California AG Seeks Further Review of Ruling in Magazine Case

[hps1]

Round two in California hi-cap magazine case. Most likely will wind up in SCOTUS before it is finally resolved.


NRA-ILA: California AG Seeks Further Review of Ruling in Magazine Case
Ammoland Inc. Posted on August 29, 2020 by AmmoLand Editor Jim Grant

Friday, the California Attorney General's office filed a petition for an en banc hearing in Duncan v. Becerra IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Friday, the California Attorney General's office filed a petition for an en banc hearing in Duncan v. Becerra—the NRA funded case challenging California's ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The petition was expected after the 9th Circuit court of appeals affirmed that the ban violated the Second Amendment on August 14, 2020. With this move, Attorney General Xavier Becerra is doing the bidding of the anti-gun lobby, who earlier this week demanded that California continue to defend the unconstitutional magazine prohibition.

“Predictably, California’s Attorney General wants to override our recent victory in the 9th Circuit, where the arbitrary ban against standard-capacity magazines was correctly declared unconstitutional. Notice the hypocrisy: Like ammunition for self-defense, AG Becerra wants as many judges as possible when it serves himself. The NRA will continue to defend law-abiding Californians and the 9th Circuit’s ruling in favor of your Second Amendment rights.” – Jason Ouimet, NRA-ILA Executive Director

Read full story here:
https://www.ammoland.com/2020/08/nr...iew-of-ruling-in-magazine-case/#axzz6WoN3Jelg

Regards,
hps

 

[ilbob]

They almost have to ask for en banc in the hope that the three judge panel decision is reversed.

The summary notes that "the panel held that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply".

Strict scrutiny of any 2A related decision is pretty much the eventual death knell of gun control.

 

[LiveLife]

Already discussed in this thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ersal-14-aug-2020.873302/page-3#post-11619770

Round two in California hi-cap magazine case.

Round two was the 3 judge panel appeal after judge Benitez ruling in March 2019 with stay that is still in place.

11 judge en banc would be round three.

 

[GEM]

There is no guarantee of that. Strict scrutiny is not a magic spell. It is the minimal 5 votes decided by human beings with their world views and quirks that decides the issue.

 

[danez71]

I think that in, maybe, Peruta that the En Banc hearing said strict wasn't right and the proceeded to do mental gymnastics to show that it didn't meet intermediate either.

It all comes down to which judges are on the En Banc panel, sadly

 

[LiveLife]

It all comes down to which judges are on the En Banc panel, sadly

And our judicial future for gun rights is brighter with 200+ judges appointed by Trump and likely 100+ more in the next 4 years possibly with 1-2 SCOTUS justice appointments to tilt the courts for 2A for decades and generations to come - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#:~:text=As of September 1, 2020,and two judges for the

 

[danez71]

I don't disagree. The CA9 is has had a big change in the make up.

Still underwater but getting a lot closer to 50/50

 

[ilbob]

There is no guarantee of that. Strict scrutiny is not a magic spell. It is the minimal 5 votes decided by human beings with their world views and quirks that decides the issue.

If the decision that says strict scrutiny of the 2A stands, it makes a huge difference down the road especially in that circuit. not even all obama and clinton judges are completely willing to make stuff up as they go. some are honorable judges.

 

[GEM]

You are naive. 4 Scotus justices don't even believe the 2nd Amendment gives you any gun rights. Your position is one of some folks who believe that codified laws or principles will be followed no matter what. That is not a realistic view of human decision making.

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

4 Scotus justices don't even believe the 2nd Amendment gives you any gun rights.

Well, those Judges would be correct. The Constitution, along with any amendments, don't confer any rights to anyone. It does confirm, but not confer.

IOW, the 2nd Amendment absolutely does not give anyone any rights. Inthat, those Judges are correct.

One may say that this conclusion is splitting hairs, and getting in a semantic argument, but that is what the law profession does.
The practice of law is essentially arguing about words, and the meaning of same.

Now, don't take this as my agreement with those 4 Judges. I am in complete disagreement with their conclusion, and disgusted with the mental Twister game necessary to get there.

 

[Bronco72]

No , 2nd admen.,it does not give you rights! It says that the God given rights you already have will not be taken away!

 

[GEM]

The origin of the rights as divine or a social construct agreed upon by some, will not be resolved here. Let's stick to the issue of how this plays out in court. We usually close such threads and say let's wait for the result. This can stay open if we don't wander off.

 

[Bronco72]

Sorry!
Thought I was stating my thoughts of the Constitution and what it describes . Will be more careful in future. Did not mean to turn this into a religious vs what ever thread.

 

[GEM]

No problem, I just want to say on the specific issue of this case.

 

[Dudedog]

Brief Filed in Duncan v. Becerra case (Standard Capacity Magazines)

September 18, 2020- Today our attorneys filed an opposition brief to the state's request for a full en banc review of the Duncan v. Becerra case with the Ninth Circuit


https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...ppellees-Opp-to-Pet-for-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf


Sure they will hear it again but thought I would update.

CRPA is trying. (NRA is helping)
BTW they are an Amazon smile charity.
If you don't have a smile charity and use Amazon, it would be worthwhile to add them. (or check and see if any groups you like are smile charities)


I enjoy getting anti gun Amazon to give money to them...

 

[fastbolt]

Of course the state filed for an en banc hearing. There was no question they would decide they must do so. This unexpectedly became a big domino that might tip and start some others falling.

The question becomes what the state do if the en banc decision goes against the state, meaning will they request it be heard at the federal supreme court? A couple losses at the 9th circuit court in front of 2 panels might make some other states nervous about the supreme court weighing in on a 2nd matter that would affect their state laws.

