Ninth Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against CA Magazine Ban(Prop 63)

bearingarms.com ^ | July 18, 2018 | Tom Knighton

[Vendome]

in a shocking turn of events, the Ninth Circuit actually affirmed the preliminary injunction.

Earlier today, a Ninth Circuit Panel affirmed the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction. The panel found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that “magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.” The opinion also stated that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found the challenged statutes did not survive intermediate scrutiny.

For a law to survive a constitutional challenge, the intermediate scrutiny standard requires that a law further an important government interest and do so by means that are substantially related to that interest. The district court concluded that the magazine ban contained in Proposition 63 did not, and the Panel agreed. The decision also found that the preliminary injunction was proper under a Takings Clause challenge.

If this goes SCOTUS and is upheld does sever-ability destroy Prop 63?

[Vendome]

They didn't include sever-ability so, reason says the whole thing is tossed if one part is found unenforceable as part of a whole legislated bill.

You can't bifurcate a law in court which is Prop 63.

[Repeal 16-17]

The Ninth Circus knows which way SCOTUS is going. Perhaps, it just doesn’t want to be summarily reversed again.

[Vendome]

I was wondering the same thing but, every once in a while they actually do the right thing...

[gunsequalfreedom]

Without the convoluted legaleze....what is the outcome, what did they decide and what is the impact?

[Vendome]

In California, it’s well-known that you can’t buy magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Oh, if you had a 30 round or other so-called “high capacity” magazine from before the ban, that was fine. “If you like your magazine, you can keep your magazine,” kind of thing.

However, recently, the grandfather clause that permitted that was removed, requiring people with those magazines to either remove them from the state, sell them to a licensed gun dealer (and why they would buy something they couldn’t sell is beyond me), or turn it in to law enforcement for destruction.

Unsurprisingly, the rule was challenged and a preliminary injunction was issued. This is a logical step designed to keep people from being forced to lose magazines they can’t recoup should the challengers win.

Then, in a shocking turn of events, the Ninth Circuit actually affirmed the preliminary injunction.

[gunsequalfreedom]

Thank you. Very much appreciate the clear explanation.