Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

451
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 10:00 pm
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:55 pm Appeal to CA9 filed. That didn't take long.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .150.0.pdf

Fuck Bonta. What a fucking waste of taxpayer money.
As bad as republicans when it comes to their pet agenda.
Ironically like TX AG Ken Paxton whose wife sits in the TX state senate, CA AG Bonta's wife Mia Bonta is a member of the CA state assembly.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

452
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who enforces the state's laws, plans to seek a stay while he appeals the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He said Californians need to be kept safe from weapons enhancements that are "designed" to cause mass casualties. "The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states--and we believe that the district court got this wrong," Bonta said. "We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake."

Benitez delayed enforcing his injunction against the law for 10 days to give Bonta time to seek a stay. The judge had struck down the magazines ban in March 2019, but the 9th Circuit overturned him in Nov. 2021. The Supreme Court vacated the appeals court ruling and ordered new proceedings consistent with the Bruen decision.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, in a statement, said Friday's decision reflects the "sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws."
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/ar ... -magazines
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

454
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 11:04 pm Cute that Bonta forgot to include the part where SCOTUS GVRd the en banc panel's ruling.

And poor, poor outraged Newsom's tweet about this has him frothing and sounding more and more like that orange asshole. Same cloth.
I hate the idea of pick a tyrant, I’ll pick none at that point.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

455
Even before the Bruen decision, Benitez had rejected the validity of California’s magazine ban, writing in his 2019 decision that the law effectively made criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. “Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few madmen with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals,” Benitez wrote at the time. “Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law.”
Benitez’s decision on Friday — emboldened by Bruen — was even more forceful in its rejection of the magazine ban than his 2019 decision. The judge said California’s 10-round limit was without precedent, “arbitrary,” “capricious” and “extreme.” Under the ban, “the previously law-abiding California citizen who buys and keeps at her bedside a nationally popular Glock 17 (with its standard 17-round magazine) becomes the criminal,” Benitez wrote in his decision, “because the State dictates that a gun with a 17-round magazine is not well-suited for home defense.”

“Indeed, many of the nation’s best-selling handguns and rifles come standard with magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, and firearms equipped with such magazines are safely possessed by law-abiding citizens in the vast majority of states,” the plaintiffs argued. “The reason for the popularity of these magazines is straightforward: In a confrontation with a violent attacker, having enough ammunition can be the difference between life and death.”
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... eal-likely
But Gov. Gavin Newsom said that with his latest ruling, Benitez was no longer “even pretending” to be an impartial jurist. “This is politics, pure and simple,” he said in a statement.
So says the guy who is a pure politician, everything he does is political.

Where I live is a sheriff's contract town, after dark it's patrolled by one deputy who also patrols unincorporated areas of the county and could be an hour away. Deputies from the adjoining county might be a little closer if the road from that county isn't blocked. Not everyone lives in a major city with a 5 minute police response time.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

458
The 9th Circuit judges on this en banc panel.

Murgia - Obama [chief judge]
Graber - Clinton
Wardlaw - Clinton
Paez - Clinton
Berzon - Clinton
Ikuta - Bush
Hurwitz - Obama
R Nelson - Trump
Bumatay - Trump
VanDyke - Trump

Judges Ikuta, R. Nelson, Bumatay, and VanDyke dissent from the granting
of the administrative stay
While our rules may leave room for such an unusual step, discretion and wisdom counsel against it. Indeed, to my knowledge, no en banc panel of this court has ever handled an emergency administrative stay motion as an initial matter. And the majority cites no precedent otherwise. So I’m left wondering why we rush to do something so unorthodox.
- from the Bumatay dissent
The story of the Second Amendment in this circuit has been a consistent tale
of our court versus the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That tale continues
today, and will continue as long as a number of my colleagues retain the discretion
to twist the law and procedure to reach their desired conclusion. As uncomfortable
as it is to keep pointing that out, it is important the public keeps being reminded of
that fact.
- from the VanDyke dissent.

