• 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.

California's "High Capacity" Magazine Ban Overturned!

Could the 9th skipping straight to En Banc mean that when the appeal is filed that SCOTUS could kick the can back to the 9th and have them do the panel, then En Banc again? Like what the guys at Big Bear are speculating with the RI case where the 1st Circuit is possibly looking at sending the case back down to District level due to lack of Bruen standards being applied, all the higher courts seem to want to do is delay delay delay 2A cases.
 
40 Creedmoor fan said:
It could also be the fact that the en banc panel messed up the last time when SCOTUS spanked them. A judge who's been spanked by the highest court has no chance for career advancement.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you think that.

First, these judges are already appellate court judges in the federal system. The only place they could move up to is SCOTUS. And I think Biden would gladly nominate one of them.
 
There are 29 judges on the 9th circuit, but only 11 are chosen for an en-banc panel. The case will be won or lost when the panel is determined, with the proceedings being a mere formality. We will know the probably outcome once the panel is selected.

C(29,11) = 29!/(11!*(29-11)!) = 34,597,290 possible en banc panels

This number may be smaller in practice if geographic location influences the panel assignment.
 
T-Unit said:
all the higher courts seem to want to do is delay delay delay 2A cases.
Click to expand...
They want the makeup of the Supreme Court to change, so they can be done with this favorable 2A stuff.


M1911 said:
I don't understand why you think that.
First, these judges are already appellate court judges in the federal system. The only place they could move up to is SCOTUS. And I think Biden would gladly nominate one of them.
Click to expand...
See above. Yikes!
 
T-Unit said:
Could the 9th skipping straight to En Banc mean that when the appeal is filed that SCOTUS could kick the can back to the 9th and have them do the panel, then En Banc again?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court can reverse and remand, but the 9th circuit could apply the same rule again to hear it en banc. If the remand includes the need for a finding of fact, it could bounce all the way down to the district level again.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
There are 29 judges on the 9th circuit, but only 11 are chosen for an en-banc panel. The case will be won or lost when the panel is determined, with the proceedings being a mere formality. We will know the probably outcome once the panel is selected.

C(29,11) = 29!/(11!*(29-11)!) = 34,597,290 possible en banc panels

This number may be smaller in practice if geographic location influences the panel assignment.
Click to expand...
I wish I had sat next to you in 8th grade math class...
 
pdm said:
They're doing shenanigans against their own court rules to bypass the normal procedure. It's showing their bias against 2A cases.
Click to expand...

Taking it up en banc is within their rules and should have been the natural result of the GVR.
They kicked it back to the district for the express purpose of delaying the inevitable outcome.
I am surprised they didn't allow it to flow through the 3 judge panel to delay further.
This was destined for SCOTUS from the beginning and since the 9th sees itself as a peer to SCOTUS, they will never back down at the request of other anti2a circuits.
 
pastera said:
Taking it up en banc is within their rules and should have been the natural result of the GVR.
They kicked it back to the district for the express purpose of delaying the inevitable outcome.
I am surprised they didn't allow it to flow through the 3 judge panel to delay further.
This was destined for SCOTUS from the beginning and since the 9th sees itself as a peer to SCOTUS, they will never back down at the request of other anti2a circuits.
Click to expand...

They probably knew that given more time to look at it, the 3 judge panel would further evidence the decision to overturn the mag ban and that would only make it harder to contest later.
The only final resolve to this one will be SCOTUS neither party is going to withdraw at any point, like the NY case in 2021 (?) where the State withdrew in order to avoid ther situation that materialized in Bruen. Didn't work then and probably won't work now.
 
rep308 said:
Can someone give a "for dummies" update so I don't have to sort through hours of cringy YouTube vids
Click to expand...

On remand, Judge Benitez struck down CA’s magazine ban. Again. The CA Attorney General is appealing, again, and moved for an emergency stay of the ruling. Rather than assigning the motion to a 3 judge panel, as is typically done, the 9th circuit invoked a rule allowing it to be assigned directly to an en banc panel of 11 judges resided over by the chief judge on the 9th circuit. That panel granted the emergency stay and presumably will hear and rule on the appeal.
 
pastera said:
Taking it up en banc is within their rules and should have been the natural result of the GVR.
They kicked it back to the district for the express purpose of delaying the inevitable outcome.
I am surprised they didn't allow it to flow through the 3 judge panel to delay further.
Click to expand...
This is the part our side needs to be leery of and try to avoid or move through ASAP, to avoid the changing SCOTUS.


pastera said:
This was destined for SCOTUS from the beginning and since the 9th sees itself as a peer to SCOTUS, they will never back down at the request of other anti2a circuits.
Click to expand...
What? Wow. Kind of makes sense when you look at it, but SCOTUS is probably the only ones who could correct that, right?


AMV said:
The simplest explanation is.... the AWB and mag ban is going away, but it will probably take another year or two.
Click to expand...
How much time is there before SCOTUS could be changed?
 
