Posted on 08/14/2020 9:49:25 AM PDT by Trump20162020
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled for the plaintiffs in Duncan v. Becerra, striking down the states large capacity magazine ban.
As the opinion notes:
The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment: (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; and (2) if so, what level of scrutiny to apply to the regulation. United states v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013)
The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, and are not unusual arms that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second Amendment protection.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
Here are my thoughts:
1) Glad about this decision;
2) CA will appeal to the full 9th Circus (it is STILL a circus, even with Trump’s appointments), where the ban will be upheld;
3) It’ll be appealed to the Supreme Court, which won’t give the case cert - so the ban will end up standing.
4) “...and are not unusual arms that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”
I would like to know where, exactly, in the 2nd Amendment all arms except “unusual” ones are protected. I have pretty decent reading comprehension, and to me it says, “...the right of the people to bear ARMS [emphasis added] shall not be infringed.” “Arms,” not “all but unusual arms.” This kind of 1st-grade-level legal analysis is the reason why I know that the full 9th Circus will overrule the panel and support the ban.
“One word. Reload.”
All of this shows the wisdom of stocking up during times of plenty, even if only 100 rounds/month of 1 caliber at a time - over the course of 5 years that would be 6,000 rounds of ammo.
But don’t you love how they rely on precedent? By that logic, Dred Scott would still be law. I have always thought that to be a BS standard - judges, even groups of them, are far from perfect. If they made mistakes X number of years ago, then precedent would argue against ever overturning those bad decisions.
Wish that Hornady A-Max would come down. $7 each...OUCH.
L
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.