Posted on 03/29/2019 5:21:23 PM PDT by PROCON
In one of the strongest judicial statements in favor of the Second Amendment to date, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California determined on Friday that California’s ban on commonly possessed firearm magazines violates the Second Amendment.
The case is Duncan v. Becerra.
The NRA-supported case had already been up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the question of whether the law’s enforcement should be suspended during proceedings on its constitutionality. Last July, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s suspension of enforcement and sent the case back to him for further proceedings on the merits of the law itself.
Judge Benitez rendered his opinion late Friday afternoon and handed Second Amendment supporters a sweeping victory by completely invalidating California’s 10-round limit on magazine capacity. “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he declared.
In a scholarly and comprehensive opinion, Judge Benitez subjected the ban both to the constitutional analysis he argued was required by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and a more complicated and flexible test the Ninth Circuit has applied in prior Second Amendment cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
Never give up your firearms, or ANY gear related to your firearms.
Store, smuggle, stash, cache, and stock for later use.
Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn once in awhile
I'm not being negative, just realistic. I've been living in the 9th Circus for a long time. Ruling after ruling, we see Judges give us favorable, well reasoned rulings that appear to restore our rights, only to have the 9th reverse, then SCOTUS refuse to hear the appeal. One time, in Peruta v Gore, we even got a favorable ruling from the 9th, in the form of a 3-Judge Panel. Of course the case was reviewed en banc and reversed by the 9th, then refused appeal by SCOTUS. Only Thomas and Gorsuch voted with us. This cycle has been going for decades. It's like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. I would LOVE to be wrong here, but this case will follow the same path as those before it.
You’re probably right. I just grasp at straws.
Would be amazing Randall if that happened. And thanks to Marktwain for the post and explanation.
MarkTwain is Dean Weingarten, and he’s a frequent guest on an awesome radio show almost every week called Lock N Load Radio with Bill Frady. You should check it out. It’s really good.
http://gunownersofamericaradio.libsyn.com/
Well, it was only a three judge panel of the 9th, so the full court might still do the kind of thing we have gotten used to from the 9th. But the state could likely have asked for an en banc review at the time and didn’t, so the tea leaves may have pointed to what you are presuming. Hoping that’s the case ...
That was before Justice Kavanah replaced Kennedy. It’s a different court now. And in a year or two there could be one of two more Trump justices. Don’t be so defeatest.
Being realistic isn't defeatist, and denying reality isn't going to restore our rights. SCOTUS voted 7-2 to reject writ of certiorari for Peruta v CA. So now we get defeated 6-3? Not really helpful. And, SCOTUS has denied certiorari in another 2A case since Kavanaugh joined the court, and specifically denied cert on a magazine capacity case from the 4th Circuit in 2017. For the moment, it is likely best that we do NOT argue these cases in front of SCOTUS, as we may not like the result. Just one of the many reasons it is critical that we do not lose the WH or Senate in 2020. Replace RBG with a justice who respects the constitution and we can start celebrating.
SCOTUS is deciding it's first 2A case since Heller this session in Mance v. Whitaker. Not a case that will have wide impact, but at least we will get a feel for where we are.
I am honored! Thanks for the introduction and the link.
Good to see you have been following the action.
The SCOTUS refusing to grant cert is a serious problem, but it does not necessarily mean those votes are all against us in an actual case. It is possible that Roberts and Alito did not think they could persuade Kennedy to go our way.
With both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on SCOTUS, we just don't know for certain what will happen.
We don't know how the Rifle and Pistol Club of New York case will be decided, either. It might be more or less than we think.
The Justices can see the bump up in Constitutional Carry states, just as we can.
We do not know what will happen in the Ninth Circuit, either. Trump's appointments may make a difference.
OK, now the currently IMPORTANT THING...at least one company is currently shipping mags to CA—while they can. PM me I can give you the info.
Will this survive the 9th circle of hell court of appeals?
The Mama Bears from Idiot Island will do a flip
At this point not even the rats should trust Roberts but he is far more likely to support them than to support the actual constitution. He has been compromised somehow, I don’t know if the story about the illegal adoptions is what it is really about but there is no doubt that he has gone over to the dark side.
Will they cut me a check for all those “illegal” mags? Want my mags and money back.
>
That would be nice, but he has to preemptively destroy every conceivable argument against that.
>
Um, sorry, no. If THE basis for all laws says “NOT infringe”, any/every thing after is MOOT.
You “destroy every conceivable argument” by following the plain, simple English of the Law of the Land.
Were that the case, we wouldn’t have gun control laws.
But we do, because persuasive arguments are made; those must be cut down individually & preemptively,
Winning is more than just being right.
>
Were that the case, we wouldn’t have gun control laws.
>
Correct, we SHOULDN’T have ‘em. Either the Constitution is THE supreme law of the land or you’re conceding we’re a ruled under laws of men.
>
But we do, because persuasive arguments are made
those must be cut down individually & preemptively,
>
‘Persuasive’ has ZERO to do w/ the Constitutionality. The words, and their original context, MEAN something (and easy enough to research/find what the ‘something’ IS).
You’re making the same argument vs. re-instituting slavery, “Well, they HAD (a) good point(s)...”.
>
Winning is more than just being right.
>
We’ll agree to disagree here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.