California: Duncan v. Becerra; high capacity magazine ruling WIN - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-29-2019, 05:31 PM
1desertrat 1desertrat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bay area, California
Posts: 98
California: Duncan v. Becerra; high capacity magazine ruling WIN

It'll be shot down once it reaches the 9th circus court of fools but it's still a huge win prior to going to the 9th. There's a link to the ruling in the first post.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...3#post22819523
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-29-2019, 05:59 PM
zogger zogger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 995
Nice win!

If this is eventually upheld so that states can't ban magazines more than 10 rnds, what happens to states like NY who also have such a ban?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-29-2019, 07:05 PM
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by zogger View Post
Nice win!

If this is eventually upheld so that states can't ban magazines more than 10 rnds, what happens to states like NY who also have such a ban?
It depends on the path of appellate action. If Duncan were to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Benitez' ruling be upheld, then it would apply to New York.

But at the present time, the decision don't do nothing for New York.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 03-29-2019, 08:14 PM
YVK YVK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1desertrat View Post
It'll be shot down once it reaches the 9th circus
It must go back to the same three judges that ruled on the preliminary injunction in this case, which was ruled in favor of plaintiff. That might be good. You're probably right though, but who knows, stranger things have happened. Also, people who do this stuff for living stated that Judge Benitez's opinion is an excellent writing and that makes it harder for the 9th to just blow it off.
__________________
Sig Sauer also contends that ATF placed too great an emphasis upon reliability in determining which offers should continue to phase III.
U.S. GAO-B-402339.3
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-29-2019, 09:31 PM
Sistema1927 Sistema1927 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,048
Correction: "REGULAR capacity" mags. "High Capacity" are weasel words used by the anti-freedom crowd.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-29-2019, 10:38 PM
LostintheOzone LostintheOzone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 49th parallel
Posts: 5,602
I have a funny feeling that magazines may get a pass in the courts for awhile but what good does a magazine do if they regulate the firearms that use them.

Is a 30 rd AR magazine illegal in Kansas? I don't think it is, but the minute you put it in an unregistered M-16 you could have a problem.

We aren't going to get anywhere until the SC looks at the firearm and a states right to regulate it.

If that ruling had been regarding a SA rifle like an AR then we would be getting somewhere.
__________________
When asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-29-2019, 10:54 PM
YVK YVK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,414
I have a funny feeling that if something as entrenched as California's mag capacity restriction is thrown out, it would be a huge win with implications beyond just the mag capacity. Not only it might affect other states like NY, CT or HI, it also goes to the core of a much broader issue of allowing states and localities to impose their own regulations. SCOTUS' refusal to grant a writ to Friedman vs Highland Park in 2015 has given the antis extra fuel in that regard. Time to cut that off. And, even if I am overreaching in my expectations, getting the mag capacity restored to normal in CA and elsewhere is a big deal.
__________________
Sig Sauer also contends that ATF placed too great an emphasis upon reliability in determining which offers should continue to phase III.
U.S. GAO-B-402339.3
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-29-2019, 11:34 PM
LostintheOzone LostintheOzone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 49th parallel
Posts: 5,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by YVK View Post
I have a funny feeling that if something as entrenched as California's mag capacity restriction is thrown out, it would be a huge win with implications beyond just the mag capacity. Not only it might affect other states like NY, CT or HI, it also goes to the core of a much broader issue of allowing states and localities to impose their own regulations. SCOTUS' refusal to grant a writ to Friedman vs Highland Park in 2015 has given the antis extra fuel in that regard. Time to cut that off. And, even if I am overreaching in my expectations, getting the mag capacity restored to normal in CA and elsewhere is a big deal.
It could be a big deal as you suggest. An even bigger deal would be if the courts would rule on the firearm favorably.

My point is if the courts rule that 30 rd mags are legal to possess in CA, it does little good if they still regulate the firearm that uses one.

