Jump to content

NRA Wins Injunction Against California’s Mag Ban


Recommended Posts

NRA Legal Team Wins Permanent Injunction Against Californias Mag Ban

 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/john-boch/breaking-nra-legal-team-wins-permanent-injunction-against-californias-mag-ban/

 

Big news from the Golden State. Word is coming out of California that the National Rifle Associations legal team won a permanent injunction against Californias magazine ban.

 

Details to follow.

 

Heres the decision from MichelLawyers.com. The case is Duncan v. Becarra.

 

The first three lines from the decision:

 

Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts. The judiciary is and is often the only protector of individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy. Senator Ted Kennedy, Senate Hearing on the Nomination of Robert Bork, 1987.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190329/breaking-federal-court-finds-california-magazine-ban-violates-the-second-amendment

 

..."In one of the strongest judicial statements in favor of the Second Amendment to date, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California determined on Friday that California’s ban on commonly possessed firearm magazines violates the Second Amendment.

 

View Related Articles

The case is Duncan v. Becerra.

 

The NRA-supported case had already been up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the question of whether the law’s enforcement should be suspended during proceedings on its constitutionality. Last July, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s suspension of enforcement and sent the case back to him for further proceedings on the merits of the law itself.

 

Judge Benitez rendered his opinion late Friday afternoon and handed Second Amendment supporters a sweeping victory by completely invalidating California’s 10-round limit on magazine capacity. “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he declared.

 

In a scholarly and comprehensive opinion, Judge Benitez subjected the ban both to the constitutional analysis he argued was required by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and a more complicated and flexible test the Ninth Circuit has applied in prior Second Amendment cases.

 

Either way, Judge Benitez ruled, the law would fail. Indeed, he characterized the California law as “turning the Constitution upside down.” He also systematically dismantled each of the state’s purported justifications for the law, demonstrating the factual and legal inconsistencies of their claims.

 

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox hailed the decision as a “huge win for gun owners” and a “landmark recognition of what courts have too often treated as a disfavored right.”

 

“Judge Benitez took the Second Amendment seriously and came to the conclusion required by the Constitution,” Cox said. “The same should be true of any court analyzing a ban on a class of arms law-abiding Americans commonly possess for self-defense or other lawful purposes.”

 

Unfortunately, Friday’s opinion is not likely to be the last word on the case. The state will likely appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has proven notably hostile to the Second Amendment in past decisions.

 

Nevertheless, the thoroughness of Judge Benitez’s analysis should give Second Amendment supporters the best possible chance for success in appellate proceedings, particularly if the case ultimately lands before the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

In the meantime, Friday’s order prohibits California from enforcing its magazine restrictions, leaving its law-abiding residents safer and freer, at least for the time being."...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading the ruling, is there a bump stock challenge pending in CA? If so it should be pretty easy to get a summary injunction ruling on that for now.

 

Some highlights that caught my eye.

 

"It is enough to make an angel swear." - Trying to understand CA law
"It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected." - I can't see how bump stocks don't fill that test?
"Saying that large capacity magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning" - Good argument to address NFA items, even though later on in the ruling they don't apply the same logic and contradict themselves over why machines gun bans are lawful?
"The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous." - Explaining that an arms 'lethality' is not a factor to be considered under 2nd protections.
Still have about half the ruling to read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

"It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected." - I can't see how bump stocks don't fill that test?

...

I'm not sure you could say bump stocks (or similar devices) are commonly owned. I think most gun owners didn't even know what they were until Las Vegas.

 

As for full-auto firearms, I think they should be legal for different reasons than addressed here, but there's a lot of cultural momentum that would have to get turned around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you could say bump stocks (or similar devices) are commonly owned. I think most gun owners didn't even know what they were until Las Vegas.

 

It's estimated that there are roughly half a million of them in circulation, IMO that accounts for pretty common especially for a device that was only developed and approved for sale 9 years ago, especially when you consider the primary manufacturer of them bailed out last year, while still holding and defending the patent against copycat versions.

