• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

9th Circuit Strikes down Magazine Restrictions - Breaking

rivet_42 said:
I'll be That Guy...this ruling only applies in the Ninth, so it means nothing to us here in the PRMA. Furthermore, I suspect that the intent was to punt this to SCOTUS, where the Roberts court will overturn it and uphold the mag ban. The Roberts court, much to our frustration, has been unwilling to expand gun rights beyond the Court's holdings in Heller and McDonald, and I don't see an exception being made here. I would love to be proven wrong though.
Click to expand...
It takes 4 justices who think the case will go their way to grant cert and 5 to win.
 
drgrant said:
Lol, no, only in the 9th....
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that any conviction is more likely to be reversed.

"It is persuasive precedent for the other circuits and for state courts."

"It is also worth noting that the first circuit to decide an issue is especially persuasive because any subsequent court knows that deciding it otherwise will lead to a circuit split eventually to a SCOTUS review resolving the split, and that circuits are also deferred to more heavily when most cases of a particular case arise in that circuit.
 
Picton said:
Some enterprising Ma**h*** is probably already picking up a UHaul and stocking up on Funyuns and Red Bulls for the cross-country trip. He'll be back with a buttload of ex-CA prebans in about two weeks, having already calculated how much to sell them for on the NES classifieds to recoup his costs.

Only question is, what's his username here?
Click to expand...


it's a partnership. don't know nes screen names, but in life they go by kramer & newman
 
ThePreBanMan said:
They don't want it to go to the Supreme court. They lose there and it's nationwide!!!
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking too. I'm just hoping the AG in CA is so hell bent on reversing it that he does just that and it benefits us all. I'm sure he's been getting calls all day from AGs across the country like Maura asking him to just leave it alone.
 
Let the gun grabbers weeping and gnashing of teeth begin.

This is the same leftist front group that had money, demonstration plans, and literally a Hollywood producer in place and standing by when the Douglas high school murders occurred.

Baseless made up statistics...




P.S.> I know it can still go to the full 9th circuit but if they don’t let the facts get in the way of rhetoric why should I? ;)

🐯
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Incorrect. You missed a step. This was a decision from a 3 judge panel (which means the enemy has only one pre-SCOTUS opportunity left) EnBanc in the 9th court is something like 11 or 29 judges. This means one of 34,597,290 panels [ C(29,11) ] will hear the case if an en-banc appeal is granted, which is highly likely since the court will consider it an "important issue" (translation: a bunch of judges want a different decision). I give this at best a 50% chance of surviving EnBanc if granted and a 80% chance of EnBanc being granted.

Single federal district court judge -> 3 judge disctrict court appeal -> En Banc federal district count appeal (cert not always granted) -> SCOTUS

It is very common for 3 judge or en banc appeals to over-rule pro gun rights decision in federal court. For other cases, it's a longshot.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
They don't want it to go to the Supreme court. They lose there and it's nationwide!!!
Click to expand...

Here's another possibility. California requests en banc review. The full court reviews and reverses the decision. Mag ban stays in place. CA pistol and rifle association punts to scotus. Our weak kneed scotus punts again and mag ban stands. We need one more pick for the court because Roberts is compromised in my opinion.
 
NewGuyRay said:
Sounds strange to say but, thanks to Trump, overturning such a decision en banc is no longer a slam dunk in the 9th Circuit. For SCOTUS to get this case, the liberal justices would have to be 100% certain of Roberts siding with them. Anything less than that risks striking down LCM bans nationwide.

If the liberal justices can be that certain of Robert's support then LCM bans are pretty small potatoes in our bag of 2A worries.
Click to expand...

I don't think whatever pictures or videos they have of the guy are going anywhere .
I think they can be certain of his "Cooperation"
 
Picton said:
Some enterprising Ma**h*** is probably already picking up a UHaul and stocking up on Funyuns and Red Bulls for the cross-country trip. He'll be back with a buttload of ex-CA prebans in about two weeks, having already calculated how much to sell them for on the NES classifieds to recoup his costs.
Click to expand...
One can only hope.