I guess we'll have to wait and see where this goes.
__________________
When asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”

Last edited by LostintheOzone; 03-30-2019 at 12:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-29-2019, 11:58 PM
dsf dsf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CA - for now.
Posts: 2,929
In case anyone wants to read the back and forth and nuances. Start at page 27:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...335810&page=27

Even the conclusion is subject to interpretation:

"Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that law-abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home."

Taken in context with the entirety of the decision it seems straightforward. But the devil is in the details. And the decision does reference 50 or 100 round magazines as perhaps being "dangerous and unusual" or that the state could regulate the number of magazines purchased, licensing, serial numbering of magazines or background checks for purchase. Perhaps waiting periods.

CA won't just let this go as is.

But, it may open a window by which all those "weren't around in 2004" model magazines could have been plausibly legally obtained, should it happen that we're returned to existing possession OK but future acquisition prohibited.
__________________
dsf

Last edited by dsf; 03-30-2019 at 12:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-30-2019, 12:14 AM
Rogerbutthead Rogerbutthead is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Northern California
Posts: 85
This was the same judge who granted a stay on getting rid of the magazines in California until the case was decided. There is a similar case going on in the Sacramento area I believe and that judge would not grant a stay.

A review by the 9th Circuit is pretty much expected and that outcome is far from certain too.

I hate living in California, but I do enjoy what victories we can get. Thank you Judge Benitez.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-30-2019, 12:50 AM
gumbee gumbee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Orange County,California
Posts: 2,890
Likewise ^^^^^^and now that there is a federal decision, it can eventually go to SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-30-2019, 04:30 AM
combat auto's Avatar
combat auto combat auto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,640
Oops, dup, many apologies...
__________________
Member: NRA, GOA, ANJRPC, VCDL.
"To be born free is an accident. To live free is a responsibility. To die free is an obligation."-Gen. Halley.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." –Ulysses
Ekeibolon - Jeff Cooper

Last edited by combat auto; 03-30-2019 at 04:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-30-2019, 04:31 AM
combat auto's Avatar
combat auto combat auto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,640
AWESOME, the Shooter's in the Lefty Controlled states keep fighting!

Congratulation's shooter's in CA!!! Great job!...We have two law suites in-progress in NJ, the shall issue carry which is in the " certiorari-process" now, and our very own 10R limit suite (lost the injunction, being fully litigated now and hope the 3rd circuit which is now republican majority thanks to POTUS) flips the decision. Otherwise off to SC...And likely another suite by years end to fight the upcoming internet ammo ban here.

Keep fighting, I hope your win is a foreshadowing for the turning of the tide now with all the conservative federal judges being appointed.
__________________
Member: NRA, GOA, ANJRPC, VCDL.
"To be born free is an accident. To live free is a responsibility. To die free is an obligation."-Gen. Halley.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." –Ulysses
Ekeibolon - Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-30-2019, 04:34 AM
combat auto's Avatar
combat auto combat auto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,640
BTW, Do any of you CA shooter's have any insight into the latest with suite against your Internet ammo ban?
__________________
Member: NRA, GOA, ANJRPC, VCDL.
"To be born free is an accident. To live free is a responsibility. To die free is an obligation."-Gen. Halley.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." –Ulysses
Ekeibolon - Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-30-2019, 04:47 AM
Rogerbutthead Rogerbutthead is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Northern California
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by combat auto View Post
BTW, Do any of you CA shooter's have any insight into the latest with suite against your Internet ammo ban?
Nothing much new - https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...1443673&page=3
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-30-2019, 06:44 AM
Plantar5 Plantar5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 6,370
Way to go, California! The legal argument was an excellent read.

Hopefully the appellate courts will begin to own up to what WE all already know.

Stop making US the criminals when all we’re doing is protecting ourselves and families, and trying not to become a statistic.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-30-2019, 07:24 AM
Rogerbutthead Rogerbutthead is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Northern California
Posts: 85
I believe many Californians are driving to Nevada this weekend, buying all the magazines they can find and being back in California before the state blocks the ability to purchase legally on Monday.

