Next Court Action in Line for AWs and Magazines

GOAL

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
489
Likes
890
Next Court Action in Line for AWs and Magazines

As our members know, Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) spent nearly four years bringing the Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The court action was based on her unilateral action to redefine so-called assault weapons. The National Rifle Association assisted financially and legally, and GOAL spent tens of thousands of dollars only to have the court refuse to hear the case.

Lately, many Massachusetts gun owners have asked why we are not trying again. Currently it would be a waste of resources to begin again from scratch. That is because there is a similar case already in progress out of California that we are supporting.

The case, Duncan v. Becerra, began back in 2017 when the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) filed action in federal court challenging the state’s magazine ban. In August of 2020 a three judge panel of the Ninth District Federal court upheld a District Court ruling:

“California’s almost- blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people’s right to self-defense. We affirm the district court’s summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310’s ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.”

Gun owners all over the country were celebrating the decision as a final victory over such bans. They were not happy when we had to inform them that it was not the final say. Even if it were, it would not have affected the law in Massachusetts. A federal circuit court decision only affects the states within its district. But the case moves on.

As expected, the California authorities appealed the decision and requested a review before the full court of the ninth circuit, this is known as “en banc”. That is where the case is now. The court has several options that are explained further in this CRPA article: Duncan en banc- What Happens Next? | CRPA

Our hope, here in Massachusetts, is that the case gets to SCOTUS somehow. An affirmative decision from the high court is the only way the Commonwealth’s magazine laws will be torn up. It will probably not affect the actual the AG’s AW ban, but it will be a start. The biggest challenge will be to find out if SCOTUS will even hear a Second Amendment case. Once we know that, then we can decide our next step.

Thank you to all our members and supporters as we continue the struggle to restore freedom in the Commonwealth.

Please consider making a donation to GOAL to help us continue our efforts!

GOAL - Donate
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,435
Likes
17,111
As expected, the California authorities appealed the decision and requested a review before the full court of the ninth circuit, this is known as “en banc”. That is where the case is now. The court has several options that are explained further in this CRPA article: Duncan en banc- What Happens Next? | CRPA
Close. An en banc panel in the 9th is 11 of 29 judges or C(29,11) or 34,597,290 possible panels. In reality, the number of probably compositions is much smaller since geographic proximity no doubt comes into play. If en banc is granted this case will be won or lost based on the composition of the 11 judge panel, not on the merits of the case.
 

StevieP

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
8,494
Likes
4,027
Location
Gone to Carolina in my mind...
"If en banc is granted this case will be won or lost based on the composition of the 11 judge panel, not on the merits of the case."

Sadly I believe you. If they were doing their jobs properly this wouldn't be the reality.
 

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
108   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
18,841
Likes
8,506
Looks like the CA case needs to go to SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS will have to agree to hear the case.
Hundreds of cases don't even get a review.

It would be a miracle if the SCOTUS would take the case.

IF they do - I think we are golden!

The mag ban is a clear violation and surely will be decided in our favor.

Having a "hi cap" <in quotes> magazine for my CCW is near and dear to my heart.

A G17 can carry 17 + 1 rounds which is much better than a 10 round mag.

Buying a pair of brand new pre bans sealed in box from 25 years ago costs more than the gun itself.

Having pre bans is essential to not being outgunned on the street.

There is no better item for a gun owner in Mass than pre ban mags.
It's like carrying a second gun.

My whole gun owning lifestyle is based on acquisition of pre bans.

One day I hope my pre bans will lose 90% of their value and I will be FREE!!!

In the mean time, our only option is to keep hunting for them and maintaining a lifetime supply to protect ourselves and out family.

In the state of Massachusetts, under the current conditions, besides LTC restrictions, there is no more important a cause then to legalize LCM's (large capacity magazines).

I'm hedging my bets though and trying to get more in the event the SCOTUS refuses the case.

TODAY should be a BIG day in CA for their case!!!
 

Goliathan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
2,431
Likes
1,146
Location
Bristol County
"If en banc is granted this case will be won or lost based on the composition of the 11 judge panel, not on the merits of the case."

Sadly I believe you. If they were doing their jobs properly this wouldn't be the reality.
That's the point, naturally. Don't get an answer you like, keep asking until you get an answer you do like.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,435
Likes
17,111
That's the point, naturally. Don't get an answer you like, keep asking until you get an answer you do like.
In order to overturn a ban our side has to win 4 times - federal district; federal appeal; en-banc; scotus

Enough judges want anti-gun decisions to make granting of en banc all but certain.
 

Da_lucche

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
2,503
Likes
835
Location
Demokratic People's Republik of Massachusux
It will probably not affect the actual the AG’s AW ban, but it will be a start
Let's be real here though. Healey's edict has no real legal grounding and the only reason it sticks is because FFLs are following her scare tactics because most MA FFLs and gun owners are scared of their own shadow.
 

glide

NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
3,231
Likes
563
Location
North of MA
How could any decision impact the AG’s AW ban when there is no AG AW ban? Feel free to cite the law in your response.

Who is in charge over at GOAL these days?

If you’re going to come to the plate asking for donations, spreading this type of misinformation does not inspire confidence.
 

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
108   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
18,841
Likes
8,506
^ this

i never thought I would say I had something in common with Reptile [rofl]
It's so true.

If not for the artificial rarity of pre bans I'd have a huge void in my life.

I'd probably end up collecting lowers, instead.

I feel like a diamond merchant and Marsha is De Beers.