Inside Out said:
The number of high-powered law firms lined up on the gun-grabbers’ side (and likely working for free) was notable.
Our side did not have the same firepower, but still came out on top.
Click to expand...
You gotta ask yourself "Why is this?" and "What can we do to even this out? What are we doing wrong?"


new guy said:
Tomorrow will be one of those days where I head over to the other side’s sites and comments sections and roll around in their misery.
Click to expand...
Make sure to post some screen captures. Oh, and give us a few sites for those of us who don't follow such things.
 
The article posted by the OP didn't link to the correct decision. Its here. California could still seek a stay pending en banc review or SCOTUS petition. There will be a lot of pressure on the state to take the hit and move on so that SCOTUS will NOT have the opportunity to give us a nation wide win. If that's the case, the way to get this to SCOTUS is to lose a similar case in another circuit, creating a circuit split and then petitioning SCOTUS for review.

Until CA makes a move, it's [popcorn]
 

Attachments

  • Duncan.pdf
    325.8 KB · Views: 5
Rob Boudrie said:
Single federal district court judge -> 3 judge disctrict court appeal -> En Banc federal district count appeal (cert not always granted) -> SCOTUS
Click to expand...

Pls correct me if I am not understanding it:

As of today, in CA, you can now purchase/legally own them. (not sure if you had something with a date prior to today, but if you had something stamped today it should be ok, I am not clear on date of manufacture vs. date of purchase)

If at a later date the En Banc overturns this ruling, shouldn't there be an exception window for anyone who purchased between yesterday and the date of the new ruling? If not, unless people turned them in you have lots of felons, if so, there should be a run on them starting now.
 
boatman said:
If at a later date the En Banc overturns this ruling, shouldn't there be an exception window for anyone who purchased between yesterday and the date of the new ruling? If not, unless people turned them in you have lots of felons, if so, there should be a run on them starting now.
Click to expand...
There was the last time this happened in CA.

Unlike MA, CA is aggressive about prosecuting magazine violations, and does not simply react to observing one with "no way to tell, nothing to do here". People have been arrested and prosecuted on stand-alone mag violations in CA, and the grandfathering standard is "must have been personally possessed in CA prior to the ban", Not "must be of pre-ban manufacture".
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
The article posted by the OP didn't link to the correct decision. Its here.
Click to expand...

duncan.pdf said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

Where did this idea that "unusual arms" are not considered "arms" in the context of the second amendment?

Is this just "la la la gangbangers shouldn't have nuclear weapons!!!1!!!ELEVEN!!111" nonsense?
 
milktree said:
Where did this idea that "unusual arms" are not considered "arms" in the context of the second amendment?

Is this just "la la la gangbangers shouldn't have nuclear weapons!!!1!!!ELEVEN!!111" nonsense?
Click to expand...
It all ties back to United States vs Miller where the Supreme Court said that a short barreled double barreled shotgun isn’t protected by 2A because it was not appropriate for use in an organized militia. This has lead to the whole “unusual arms” gun grabbers argument. Doesn’t seem to occur to them that, under that interpretation, since the current common military small arm is an M4, we should all be able to have fully automatic AR15 clones since that’s what we’d use in an “organized militia”.
 

Similar threads

3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
142
oldguy68
oldguy68
Breaking: Police Arrest Trans Student For Planning Multi-School Shooting
Replies
19
Views
539
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
North Andover SWAT Standoff - Tango Down
Replies
0
Views
151
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
BREAKING NEWS: Scores Killed, Hundreds Injured as Extremists Riot in Boston Area
Replies
16
Views
932
Bfatz
Bfatz
Biden Nominee to 7th Circuit Supported Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ But Cannot Define Them
Replies
23
Views
470
HARRYM
H
Back
Top Bottom