9th Circuit Strikes down Magazine Restrictions - Breaking

Stayed but doesn’t matter. Joe is Marty mcfly and Nancy is doc brown at end of back to the future. Roads? (rules), Where we’re going we don’t need roads.
 
It is comical on a number of levels when the Attorney General of CA says you can’t have more than a 10 round magazine, but instead suggests if you run out of shots with one gun drop it, pick up another, and continue shooting. [laugh]

Duncan v. Bonta

Issue:
Magazine ban

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Action: Supplemental Reply Brief for the Attorney General

California's final supplemental brief in the lawsuit challenging the state's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds was filed today. The state reiterated its arguments that the ban is constitutional, saying that "California generally allows law-abiding adults to possess and defend themselves and their homes with as many approved firearms, as much ammunition, and as many authorized magazines as they want," and that "in those rare instances in which persons need additional rounds for self-defense, they may reload with a fresh magazine or continue firing using another firearm." The appellees, who are challenging the ban, are also expected to file a brief today, although it has not been filed yet.



🐯
 
I'm sure these two will have a beer summit with Warren to figure out some games to stop any thing represnting the law of the land.

greenhouse_28CapitalBasketball-3_metro.r.jpg
Only one of these people in the photo has a set of balls..
 
When are they supposed to rule on this?

the en banc hearing is later this month; I believe June 21 or 22. When they decide is anyone’s guess. The chief judge of the 9th is Sidney Thomas, very anti gun Clinton appointee who was on Obama’s SCOTUS list and has been a major force behind all the 9th en banc reversals of pro 2A 3 judge panels. Thomas was on the losing side in the 2-1 Peruta decision to strike down CAs may issue carry law but engineered an en banc which reversed it. I’m not sure how much power the chief has to slow walk a decision if he knoepws it’s going to be pro 2A
We’ll likely know the direction of the decision based on the judges picked for the en banc. 11 judges sit of the 29 on the 9th. Chief judge is always part of an en banc so we need 6 of the remaining 10 judges drawn at random to be pro 2A

there is a similar magazine case from the 3rd circuit being appealed to SCOTUS right now. If SCOTUS decides to hear that, it’s likely the 9th would delay their decision until SCOTUS rules
 
Last edited:
All I want is to one day have a pile of devalued pre bans.
And, be free!

Sadly that day will never come for Massachusetts and pre bans will continue to be worth a fortune!

SCOTUS is going to need to hear magazines cases at some point. We’ll get normal mags with SCOTUS.

btw, the best source for information on 9th circuit 2A cases is here. They’re the law firm who files most of the cases.

 
If Dominion provides the random selection machine, we're definitely screwed.

There no funny business in the selection, it’s random and not fixed. The court is 16-13 dem vs GOP appointees to there’s a decent chance it’s a 6-5 pro 2A majority
 
It is comical on a number of levels when the Attorney General of CA says you can’t have more than a 10 round magazine, but instead suggests if you run out of shots with one gun drop it, pick up another, and continue shooting. [laugh]





🐯
 
The 9th circus actually upheld The Constitution, specifically 2a? We really ARE living in strange times. Now, if RBG could retire and Schumer didn't block a Trump nominee...
Elections have consequences. Trump had been packing the 9th for a couple years before some people on here so courageously voted to oust him because he called things the way he saw them.
 
It is comical on a number of levels when the Attorney General of CA says you can’t have more than a 10 round magazine, but instead suggests if you run out of shots with one gun drop it, pick up another, and continue shooting. [laugh]





🐯
I love how this defense doesn't add up in California as the firearms are required to be locked up. Maybe they think the perp will hold up when the victim starts yelling "Time out! I can't find my key!"
 
... edited for brevity ...

Our problem isn't Pelosi and Schumer and Biden. It's gun owners who fail to stand up for each other.

... edited for brevity ...

I agree with you, except it’s not JUST gun owners failing to stand up for each other. It’s also a problem that Pelosi and Schumer and Biden and wayyyy too many other people in power are straight up tyrannical scumbags.
 
Do you think we might be able to get all the PSA whinging posts moved to a separate thread and leave this one to updates on the federal magazine case?
Done, cuck vendor thread is here:

 
Last edited:
They cited the Caetano v. Mass case in the decision. Those California motherf***ers better send us a thank you note. And by us I mean Comm2A.
As awesome a result as Caetano was, it was not a Comm2A case. Comm2A filed amicus briefs with the SJC and again during the cert stage with SCOTUS. We'd like to think that we helped. I know the effort was appreciated. However the greater share of credit goes to Caetano's incredibility committed public defender. Think about that when people bitch about tax payer money going to defend accused criminals.

