California 3 judge panel upholds injunction against gun magazine ban...wonder of wonders, California

[2aguy]

If you want to read a great opinion on a stupid law, read the opinion that laid the injunction on the stupid California ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...it is a great read for the common sense the judge shows and the smack down he gives the anti gunners.

Now, a 3 judge panel of the infamous 9th circuit upheld the injunction against that stupid magazine ban...

Ninth Circuit Upholds Injunction Against California 'High Capacity' Magazine Ban - The Truth About Guns

In late June, a US District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking a ban on possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition in California. The ban was passed as part of Proposition 63 which also instituted background checks for ammunitionpurchases. The “high capacity” magazine ban would have outlawed untold millions of mags already legally owned by California gun owners.

As Judge Robert Benitez wrote at the time, implementing the law would have resulted in “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.”

Today, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld that injunction in a 2 to 1 decision. Here’s the California Rifle and Pistol Association’sannouncement of the ruling.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against
Newsom’s Standard Capacity Magazine Ban

In another blow to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-gun agenda, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the caseof Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday, upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of Proposition 63’s restriction on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Following the enactment of Proposition 63, CRPA attorneys sought an injunction against the magazine possession ban, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment, as well as the due process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution. Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction just days before the law was set to take effect. California quickly appealed the decision.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I

If you want to read a great opinion on a stupid law, read the opinion that laid the injunction on the stupid California ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...it is a great read for the common sense the judge shows and the smack down he gives the anti gunners.

Now, a 3 judge panel of the infamous 9th circuit upheld the injunction against that stupid magazine ban...

Ninth Circuit Upholds Injunction Against California 'High Capacity' Magazine Ban - The Truth About Guns

In late June, a US District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking a ban on possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition in California. The ban was passed as part of Proposition 63 which also instituted background checks for ammunitionpurchases. The “high capacity” magazine ban would have outlawed untold millions of mags already legally owned by California gun owners.

As Judge Robert Benitez wrote at the time, implementing the law would have resulted in “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.”

Today, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld that injunction in a 2 to 1 decision. Here’s the California Rifle and Pistol Association’sannouncement of the ruling.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against
Newsom’s Standard Capacity Magazine Ban

In another blow to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-gun agenda, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the caseof Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday, upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of Proposition 63’s restriction on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Following the enactment of Proposition 63, CRPA attorneys sought an injunction against the magazine possession ban, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment, as well as the due process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution. Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction just days before the law was set to take effect. California quickly appealed the decision.

They have really screwed up I guess the "Freedom of the Press" has been changed in the State of Progressive Caili. You know the Mag will take it to the High Court and have it reversed. Even the Lord NumNum can understand that.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The majority opinion was written by Judge N.R. Smith, who was nominated to the 9th Circuit in 2005 by President Bush, and confirmed in 2007. Judge Deborarh A. Batts joined the opinion. She was appointed to the Southern District of New York in 1994 by President Clinton, is now on senior status, and was sitting on the panel by designation. The dissent was written by Judge John Clifford Wallace; he was appointed in 1972 by President Nixon, and has been on senior status since 1996.

Rationale: For the majority, this seemed to be an easy case. The district judge had correctly found that prohibiting magazines over 10 rounds implicates the Second Amendment right, as other courts have done. (Indeed, as nearly every court to consider the issue has done.) Ninth Circuit upholds preliminary injunction against magazine confiscation in California
Some Sanity from the 9th???? Oh my.....Stupid Constitution

 

[Harry Dresden]

Caili?....thats a town in India....

 

[2aguy]

This just in......a 3 Judge Panel of the 9th Circuit just struck down the dumb ass, magazine ban in California.....

Finally, some common sense....

This is why I voted for Trump.....the judges are so vitally important to the fight to keep the democrats from wrecking this country...

On Friday, in a decision that exhilarated gun rights supporters and shocked gun control activists, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s ban on ammunition magazines with more than ten bullets.

The 2-1 decision in Duncan v. Becerra upheld the 2017 ruling of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who blocked the law that banned magazines holding more than ten bullets from gun owners, as CBS San Francisco noted.


Appellate Judge Kenneth Lee, writing for the majority, stated:

In the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings, the state of California barred its citizens from owning so-called “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster.

California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs 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 ruling explained, “The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment:

(1) whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; and

(2) if so, what level of scrutiny to apply to the regulation.”


The court then delineated further:

The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct.

First, the panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment.

Second, the panel held that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.

Third, the panel held that LCM prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness.

Fourth, the panel held that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second Amendment protection.

Proceeding to prong two of the inquiry, the panel held that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply.

First, the panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home.

Second, the panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights.

Third, the panel held that decisions in other circuits were distinguishable.

Fourth, the panel held that this circuit’s decision in Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015), did not obligate the panel to apply intermediate scrutiny.

Huge Gun Rights Victory: 9th Circuit Strikes Down CA Law Banning Gun Magazines With Over 10 Bullets

On Friday, in a decision that exhilarated gun rights supporters and shocked gun control activists, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s ban on ammunition magazines with more than ten bullets. The 2-1 decision in Duncan v. Becerra upheld the 2017...

www.dailywire.com

 

[Ame®icano]

In other news, California proposed a 0.4% annual wealth tax.

The tax would be imposed on all current California residents, and would be applied to former residents who already left the state within the past ten years. The rate will be reduced 10% for each year of absence.

Insane.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In other news, California proposed a 0.4% annual wealth tax.

The tax would be imposed on all current California residents, and would be applied to former residents who already left the state within the past ten years. The rate will be reduced 10% for each year of absence.

It should be amusing to watch the criminals who run California try to enforce that against wealthy ex-Californians who are no longer subject in any way to California's jurisdiction.

Most will probably just tell the aforementioned criminals to go f••• themselves. If any respond with a lawsuit, then this policy will surely get stomped by any court that hears the case.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.

www.courthousenews.com