Jump to content

Duncan v Bonta (Becerra) - CA mag ban (continued)

Euler

By Euler
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted (edited)
Decision

The original topic is locked.

The 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the previous ruling of its 3-judge panel that declared California's ban on magazines over 10 rounds unconstitutional. In other words, California's ban still stands.

Edited by Euler
Becerra → Bonta
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)

We really need the Supreme Court to establish strict scrutiny on any 2nd infringments, the fact that this court ruled basically saying "We don't think you need a magazine over 10 rounds for self defense, thus we can outlaw them" in regards to a protected right is absurb, they once again lowered the right to a privilege.

 

My hope is the Supreme Court puts an end to this nonsense sooner than later, the fact that a case like this is one step away from the Supreme Court after Heller ruled the 2nd an individual right is IMO nothing but the lower courts ignoring Heller because the Supreme Court neglected to establish a scrutiny level.

Edited by Flynn
Sweeper13 Member

Sweeper13

Posted
Posted (edited)

Roberts enjoys getting slapped around from the 9th circuit. He wont use the safe word, he wants more and likes it. Nothing will be done to them.

Edited by Sweeper13
  • 3 weeks later...
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted
CRPA said:

...

With this Stay of Mandate granted by the court, it essentially means everything carries on as it has for the past several years. Those individual who lawfully own or possess magazines holding more than 10 rounds are allowed to keep them while the case is appealed.


Owners are allowed to keep them (for now), but not buy more (unless they travel out of California, I guess).

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 12/23/2021 at 1:30 PM, Euler said:

 

No retailers who weren't shipping during the previous ban are going to ship to CA.

 

That is what mail forwarding services are for...

SiliconSorcerer Member

SiliconSorcerer

Posted
Posted
On 12/24/2021 at 1:28 AM, Flynn said:

 

That is what mail forwarding services are for...

I reship and receive from all over the world, I try to keep contacts on every continent.

Unfortunately there's thing called age catching up on all of us. 

  • 2 months later...
Texasgrillchef Member

Texasgrillchef

Posted
Posted

The case has moved to the US Supreme Court.

Duncan v Bonta 21-1194

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1194.html

 

i would also like to mention that another Magazine case ANJRPC v Platkin (NJ)

Is pending with SCOTUS. It is currently “on hold” pending the NYSPRA v Bruen case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1507.html

 

Due to timing, with deadlines and possible extensions to file various briefs. An Opinion on NYSPRA v Bruen case will likely be issued prior to Duncan even being scheduled for a conference. Even though that case has nothing to do with magazine bans, it is well expected that the opinion will make some comment on the use of scrutiny etc. why else would the ANJRPC case be put into a holding pattern? That case from NJ will have an impact on Duncan.

  • 3 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted

Interesting, California Penal Code 30305 does not forbid the possession of a magazine, it forbids the possession of ammunition, so why would they continue to enforce and prosecute 32310 the possession of a 10+ magazine against those people who are prohibited from possessing ammo, unless the magazine was loaded I don't see how violating 30305 suddenly creates a violation of 32310 that isn't being enforced upon others since it's been vacated.  That screams a clear violation of the 14th.

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

The case has only been remanded back to the appeals court. It hasn't been reconsidered yet, so technically the mag ban has not yet been ruled unconstitutional while a decision is still in-process.

 

The police and prosecutors could arrest and charge people, but apparently they expect charges to be voided and convictions reversed. If mag possession is the only charge, then there's no point in bringing it. If it's an additional charge, I guess it doesn't hurt (from he cops' POV) to pile it on.

 

Edited by Euler
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 7/21/2022 at 7:57 PM, Euler said:

The case has only been remanded back to the appeals court. It hasn't been reconsidered yet, so technically the mag ban has not yet been ruled unconstitutional while a decision is still in-process.

 

The police and prosecutors could arrest and charge people, but apparently they expect charges to be voided and convictions reversed. If mag possession is the only charge, then there's no point in bringing it. If it's an additional charge, I guess it doesn't hurt (from he cops' POV) to pile it on.

 

 

Still sounds like a 14th violation to proclaim and instruct it to be enforced against some and proclaim and instruct it not be enforced against others.

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 7/21/2022 at 9:04 PM, Flynn said:

Still sounds like a 14th violation to proclaim and instruct it to be enforced against some and proclaim and instruct it not be enforced against others.

 

... or discretion.

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/21/2022 at 8:07 PM, Euler said:

 

... or discretion.

 

That is what LE and prosecutors like to hide behind, the now coined Smollett Defense...

Edited by Flynn
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 7/21/2022 at 10:42 PM, Flynn said:

That is what LE and prosecutors like to hide behind, the now coined Smollett Defense...

 

Smollett committed actual crimes. Foxx chose not to prosecute him presumably because of his race, orientation, and notoriety, which is abuse of discretion.

 

Owning a magazine isn't (or shouldn't be) an actual crime. The police are choosing not to prosecute people who have committed no actual crime, while continuing to prosecute prohibited people for possessing ammunition, which is still an actual crime. I think that's the proper use of discretion.

 

I highly doubt LAPD police commanders are civil libertarians, but somebody is trying to thread a policy needle in light of new judicial precedent and got it right.

