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 state’s “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 ...
Does this ruling also overturn the detachable magazines ban as well ?
3 judge panel? I thought we were already at the en banc stage with this case.
WA has no limits on mag capacity.
Chief District Judge Lynn dissented, and would reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Judge Lynn wrote that the majority opinion conflicted with this Circuit’s precedent in Fyock, and with decisions in all the six sister Circuits that addressed the Second Amendment issue presented here. Judge Lynn would hold that intermediate scrutiny applies, and Cal. Penal Code § 32310 satisfies that standard.
Look for an en banc panel to overturn this ruling.
Thanks FRiend! Will do.
That’s what I expect.
From related threads…
Patriots are again reminded that the states have given Congress the express 14th Amendment (14A) power to make penal laws to discourage state actors like the misguided, activist California State government from making laws that abridge rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, 2nd Amendment (2A) in this example.
From the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had included 2A when he read the rights expressly protected in the Bill of Rights as examples of constitutionally enumerated rights that 14A applies to the states.
John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See 2nd Amendment (Article II) about in middle of 2nd column.)
And what better evidence does Congress need that California’s radical government has tried to abridge 2A protections than the 9th Circuit Court striking down California’s “high capacity” magazine gun ban?
H O W E V E R…
We’re still stuck with a worthless Congress left over from the lawless Obama administration that will predictably yawn and go back to sleep regardless of California government's violation of 14A imo.
After all, surely the feds can build a prison to accommodate California constitutional rights-ignoring activist governor and lawmakers. (Since corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress should move into prison after California politicians serve their time, Congress can design prison with a few jacuzzis.) /semi-sarc
I wouldn't be surprised to hear anything but the usual crickets from Congress's direction on this 14A issue.
On the other hand, maybe this issue will at least get us an election year stunt.
The remedy for constitutionally failed federal and state governments…
Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government desperate Democrats and RINOs home in November!
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.
They would deliberately misinterpret the glossary, too.
It’s time for the stupid dems to start paying for trampling Americans rights... And payback’s a bitch.
I have a few cases available. 9mm pistols are available in the same size as .380.
I suspect you’re right given the fierce opposition even on FR for upholding the natural born citizen clause.
Can't believe the commie WA legislature hasn't imposed something.
If you have been following this since the beginning, there is one thing that is stressed over and over again. That magazines are part of a firearm and are protected by the 2A and that they are in common use for lawful purposes. If you take all these rulings, and replace magazine with “scary black rifle” there is no difference. This is all leading towards the actual removal of the assault weapons ban. Woot!
It’s going en banc and the en banc process is rigged. The en banc panel will be stacked with Obama appointees even though it’s supposed to be “random.”
Watch and see.
hmmm NY high court unconstitutionally upheld their ban- (I don’t think it ever went to the US supreme court)- what’s different with the Cali case?
[[A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]]
Rot Roh- didn’t another case where there were 3 judges on 9’th circuit that was ruled in favor of republicans get overturned when liberals demanded the case be reheard by all the judges on the circuit court?
One difference between New York and California is that New York is a 'post-exodus' state where so many had already fled decades ago. California is still going through their exodus so there were enough still behind the lines to fight this.
The other difference is that Free Republic is based in California.
[[Look for an en banc panel to overturn this ruling. ]]
That’s my feeling- Seems like quite often when a court gives the President a win, some federal judge steps in and buts the ruling on hold, then the win gets overturned
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.