9th Circuit Strikes down Magazine Restrictions - Breaking

Thomas' decent on this one was retarded. End of story
Yep. Many/most/all of the justices do this one way or another. Gross over intellectualism regarding fairly straightforward questions.

Bonus points for vauge/shit post decision guidance.

They know they do this. They don't care.
 
He’s not but you didn’t read the decision or his dissent, did you? I read all 42 pages and he dissented for two reasons.

The first, because the majority departed from historical precedent and he doesn’t think they gave a reason for doing so, and would have stuck with the past precedent. For this reason, he’s totally right about the majority not addressing past precedent, but I totally disagree with his belief they should have just stuck with it.

The second reason was basically a devils advocate argument, and he makes a great point. The majority opinion doesn’t do what you probably think it does. I’ll just quote Thomas here.

“In effect, it states just one rule: Schools can regulate speech less often when that speech occurs off campus. It then identifies this case as an “example” and “leav[es] for future cases” the job of developing this new common-law doctrine. But the Court’s foundation is untethered from anything stable, and courts (and schools) will almost certainly be at a loss as to what exactly the Court’s opinion today means.”

In other words, it sounds like he’s dissenting only because they didn’t weld the hatch shut on this garbage.
 
Doesn't mean anything for us in MA though. Cop stops you while you're carrying a G17 with a PrEbAN SqUaRE-NoTcH 17 rounder, you could very likely still be cuffed and booked for having a 'high cap'. Will take a good chunk of lawyer fees and time wasted down the drain to get yourself exonerated.
How many times has that actually happened?

I’m pretty sick of the chicken litteling in this state. Yeah, the state hates us. Yes the laws are intentionally vague. Yes the state likes to exert authority on us. But it seem like 75% of the time we (as a community) just make up situations and say it is very likely to happen, based on nothing relevant.
 
the links I provided earlier, the video is there. You can watch it whenever you want.
Thanks, I finally watched it last night. I was highly impressed with Erin Murphy on the last hearing so I was expecting her to slam dunk this again. My opinion which is worth way less than $.02; was that at least 8 of the judges seemed to already have formed their opinions ahead of time. The judges on the first hearing seemed to have probed both sides to formulate an opinion and Erin was so good that they had to rule in her favor. In this hearing the questions seemed to be a, I already have my opinion so help me justify my vote. The states biggest argument was that the plaintiff did nor or better yet could not produce any person who actually needed more than 10 rounds to defend themselves (probably because they were dead) while conversely the state could show instances where a reload did save lives. Erin did a good job saying that 2A does not need to show how many rounds may be needed because it is a right. I just do not think the liberal judges will sway.
 
How many times has that actually happened?

I’m pretty sick of the chicken litteling in this state. Yeah, the state hates us. Yes the laws are intentionally vague. Yes the state likes to exert authority on us. But it seem like 75% of the time we (as a community) just make up situations and say it is very likely to happen, based on nothing relevant.
image.jpg


I feel like all I can do lately on here is alternately shitpost or tell folks the sky isn't falling.

There are plenty of reasons to be upset about our laws and the state of their enforcement, we don't need to manufacture new ones. Let's know the actual laws and talk about what they really are. We can worry about the cops we love/hate so much stomping our rights after they've done it.
 
Thomas' decent on this one was retarded. End of story

The majority opinion did little if anything to prevent censorship and as Thomas pointed out, may have actually opened the door to even more censorship.

I think some people are getting the wrong idea about what they ruled. They didn’t rule that schools cannot punish students for out of school speech. In fact, while the 3rd circuit and the concurrence made it clear that online speech was not on campus speech, and thus could not be restricted (with three narrow exemptions), they instead rejected that, and left it completely open to whether online speech could fall under the purview of speech they can restrict.

If the concurring opinion was the majority, or if they had just left the original 3rd circuit ruling stand, that would have been good. They instead did not.

Again, this is not the 1A rights win people think it is.
 
How many times has that actually happened?

I’m pretty sick of the chicken litteling in this state. Yeah, the state hates us. Yes the laws are intentionally vague. Yes the state likes to exert authority on us. But it seem like 75% of the time we (as a community) just make up situations and say it is very likely to happen, based on nothing relevant.

The overdone fearmongering about AWB bullshit in this state is straight up retarded. While everyone is jerking off over the cut in a stupid glock magazine, some poor bastard is actually getting busted for "unsafe storage" or some other actually-plausible thing. If someone faces an AWB violation, trust me, based on the shit that I've seen you're not going to really be caring too much if that device was actually illegal or not, because they will literally have a dump truck full of other charges on you, too. That shit doesn't come mono.