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/21/2022 at 10:38 PM, Euler said:

The police are choosing not to prosecute people who have committed no actual crime, while continuing to prosecute prohibited people for possessing ammunition, which is still an actual crime. I think that's the proper use of discretion.

 

I don't read it that way, I read it that they will prosecute 32310 (10+ magazine law) against those that are prohibited from possessing ammo and not prosecute it against others.  I have no issue with the prosecuting those prohibited from having ammo for having ammo under the appropriate 30305 law, but I do have a problem with them prosecuting under 32310 against people in the absense of possessing the actual ammo simply because they are  prohibited from owning ammo and not prosecuting against other, in no way shape or form is being prohibited from possessing ammo under 30305 applicable to 32310 when there is no ammo present.

 

Example of how I see it worded

 

A person prohibited from possessing ammo found with entirely empty 30 round mags in their possession, would be prosecuted for those mags.

A person not prohibited from possessing ammo that has empty or loaded 30 round mags in their possesion, would not be prosecuted for those mags.

Edited by Flynn
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think the LAPD memo cites the ammunition law, because that's the intended underlying crime. However, even by your interpretation, they're choosing not to charge people with an otherwise clean(-ish) record whose only "crime" would be possession of a magazine. So people with clean records keep their records clean.

Texasgrillchef Member

Texasgrillchef

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wondering how long it will take them to actually start moving on this case.

The 9th circuit got two cases vacated and remanded back to them from SCOTUS.

 

This one and young v Hawaii.

 

Even the other two courts with cases vacated and remanded haven’t had any movement yet.

 

I suspect the appropriate judges are looking for ways to get their original decision to stand in light of the Bruen case. Looking for ways that under the new way to review the laws that they can still uphold the laws as being consitutional.

 

After reading many of the other briefs on many other similar cases in many other circuits. Many are trying to postpone to give them time to do research to discover history and tradition that they can use to uphold the laws.

 

Sadly they won’t find them, I think they know that. But want to postpone the inevitable.

 

Just like the democrats on the federal level are pushing the AWB with Mag Cap ban already. Even though it won’t stand up to SCOTUS.

 

Sadly this is an election year, and it’s all about showboating. They want to show that they tried.

 

interestingly enough, it’s funny they dropped the abortion bill to force states to allow abortions. But now are attempting to do a AWB.

 

Go figure

Edited by Texasgrillchef
MrTriple Member

MrTriple

Posted
Posted
On 7/22/2022 at 11:52 AM, Texasgrillchef said:

I suspect the appropriate judges are looking for ways to get their original decision to stand in light of the Bruen case. Looking for ways that under the new way to review the laws that they can still uphold the laws as being consitutional.

 

After reading many of the other briefs on many other similar cases in many other circuits. Many are trying to postpone to give them time to do research to discover history and tradition that they can use to uphold the laws.

 

Sadly they won’t find them, I think they know that. But want to postpone the inevitable.

I was actually thinking the exact opposite, that these judges won't want to bother trying to debate the issue and simply want these cases closed and done. The idea being that it's easier for them to simply strike the laws down and call it a day.

Texasgrillchef Member

Texasgrillchef

Posted
Posted
On 7/22/2022 at 5:50 PM, MrTriple said:

I was actually thinking the exact opposite, that these judges won't want to bother trying to debate the issue and simply want these cases closed and done. The idea being that it's easier for them to simply strike the laws down and call it a day.


I would like to think that too…

 

While most are way to old to ever make it to a higher level in the federal court system. Some are not.

 

They don’t want to kill their chances of being appointed to another possible office by their liberal democrats.

 

Plus I am sure they are getting a lot of pressure to do what they can to hold things down as much as they can.

 

I don’t see them giving up the ghost yet. Just like NY and some in Hawaii are fighting back as much as they can and not call it a “day”

hetzen Member

hetzen

Posted
Posted
On 7/22/2022 at 9:37 PM, Texasgrillchef said:


I would like to think that too…

 

While most are way to old to ever make it to a higher level in the federal court system. Some are not.

 

They don’t want to kill their chances of being appointed to another possible office by their liberal democrats.

 

Plus I am sure they are getting a lot of pressure to do what they can to hold things down as much as they can.

 

I don’t see them giving up the ghost yet. Just like NY and some in Hawaii are fighting back as much as they can and not call it a “day”


 

 

  • 5 months later...
Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
Posted

From the brief (page 33), also relevant to Bevis v Naperville:

Quote

While it may be true that there is some “historical
tradition” of excluding “‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons from the Amendment’s
protection,” Duncan V, 19 F.4th at 1148 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 627), the
Supreme Court does not speak in terms of “dangerous [or] unusual” weapons—no
matter how many times the State uses brackets to slip “or” into the test. See Def.’s
Suppl. Br. 24:2, 33:2, 39:12, 52:5 (referring to “dangerous [or] unusual weapons”); see
also id. at 24, n.13, 26:1, 26:5-6, 26:9-10, 33:7, 39:20, 39:21, 40:10-11, 41:5, 42:1,
55:18 (referring to “dangerous or unusual weapons”). The State engages in a sleight of
hand that is neither accidental nor harmless.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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