Jump to content
USMC1341

Duncan vs. Becerra 9th Circuit 10 Round Mag Limit Unconstitutional

Recommended Posts

Came out this morning. Here's the Opinion:

https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/6d809a9cc6fddb883f29559e63a83234/94d604dc/DuncanvBecerraOpinion.pdf

Yay CA!

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of largecapacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the Second Amendment.

The panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 did not survive strict scrutiny review. First, the panel held that the state interests advanced here were compelling: preventing and mitigating gun violence. Second, the panel held that Section 32310 was not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interests it purported to serve because the state’s chosen method – a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone – was not the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling interests.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kc17 said:

I believe the NJ groups already did and were shot down in the courts.

There was an injunction sought that was shot down, but where did the case go? Or did that get a no and die without me noticing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure. It's hard to track; at least on the ANJRPC website because they don't seem to date articles, nor do I see a way to sort search results by date.

My point was NJ did try to fight it and so far was losing or lost. I have zero hope in SCOTUS with the current members on the bench. The blow 2A was dealt recently removed any remaining hope I was hanging on to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

There was an injunction sought that was shot down, but where did the case go? Or did that get a no and die without me noticing it. 

I think it got put on the shelf by ANJRPC after the recent dozen or so 2A cases got the cold shoulder by the SCOTUS. In other words, why bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I thought the court decided that the NJ case was bound by the decision during the injunction... which mean they sided with the state. 

Thats not possible, is it? 

They sought a permanent injunction until the case was heard, the state said no. Unless I missed something the actual case has not be heard, I dont believe a preliminary ruling can be applied to the full courts opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Thats not possible, is it? 

They sought a permanent injunction until the case was heard, the state said no. Unless I missed something the actual case has not be heard, I dont believe a preliminary ruling can be applied to the full courts opinion. 

I’d have to look back as I may be confusing two different cases.   I thought the state filed to dismiss the case and the lower court agreed based on the decision of the judge during the injunction hearings.   Basically “She wouldn’t have denied an injunction if the case had merit so we find that the case doesn’t have merit”. 
 

edit: Reading back I was thinking about the oral arguments during the 3rd circuit hearing.  The state, and one of the judges on the panel, stated that this panel would be bound by the decision of the panel that heard the injunction if that panel ruled on the merits of the case. 
 

Found this in a Reddit thread on the subject :

The state (and Judge Jordan) are relying on this case, Pitt News v. Pappert III: "On the other hand, if the first panel does not stop at the question of likelihood of success and instead addresses the merits, the later panel, in accordance with our Court's traditional practice, should regard itself as bound by the prior panel opinion." They're saying that the first panel did in fact address the merits of the issue and that the current panel is therefore bound by the prior opinion.

 

29 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Edit: Can this decision get overturned by an en banc review?

Almost certainly can and will. The 9th is still dem-led 16 to 13 so while the chances are better that the 11-judge en banc panel is neutral or even conservative, it isn’t likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, always_an_eagle said:

This is great news to our brothers and sisters on the west coast! Now what does it mean for us?

Doesn't mean squat, at the moment.

We need a couple of new pro-2A SCOTUS justices to overcome Roberts' prejudice and have the court resolve the differences in the Districts in our favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

ANJRPC's magazine case is still in the 3rd circuit, case 19-3142:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12252/association-new-jersey-rifle-v-attorney-general-new-jersey/

Right. I corrected myself.  I think oral arguments were in early June

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Procedurally, from my understanding of the law, the way for this to apply in NJ would be for California to appeal, it goes to SCOTUS and they either Decline to hear it (meaning lower court stands and is Law of Land) or take the case and sides against California. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, geekLa said:

Procedurally, from my understanding of the law, the way for this to apply in NJ would be for California to appeal, it goes to SCOTUS and they either Decline to hear it (meaning lower court stands and is Law of Land) or take the case and sides against California. 
 

So if it made it to SCOTUS and they don't hear the case, the ruling that currently only applies to the 9th circuit would then apply to the entire US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, geekLa said:

Procedurally, from my understanding of the law, the way for this to apply in NJ would be for California to appeal, it goes to SCOTUS and they either Decline to hear it (meaning lower court stands and is Law of Land) or take the case and sides against California. 
 

Procedurally, CA asks for an injunction pending an en banc hearing I believe. That can give them 5 years of so of getting away with it based on the last time the 9th dragged it's heels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Regular Guy said:

So if it made it to SCOTUS and they don't hear the case, the ruling that currently only applies to the 9th circuit would then apply to the entire US?

I don’t think that’s how it works.  If they do t take the case then the circuit ruling stands, but still only in that circuit. No national precedence. 

10 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Procedurally, CA asks for an injunction pending an en banc hearing I believe. That can give them 5 years of so of getting away with it based on the last time the 9th dragged it's heels. 

CA already has an injunction on the lower court ruling. They don’t have to ask for another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next, the CA AG will ask for en banc review, they will rehear it en banc, and (surprise) the panel decision will be overturned. Just like every other "big win" in the 9th circuit.

Then it will be appealed to SCOTUS, which will probably refuse to hear it - just like every other "sure thing" case in recent history.

I would apologize for being pessimistic, but that has been the result since McDonald was decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just out from ANJRPC!

 
CALIFORNIA MAG BAN KILLED
BY FEDERAL APPEALS COURT
 
ANJRPC Attorney Dan Schmutter reports the following to NJ gun owners:
 
Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released a major decision in the case Duncan v. Becerra holding that California’s ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Click here for a copy of the decision.
 
Recounting the history of firearms in America, the court found these magazines are commonly possessed by millions of law abiding Americans for lawful purposes. The court explained that California’s ban strikes at the core of the Second Amendment right, hindering the fundamental right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense. Because of this, the court ruled that the magazine ban must be evaluated using the most severe constitutional test known as “strict scrutiny” and that the ban failed that test and must be stricken as unconstitutional.
 