For those that don't know - there is no shortage of diamonds. The De Beers company is a cartel that controls the mines. The have billions of uncut diamonds stored in massive barrels. What's in storage is not released. As a result the price of diamonds is artificially high due to perceived rarity and clever marketing.

There might be 20 million modern Glock mags in existence, but less than 1 million are pre ban. (10 million Glocks each with 2 mags)(500,000 pre 1994 Glocks)

The only place left in the US where such mags command a premium is Massachusetts due to the Assault Weapons Ban.
The only mags legal here, that hold more than 10 rounds, need to have been made before September 13. 1994.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
4,087
Likes
6,574
Location
western mass
I think that the gun grabbers learned a lot from the NY pistol & rifle case. When they sense impending doom, they back off and acquiesce. They will modify the law in the middle of the night leaving the country with a patchwork of laws that make no sense whatsoever. The new law will be written so narrowly and tailored to only specific magazines and rifles that it will do almost nothing, but renders the case moot. I hope that scotus takes on the case, but it's kind of hard to hold my breath,

I also think that if scotus did take the case and hold a hearing on the merits that before the court session was done democrats would be pushing a court packing scheme with 75 new democrats on scotus just to kill a decision. Even if by court traditions a new justice wouldn't vote they would anyways. Leftists will burn down anything for a win.
 

connor

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 5, 2017
Messages
942
Likes
1,042
Next Court Action in Line for AWs and Magazines

As our members know, Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) spent nearly four years bringing the Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The court action was based on her unilateral action to redefine so-called assault weapons. The National Rifle Association assisted financially and legally, and GOAL spent tens of thousands of dollars only to have the court refuse to hear the case.

Lately, many Massachusetts gun owners have asked why we are not trying again. Currently it would be a waste of resources to begin again from scratch. That is because there is a similar case already in progress out of California that we are supporting.

The case, Duncan v. Becerra, began back in 2017 when the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) filed action in federal court challenging the state’s magazine ban. In August of 2020 a three judge panel of the Ninth District Federal court upheld a District Court ruling:

“California’s almost- blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people’s right to self-defense. We affirm the district court’s summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310’s ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.”

Gun owners all over the country were celebrating the decision as a final victory over such bans. They were not happy when we had to inform them that it was not the final say. Even if it were, it would not have affected the law in Massachusetts. A federal circuit court decision only affects the states within its district. But the case moves on.

As expected, the California authorities appealed the decision and requested a review before the full court of the ninth circuit, this is known as “en banc”. That is where the case is now. The court has several options that are explained further in this CRPA article: Duncan en banc- What Happens Next? | CRPA

Our hope, here in Massachusetts, is that the case gets to SCOTUS somehow. An affirmative decision from the high court is the only way the Commonwealth’s magazine laws will be torn up. It will probably not affect the actual the AG’s AW ban, but it will be a start. The biggest challenge will be to find out if SCOTUS will even hear a Second Amendment case. Once we know that, then we can decide our next step.

Thank you to all our members and supporters as we continue the struggle to restore freedom in the Commonwealth.

Please consider making a donation to GOAL to help us continue our efforts!

GOAL - Donate


What does goal think about miller v. becerra and how does it relate to duncan v. becerra?
The only place left in the US where such mags command a premium is Massachusetts due to the Assault Weapons Ban.
The only mags legal here, that hold more than 10 rounds, need to have been made before September 13. 1994.
The hardest part is getting those prebans into massachusetts. There are a lot out of state. I have friends across the country I looking for u-notch in their local gun stores, I have had pre ban usgi mags shipped in from a smart and savvy escapee. We need to spread the word about the premium they command and get more people sending them in.

One guy finding a decent collection of usgi mags someone picked up in arkansas before the 94 ban could net him enough to buy a new rifle.

A decent stash of glock mags could make someone rich.
 
Last edited:

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,435
Likes
17,111
We are lucky this is being heard by the 9th. The 1st is strongly anti-gun and would probably commend the legislature for doing such a fine job after upholding the law.

As to the AG edict having no standing - we don't know that until and unless a court rules. There have been numerous rulings that simply defy logic, all based on the "cuz guns" doctrine.
 

Goliathan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
2,431
Likes
1,146
Location
Bristol County
How could any decision impact the AG’s AW ban when there is no AG AW ban? Feel free to cite the law in your response.

Who is in charge over at GOAL these days?

If you’re going to come to the plate asking for donations, spreading this type of misinformation does not inspire confidence.
I am not GOAL and I don't speak for them. That said, they have consistently taken the position that they believe the AG's "reinterpretation" has no basis in law and has, as far as I know, never given it the weight of law in their statements.

Since the administrative state has the power to put out the lights of small businesses because her draconian unilateral edicts, not to mention the chilling effect on businesses and everyday gun owners living under terror of her threats, it's not unreasonable to call it "the AG ban" for the purposes of illustration. That's what it effectively is until we can get it slapped down.
 
Last edited:

glide

NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
3,231
Likes
563
Location
North of MA
I am not GOAL and I don't speak for them. That said, they have consistently taken the position that they believe the AG's "reinterpretation" has no basis in law and has, as far as I know, never given it the weight of law in their statements.

That said, since the administrative state has the power to put out the lights of small businesses because her draconian unilateral edicts, not to mention the chilling effect on businesses and everyday gun owners living under terror of her threats, it's not unreasonable to call it "the AG ban" for the purposes of illustration. That's what it effectively is until we can get it slapped down.
Get it slapped down? There is nothing to slap down. Just ignore it.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
14,489
Likes
23,206
Location
Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
Top Bottom