Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[BAJ475]

Instead of strict scrutiny, SCOTUS should simply say that the Second Amendment precludes and prevents the government from enacting and/or enforcing laws, rules or regulations that ban, prohibit or restrict the possession and/or carrying of weapons and accessories commonly possessed for lawful purposes, except for commonly accepted sensitive spaces.

[RickD427]

My memory might be bad, but I seem to remember the wording was the stay duration was until the "conclusion of the appeals process". Would not the appeals process still be in play until the SC denies to hear (or render a decision)?
[/B]

Here is the exact wording of Judge Benetiz's April 4, 2019 order:

"THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part
pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment."

Please keep in mind that an "Appeal" is made to a Circuit Court of Appeals. A party can request a "Review" of a Circuit Court Decision by the Supreme Court. It may be a semantic point, but the "Appeal" (and notice the use of the singular verb tense by Judge Benetiz. If there were a second potential "Appeal" the Supreme Court, we would expect the plural verb tense be used)) ends with the Circuit Court.

The Circuit Court's decision is not final until the Circuit Court issues its "Mandate" in the case. There is a delay between the decision and the issuance of the mandate to allow consideration of any legal actions that may affect the decision. It's worth noting that there was no "Mandate" issued following the three-judge panel decision of the Circuit Court because those same post decision actions resulted in the "en banc" review.

Judge Benetiz has his hands pretty much tied here. In most cases where the Circuit Court overturns a District Court, they will explain their decision and the send the case back to the trial court "for further proceedings." The trial judge gets some leeway in figuring out how to apply the decision. The Ninth Circuit used this approach in it's last criminal reversal (U.S. v Wilson, last month). In today's decision, the Ninth Circuit told Judge Benetiz exactly how he is going to handle the case. There's something of a rebuke in the Ninth Circuit's word choice.

[SG29736]

Lately District Attorneys in big cities have been saying that they won't add gun law enhancements when career criminals commit more crimes. I guess just citizens who've never robbed, assaulted, raped or murdered someone get those charges.

[L84CABO]

Disappointing. What I do not understand is how a core right spelled out in our Bill of Rights, should be subject to the whims of every state.

Or even every damn county.

Fundamentally, do you think the founders intended that we were all supposed to have the same exact core rights? Or did they intend that our rights were to be treated differently state to state...or even county to county within the same state? Was a Californian was supposed to have the same exact right to speak freely as, say, a New Yorker did?

Further, what do you think the people would do if before they could speak their mind, they had to go down to their local Sheriff's office and ask for a permit to speak freely?

And that the criteria that the Sheriff used to determine if he was going to issue you a permit, wasn't based on some standard, uniform, consistent set of requirements, but instead, was based purely on his own subjective opinions and beliefs...which were different than the subjective opinions and beliefs of the sheriff in the county next door...which were still different than those of the sheriff in the county next door to that?

People would come unhinged...and they just might go utilize their Second Amendment rights to stop the tyranny against their First Amendment rights.

And yet, this is EXACTLY what we have with 2A. There is no Second Amendment in the US. Rather there are at least 50 different Second Amendments as the right is treated differently state to state and even county to county within the same state.

[Fyathyrio]

For what little that it's worth, Judge VanDyke's dissent is a fun read. He calls out the 9th's BS more strongly than pretty much any recent decision, and dares demands that the USSC actually support Heller & McDonald by providing clear guidelines to stop the lopsided rulings.

Starts about pg 140 on the PDF, runs about 30 pages.

[TMB 1]

Or even every damn county.

Fundamentally, do you think the founders intended that we were all supposed to have the same exact core rights? Or did they intend that our rights were to be treated differently state to state...or even county to county within the same state? Was a Californian was supposed to have the same exact right to speak freely as, say, a New Yorker did?

Further, what do you think the people would do if before they could speak their mind, they had to go down to their local Sheriff's office and ask for a permit to speak freely?

And that the criteria that the Sheriff used to determine if he was going to issue you a permit, wasn't based on some standard, uniform, consistent set of requirements, but instead, was based purely on his own subjective opinions and beliefs...which were different than the subjective opinions and beliefs of the sheriff in the county next door...which were still different than those of the sheriff in the county next door to that?

People would come unhinged...and they just might go utilize their Second Amendment rights to stop the tyranny against their First Amendment rights.

And yet, this is EXACTLY what we have with 2A. There is no Second Amendment in the US. Rather there are at least 50 different Second Amendments as the right is treated differently state to state and even county to county within the same state.

