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

[Upholder]

Current active docket

 

Supplemental briefing by plaintiffs: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.533515/gov.uscourts.casd.533515.141.0.pdf

[Upholder]

 

One of the bits we included points out the state's shifting positions on whether magazine laws restrict firearms:

Quote

And though it conveniently takes a different position here to argue the
magazines at issue are unprotected by the Second Amendment, Def.’s Suppl. Br. 16-17
(ECF No. 118), even the State has agreed that laws restricting magazines restrict
firearms. In a challenge to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.11 recently
before this Court, the State expressly argued that “there is nothing indefinite about
applying section 1021.11 to a suit challenging that law [section 32310]: The large-
capacity magazines ban appears in the Penal Code’s title on ‘Firearms,’ in the division
on ‘Special Rules Relating to Particular Types of Firearms or Firearm Equipment,’ and
a restriction on the ammunition that may be used in a firearm is a restriction on
firearms.” Intervenor-Defendants’ Supplemental Br. 14, S. Bay Rod & Gun Club, Inc.
v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-01461 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2022) (ECF No. 32).

 

[Upholder]

Analysis of the recent defense's filing:

 

[Upholder]

More analysis from the Four Boxes Diner:

 

[Upholder]

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Supplemental Briefs Re: Charts of Historical Laws (ECF Nos. 142 & 143):

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.533515/gov.uscourts.casd.533515.144.0.pdf

[Upholder]

The table of contents pretty well sums it up:

 

[davel501]

On 2/22/2023 at 10:09 AM, Upholder said:

The table of contents pretty well sums it up:

 

 

That ToC is doubling as an Executive Summary 🤣

[mab22]

That really reads like someone is just absolutely *#&@ing DONE with the bull stein!

[Ranger]

I couldn't stop reading it.  Great beat down using stone cold facts.

[ddan]

Win.

Let the 7th Circuit chew on this....

-dan

2023-09-22 Decision Signed by Judge R. Benitez(2263869.1).pdf

[Molly B.]

Happy, happy, happy with this decision!

 

Quote

There is no American history or
tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of
regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried. The best analogue that
can be drawn from historical gun laws are the early militia equipment regulations that
required all able-bodied citizens to equip themselves with a gun and a minimum amount
of ammunition in excess of 10 rounds.
Because the State did not succeed in justifying its sweeping ban and dispossession
mandate with a relevantly similar historical analogue, California Penal Code § 32310, as
amended by Proposition 63, is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and
shall be enjoined. At this time, the Court’s declaration does not reach the definition of a
large capacity magazine in California Penal Code § 16740 where it is used in other parts
of the Penal Code to define other gun-related crimes or enhance criminal penalties.
One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into
criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect
themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state
laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament
of the law-abiding citizen. That kind of a solution is an infringement on the
Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second
Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished
individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or
the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth
fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still.

 

[mab22]

Armed citizens are the last line of defense of invasion as well as preventing tyrannical rulers, (*cough "Springfield ILLINOIS!"). 

It's not supposed to matter if things go boom vs bang.

 

Quote

Very important in the past, still important in the future, Heller describes the

 

concept of America’s militia. “In Miller, we explained that ‘the Militia comprised all

 

ales physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.’”48 And Heller

 

explains why the militia was important. Two of the three reasons remain important

 

today. “There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be ‘necessary to the

 

security of a free State.’ First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and

 

suppressing insurrections. . . . Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in

 

arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”49 Once one understands the

 

history of tyrants resorting to taking away people’s arms to suppress political opposition,

 

Heller explains, one can see that the militia clause fits perfectly with the operative clause.

 

Heller teaches,

 

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an

 

operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear

 

arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the

 

founding generation knew and that we have described above.

 

That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a

 

militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by

 

banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s

 

arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress

 

political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that

 

prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English

 

Bill of Rights.

 

 

 

While the protection of a citizen militia was important, most people regarded the

Second Amendment as even more important for its protection of self-defense and

hunting. “The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only

reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more

important for self-defense and hunting.”51 After all, “‘[t]he right to self defence is the

first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right

within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right

of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever,

prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.’”52 As one

commentator wrote at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, “[t]he

purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia

would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of

warlike weapons.”53 In this way, a general public knowledge and skill with weapons of

war is beneficial to the nation at large and is protected by the Second Amendment. “No

doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe

places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his

individual right.”54 And “[t]he right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege

of freemen.”55 In the end, the Supreme Court deems the Second Amendment as valuable

for both preserving the militia and for self-defense – which is the heart of the right.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 at 08:05 PM by mab22

[davel501]

How great would it be if the appeals courts decline the government's request? This is great news!

[John Q Public]

Don't hold your breath Dave....

[davel501]

On 9/22/2023 at 4:00 PM, John Q Public said:

Don't hold your breath Dave....

 

A fella has got to be able to dream. 

[Euler]

On September 22, 2023 at 03:36 PM, davel501 said:→

How great would it be if the appeals courts decline the government's request? ...

Appeals are granted a panel hearing automatically for anybody who wants one. En banc and certiorari can be denied.

