Pages


Monday, August 17, 2020

9th Circuit Court Panel Says California Magazine Limit Violates 2A

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- In a 2-1 ruling, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Friday affirmed a lower court ruling that the California ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” violates the Second Amendment. The ruling may be read below or online here.

The majority opinion was written by Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee, joined by Judge Consuelo M. Callahan. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn dissented. The case is known as Duncan v. Becerra.
MORE

*****

Don't get excited. California being California, the politicians will find a way to circumvent this. I wouldn't put it past them to pass a law limiting Californians from possessing more than 20 rounds of ammo at a time.
They still have to undergo a background check for every ammo purchase - they may boost the fee to 25 bucks or more for each check.

10 comments:

  1. Like all leftists, they will just continue enforcing the old law and force every citizen to pay the exorbitant cost of defending themselves in court.

    --Generic

    ReplyDelete
  2. And then there's the fact that the ammunition background check system in California is an absolute hot mess. Here's the headline from a Gun Owners of California article:

    "Holy Cow! 345,547 Ammo Background Checks – 62,000 Good Guy Denials and Just 101 “Prohibited?” That’s 0.029%!"

    Yet Xavier Becerra constantly crows about what a resounding success this thing is. The only thing successful about it is that it's just another infringement on Californian's Second Amendment rights.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another reason not to get excited about it is that the Supreme Court isn't reliable. Both Roberts and Kavanaugh are completely unreliable for interpreting the constitution as written versus pandering to the left. This decision may have been done to allow the leftist an appeal to the Supreme and subsequent reversal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anything above 10 rounds is now "large capacity".
    Clearly 2A refers only to black-powder muzzleloaders. And the below should not surprise anyone.

    Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee: Trump nominee, opposed by Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris. It was okay for Feinstein and Harris to oppose Lee, because East Asian males are effectively white for racial quota and victimhood purposes. We get no extra points. Only one group of white males are victims.

    Judge Consuelo M. Callahan: GW Bush nominee

    District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn: Clinton nominee

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm looking for an injunction to keep the ruling from taking effect, pending an en banc review, which the gungrabbers can take all the time they want to complete.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The first time the judge ruled in favor of the 2nd amd, after 5 days (Freedom Week - 1 millions mags sold) he put an injunction in place while allowing people to keep their existing mags. He was concerned another judge might hand down and injunction that require turning in the mags. I expect something similar this time until after the appeals are exhausted. - MacArch

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting thing about one of Trumps newly appointed justices on the 9th. The guys name is Kenneth Lee and he's Korean. When he was 17 he was on the rooftops in 1992 with his family. Who better would appreciate the 2nd

    ReplyDelete
  8. Still hasn't faced a review by the whole Circuit Court, which is the next step.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From Gun Owners of California-
      "Because President Trump has made so many appointments to the 9th Circuit Court, it has brought the balance to near parity, and it is no longer a slam dunk that the en banc panel will be comprised of a strong leftist majority. If Becerra chooses to avoid this judicial crap-shoot and appeal directly to SCOTUS, there is an even greater chance that they will not grant certiorari (motion to be heard) which will uphold the lower court ruling. This would mean a win for us."

      Delete
    2. Elmo, IIRC other circuits have ruled the other way, and if Becerra goes direct to SCOTUS, then they would (theoretically) be forced to take the case to resolve the split.

      SCOTUS has dodged such bullets in the past; it was DC Mayor Adrian Fenty that kept refusing to lose and appealing the case higher which got us Heller v. DC, which got us McDonald v. Chicago.

      Delete

All comments are moderated due to spam, drunks and trolls.
Keep 'em civil, coherent, short, and on topic.