 

To put that in some alternative perspective, if you are saying they are not in common use it's equivalent to saying that 'modern' (2000 and newer) Corvettes are not in common use, since only about 500,000 of them have been made. I use a car model because estimates put the total number of cars in a similar number ballpark as the total number of firearms in the US.

 

But, I have to ask, as a 2nd supporter are you really going to take the stand that 500,000 units doesn't meet the threshold to be in common use? Because if you do you just justified banning 1000s of different firearms and accessories that never reached that half million production number, and you also just justified banning every new product developed as long as they ban is in before whatever production numbers are produced. A very bad pro-2nd precedent to set, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... you just justified banning 1000s of different firearms and accessories that never reached that half million production number ...

Fake strawman argument. Make and model are irrelevant. There are 10s if not 100s of millions of handguns, shotguns, and rifles, which function essentially the same (i.e., all semi-autos are the same; all revolvers are the same; etc.) Likewise a car is just a car, no matter what paint and trim you put on it. It burns gasoline in a combustion engine.

 

Also, I was discussing the legal test applied in this case. As far as firearm accessories go, a trigger is a trigger. A sight is a sight. They don't change the operation of a firearm, but a bump stock does. That makes them unique. Combined with the fact that most firearm owners didn't know what they were before Las Vegas, I think they fail the test from this case. Yes, they are owned by law-abiding people for legal purposes, but that ownership is not common, even among gun owners. Therefore if you want to justify their legality, this case for magazines isn't a precedent that's going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... you just justified banning 1000s of different firearms and accessories that never reached that half million production number ...

Fake strawman argument. Make and model are irrelevant. There are 10s if not 100s of millions of handguns, shotguns, and rifles, which function essentially the same (i.e., all semi-autos are the same; all revolvers are the same; etc.) Likewise a car is just a car, no matter what paint and trim you put on it. It burns gasoline in a combustion engine.

 

Also, I was discussing the legal test applied in this case. As far as firearm accessories go, a trigger is a trigger. A sight is a sight. They don't change the operation of a firearm, but a bump stock does. That makes them unique. Combined with the fact that most firearm owners didn't know what they were before Las Vegas, I think they fail the test from this case. Yes, they are owned by law-abiding people for legal purposes, but that ownership is not common, even among gun owners. Therefore if you want to justify their legality, this case for magazines isn't a precedent that's going to work.

 

They do NOT change the mechanical operation of a firearm. Nothing is done to the trigger or the actual semi-automatic operating system. Nothing about the system's cyclic action is altered in any form whatsoever. The only thing that is altered is the method of operation by the user. It's essentially banning the way an owner uses their firearm. Especially since a simple shoelace or rubber band can do the same thing. It's akin to banning a handicapped assistance device.

 

With your argument, a ban on hundreds of models of firearms would be just fine, because there were only 10 or 20 thousand of that model produced, so they weren't in common use..

 

Also, last time I checked, 500,000 to 1.2 million people owning them would be considered "common use" - especially when those owners collectively spent a minimum of 75 million dollars legally purchasing those items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't change the operation of a firearm, but a bump stock does. That makes them unique.

 

Seriously, you are going with the anti-gunners lies and the factually false claims made by the ATF now to back yourself up? A bump stock does not change the operations of a firearm, one trigger pull one bullet, the operation of the firearm is the same, as said it alters the method of using the firearm, and although a bump stock makes the method of using the firearm easier it's not necessary to use the firearm in this method.

 

 

 

Yes, they are owned by law-abiding people for legal purposes, but that ownership is not common, even among gun owners.

 

If you insist these are not in common use, feel free to post your definition of 'common use' that doesn't prove my previous point and would allow banning of many other accessories and firearms someone deems out of the blue is not in common use.

 

 

 

Therefore if you want to justify their legality, this case for magazines isn't a precedent that's going to work.

 

Based on the test applied by this court, I would argue you are dead wrong as bump stocks pass the test used by the court, even if you want to still argue that 500,000 unit isn't common, but I do look forward to your definition of common use as applied.

 

"It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do NOT change the mechanical operation of a firearm. Nothing is done to the trigger or the actual semi-automatic operating system.

They use recoil (and your finger) to activate the trigger. That's a different mechanical operation.