It cuts out a three judge panel, if they're just going to reverse Benitez's ruling it will get back to SCOTUS quicker. This is going to be a very active en banc group, can't wait for the oral arguments.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

459
From the en banc panel's order.
The stay does not apply to the district court’s order enjoining Section 32310(c) and (d) for large capacity magazines that were lawfully acquired before the district court’s order.
After the original district court decision in Duncan v Becerra (2022) which is now Duncan v Bonta (2023), there was a brief window when some Californians legally purchased standard sized magazines. Does this grandfather them as they were legally purchased before this recent district court order?
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

461
The shits is, we've won this case 3 times now, 4 if you count the GVR that vacated the original en banc loss. This case has already been to SCOTUS. It's a travesty that a constitutional matter (and I'm not limiting this to magazines) should be tied up in court since 2017 with 3 legit wins and one trip to SCOTUS then the one panel that handed out the vacated loss pulls this shit to do it again. They had their chance on remand but punted back to district court. Yet here we are.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

462
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:49 am The shits is, we've won this case 3 times now, 4 if you count the GVR that vacated the original en banc loss. This case has already been to SCOTUS. It's a travesty that a constitutional matter (and I'm not limiting this to magazines) should be tied up in court since 2017 with 3 legit wins and one trip to SCOTUS then the one panel that handed out the vacated loss pulls this shit to do it again. They had their chance on remand but punted back to district court. Yet here we are.
This is why I think our system including legal is irredeemably broken. A court system that is so politically corrupted that it won’t accept a legal outcome is no different than a party and candidate that won’t accept the outcome of an election.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

463
I agree, it's very frustrating that our 2A rights depend on winning temporary court battles, that Democratic appointees are determined to overturn at every appellate junction. Now we wait to see what tricks this en banc panel will play in this case and then we wait again in line to get cert at SCOTUS.

From the two dissents in this order, I expect that lawyers on both sides will get pummeled with questions during oral arguments. When this case was at SCOTUS, the attorney representing Duncan was Paul Clement when he was at Kirkland & Ellis. Now that he has his own law firm Clement and Murphy don't know if he'll be involved arguing this one.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

464
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:02 am
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:49 am The shits is, we've won this case 3 times now, 4 if you count the GVR that vacated the original en banc loss. This case has already been to SCOTUS. It's a travesty that a constitutional matter (and I'm not limiting this to magazines) should be tied up in court since 2017 with 3 legit wins and one trip to SCOTUS then the one panel that handed out the vacated loss pulls this shit to do it again. They had their chance on remand but punted back to district court. Yet here we are.
This is why I think our system including legal is irredeemably broken. A court system that is so politically corrupted that it won’t accept a legal outcome is no different than a party and candidate that won’t accept the outcome of an election.

Yes, I expect that the four dissenters in this order will be the same in the final opinion of this en banc panel. Judge VanDyke is correct in his dissent on this order.
The story of the Second Amendment in this circuit has been a consistent tale of our court versus the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That tale continues today, and will continue as long as a number of my colleagues retain the discretion to twist the law and procedure to reach their desired conclusion. As uncomfortable as it is to keep pointing that out, it is important the public keeps being reminded of that fact.


We've been led along the path of hoping that the 9th Circuit changes, but it never has and probably never will.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

465
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:22 am
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:02 am
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:49 am The shits is, we've won this case 3 times now, 4 if you count the GVR that vacated the original en banc loss. This case has already been to SCOTUS. It's a travesty that a constitutional matter (and I'm not limiting this to magazines) should be tied up in court since 2017 with 3 legit wins and one trip to SCOTUS then the one panel that handed out the vacated loss pulls this shit to do it again. They had their chance on remand but punted back to district court. Yet here we are.
This is why I think our system including legal is irredeemably broken. A court system that is so politically corrupted that it won’t accept a legal outcome is no different than a party and candidate that won’t accept the outcome of an election.

Yes, I expect that the four dissenters in this order will be the same in the final opinion of this en banc panel. Judge VanDyke is correct in his dissent on this order.
The story of the Second Amendment in this circuit has been a consistent tale of our court versus the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That tale continues today, and will continue as long as a number of my colleagues retain the discretion to twist the law and procedure to reach their desired conclusion. As uncomfortable as it is to keep pointing that out, it is important the public keeps being reminded of that fact.


We've been led along the path of hoping that the 9th Circuit changes, but it never has and probably never will.
Broken is broken. This type of disregard leads to any political faction controlling a part of this country doing whatever their agenda dictates. People’s rights will be repressed and eliminated depending on the party in charge. Perhaps it’s time to throw in the towel. One thing is for sure, it won’t end peacefully.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

466
I'd say 4 wins - 2 district court wins, 1- 9th circuit 3 judge panel win and a reversal and remand by SCOTUS. I expect if this en banc panel reverses the district court and it's appealed to SCOTUS, that there will be quite a few blue states filing amici briefs. Quite a few states imitated CA's 10 round mag restriction, they have an interest in preserving it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

467
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:02 am A court system that is so politically corrupted that it won’t accept a legal outcome is no different than a party and candidate that won’t accept the outcome of an election.
Yup. If you want to ensure mass instability, make it so the people don't trust the system because it has become totally corrupt. Remind us again why we have laws if the government doesn't follow them? Is the expectation that only the lower cast (because that's where we're headed) must follow the law?

