Duncan v Bonta: second trip to the 9th Circus

[lastinline]

The tortured pretzel logic involved here is insane...

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!

I agree fully. But what makes anyone think that California will abide by any decision the court eventually gives them? They will simply invent more bad laws to work around it. That is what SB2 is. Look at that mess.

[abinsinia]

I agree fully. But what makes anyone think that California will abide by any decision the court eventually gives them? They will simply invent more bad laws to work around it. That is what SB2 is. Look at that mess.

Each court opinion makes it harder for California to wiggle out, and harder for judges to play pretend.

[librarian72]

Each court opinion makes it harder for California to wiggle out, and harder for judges to play pretend.

I disagree. That path/thought hit its end point with the Peruta en banc. At that point and thereafter it's mostly blatantly make stuff up and dare SCOTUS to act.

[abinsinia]

I disagree. That path/thought hit its end point with the Peruta en banc. At that point and thereafter it's mostly blatantly make stuff up and dare SCOTUS to act.

SCOTUS took NYSRPA v. Bruen because of cases like Peruta, to make it more difficult for California. It's not a question if you get a permit or not now, which was the question in Peruta. It's much more difficult to justify may issue, they don't even try.

[Batman]

If the USSC takes up Duncan and we win, for those who are the Never-Trumpers, this would be the time when there's actually a fighting chance. With the Trump administration actually saying they'll fight for 2A, and the USAG poised to act, I could foresee where Bonta would be drug into Federal Court over his refusal to abide by the USSC. Drag Gavin in as well just to scuttle his chances of being elected in 2028.

One can dream, right?

[Sputnik]

With the decision over in NY declaring the NYC ban on stun guns constitutional irrelevant of Caetano I can see that win or lose we’re in for a rough time.

[Sgt Raven]

IMO, we're coming up on the Jim Crow Southern States vs Brown v BoE Federal Gov times.
The way the Trump V2 Team is showing real pro 2A moves, maybe they'll give the antis a real fight.

[7.62mm_fmj]

IMO, we're coming up on the Jim Crow Southern States vs Brown v BoE Federal Gov times.
The way the Trump V2 Team is showing real pro 2A moves, maybe they'll give the antis a real fight.

To be sure, everything that happened here in Duncan exemplifies the extent of dishonesty and willful misconduct that California's activist judges will perpetrate.

[dawgcasa]

Given that SCOTUS just issued an opinion stating that an inert piece of aluminum (partial receiver) is a ‘firearm’, it seems an interesting juxtaposition to square that with the 9th Circuits decision that declares magazines are ‘optional accessories’ … despite that any ‘rostered’ handgun in CA won’t even fire without a magazine inserted.

[Sgt Raven]

Given that SCOTUS just issued an opinion stating that an inert piece of aluminum (partial receiver) is a ‘firearm’, it seems an interesting juxtaposition to square that with the 9th Circuits decision that declares magazines are ‘optional accessories’ … despite that any ‘rostered’ handgun in CA won’t even fire without a magazine inserted.

There are a lot of pistols on the Roster that do no have a mag disconnect device. The Gen 3 Glocks are some of them.

[tedw]

Why is not California'a magazine ban not an Ex Post Facto Law? Was that never argued in the long history of the case?

[tedw]

To be sure, everything that happened here in Duncan exemplifies the extent of dishonesty and willful misconduct that California's activist judges will perpetrate.

The Newspaper Headlines should be: "Lying Tyrants on Ninth Circuit Infringe Second Amendment Rights"

[natman]

Why is not California'a magazine ban not an Ex Post Facto Law? Was that never argued in the long history of the case?

Can you elaborate on how Ex Post Facto would apply to this law?

[BAJ475]

Can you elaborate on how Ex Post Facto would apply to this law?

It doesn't. The magazine ban is not an Ex Post Facto law. Ex Post Facto would be to make a past act criminal. The ban does not do this. It makes present possession illegal. There is no penalty for having possessed standard capacity in the past.

[abinsinia]

Filed order (MARY H. MURGUIA, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, SUSAN P. GRABER, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, RICHARD A. PAEZ, MARSHA S. BERZON, SANDRA S. IKUTA, ANDREW D. HURWITZ, RYAN D. NELSON, PATRICK J. BUMATAY and LAWRENCE VANDYKE) Appellees’ unopposed motion to partially stay issuance of the mandate, Docket No. [93], is GRANTED. The mandate is stayed for ninety (90) days from the date that this order is filed. If, within that period, the Clerk of the Supreme Court advises the Clerk of this Court that a petition for certiorari has been filed, then the mandate shall be further stayed until final disposition of the matter by the Supreme Court. [12926443] (WL) [Entered: 04/10/2025 01:18 PM]

Same as what they did the last time. So freedom week mags are legal for now.