Duncan v Bonta: second trip to the 9th Circus

[menancyandsam]

The 9th in the prior En banc decision stated that Mags are Arms.
But then via the 2 step balance test (Intermittent scrutiny)was used to balance away our rights. You see society safety outweighed the 2nd A. So bans are a ok.

Not with Bruen nuking the balancing test. The exact same En banc panel changes the narrative to get the out come they want. So, It turns out Mags over 10 rounds are not Arms (Side note <11 rounds are Arms), thus any ban on 11+ rounds do not implement the 2nd A and Bans are a ok.

Its a total reversal but with the same outcome. Its good to be a activist judge in the 9th.

[Bowas]

Does today's trial affect the mags in the freedom week?

I am wondering as well.

[abinsinia]

I am wondering as well.

Yes. it includes all mags including ones acquired prior to the law.

[CCWFacts]

It has a magazine, a 'fixed magazine'. Just like a tubular mag on a shotgun or lever action rifle is a magazine.
ETA: I'm surprised I even have to type that.

The PR57 has a place store ammunition. A place that stores ammunition is called a magazine. Of course, in the case of the PR57, the magazine is the receiver / frame. I'm not ignorant of this. You're not understanding why this is relevant to the ruling. From the text:

First, the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because large-capacity magazines are neither “arms” nor protected accessories. Second, even assuming that the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the possession of optional accessories like large-capacity magazines,

It's saying that magazines are not arms, but rather are accessories, and then it's saying that they are optional accessories.

Unusually for guns, the mag of the PR57 is the receiver, the part that is legally defined to be a firearm. They can't say it's not an arm! Even with a tube mag gun, the tube is not the receiver. And the PR57 is also scary, black, and holds 20 rounds, unlike an old tube fed lever action.

From the quoted text, the ruling simply doesn't apply to the PR57 because the ruling applies to "accessories" and the PR57 doesn't have any such accessories.

I think it would be hilarious if KelTec made the PR57 (call it the PRC 57) with a loaded chamber indicator and then demanded to put it on the roster.

[tenemae]

From the quoted text, the ruling simply doesn't apply to the PR57 because the ruling applies to "accessories" and the PR57 doesn't have any such accessories.

The ruling isn't the law. CA PC 32310 will be going into effect unless a stay is issued. The penal code has no rationalizations. It is cold, hard text. Large capacity mags are illegal. It says nothing of whether they are integral or not. That will be up to the DA and what they want to try

[garand1945]

SCOTUS needs to smack this down quickly if they want to have even a semblance of judicial integrity, and the 9th circuit judges need to be impeached. Not holding my breath though. The judicial branch has decided that control is it's purpose, not upholding people's rights.

[NewbieDoo]

With California requiring a magazine disconnect safety on new handguns, doesnt that make a magazine a necessary “component” and not an accessory? Those handguns literally cannot function without a magazine.

Can they appeal to SCOTUS for an emergency injunction or something to that effect?

IANAL...but as far as I can tell, this is a huge piece for SCOTUS to use as a smackdown. CA has gone through decades of pained efforts to ensure that any handguns available to be sold to the non-exempt public are equipped with a MDM. The pistol literally cannot function without a magazine, regardless of capacity, rendering the magazine an integral and foundational part of the arm (at least on-roster arms in CA). Even with a chambered round and the pistol in battery...no mag = click, no bang. That's not an "accessory." Can't have it both ways.

[ProfChaos]

The 9th in the prior En banc decision stated that Mags are Arms.
But then via the 2 step balance test (Intermittent scrutiny)was used to balance away our rights. You see society safety outweighed the 2nd A. So bans are a ok.

Not with Bruen nuking the balancing test. The exact same En banc panel changes the narrative to get the out come they want. So, It turns out Mags over 10 rounds are not Arms (Side note <11 rounds are Arms), thus any ban on 11+ rounds do not implement the 2nd A and Bans are a ok.

Its a total reversal but with the same outcome. Its good to be a activist judge in the 9th.

I'm liking Washington Gun Law more than 4 Boxes Diner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqj7vOq11c0

[db556762]

Where do we stand with Freedom week mag possession? Is the injunction still in effect and waiting for this to go back down to Benitez to extend it on appeal or is it now those with freedom week mags are all felons?

