Supreme Court asked to consider California case on 10 round mag limits

[dutchman 1]

Both the Federal District and Appeals Courts upheld the 10 round mag limit ordinance of Sunnyvale, CA.  

 

Six Californians have appealed to SCOTUS. We now wait for the response to the appeal.  

 

Note that 66% of Sunnyvale voted in favor of 10 round limits.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/new-test-of-gun-rights/#more-206184

 

At least SCOTUS didn't decline to hear the case at all.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Quote: "Magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are hardly crucial for citizens to exercise their right to bear arms,” the judge commented."

 

Therefore you've got 10 chances to stop an intruder before you have to stop and reload. Hardly crucial my ass...

[ryan_j 0]

It's a preliminary injunction, and justice Kennedy is asking for a response from the city.

 

Not much to go on at this point, but it seems hopeful. 

[springfieldxds 0]

The 9th circuit hasn't ruled on the case yet, they just refused to put the law on hold while they go through the appeals process

 

They're not asking the supreme Court to take the case (yet) they're just asking that Scotus puts the law on hold while they appeal to the 9th

[brucin 923]

Here is a video that shows why a magazine limit is bad for law abiding citizens. It's a little melodramatic but it gets the point across. 

 

[bhunted 887]

Good vid. Short and to the point.

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

[dutchman 1]

Temporary hold denied - Law is now 10 rounds in Sunnyvale during appeal process

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/new-test-of-gun-rights/

[njpilot 671]

Temporary hold denied - Law is now 10 rounds in Sunnyvale during appeal process

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/new-test-of-gun-rights/

That is ridiculous. Any time a law is challenged with appeals, that would cause people to sell off property, especially property that should and may be protected by the Bill of Rights, should automatically be delayed until all appeals are exhausted.

 

What if the plaintiffs win. Now they have sold or turned in their property and can't get it back.

[PDM 91]

There are two standards for an injunction:  1) likelihood success on the merits and 2) irreparable harm.  In this case there is indeed harm, but whether it is irreparable is questionable.  Can't get the property back but could be compensated monetarily.  In any event, it is the first prong which is the problem -- the courts found that there is no likelihood of success on the merits -- ie their preliminary view is that the 10 rd limit doesn't violate the 2A.

[voyager9 3,434]

I thought cities couldn't make their own rules and that stuff like this had to be at the state or federal level.

[ryan_j 0]

I thought cities couldn't make their own rules and that stuff like this had to be at the state or federal level.

 

Not at all. If there is not state preemption, municipalities can do whatever they want. 

[njpilot 671]

I thought cities couldn't make their own rules and that stuff like this had to be at the state or federal level.

Depends on the state. Some have a preemption law that says cities can't pass their own laws that conflict with state law.

 

Like Philly trying to pass their own gun laws. State says no, they can't.

[springfieldxds 0]

There are two standards for an injunction:  1) likelihood success on the merits and 2) irreparable harm.  In this case there is indeed harm, but whether it is irreparable is questionable.  Can't get the property back but could be compensated monetarily.  In any event, it is the first prong which is the problem -- the courts found that there is no likelihood of success on the merits -- ie their preliminary view is that the 10 rd limit doesn't violate the 2A.

 

not exactly, though i agree with you that Kennedy refusing the stay is not a good thing, it doesn't really speak about how they feel about its constitutionality of the law, courts have expressed over and over again that refusing a stay should give no hint in which way they would rule

 

take the 9th circuit for example, they ruled that California's good cause is unconstitutional but they did issue a stay on the ruling as the state figures out what it wants to do 

 

imo it seems more likely they would allow stays for the states and government than for single or more plaintiffs  

[ryan_j 0]

The only reason the 9th issued a stay is to give the parties time to respond. 

 

A stay was issued in Moore as well but as we know, IL now has concealed carry. 

[raz-0 1,259]

I thought cities couldn't make their own rules and that stuff like this had to be at the state or federal level.

 

Depends on the state. Some states like CA do not let cities do such things. Hence why SF gun bans have been overturned repeatedly without leaving the CA court system. 

[Rob0115 1,105]

Now that we face the same issue can we seek relief at a federal level?  This 10 round mag thing is the ultimate pandering bull$sh!t.  

[raz-0 1,259]

Now that we face the same issue can we seek relief at a federal level? This 10 round mag thing is the ultimate pandering bull$sh!t.

Any time they pass a law, you can form a class and challenge it. How viable that course of action is is questionable.