 

With your argument, a ban on hundreds of models of firearms would be just fine, because there were only 10 or 20 thousand of that model produced, so they weren't in common use..

Not only is that not what I said, that's exactly the opposite of what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun Owners of America say there are about 500,000 bump stocks in the USA. Various estimates put the number of modern sporting rifles in the USA between 8 million and 15 million. Throw in other semiautomatic rifles in the USA and there must be at least 10 million total and possibly 20 million. So take the bare lower number of 8 million - in that case no more than about 6% and perhaps as few as 2% of those match up with bumpstocks. Now, the bump stock buyers may own multiple rifles and multiple bump stocks so that may even further reduces the numb of gun owners that own bump stocks. Some estimates are as many as 390 million firearms in the US with about 50 million households having guns in the USA so the bump stock ban just doesn't impact enough of those owners to activate a very vocal political movement. I don't see any reason for the ban but I am not expecting a big vocal group opposing the ban. The only option is the Courts and, so far at least, the Supreme Court is not looking kindly on the case.

 

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/29/supreme-court-turns-down-bids-to-stop-trumps-bump-stock-ban/
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article201882739.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They do NOT change the mechanical operation of a firearm. Nothing is done to the trigger or the actual semi-automatic operating system.

They use recoil (and your finger) to activate the trigger. That's a different mechanical operation.

 

With your argument, a ban on hundreds of models of firearms would be just fine, because there were only 10 or 20 thousand of that model produced, so they weren't in common use..

Not only is that not what I said, that's exactly the opposite of what I said.

 

No, they don't necessarily use recoil to do anything. It's ONLY if the USER chooses to do so. The firearm operation is NOT changed. The user's methods are what changes. If the user decides not to bump fire the weapon, then it still functions as a normal, semi-automatic rifle. Again, it's operating system is NOT changed.

 

Your argument of "common use" is severely flawed, because as I applied it, it makes perfect sense and is applicable in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by mauserme, March 31, 2019 at 12:20 AM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, March 31, 2019 at 12:20 AM - No reason given

 

 

If you insist these are not in common use, feel free to post your definition of 'common use' that doesn't prove my previous point ...

 

A significant fraction of the population.

In a Constitutional republic this matters not..

100% this. Individual rights are protected from the majority.
Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, March 31, 2019 at 12:20 AM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, March 31, 2019 at 12:20 AM - No reason given

 

A significant fraction of the population.

In a Constitutional republic this matters not..

 

In this case (the magazine ban), it matters. The court used a 3-part test. One of those parts was "common use."

 

Hey, I have an idea.

 

How about we steer back to discussion about the NRA's win on the magazine ban.

It's not a bad idea.

 

The core of the decision was the 3-part test. Flynn asserted that bump stocks pass the 3-part test; and I disagreed, because I think they fail the first part, although they do pass the other two parts. There are other accessories that pass the 3-part test (e.g., laser sights and flash suppressors, to name two commonly banned accessories, among several), but not bump stocks. Failure to pass the 3-part test does not rule out constitutionality, but success of the 3-part test (assuming it survives) would indicate constitutionality.

Link to comment

They use recoil (and your finger) to activate the trigger. That's a different mechanical operation.

 

That is not a different action, one trigger pull one bullet, same action as before, the bump stock just makes the action easier, it doesn't change it, I have (as have many others) have performed the same exact action to rapid fire with no accessories

 

 

 

A significant fraction of the population.

 

So since there are only an estimated 5-10 million AR-15s in the US, and the population of the US is about 327 million, meaning AR-15s represent use by only 1-3% of the population (hardly a significant fraction of the population) then they are not in common use and thus not protected either? I won't even get into where they leave the 1000s upon 1000s of other firearms and accessories that are nowhere near as common as the AR-15, using your definition they are not in common use either and thus not protected.

 

 

 

Not only is that not what I said, that's exactly the opposite of what I said.

 

What, that is exactly what you said, you claimed that 500,000 owned units does not rise to the level of commonly owned, putting two and two together and getting 4 not 3 that means that other firearms accessories and hardware that sold the same or similar is also not commonly owned and fail the test of this court "It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...