I await Monday's legal activities.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-30-2019, 09:50 AM
FNHipowerluv FNHipowerluv is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,830
Interesting. I wonder what would happen if this were brought to SCOTUS? Kavenaugh, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are likely yes votes, but Roberts is a mystery and a risk. If Ginsburg could not be present (I'm assuming she is still alive at the moment.) at the time of the case it would likely be a tie, until Roberts chooses his side.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-30-2019, 10:02 AM
YVK YVK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by FNHipowerluv View Post
Interesting. I wonder what would happen if this were brought to SCOTUS?
Last I remember, SCOTUS takes on less than 5% of filed petitions. Whoever is on a bench right now, I've not much hope that they will be listening to this case. I think the mian hope here is that Benitez's opinion is so well written that the 9th can't roll over it without losing credibility. In its face value, that is, since we know the lost de facto credibility awhile ago.
__________________
Sig Sauer also contends that ATF placed too great an emphasis upon reliability in determining which offers should continue to phase III.
U.S. GAO-B-402339.3
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-30-2019, 12:15 PM
FNISHR FNISHR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Johnson City, Tennessee
Posts: 2,819
And on a Plaintiff's Motion for summary judgment at that. Nice work.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-30-2019, 02:07 PM
LostintheOzone LostintheOzone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 49th parallel
Posts: 5,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by YVK View Post
Last I remember, SCOTUS takes on less than 5% of filed petitions. Whoever is on a bench right now, I've not much hope that they will be listening to this case. I think the mian hope here is that Benitez's opinion is so well written that the 9th can't roll over it without losing credibility. In its face value, that is, since we know the lost de facto credibility awhile ago.
Was it not the 9th that upheld may issue in CA. That to me goes right to core of one's RKBA. To deny a person the ability to carry seems pretty draconian when just about every state has shall issue.

WTH is wrong with the 9th district?
__________________
When asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-30-2019, 02:58 PM
Rogerbutthead Rogerbutthead is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Northern California
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostintheOzone View Post
WTH is wrong with the 9th district?
Combination of Liberals liking warm weather, older conservatives dying off and schools producing more Liberals.

Every video I see regarding school teachers in California, they are blatantly Liberal in their teaching. Hell, even seen video where they cry describing how they "saw" a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-31-2019, 04:47 AM
dsf dsf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CA - for now.
Posts: 2,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerbutthead View Post
I believe many Californians are driving to Nevada this weekend, buying all the magazines they can find and being back in California before the state blocks the ability to purchase legally on Monday.

I await Monday's legal activities.
Some don't need to drive. Many on line sellers are selling to California now:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1521211

Even if the 9th overturns, this decision opens a window by which a whole host of magazines for guns not available in 2000, whose owners (until now) couldn't have legally acquired standard capacity magazines during the ban, can plausibly assert they did so.
__________________
dsf
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-31-2019, 12:03 PM
Rattlesnakedaddy Rattlesnakedaddy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 201
Excellent news. I hated trying to track down 10rd magazines for my firearms when I moved out to CA. Would love to get back to standard capacity.

RSD
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-31-2019, 02:52 PM
7.62Kolectr 7.62Kolectr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: On Guard.....
Posts: 5,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsf View Post
Some don't need to drive. Many on line sellers are selling to California now:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1521211

Even if the 9th overturns, this decision opens a window by which a whole host of magazines for guns not available in 2000, whose owners (until now) couldn't have legally acquired standard capacity magazines during the ban, can plausibly assert they did so.
For sure. The internet is abuzz with folks confirming orders processed and not rejected. Palmetto State Armory posted on their site that due to recent rulings they would now ship to Cali.
__________________
http://constitution.org/lrev/rkba_wayment.htm
COTEP#782
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved