 2nd Amendment rights. A Dem in the WH means the legal fight will not be over. So if you want to keep the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property then you need to think twice about who you're going to vote for in November.

I see a slightly smaller chance of the case going to an en banc review by the 9th since the 3 judge panel was upholding a lower court ruling.

.

 

[Pete7469]

I see a slightly smaller chance of the case going to an en banc review by the 9th since the 3 judge panel was upholding a lower court ruling.

.

Possibly, I know bed wetters like to shop around till they get the lunatic judges they want.

This is the 9th Circus we're talking about though, so it's likely it will be over turned if they do reverse the ruling.


.

 

[OKTexas]

I see a slightly smaller chance of the case going to an en banc review by the 9th since the 3 judge panel was upholding a lower court ruling.

.

Possibly, I know bed wetters like to shop around till they get the lunatic judges they want.

This is the 9th Circus we're talking about though, so it's likely it will be over turned if they do reverse the ruling.


.

There's no shopping here, it's already at the court of appeals, the only thing CA can do is request and en banc review.

.

 

[whitehall]

Wow, just when democrats are about to nominate the most notorious anti-2nd Amendment pro-confiscation senator, the most liberal Court in the area that she represents spits in her eye with a decision that upholds the 2nd Amendment.