According to Article IV section 2 we are. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens in the several States."

and according to the 14th amendment we are, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Then there is the 9th amendment "The enumerations in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Lexicon Devil]

We're not there yet, but we will be as soon as the injunction is lifted. That could be as soon as a few days.

IMHO opinion though, don't look for any major enforcement efforts. There's enough uncertainty over the case law, and the NYSPRA case is closely enough related that I see LE agencies holding off enforcement efforts. If you do see charges, it will likely be on some hardcore knucklehead, or in a highly political jurisdiction (like San Francisco).

Fair enough and thank you for the reply. I'm just asking because I could seriously lose my job over this kind of nonsense. I'd rather be on the safe side of the law and block my mags than lose my means of income.

[n8vrmind]

From Armed Scholar.. legal status of freedom week mags from a lawyer.

https://youtu.be/jh2ewJevnCg

[benjamin101677]

I think the bigger question is what would California do with all the legally acquired high capacity magazines by people suddenly make them all felons? There were millions of high capacity magazines brought legally during freedom week.

Without a provision for legally acquired high capacity magazines this will be something that will get nationwide attention. Where it be a forced buy back of all legal acquired high capacity magazines; or somebody being charged criminally for possession of high capacity magazines that were brought during freedom week. 3 years ago many people won't have cared on such a wide range but with the panic buying of guns during the pandemic many of which were first time buyers this could have a major affect on the democratic party as a whole.

With the democratic party out of favor with even their core supporters; Brecko maybe the democratic party choice to run for Texas governor gun control could become another major issue going into 2022 and 2024 elections.

[Whiskey_Tango]

Oh, I know, but there used to be. I am working and haven't had a chance to review the decision yet. I wonder how many Reno and Vegas dealers will be buying up Freedom Mags at ten cents on the dollar, even the ones still in their original packaging....I'm glad I didn't buy any. If this goes away in the Supreme Court then there will be another opportunity. And if not, then I saved some money.

[The Gleam]

Only the stupid would sell their mags for ten cents on the dollar. Mags are pretty easy to block to 10 rounds, especially any mags that were unblocked during freedom week. Usually, blocked mags cost more than unblocked.

Here's a conundrum; it's quite possible ( I just know it for some reason ) that some of us here, highly likely have extremely rare high-capacity magazines for extremely rare firearms, such as those of historical note, acclaimed provenance, museum-quality, matching numbers and/or obscure finish in some cases, modern and C&R regardless, whereby their single magazine value costs more than any one gun in most peoples' small assortment of modern pedestrian guns.

Some have been in such collections for 3 decades or more, long before Prop-63 was a perverted wet-dream splurted into Newsom's right hand and put to paper.

Some of these guns might even be so rare, or just a handful exist of their time, even prototypes, that there simply are NO 10 ROUND MAGAZINES available, whatsoever - none, and no aftermarket options.

Therefore, you don't just go popping a rivet into the side, lopping off parts, or gooping it up with epoxy.

You just may be disintegrating any worth or historical importance to such a magazine that could fetch from $500 to $1,000 each on their own, to peanuts, all because of a ridiculous and nonsensical immature phobic view about the aesthetics and arbitrary aversion to the nominal difference in quantity they can hold of 10 rounds vs. 13 rounds, 15, 20, or even 30 or more.

So if we are going to anthropomorphize inanimate objects to villify and blame them for crimes committed, if we are going to give them personalities and intent, donning them with self-awareness and ability to choose - label them evil as if they know right from wrong - then as of today, all my magazines 'identify' as holding only 10-rounds.

----

[Paladin]

90 days to ask for cert after issuance of the mandate, 30 day extensions are routinely approved. True?

[pacrat]

Some have been in such collections for 3 decades or more, long before Prop-63 was a perverted wet-dream splurted into Newsom's right hand and put to paper.

Correction .... Prop 63 was another of Jerry Brown's wads of jack off juice.

[pacrat]

90 days to ask for cert after issuance of the mandate, 30 day extensions are routinely approved. True?

The iron is in the fire. And CRPA is fanning the forge.

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/breaking-news-ninth-circuit-en-banc-panel-reverses-historic-gun-rights-victory-in-crpa-challenge-to-statewide-ban-on-standard-capacity-magazines/

[The Gleam]

Correction .... Prop 63 was another of Jerry Brown's wads of jack off juice.

I know; but Newsom treated it like his own personal legislative porn.

--