Oh yeah, forgot about changing the makeup of SCOTUS withOUT changing the numbers. What I meant above was to change the size of SCOTUS, but your point is equally important.
 
Coyote33 said:
Oh yeah, forgot about changing the makeup of SCOTUS withOUT changing the numbers. What I meant above was to change the size of SCOTUS, but your point is equally important.
Click to expand...
To stack the court, it would need support from the house and senate, they don't have the votes currently, so to answer that question, if we lost significant numbers in either that would be the writting on the wall for an attempt to change the makeup and numbers of the SCOTUS
 
AMV said:
To stack the court, it would need support from the house and senate, they don't have the votes currently, so to answer that question, if we lost significant numbers in either that would be the writting on the wall for an attempt to change the makeup and numbers of the SCOTUS
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Coyote33 said:
Oh yeah, forgot about changing the makeup of SCOTUS withOUT changing the numbers. What I meant above was to change the size of SCOTUS, but your point is equally important.
Click to expand...
The last time the size of SCOTUS changed was 1869.

The size of SCOTUS is not going to change.
 
Coyote33 said:
Oh yeah, forgot about changing the makeup of SCOTUS withOUT changing the numbers. What I meant above was to change the size of SCOTUS, but your point is equally important.
Click to expand...

Oh, got it. Yeah, like everyone else says, that ain't happening. There's no will to do it other than from the lunatic fringe.
 
Coyote33 said:
This is the part our side needs to be leery of and try to avoid or move through ASAP, to avoid the changing SCOTUS.

What? Wow. Kind of makes sense when you look at it, but SCOTUS is probably the only ones who could correct that, right?

How much time is there before SCOTUS could be changed?
Click to expand...


Yes, SCOTUS is really the only one that could sanction the inferior courts but I really don't believe they ever will. Unless one of them commits a crime they serve for life. They do what they do because they can without fear - and that is by design that we do not want changed.

When can SCOTUS change - As soon as one of them reaches room temperature.
 
T-Unit said:
I think it's about covering their ass. If a pistol permit holder shot someone and it went to trial the PD that issued would be under a microscope and no chief wants that.
Click to expand...

I call shenanigans.

Has this ever happened, to any chief, ever?

It’s a control thing not a public safety thing.
 
Reptile said:

California's 9th Circuit Strikes Again: Liberal Majority Upholds California's Ban On High-Capacity Magazines​

California's 9th Circuit Strikes Again: Liberal Majority Upholds California's Ban On High-Capacity Magazines | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
Click to expand...

Their headline is inaccurate. The 9th stayed the district court ruling while CA appeals to them. No suprise and no law has been “upheld” yet; although it likely will be and some folks at SCOTUS will be pissed when it comes back to them.

🐯
 
Going back a bit here, and the Judges point in the decision to refute the low round capacity argument that only 2.5 rounds are fired in the average gun fight. He pointed out that in Colonial times each gun owner was required to have a minimum of 20 rounds of ammo.

I have been reading up on the troubles in the Middle East, in particular the husband and wife who hid their infant twins and tried to defend their home with their legally owned weapons.

The problem was Israel LIMITS a private gun owner to 50 rounds of ammo, so as a Husband and wife they MAY have had up to 100 rounds of ammo.

BTW Israel just fast tracked their licensing process and raised the limit to 100 rounds.

If you are in a fight for your life against terrorists trying to get into your home, 100 rounds isn't going to cut it IMHO.

IMHO this is why you need a thousand rounds of any defensive caliber that is in your SHTF plan.

If you have other guns that are not your defense guns, and you only have a couple of boxes for each gun/caliber, fine

But if your SHTF plan is a AR rifle and a pistol of some type ( and here is where I fear for you in MA) you should have 10 magazines loaded for the rifle ( 20 or 30 round PMags) and for your pistol ( Glock 17 for example) you should have 10 magazines loaded and ready to go at a minimum, for a total of 1000 rounds of ammo for each, if not more.

There have been times when I have thought "why do we have so much ammo, what a waste of money" , but after the events of last weekend I think everyone should look at what they have on hand for ammo and mags for their primary weapons

I am not some crazy with a tin foil hat, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but in light of recent events, even though they happened on the other side of the world, has me thinking that it would not take much for the same thing to happen here sometime in my lifetime.
 

Similar threads

Washington state high-capacity magazine ban remains on books for now
Replies
1
Views
114
pastera
pastera
Georgia officer who fatally shot unarmed, naked man has convictions overturned
Replies
1
Views
139
71montess
71montess
Report: Americans Own over 700 Million Ammo Mags with Greater Than 10-Round Capacity
Replies
23
Views
548
1sern
1
Import ban extended to ♾️
Replies
17
Views
751
Animal357
A
Hanover High teacher accused of threatening to bring gun to school
2
Replies
32
Views
614
Devils Paintbrush
Devils Paintbrush
Back
Top Bottom