Getting infatuated with the AWB in mass is mental masturbation. There is no "but Yannow, yoo guize, if he would have gotten off the hook, if he hadn't have had that one suspect magazine!!!!" That "story" basically never happens. It's like being afraid of Covid when there are tankers full of AIDS, Ebola, and a Norovirus frosting in the back compartment all randomly missing most of us every day, in comparison.
 
The majority opinion did little if anything to prevent censorship and as Thomas pointed out, may have actually opened the door to even more censorship.

I think some people are getting the wrong idea about what they ruled. They didn’t rule that schools cannot punish students for out of school speech. In fact, while the 3rd circuit and the concurrence made it clear that online speech was not on campus speech, and thus could not be restricted (with three narrow exemptions), they instead rejected that, and left it completely open to whether online speech could fall under the purview of speech they can restrict.

If the concurring opinion was the majority, or if they had just left the original 3rd circuit ruling stand, that would have been good. They instead did not.

Again, this is not the 1A rights win people think it is.

I definitely would have preferred they were as clear and expansive as the appeals court was. I think SCOTUS is a lot more cautious on technology; social media type issues because its changing so quickly. It was a narrow win, we’ll see how much respect lower courts give it. Blue nanny states and schools will definitely continue to try to control the entire lives of their students.
 
I feel like all I can do lately on here is alternately shitpost or tell folks the sky isn't falling.

There are plenty of reasons to be upset about our laws and the state of their enforcement, we don't need to manufacture new ones. Let's know the actual laws and talk about what they really are. We can worry about the cops we love/hate so much stomping our rights after they've done it.

I've been on this forum since 2005 and if I got worked up about every "potential" screwing were going to get I'd be dead of a heart attack or ulcer by now. Nowadays I only get worked up when the wheels are in motion and the screwing looks inevitable. So far I haven't had to get worked up all that much.
 
I've been on this forum since 2005 and if I got worked up about every "potential" screwing were going to get I'd be dead of a heart attack or ulcer by now. Nowadays I only get worked up when the wheels are in motion and the screwing looks inevitable. So far I haven't had to get worked up all that much.
Xiden/Commieala still has 18 months before the 2022 legislature is sworn in, plenty of time for a heart attack!!
 
Looks like bad news
Nov 30 (Reuters) - A divided U.S. appeals court on Tuesday reinstated California's ban on high-capacity magazines, calling it a reasonable means to try reducing gun violence following a spate of mass shootings nationwide.

By a 7-4 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by firearms owners that banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition violated their right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

 
Looks like bad news
Nov 30 (Reuters) - A divided U.S. appeals court on Tuesday reinstated California's ban on high-capacity magazines, calling it a reasonable means to try reducing gun violence following a spate of mass shootings nationwide.

By a 7-4 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by firearms owners that banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition violated their right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.


We knew they’d reverse it the day the en banc panel judges were announced. It was a bad drawing, bad luck. The panel was 7 judges appointed by Clinton and Obama, 4 by bush and trump.

Every dem judge voted for mag bans, all 4 GOP against.

The NY state pistol and rifle case in the Supreme Court now is important. The 9th in this Duncan case and every other gun case uses a BS intermediate scrutiny approach. SCOTUS needs to direct these asses at the appeals courts levels that 2nd amendment should be text history not the BS tiers of scrutiny
 
Scrutiny levels are just ways for activist judged to circumvent law and substitute their feelings. Change my mind.

Absolutely. Trump appointee Van Dyke said exactly that in his dissent and one of the liberal judges replied and was pissed at Van Dyke calling out them as partisan hacks
 
NJ passed a very similar ban a few years ago and a divided 3rd circuit court of appeals upheld it for similar BS reasons. The NJ gun powder group petitioned the Supreme Court in the spring of 2012. It has been pending there since and is likely being held until they decide the NY state rifle and pistol vs bruen carry case they heard in November 2021


The 3rd circuit used intermediate scrutiny as did the 9th. It’s very very likely SCOTUS strikes down the NY carry scheme but what they dictate for how courts must look at 2nd amendment cases ie text history and tradition.

If they rule that way in the NY state case, I doubt they take up a magazine case, they’d probably kick the cases back to the 3rd circuit and 9th and Ethel them to correct their error based on the text history and tradition standard. Gun owners in Ma, MD etc would need to file cases for those laws to be struck.
 
The only standard by which any Civil Right should be judged is Strict Scrutiny. Anything less makes it a second class right, subject to the whims of government agents.

NJ passed a very similar ban a few years ago and a divided 3rd circuit court of appeals upheld it for similar BS reasons. The NJ gun powder group petitioned the Supreme Court in the spring of 2012. It has been pending there since and is likely being held until they decide the NY state rifle and pistol vs bruen carry case they heard in November 2021


The 3rd circuit used intermediate scrutiny as did the 9th. It’s very very likely SCOTUS strikes down the NY carry scheme but what they dictate for how courts must look at 2nd amendment cases ie text history and tradition.

