Jump to content

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

Euler

By Euler
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted

I hope they file and seek cert in conjunction to be heard along with Snope. 

 

I find it funny that the 9th circus starts off with interest balancing which isn't allowed, they rule that >10 mags aren't protected under 2A rights as a FU to Heller and Bruen.

 

Such a s**t ruling.  If SCOTUS doesn't grant cert after this... we are doomed.  

 

 

 

 

Tip Member

Tip

Posted
Posted

Basically seems to be saying “I explained it with words and apparently y’all weren’t smart enough to understand it so let me do it in pictures and see if you can get it.”

 

Hap Member

Hap

Posted
Posted

This case was one of the original four GVR'd at the time of the original Bruen decision, right? I can't imagine that the Court will be happy to see the same bad decision again, wrapped in a slightly different flavor of invalid reasoning.

JTHunter Member

JTHunter

Posted
Posted
On 3/20/2025 at 2:27 PM, Upholder said:

Judge VanDyke issued a video dissent (Which made 6 of the members of the panel very unhappy):

 

 

Impressive.  The man knows his guns!  I love how he disassembles and alters the guns without a hitch.

yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 3/20/2025 at 2:56 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Such a s**t ruling.  If SCOTUS doesn't grant cert after this... we are doomed. 

Roberts is more interested in arguing with Trump.....I could see him screwing us just for fun the way McStain did on 0care

Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
Posted

This case was originally filed in May 2017.  Favorable rulings at the District Court and 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit.  It was then taken En Banc and reversed 7-4 by the same panel that just heard the case.

 

It was appealed to SCOTUS, and GVR'd following Bruen.  The En Banc panel then referred it back down to the District Court which again ruled the law unconstitutional.  The En Banc panel then stepped in and took the case from the 3 judge panel and here we are, ready to appeal back to SCOTUS, which will happen as quickly as possible to be combined with Snope and Ocean State Tactical in the best of all possible worlds.

TomKoz Member

TomKoz

Posted
Posted
On 3/21/2025 at 5:16 PM, Upholder said:

This case was originally filed in May 2017.  Favorable rulings at the District Court and 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit.  It was then taken En Banc and reversed 7-4 by the same panel that just heard the case.

 

It was appealed to SCOTUS, and GVR'd following Bruen.  The En Banc panel then referred it back down to the District Court which again ruled the law unconstitutional.  The En Banc panel then stepped in and took the case from the 3 judge panel and here we are, ready to appeal back to SCOTUS, which will happen as quickly as possible to be combined with Snope and Ocean State Tactical in the best of all possible worlds.

FUBAR

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 3/22/2025 at 12:08 AM, Euler said:

Sure, but anything one Congress passes another can repeal.

Executive orders are easy, yanking out laws like that are harder as it takes 3 bodies to do so. 

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted

Ironically, if Congressional R's tried to pass such a bill, the Dems would likely let it pass, then immediately go to the courts to say "See, even THEY think the Second Amendment doesn't protect them.  If they did, they wouldn't have had to cram this bill down our throats!"

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

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...