[Howard Roark]

On 9/22/2023 at 2:39 PM, Molly B. said:

Happy, happy, happy with this decision!

 

 

I am too. This helps us with our cases. In California the state reversed their grandfathering of banned magazines. So people had to destroy their magazines or risk criminal charges.  In Illinois, magazines that are banned for new acquisition are allowed if owned before early Jan 2023.  You know all this.  It is crystal clear that all grandfathering provisions in the IL law are temporary and will be called a loophole by the pols and corporate media. They will close the loophole which would be confiscation, unless we prevail in the courts. Most likely a SCOTUS decision in our case specifically would be needed.  If a mag and semiautomatic gun ban from a different state is selected by SCOTUS and the ban struck down, I doubt IL would abide. Only direct reversal my SCOTUS in one of our cases will make Jelly Belly slow his roll against citizens guns,mags,ammo,commerce,yada,yada.

[mab22]

On 9/22/2023 at 7:04 PM, Howard Roark said:

I am too. This helps us with our cases. In California the state reversed their grandfathering of banned magazines. So people had to destroy their magazines or risk criminal charges.  In Illinois, magazines that are banned for new acquisition are allowed if owned before early Jan 2023.  You know all this.  It is crystal clear that all grandfathering provisions in the IL law are temporary and will be called a loophole by the pols and corporate media. They will close the loophole which would be confiscation, unless we prevail in the courts. Most likely a SCOTUS decision in our case specifically would be needed.  If a mag and semiautomatic gun ban from a different state is selected by SCOTUS and the ban struck down, I doubt IL would abide. Only direct reversal my SCOTUS in one of our cases will make Jelly Belly slow his roll against citizens guns,mags,ammo,commerce,yada,yada.

Would we be able to appeal directly to SCOTUS, or have to start from scratch?

[Hap]

There are all kinds of paths that things could take from here but they all lead to the same destination.

 

Stick a fork in the semiauto bans; they are done.

[steveTA84]

CA appealed already 

[chislinger]

It would be pretty ballsy for the 9th to take this on appeal, and especially to stay it, after the SCOTUS told them to try again last time. But Dem activist judges don't seem to lack that do they?

[steveTA84]

Lol Benitez trolled Bonta

[mab22]

Just listening to Todd V's update on this.

Now that I hear it, I can see where the eveil side goes.

I wonder if they will get to a unified mag size limit?

But it would still be arbitrary.

[mab22]

On 9/22/2023 at 8:28 PM, steveTA84 said:

Lol Benitez trolled Bonta

[Euler]

Now might be a good time to review the tortured path this case has tread.

• It began in the Southern District of California, where Benitez ruled for plaintiff (Duncan).
• The state (Becerra) appealed. A 9th Circuit panel affirmed the District decision.
• The state moved for an en banc hearing. The 9th Circuit en banc overturned the District decision.
• The plaintiff sought certiorari (US Supreme Court).
  • Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court ruled on NYSRPA v Bruen.
  • The US Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily vacated the 9th Circuit decision, and sent the case back to the 9th Circuit for a ruling consistent with the new Bruen precedent.
• The 9th Circuit chose not to perform a Bruen analysis itself, so it sent the case down to the District Court.
• Benitez has ruled again for the plaintiff.
• The state (Bonta this time) is appealing.

I haven't read what the state's basis is for the appeal. About the only thing the state can really appeal is the Bruen analysis. I suppose the 9th Circuit can rule that the analysis was done incorrectly and ping-pong the case back and forth with the District Court.

FWIW, Benitez has been a "senior" judge since 2017. That means he's semi-retired and takes cases only as designated by the chief judge of the 9th Circuit. He's 73 years old. He's not going to be around much longer.

[springfield shooter]

On 9/23/2023 at 12:25 AM, Euler said:

.....FWIW, Benitez has been a "senior" judge since 2017. That means he's semi-retired and takes cases only as designated by the chief judge of the 9th Circuit. He's 73 years old. He's not going to be around much longer.

 

For those that maintain a prayer list, Judge Benitez would be a good name to add.

[Yeti]

Thank you for the nice summary and all else you provide in content/perspective to this site Euler.  It is appreciated!

[SiliconSorcerer]

It's a great summery it takes a while to understand the court readmap. 

[Glock43]

On 9/23/2023 at 12:25 AM, Euler said:

FWIW, Benitez has been a "senior" judge since 2017. That means he's semi-retired and takes cases only as designated by the chief judge of the 9th Circuit. He's 73 years old. He's not going to be around much longer.

hey, compared to our Senators, he’s a young pup!

 

He could still help us for another 20 years!  😀😀

Edited September 24, 2023 at 02:50 AM by Glock43

[steveTA84]

So the 9th just decided to bypass the 3 judge panel and go to the en banc panel that heard the case prior to Bruen lol. If SCOTUS doesn’t step in, might as well not even bother at this point, as the legitimacy of the circuit is obviously shown to be corrupted in favor of emotions instead of procedural correctness, and there’s a battle brewing between the judges. “Feelz good” lefty scum judges are parasitic vermin, and that’s insulting vermin and parasites 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 at 11:26 PM by steveTA84