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

468
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:53 am
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:02 am A court system that is so politically corrupted that it won’t accept a legal outcome is no different than a party and candidate that won’t accept the outcome of an election.
Yup. If you want to ensure mass instability, make it so the people don't trust the system because it has become totally corrupt. Remind us again why we have laws if the government doesn't follow them? Is the expectation that only the lower cast (because that's where we're headed) must follow the law?
Strip away enough rights and instill party dogma fealty, eventually we will be in a feudalistic society where the elites govern and the people accept they know best. It’s not a future I’d willingly accept.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

469
Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

470
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists
I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

471
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists
I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.
Yes, the myths cultures perpetuate. Thankfully there is a constitutional amendment that we can claim in our defense, like some claim Americans freedom of religion, of the press, speech, assembly... California politicians aren't fully acquainted with 2A, but court challenges will hopefully get them there eventually.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

472
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:37 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists
I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.
Yes, the myths cultures perpetuate. Thankfully there is a constitutional amendment that we can claim in our defense, like some claim Americans freedom of religion, of the press, speech, assembly... California politicians aren't fully acquainted with 2A, but court challenges will hopefully get them there eventually.
The one that fucking kills me is the new microstamping law. They don't give a shit if it's unconstitutional. The old unconstitutional microstamping law isn't even cold yet and they pass another.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

473
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:48 pm
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:37 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists
I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.
Yes, the myths cultures perpetuate. Thankfully there is a constitutional amendment that we can claim in our defense, like some claim Americans freedom of religion, of the press, speech, assembly... California politicians aren't fully acquainted with 2A, but court challenges will hopefully get them there eventually.
The one that fucking kills me is the new microstamping law. They don't give a shit if it's unconstitutional. The old unconstitutional microstamping law isn't even cold yet and they pass another.
The Democrats who control the CA Legislature along with Newsom, do it just because with a supermajority they can do it any time they want. They're like of bunch of bullies drawing a line in the sand and daring courts to overturn the second microstamping law.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

474
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:59 pm
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:48 pm
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:37 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm

I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.
Yes, the myths cultures perpetuate. Thankfully there is a constitutional amendment that we can claim in our defense, like some claim Americans freedom of religion, of the press, speech, assembly... California politicians aren't fully acquainted with 2A, but court challenges will hopefully get them there eventually.
The one that fucking kills me is the new microstamping law. They don't give a shit if it's unconstitutional. The old unconstitutional microstamping law isn't even cold yet and they pass another.
The Democrats who control the CA Legislature along with Newsom, do it just because with a supermajority they can do it any time they want. They're like of bunch of bullies drawing a line in the sand and daring courts to overturn the second microstamping law.
Now, my history sucks, but isn't this reminiscent of the Dems "efforts" after Brown v Board and certain Jim Crow era fuckery? Dems aren't always on the side of good. Sometimes, they take the bit in the teeth and double down on stupid. It's one of my problems with party loyalty at all costs. Sometimes, you really should take a peak under the tablecloth.

Re: California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

475
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:48 pm
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:37 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:19 pm
highdesert wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:38 am Gun owners in CA are a minority and we're treated as such. In a democracy the majority rules, so to become a majority we have to convince people to change their votes. We're up against a powerful gun control/anti-gun lobby in CA who lump all of us gun owners together and we're dismissed as Republicans. The CA Democratic big donors including the Hollywood moguls can afford to pay for armed security, if they want a gun permit I assume that can be arranged quietly. A lot of actors own guns, but not all of them live in CA.
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-peop ... rity-lists
I have a vague recollection of how proud people were of the rights of the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This was proudly told to me by all my peers as an immigrant in Massachusetts in the 1960’s. They naturally assumed I came from a place where minorities were regularly denied their rights. I guess that’s another myth we can put in the dust bin.
Yes, the myths cultures perpetuate. Thankfully there is a constitutional amendment that we can claim in our defense, like some claim Americans freedom of religion, of the press, speech, assembly... California politicians aren't fully acquainted with 2A, but court challenges will hopefully get them there eventually.
The one that fucking kills me is the new microstamping law. They don't give a shit if it's unconstitutional. The old unconstitutional microstamping law isn't even cold yet and they pass another.
Let's not forget that microstamping was signed by Ahnold.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests