Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Crusty old curmudgeon  |
As I understand it, the 9th circuit rulings apply to all western states, so that should be it for now here in Wa. Maybe one of the lawyers here can correct me if I'm wrong. Jim ________________________ "If you can't be a good example, then you'll have to be a horrible warning" -Catherine Aird | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
One problem is that it will tend to give Washington some guidelines as to what will be constitutional by defining what clearly isn't. For example, the opinion distinguished some other statutes by noting they were bans on sale of certain items, but not total bans on possession. That doesn't mean, for sure, that bans on sales are allowed, but it might be that bans on sales are allowed if not part of bans on possession. It gives some guidance on what lesser regulation might be permitted. This ruling applies to this statute, of course, and those enough like it that you can't tell the difference. It doesn't mean a state can't come up with a different regulation that might pass muster. It takes years and years of this stuff for the cases to build up to define the exact contours what is permitted. For example, Roe held that abortion bans are not permitted. But now the states are nibbling around the edges of that ruling to see just what restrictions they can put in place without crossing the Roe line. There have been some fairly significant restrictions upheld in recent years. So, even after 50 or 60 years, we don't know exactly what Roe means. I am not as sure that the 9th Circuit will stay this ruling pending further proceedings. This is, after all, its ruling. However, I don't know enough about the procedural mechanisms available or how they are used, to have any strong opinion about that. And yes, this would cover any state in the 9th Circuit that has a total ban on the possession of LCMs. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Crusty old curmudgeon |
Thanks for the clarification jhe888. Jim ________________________ "If you can't be a good example, then you'll have to be a horrible warning" -Catherine Aird | |||
|
Now in Florida |
I will add to JHE888's analysis that the court find that LCMs are protected arms under the 2nd Amendment, that they are in common use (not unusual) and that the ban substantially burdened 2nd Amendment rights. Given these holdings, I don't see how any restriction on LCMs will survive. I can't see a situation where they could allow possession but ban the sale. | |||
|
Get Off My Lawn |
 "I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965 | |||
|
I'll use the Red Key |
It was quite interesting and some good history in there. I would have been more impressed with the dissent if they defended the ban using 10 words or less. Donald Trump is not a politician, he is a leader, politicians are a dime a dozen, leaders are priceless. | |||
|
Member |
If this ever makes it to NY there will be a run on scuba gear and shovels. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
I agree, but we may not know until some state bans sales, but not possession. Then a court can weigh in and tell us whether ban on sales is close enough to total bans on possession to be prohibited. I'd argue that a ban on sales is just a delayed ban on possession that won't take full effect until existing magazines wear out. The counter argument is that you can always go to Montana and buy a 30 rounder and bring it back to Washington. So, as I said, we end up in this back and forth until we all more or less understand where the lines are. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
Casuistic Thinker and Daoist |
No, this confirms the prior ruling No, Daoism isn't a religion | |||
|
| Member |
Seems like the NRA and FPC are taking victory laps on this. Do we know which one actually put in the leg work? | |||
|
Irksome Whirling Dervish |
On further review, this ruling really means nothing, at least to renewed sales. The stay order from Judge Benitez is what was went up on appeal. With today's ruling, all the justices said was that the ban was unconstitutional but it didn't lift the stay order. Benitez must do that. So, the 9th has kicked this back to Benitez who now has the authority to lift his stay on purchases. Whether he does or not isn't known because he put it there when CA appealed and since it's widely expected they will ask for an en banc hearing, Benitez might leave it in place. I'm hopeful he lifts it until the state files their appeal and then hears another stay request which should take a week. | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seemed to me as though it was a roadmap for arguing that intermediate scrutiny could and should apply in some gun-related cases. Mentioning an argument over hollowpoints where the apparently pro-hollowpoint side lost didn't help. | |||
|
| Member |
Since the judges determined that the ban of mags over 10 rounds was unconstitutional, they really didn’t have to go into why 10 vs 7 or 8 or 15. In any case, did you really want the judges to come up with a hard number to determine constitutionality? | |||
|
| Member |
It was the NRA , and the state affiliate, the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. Chuck Mitchel is the President of the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. It was his law firm, Mitchel and Associates, that represented CRPA. I despise Wayne and his cronies as mutch as anyone. Dispite all its many and real problem, the NRA still yields the power. If the NRA irrelevant the left would not despise them so much, they would be pleased that the NRA is not effective. So all please , send them money if you can. The day after the ellection is the time to take them on, and the NY Attorney General gave us a big boost. The FPC was there, so was GOA and GOC, but it was overwhelmingly a NRA / CRPA effort. | |||
|
Military Arms Collector |
Brownells is already starting to accept orders for standard capacity magazines going to CA. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
No. Benitez stayed the effect of his earlier ruling pending appeal. (That isn't uncommon, in that even federal district court judges who have a glorified view of their importance recognize that they are merely trial court judges whose rulings probably shouldn't affect matters of national importance. So they sometimes wait to see how their Court of Appeals rules on these big questions, and stay their own rulings as they apply outside the litigants in their courts.) Now that the 9th has upheld him, to the extent he needs to lift the stay, that is just an administrative detail. He doesn't have the power to continue the stay in light of the superior court's ruling. He is bound by the 9th's ruling. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
Also those other states bans weren't before this court. All the 9th can do is rule on the California statute in this case, which dealt with 10 round limits. Limits set at other numbers aren't before this court. And the 9th has no authority to rule on any statute not the subject of the litigation before it, and it will never have litigation in front of it from NY or Illinois. Courts do not make theoretical rulings, which they call advisory rulings. They can only rule on the cases before them. This case was about Cali's 10 round rule. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Left-Handed, NOT Left-Winged! |
After 15 odd years, I have this strange belief that if I ever actually met jhe888 he really would look like Dr. Strangelove. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
I enjoyed the commentary on post Civil War legislation designed to disarm blacks as an example of why an individual's right to self defense is so important. (Same for gay people, or other oppressed groups.) But think about that. This court was saying you lefties want to ban guns and limit the right of self defense . . . just like those bad old slaveowners and oppressors of minorities wanted to do 150 years ago. In other words, they are telling lefty gun control advocates that these bans will fall harder on disadvantaged people in America than they do on the majority population. And these are the people that, in other contexts, those same lefties claim to be so worried about. They are trying to hoist them on their own petard. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
I am much handsomer. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024