Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine Ban
Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:11 pm
https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-ci ... azine-ban/
How could this possibly happen?
Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday affirmed a federal judge’s order preliminary barring California from enforcing a voter-approved ban on high-capacity gun magazines.
How could this possibly happen?
Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday affirmed a federal judge’s order preliminary barring California from enforcing a voter-approved ban on high-capacity gun magazines.
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:20 pm
Holy crap. I think he’ll just started freezing over.
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:36 pm
Wow! We are starting to turn the tide and win folks!!! 
This is among the most liberal appellate court in America, and will have wide reaching impact on WA State as well to protect magazines from being banned.
I would wager that Trump's win, and 2 pro-gun SCOTUS nominees has had MAJOR political and judicial decision making impact. Anti-gun rulings, which would otherwise be Unconstitutional, are not going to be as common b/c the lower Court liberal Judges don't want to be over-ruled and no longer have the top-cover of a possibly liberal SCOTUS.
Had Hillary won and the SCOTUS looking leftist, I'd wager mag ban like this gets upheld in the 9th. Just my suspicion.
More TRUMP MAGA WINNING!
This is among the most liberal appellate court in America, and will have wide reaching impact on WA State as well to protect magazines from being banned.
I would wager that Trump's win, and 2 pro-gun SCOTUS nominees has had MAJOR political and judicial decision making impact. Anti-gun rulings, which would otherwise be Unconstitutional, are not going to be as common b/c the lower Court liberal Judges don't want to be over-ruled and no longer have the top-cover of a possibly liberal SCOTUS.
Had Hillary won and the SCOTUS looking leftist, I'd wager mag ban like this gets upheld in the 9th. Just my suspicion.
More TRUMP MAGA WINNING!
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:20 pm
Really confusing article.
What exactly was the result and was it one guy or a panel? Why they did they mention an NY judge?
What exactly was the result and was it one guy or a panel? Why they did they mention an NY judge?
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:57 pm
Info here without all the San Francisco drama added.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2018071 ... gazine-ban
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2018071 ... gazine-ban
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:14 pm
Alpine wrote:Really confusing article.
What exactly was the result and was it one guy or a panel? Why they did they mention an NY judge?
Haha! I had the same conclusion....wtf did they conclude?
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:27 pm
Prolly go enbanc and find the opposite. That's how they roll.
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:08 am
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:07 am
I wouldn't to getting to excited. This is about Prop 63 and getting rid of the grandfathered magazines with no compensation. As it is now they were supposed to just be surrendered.
Granted it could be expanded much further. But right now its mostly just blocking the law which was supposed to go into effect last July
Granted it could be expanded much further. But right now its mostly just blocking the law which was supposed to go into effect last July
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:14 am
joao01 wrote:https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/07/17/whoa-california-gov-jerry-brown-signs-a-progun-bill-n2501204
Tired of police getting special carve outs for bans, carry rights, etc. They should have the same rights as everyone.
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:14 pm
Read the 8 page opinion and it's really good and worth a read. In summary
1. Court recognizes that magazines and ammunition likely fall within the scope of the 2A.
2. The rights under the 2A protect weapons useful for a militia, including magazines
3. Banning magazines is probably not lawful, and the capacity bans are vague, ambiguous, and based in unsupported opinions and speculation and unreasonable and not based on any facts
4. Illegal under the takings clause, without just compensation
5. Injunction granted against the law b/c the party is likely to prevail on the issues and suffer irreparable harm if the gun mag ban goes into effect and it's in public interests to stop the law from taking effect.
It's a fantastic precedent out of the 9th.
----
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/upl ... irming.pdf
See link for the 8 page opinion. There is encouraging language therein, including:
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that
magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.
First, the district court identified the applicable law, citing United States v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174 (1939), District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Caetano
v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) (per curiam), and Jackson v. City and
County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014). Second, it did not exceed
its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of
the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon “that has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia,” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178; see also Heller, 554 U.S. at 583, 627-28;
Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1028; and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the
magazine for a weapon, Jackson 746 F.3d at 967 (“‘[T]he right to possess firearms
for protection implies a corresponding right’ to obtain the bullets necessary to use
them.” (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 61 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011))).
The district court concluded that a ban on
ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the
prohibition did not have a “historical pedigree.” Next, the district court concluded,
citing Fyock, that section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment
right, but, citing Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816, 823 (9th Cir. 2016), Fyock, 779
F.3d at 999, Jackson, 746 F.3d at 965, 968, and Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1138, that
intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate scrutiny level. The district court
concluded that California had identified four “important” interests and reasoned
that the proper question was “whether the dispossession and criminalization
components of [section] 32310’s ban on firearm magazines holding any more than
10 rounds is a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary
injunction on Takings Clause grounds. ...
Second, the district court did not exceed its
discretion by concluding (1) that the three options provided in section 32310(d)
(surrender, removal, or sale) fundamentally “deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use
of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of
property rights”; and (2) that California could not use the police power to avoid
compensation, Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1020-29; Loretto, 458 U.S. at 426 (holding “a
permanent physical occupation authorized by the government is a taking without
regard to the public interest it may serve”).
1. Court recognizes that magazines and ammunition likely fall within the scope of the 2A.
2. The rights under the 2A protect weapons useful for a militia, including magazines
3. Banning magazines is probably not lawful, and the capacity bans are vague, ambiguous, and based in unsupported opinions and speculation and unreasonable and not based on any facts
4. Illegal under the takings clause, without just compensation
5. Injunction granted against the law b/c the party is likely to prevail on the issues and suffer irreparable harm if the gun mag ban goes into effect and it's in public interests to stop the law from taking effect.
It's a fantastic precedent out of the 9th.
----
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/upl ... irming.pdf
See link for the 8 page opinion. There is encouraging language therein, including:
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that
magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.
First, the district court identified the applicable law, citing United States v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174 (1939), District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Caetano
v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) (per curiam), and Jackson v. City and
County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014). Second, it did not exceed
its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of
the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon “that has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia,” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178; see also Heller, 554 U.S. at 583, 627-28;
Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1028; and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the
magazine for a weapon, Jackson 746 F.3d at 967 (“‘[T]he right to possess firearms
for protection implies a corresponding right’ to obtain the bullets necessary to use
them.” (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 61 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011))).
The district court concluded that a ban on
ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the
prohibition did not have a “historical pedigree.” Next, the district court concluded,
citing Fyock, that section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment
right, but, citing Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816, 823 (9th Cir. 2016), Fyock, 779
F.3d at 999, Jackson, 746 F.3d at 965, 968, and Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1138, that
intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate scrutiny level. The district court
concluded that California had identified four “important” interests and reasoned
that the proper question was “whether the dispossession and criminalization
components of [section] 32310’s ban on firearm magazines holding any more than
10 rounds is a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary
injunction on Takings Clause grounds. ...
Second, the district court did not exceed its
discretion by concluding (1) that the three options provided in section 32310(d)
(surrender, removal, or sale) fundamentally “deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use
of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of
property rights”; and (2) that California could not use the police power to avoid
compensation, Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1020-29; Loretto, 458 U.S. at 426 (holding “a
permanent physical occupation authorized by the government is a taking without
regard to the public interest it may serve”).
Re: Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine B
Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:17 pm
I am actually stunned.