Hmm. Not sure I'm happy with the emphasis on grandfather clauses and the court's apparent readiness to tolerate intermediate scrutiny (no matter how much they emphasize it's "bite") if a lawyer can come up with an argument that the regulation doesn't impose on the Second Amendment "enough". OTOH, I can dig the historical analysis.

Now let's see what the full circuit does.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Dwill104 likely provided the textbook answer to my question, though I wish the judges had at least shown 'some' interest in why 10 rounds meets some threshold for public safety.

The answer is that courts do not decide or examine issues that are not required for their decision. In this case, once they decided that the CA law substantially burdened a fundamental right, then the only question is whether it is a permissible infringement. That questions rests on whether the LCMs, as defined in the statute at issue, are "dangerous and unusual." The court found that they are not unusual, so that's pretty much the end of the story.

There was no legal need to wade into the policy matter about what number of rounds meets a certain threshold for public safety.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
That questions rests on whether the LCMs, as defined in the statute at issue, are "dangerous and unusual." The court found that they are not unusual,

Certainly not unusual in the state given the millions of dollars spent during "Freedom Week" before the prior stay went into effect

Wait, is this the latest supersede of the prior ruling and injunction? Is this done and permanent?

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-c...20-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Here is the opinion. Much more interesting that a NRA tweet.

Ok, I read the summary opinion. It is interesting. However, since I'm no attorney, I thought I'd pose this question to you. The court threw around the term Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) throughout, but never once addressed the issue that LCM is not an 'accepted defined' term (i.e. means different things to different people). Why? That seems a pivotal aspect of this. A made up term is being used to justify a case seeking to infringe on a constitutional right yet it doesn't appear anyone on the court had any interest in that aspect.

It also appears a couple of the judges (as usual) were totally fine with tromping on the Constitution yet again.

CA defines LCM as more than 10.

That was not my question. What if Illinois defines LCM as 8 rounds, New York defines it as 7 rounds, and other states don't define LCM at all. The term is not well defined or in common use. I just was curious as to why the court never questioned the term at all. Dwill104 likely provided the textbook answer to my question, though I wish the judges had at least shown 'some' interest in why 10 rounds meets some threshold for public safety.

States are free, as you said, to come up with whatever defintion of LCM they want but in that sense, a state could come out and say anything that holds more than one is a LCM.

In that odd case a state would have an extremely hard time saying they aren't infringing on 2nd A rights with such a ban so the states picked some random number such as 10. 10 means nothing v. 8 or 9 or 6 or 15 but the analysis from this court doesn't really say the amount of rounds is the issue.

In the broader analysis the majority said that CA's ban of 10 or more didn't pass muster and the rationale would be the same regardless but also notice that at the end of the opinion they spelled out what they think the state can do with guns but specifically said the the 10 round ban was the only issue in front of them and were not addressing bans on super high cap mags. I imagine they are talking about C Mag.

I still have two new 30 mags in the wrapper she this happened last year (or was 2018?).

Regardless, I’m headed to buy some ammo!

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-c...20-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Here is the opinion. Much more interesting that a NRA tweet.

Thanks. I was looking for it to post. No need to be rude about it.

I wan't trying to be rude to you. Perhaps to the NRA. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:

With John Roberts there, the dick smacking may not go as you think.

I agree with you. Roberts is a wild card and has already shown he doesn't mind taking a dump on the Constitution.



.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-c...20-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Here is the opinion. Much more interesting that a NRA tweet.

Ok, I read the summary opinion. It is interesting. However, since I'm no attorney, I thought I'd pose this question to you. The court threw around the term Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) throughout, but never once addressed the issue that LCM is not an 'accepted defined' term (i.e. means different things to different people). Why? That seems a pivotal aspect of this. A made up term is being used to justify a case seeking to infringe on a constitutional right yet it doesn't appear anyone on the court had any interest in that aspect.

It also appears a couple of the judges (as usual) were totally fine with tromping on the Constitution yet again.

No, they are only using the term large capacity magazine to describe the thing banned by the statute. It is a shorthand for "magazine with a capacity over ten." I know we would prefer to call it something else as spin, but even the dissent didn't try to use "large capacity" to justify the regulation. In other words, it is not a pivotal aspect of the case.

In fact the majority spent a lot of ink describing the history of firearms with relatively high ammo capacity. That was done for other legal reasons, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Hmm. Not sure I'm happy with the emphasis on grandfather clauses and the court's apparent readiness to tolerate intermediate scrutiny (no matter how much they emphasize it's "bite") if a lawyer can come up with an argument that the regulation doesn't impose on the Second Amendment "enough". OTOH, I can dig the historical analysis.

Now let's see what the full circuit does.

It applied strict scutiny, which is not "tolerating" intermediate scrutiny. I think the court did the intermediate scrutiny analysis to provide a roadmap to other courts as to why, even if they applied intermediate scrutiny, similar regulation should fail anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Wait, is this the latest supersede of the prior ruling and injunction? Is this done and permanent?

This was the appeal from last years initial ruling.

Good thing I don't need to buy any magazines right now, because they're all going to be bought up in California!

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Is this done and permanent?

Last I heard, this is not final, per Chuck Michel

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
Great news indeed. The Wa. state legislature has been working on banning high capacity mags and this should end that nonsense once and for all.

Jim

Indeed. I don't think it'll stop Sideshow Bob and his Bloomberg buddies from trying, but it'll be a great barrier to actually getting it done.

Still waiting for the main stream media to puck up the story.

Great, great news. I suspect a motion to maintain the LCM ban pending additional judicial review will be forthcoming, and I'd presume it has a great chance of being upheld within a week. All non California folks should hold-off buying mags online so our CA peeps can get them while they still can.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Is this done and permanent?

Last I heard, this is not final, per Chuck Michel

Is is not final in the sense that California now has the option of petitioning for an en banc rehearing or petitioning to SCOTUS for cert.

I am not aware that the 9th circuit has issued a stay of its ruling pending any potential appeals, so as it stands today, the mag ban is unenforceable.

Also worth noting, this opinion is binding not just on CA but also HI.

Some folks are saying this ruling doesnt make it legal to purchase magazines yet, and that Benitez would need to the lift the stay on his own ruling first. My question is now that the 9th upheld his original ruling that a magazine ban was unconstitutional, wouldnt his stay on his judgement be automatically moot at this point?

So does this mean California can buy high cap mags again? Or does it still need to go through more hurdles before it’s official?