What does this mean for New Jersey? While the decision does not directly affect New Jersey's magazine ban, we do think it has potential to influence the upcoming decision in ANJRPC's own challenge to NJ's very similar magazine ban. We are currently awaiting a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in that case. 
 
Today we brought the Duncan decision to the attention of the panel of Judges deciding our case. All of the reasoning in the Duncan decision applies equally to our case, and we are urging the Third Circuit to follow the example of the Ninth Circuit and rule the same way in our case.
 
 
 
S.gif
 
The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs 
is the official NRA state affiliate in the Garden State 
 
 
Join Us On Facebook!
 
ANJRPC | PO Box 353 , Pompton Plains, NJ 07422
Unsubscribe [email protected]
Update Profile | About our service provider
Sent by [email protected]
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

This just out from ANJRPC!

 
CALIFORNIA MAG BAN KILLED
BY FEDERAL APPEALS COURT
 
ANJRPC Attorney Dan Schmutter reports the following to NJ gun owners:
 
Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released a major decision in the case Duncan v. Becerra holding that California’s ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Click here for a copy of the decision.
 
Recounting the history of firearms in America, the court found these magazines are commonly possessed by millions of law abiding Americans for lawful purposes. The court explained that California’s ban strikes at the core of the Second Amendment right, hindering the fundamental right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense. Because of this, the court ruled that the magazine ban must be evaluated using the most severe constitutional test known as “strict scrutiny” and that the ban failed that test and must be stricken as unconstitutional.
 
What does this mean for New Jersey? While the decision does not directly affect New Jersey's magazine ban, we do think it has potential to influence the upcoming decision in ANJRPC's own challenge to NJ's very similar magazine ban. We are currently awaiting a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in that case. 
 
Today we brought the Duncan decision to the attention of the panel of Judges deciding our case. All of the reasoning in the Duncan decision applies equally to our case, and we are urging the Third Circuit to follow the example of the Ninth Circuit and rule the same way in our case.
 
 
 
S.gif
 
The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs 
is the official NRA state affiliate in the Garden State 
 
 
Join Us On Facebook!
 
ANJRPC | PO Box 353 , Pompton Plains, NJ 07422
Unsubscribe [email protected]
Update Profile | About our service provider
Sent by [email protected]
 

Was just about to post this.

Thanks.

 

"What does this mean for New Jersey? While the decision does not directly affect New Jersey's magazine ban, we do think it has potential to influence the upcoming decision in ANJRPC's own challenge to NJ's very similar magazine ban. We are currently awaiting a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in that case. 
 
Today we brought the Duncan decision to the attention of the panel of Judges deciding our case. All of the reasoning in the Duncan decision applies equally to our case, and we are urging the Third Circuit to follow the example of the Ninth Circuit and rule the same way in our case. "
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, b47356 said:

Next, the CA AG will ask for en banc review, they will rehear it en banc, and (surprise) the panel decision will be overturned. Just like every other "big win" in the 9th circuit.

Then it will be appealed to SCOTUS, which will probably refuse to hear it - just like every other "sure thing" case in recent history.

I would apologize for being pessimistic, but that has been the result since McDonald was decided.

So, you have seen this episode before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, b47356 said:

Next, the CA AG will ask for en banc review, they will rehear it en banc, and (surprise) the panel decision will be overturned. Just like every other "big win" in the 9th circuit.

Then it will be appealed to SCOTUS, which will probably refuse to hear it - just like every other "sure thing" case in recent history.

I would apologize for being pessimistic, but that has been the result since McDonald was decided.

Once bitten, twice (or three, four, five, six...) shy.


It's understandable.  I think we all look at these things the same.  Ever optimistic, but not really expecting much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, father-of-three said:

I read on another forum that Brownell's posted on facebook that they will ship mags to California now.

They shouldn’t, the stay on the law is still in place until the Judge releases it. The 9th circuit sent the case back for further investigation so it’s not like this is a slam dunk and CA is allowing standard capacity mags now. There’s still a decent chance this gets smacked down by an en banc judgement of the 9th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, USRifle30Cal said:

Ain't nothing gonna change in Jersey....but please send us some.money

 

Yeah i know...pessimistic 

No, realistic. Hope, aka optimism, is not a strategy. There are no choices for change other than a change of state.  I've been out a few months now and can see NJ a bit more objectivly. The grass is greener out here and NJ looks even worse from the outside. I almost feel stupid and foolish now for staying as long as I did. Get out.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, siderman said:

No, realistic. Hope, aka optimism, is not a strategy. There are no choices for change other than a change of state.  I've been out a few months now and can see NJ a bit more objectivly. The grass is greener out here and NJ looks even worse from the outside. I almost feel stupid and foolish now for staying as long as I did. Get out.

I feel the exact same way. Been out of NJ for 5 year and have loved every minute of it. Most places in the USA are better than NJ. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Regular Guy said:

So if it made it to SCOTUS and they don't hear the case, the ruling that currently only applies to the 9th circuit would then apply to the entire US?

I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt.

If the en banc review is successful (from the 2A perspective), and  if the SCOTUS doesn't hear the case it would absolutely apply to 9th district, however, precedent being what it is, there will likely be standing (although no guarantees) in all other districts to bring similar cases where applicable.

These districts would be district 2,3 and 4: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia all have 10 round magazine capacity restrictions.

Practically speaking, this most certainly would be taken up by SCOTUS if the 3rd circuit case that the ANJRPC is bringing is ruled unfavorable to ANJRPC. The SCOTUS traditionally would take up cases where there is conflict between districts.  

So it seems likely that if this makes it through en banc, one way or another this is headed to SCOTUS.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...