If they rule that way in the NY state case, I doubt they take up a magazine case, they’d probably kick the cases back to the 3rd circuit and 9th and Ethel them to correct their error based on the text history and tradition standard. Gun owners in Ma, MD etc would need to file cases for those laws to be struck.
 
Chief Justice Roberts once said that Justices are not beholding to the desires of their party:

“When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in those terms. That’s not how we at the court function and the results in our cases do not suggest otherwise,” said Roberts before hundreds in attendance at the Temple Emanu-El Streicker Center in Manhattan.

Consider the the 9th Circuit's rubber stamping was 7/4 split strictly along the lines of the party that appointed the judge. The chances of this happening if judges were making truly independent decisions based on law rather than personal desires for an outcome matching that of the political party that got their jobs is C(11,7) or 1 in 330 - less than a third of a percent.
 
Chief Justice Roberts once said that Justices are not beholding to the desires of their party:



Consider the the 9th Circuit's rubber stamping was 7/4 split strictly along the lines of the party that appointed the judge. The chances of this happening if judges were making truly independent decisions based on law rather than personal desires for an outcome matching that of the political party that got their jobs is C(11,7) or 1 in 330 - less than a third of a percent.

In 2017 or 2018 Roberts said their is no such thing as an Obama judge or a trump judge…..

That’s BS. There is literally zero chance Roberts, Thomas, Barrett, Alito, Gorsuch or kavanaugh would have ever been selected for SCOTUS by a democrat POTUS. They were picked by the GOP POTUS”s because they view the Constitution a particular way, ditto with the lib justices.


Wonder why the liberal groups went to the Northern California federal district court to seek nationwide injunctions against trump actions?


There are 14 judges on the NoCal federal court and during trumps term 13 were appointed by Obama or Clinton, 1 by Bush. They knew exactly what they’d get for a judge, a liberal who hated trump. They an appeal would go to the 9th circuit which was 21-8 dem vs GOP appointed during grumps term.

Conservatives are going to Texas courts for biden actions and appeals go to the very conservative 5th circuit court of appeals where GOP judges dominate.

(I think liberal judges view legal issues differently, I don’t think their corrupt hacks though. The liberals on the 9th and 1st circuit are absolutely corrupt liberal hacks though. They don’t view constitutional issues differently, they are activists with an agenda. Sotomayor on SCOTUS is like that, she’s as biased as they get and FAR more over the top partisan than Kagan or Breyer)
 
Last edited:
"As this case and others like it demonstrate, we cannot rely on insular federal judges to weigh which weapons are appropriate for self-defense—they honestly don’t have a clue, and their intuitions about firearms are not good."

Van Dykes decent is fantastic.
 
Last edited:
"As this case and others like it demonstrate, we cannot rely on insular federal judges to weigh which weapons are appropriate for self-defense—they honestly don’t have a clue, and their intuitions about firearms are not good."

Van Dykes descent is fantastic.

He like quite a few judges trump picked are not interested in being mushy whimps, they’re blunt and speak their minds. Judge James Ho on the 5th circuit is very blunt too, a great judge.
 
Here's my favorite take on the ruling: the dissents were written by the two newest judges on the 9th, both appointed by Trump. Bumatay is an openly gay Asian-American, and VanDyke was condemned as some anti-gay radical.

But they agree, and were joined by other judges as well.
 
In 2017 or 2018 Roberts said their is no such thing as an Obama judge or a trump judge…..

That’s BS. There is literally zero chance Roberts, Thomas, Barrett, Alito, Gorsuch or kavanaugh would have ever been selected for SCOTUS by a democrat POTUS. They were picked by the GOP POTUS”s because they view the Constitution a particular way, ditto with the lib justices.


Wonder why the liberal groups went to the Northern California federal district court to seek nationwide injunctions against trump actions?


There are 14 judges on the NoCal federal court and during trumps term 13 were appointed by Obama or Clinton, 1 by Bush. They knew exactly what they’d get for a judge, a liberal who hated trump. They an appeal would go to the 9th circuit which was 21-8 dem vs GOP appointed during grumps term.

Conservatives are going to Texas courts for biden actions and appeals go to the very conservative 5th circuit court of appeals where GOP judges dominate.

(I think liberal judges view legal issues differently, I don’t think their corrupt hacks though. The liberals on the 9th and 1st circuit are absolutely corrupt liberal hacks though. They don’t view constitutional issues differently, they are activists with an agenda. Sotomayor on SCOTUS is like that, she’s as biased as they get and FAR more over the top partisan than Kagan or Breyer)
These judges should have no side, other than the US Constitution. Just follow that.
 
Back
Top Bottom