We'll have to wait and see what happens in the 9th. Then, if the state loses, we'll have to wait and see if the state tries to appeal to the supreme court, and whether or not the court would decide to hear it ... and then, of course, what the high court might decide.

 

[LiveLife]

The question becomes what the state do if the en banc decision goes against the state, meaning will they request it be heard at the federal supreme court?

Increasing number of other state AGs have expressed that if CA magazine ban is ruled unconstitutional by the 11 judge en banc to not take the case to the Supreme Court.

CRPA has already decided to take the case to the Supreme Court if 11 judge en banc agrees with CA so for us gun owners, it's WIN-WIN.

If CA decides to accept 11 judge en banc that magazine capacity restriction is unconstitutional, it will set precedent for rest of 9th Circuit states and eventually to the rest of country over the years.

If Supreme Court rules magazine capacity restriction is unconstitutional (Likely after Ginsburg replacement makes weak 5-4 bench to stronger 6-3), it will nullify all the magazine restriction laws of various states.

Life is good.

 

[ilbob]

Increasing number of other state AGs have expressed that if CA magazine ban is ruled unconstitutional by the 11 judge en banc to not take the case to the Supreme Court.

CRPA has already decided to take the case to the Supreme Court if 11 judge en banc agrees with CA so for us gun owners, it's WIN-WIN.

If CA decides to accept 11 judge en banc that magazine capacity restriction is unconstitutional, it will set precedent for rest of 9th Circuit states and eventually to the rest of country over the years.

If Supreme Court rules magazine capacity restriction is unconstitutional (Likely after Ginsburg replacement makes weak 5-4 bench to stronger 6-3), it will nullify all the magazine restriction laws of various states.

Life is good.

It does seem like there is potential for some real good to come from this case. But, if the en banc decision goes against us, I am skeptical about our chances of getting the case heard in the SCOTUS. You have to get four votes to get a case heard and is a new justice going to be willing to stick his or her neck out on a case like this? It is a lot easier to just duck the issue as they have since McDonald. OTOH, the court might be getting tired of lower courts ignoring its rulings. Like just about any SCOTUS case, it is a crap shoot. You don't know if they will take it, no matter how good a case it is, or what they will do with it when they get it.

 

[.38 Special]

Increasing number of other state AGs have expressed that if CA magazine ban is ruled unconstitutional by the 11 judge en banc to not take the case to the Supreme Court.

CRPA has already decided to take the case to the Supreme Court if 11 judge en banc agrees with CA so for us gun owners, it's WIN-WIN.

If CA decides to accept 11 judge en banc that magazine capacity restriction is unconstitutional, it will set precedent for rest of 9th Circuit states and eventually to the rest of country over the years.

If Supreme Court rules magazine capacity restriction is unconstitutional (Likely after Ginsburg replacement makes weak 5-4 bench to stronger 6-3), it will nullify all the magazine restriction laws of various states.

Life is good.

You are one hell of an optimist.

 

[LiveLife]

You are one hell of an optimist.

Yes I am. God made me this way.

 

[Spats McGee]

....If CA decides to accept 11 judge en banc that magazine capacity restriction is unconstitutional, it will set precedent for rest of 9th Circuit states and eventually to the rest of country over the years.....

A decision from a Circuit Court of Appeals may be persuasive in the other Circuits, but it cannot be binding precedent.

 

[Spats McGee]

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Legal. I'm going to do some thread cleanup, but let's stick to the legal issues involved, not broad speculations on politics.

 

[fastbolt]

Increasing number of other state AGs have expressed that if CA magazine ban is ruled unconstitutional by the 11 judge en banc to not take the case to the Supreme Court. ...

I've also thought about this.

I could see the CA AG office phone lines lighting up with calls from AG's in other states, asking the CA AG to just take his lumps if he loses and not put the magazine/feeding device laws at risk in the several other states who have such laws. Or who want to try and enact such laws (or impose regulatory restrictions).

Still, even if the case doesn't go to, or get accepted by, the high court, it could still eventually matter in the long run. As the number of conflicting decisions on a subject grow at the circuit court level, sooner or later the high court would end up stepping in to settle the question across the nation.

 

[LiveLife]

I could see the CA AG office phone lines lighting up with calls from AG's in other states, asking the CA AG to just take his lumps if he loses and not put the magazine/feeding device laws at risk in the several other states who have such laws. Or who want to try and enact such laws (or impose regulatory restrictions).

Still, even if the case doesn't go to, or get accepted by, the high court, it could still eventually matter in the long run.

I think a lot will depend on the outcome of the November election as looks like Amy Barrett will be appointed to the SCOTUS and she is pro-gun/2A and follows Scalia's "Originalist" approach to the Constitution.

If Supreme Court leaning towards pro-gun/2A is likely, then pressure will be on CA AG to accept the ruling of 11 panel en banc even though panel rules magazine ban unconstitutional.

 

[Mk-211]

I look at it like this, CA has already lost the case and any other state with a ban is going to lose also.

CA would have been better off accepting the ruling and let it go. This way they could have kept it from going to SCOTUS from either direction. Other states wouldn't have had to worry about it also.

If the en banc rules against them again and they go to SCOTUS, losing means a win for us. It also means a win for everyone else in the matter. If we lose at the 9th en banc, we go to SCOTUS and again they lose, everyone wins.

Of course we could lose at SCOTUS but I find that slim to none. If they rule against us, they're basically telling the states that they have free reign to do as they please when it comes to the 2A. This would also make state laws higher then the Feds, who are supposed to tell the states what to do.

Hopefully I'm not peeing in the wind and getting all wet.