[abinsinia]

Where do we stand with Freedom week mag possession? Is the injunction still in effect and waiting for this to go back down to Benitez to extend it on appeal or is it now those with freedom week mags are all felons?

They will request a stay from the En Banc court pending appeal to SCOTUS.

[abinsinia]

In October2021,retired police captain Ersie Joyner was
pumping gas in Oakland when a group of assailants
attempted to rob him at gunpoint in broad daylight.4The
assailants pointed their guns and repeatedly told each other
to shoot Joyner, even as he complied with all their demands.5
Joyner was carrying a Glock 43, and eventually made the
choice to defend himself. He fired at the assailants, and they
returned fire. Joyner fired ten times, emptying his magazine.
He can be seen on the gas station’s security footage having
to then take cover and pretend to shoot back while the
assailants continued to shoot him at close range before
finally driving away.

From the VanDyke dissent there is this interesting story about self defense and running out of ammo.

[Capybara]

Just donated a few hundred bucks extra to the CRPA. It's going to be expensive to get this case in front of SCOTUS and only God knows when.

[dawgcasa]

IANAL...but as far as I can tell, this is a huge piece for SCOTUS to use as a smackdown. CA has gone through decades of pained efforts to ensure that any handguns available to be sold to the non-exempt public are equipped with a MDM. The pistol literally cannot function without a magazine, regardless of capacity, rendering the magazine an integral and foundational part of the arm (at least on-roster arms in CA). Even with a chambered round and the pistol in battery...no mag = click, no bang. That's not an "accessory." Can't have it both ways.

The 9th Circuit liberal judges have committed themselves to the circular logic that any magazine with a capacity > 10 rounds is “high capacity”, thus that attribute makes it ‘optional’ since the gun can/must be operated with a magazine of 10 rounds or less. They obfuscate that it was this law itself that made anything > 10 rounds illegal in the first place, and miss the flaw in their logic that if its 10 or less rounds it must be ‘necessary’ for the gun to function, and thus part of the firearm, but merely being > 10 rounds makes it “optional equipment”.

[NewbieDoo]

The 9th Circuit liberal judges have committed themselves to the circular logic that any magazine with a capacity > 10 rounds is “high capacity”, thus that attribute makes it ‘optional’ since the gun can/must be operated with a magazine of 10 rounds or less. They obfuscate that it was this law itself that made anything > 10 rounds illegal in the first place, and miss the flaw in their logic that if its 10 or less rounds it must be ‘necessary’ for the gun to function, and thus part of the firearm, but merely being > 10 rounds makes it “optional equipment”.

I can't see how that would hold up at SCOTUS. That's like saying a stock curved trigger is an arm, but an aftermarket flat trigger is not...or a stock slide is an arm, but a milled slide is not.

The question shouldn't be whether magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are arms (versus those holding 10 or fewer), the question is whether magazines themselves are arms and then that answer informs the state's burden in restricting their capacity. Thanks to CA's MDM requirement, a magazine is necessary for the function of the pistol, making it an arm. If it's an arm, any restriction has to be in line with Bruen, among other cases. Now, if CA would eliminate the MDM, they might have a slightly better argument that a magazine is an accessory, because one could - in theory - chamber and fire a round without one. Even that's still a stretch, as it would convert a semi-auto into a single-shot, thereby defeating the arm's functionality.

[DB>]

The tortured pretzel logic involved here is insane...

WHAT is a "magazine"? According to these ding-a-lings it's an acoutrement or accessory. like a brooch or necklace... A magazine has a SINGULAR use and purpose, that of holding ammunition for a clearly 2A protected firearm! It's not decoration or fru-fru that one might wear to impress others, yet IF it holds more than 10, that's what they reduced it to, depriving a law abiding citizen of the RIGHT to SELF DEFENSE beyond a arbitrarily determined number of rounds.

SCOTUS should take this up ASAP, since it' on the second trip, and the first trip was slapped back down, now the REAL slap down needs to take place and the 9th/CA put in its place!