I should also give the SJC a good portion of the credit. After all, it was their hubris that got them spanked down with a per curium opinion.
 
SCOTUS is going to need to hear magazines cases at some point. We’ll get normal mags with SCOTUS.

btw, the best source for information on 9th circuit 2A cases is here. They’re the law firm who files most of the cases.

I don't expect SCOTUS to take up a magazine or AWB case anytime soon. They'll give us a (probably small) victory in the current NYSRPA grant, but I think they'll be happy to see the lower courts trash other issues around for a few more years.
 
Tomorrow, tomorrow, the sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar... yeah, no, I'm not gonna bet!


View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1406983607768555528?s=20



🐯


Link to stream tomorrow 12:30 East coast.

Our attorneys have already successfully argued this case before a three-judge panel that struck the ban last summer. Then California requested and was granted a re-hearing before an en-banc panel of the Ninth Circuit. This action vacated the previous decision. This is not surprising as it is the fifth time that the Ninth Circuit has granted en banc review in a Second Amendment case, all of which were either brought by or supported by the NRA. The hearing will take place on Tuesday and can be streamed on the Ninth Circuit’s website, at 9:30 am Pacific Time
 
Last edited:
Link to stream tomorrow 12:30 East coast.

Our attorneys have already successfully argued this case before a three-judge panel that struck the ban last summer. Then California requested and was granted a re-hearing before an en-banc panel of the Ninth Circuit. This action vacated the previous decision. This is not surprising as it is the fifth time that the Ninth Circuit has granted en banc review in a Second Amendment case, all of which were either brought by or supported by the NRA. The hearing will take place on Tuesday and can be streamed on the Ninth Circuit’s website, at 9:30 am Pacific Time
If you dont mind, educate me a little ...

Why do an en banc hearing?
Is that good for our cause or something that can benefit the State?
 
Last edited:
If you dont mind, educate me a little ...

Why do an en banc hearing?
Is that good for our cause or something that can benefit the State?
we don't really get a choice, it's part of the appeals process. we won, so the state is appealing because they find it unappealing to let us little people have standard cap mags. It's almost a formality, since whatever the outcome one side will appeal to SCOTUS.
 
If you dont mind, educate me a little ...

Why do an en banc hearing?
Is that good for our cause or something that can benefit the State?
Rule 35 of FRAP:

An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:

(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

It's not "good for our cause." Quite the opposite, for at least two reasons:
  • While the appeal is underway, the ruling is stayed and the magazine ban is still in effect.
  • The en banc panel can, and my guess likely will, reverse the 3-judge panel and uphold the magazine ban. This in turn means that there's no conflict between the circuits, and the Supreme Court can more easily duck making a final ruling.
 
Last edited:
Rule 35 of FRCP:

An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:

(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

It's not "good for our cause." Quite the opposite, for at least two reasons:
  • While the appeal is underway, the ruling is stayed and the magazine ban is still in effect.
  • The en banc panel can, and my guess likely will, reverse the 3-judge panel and uphold the magazine ban. This in turn means that there's no conflict between the circuits, and the Supreme Court can more easily duck making a final ruling.
Thank you.
 
I think there are 29 positions on the 9th circuit but there might be some vacancies. I assume the 11 members on the upcoming en banc panel would be assigned (drawn?) randomly. So could anyone on the first three-member panel that struck down the ban also be on this panel?
 
I think there are 29 positions on the 9th circuit but there might be some vacancies. I assume the 11 members on the upcoming en banc panel would be assigned (drawn?) randomly. So could anyone on the first three-member panel that struck down the ban also be on this panel?
7 of the 11 are Clinton or Obama appointees. If a miracle happens and they vote to overturn the mag ban, you can bet that Bloomers will pay Nukesome a few million not to appeal. They don't want a case going to SCOTUS.
 
I think there are 29 positions on the 9th circuit but there might be some vacancies. I assume the 11 members on the upcoming en banc panel would be assigned (drawn?) randomly. So could anyone on the first three-member panel that struck down the ban also be on this panel?
The members of the en banc panel are THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GRABER, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, MURGUIA, WATFORD, HURWITZ, R. NELSON, BUMATAY, and VANDYKE. None were on the 3-judge panel (Callahan, Lee, and Lynn).
 
Back
Top Bottom