Messages
88
Reactions
108
Just read that after SCOTUS sent the CA mag limit law back to the 9th Circuit (for review under the new Bruen decision), the 9th just sent it back down to the fed district and the judge that threw it out a couple years ago as unconstitutional.
IF the district judge repeats his decision to toss the law and IF CA does not appeal that, we can hope that WA's new ban falls soon after. And OR's possible new mag limit law as well.
I know...big IFs.
 
Messages
3,386
Reactions
9,693
The case is Duncan v. Bonta

It's hard for me to imagine that Judge Benitez would change his initial opinion (that mag capacity restriction are unconstitutional). Bruen only strengthens his initial findings. The question, however, is what will the state do if he upholds his initial decision and rules mag restrictions unconstitutional? Will they accept it or appeal it?

If they appeal it, then it goes back up to the 9th and they would have to get VERY creative at this point to overturn it. But the 9th is corrupt and crazy enough to do just that. And then the case would go back up to SCOTUS. And I just can't see SCOTUS agreeing with the 9th in light of the recent Bruen decision.

I'm extremely confident that mag restrictions will ultimately be deemed unconstitutional but we may have to suffer though the ridiculously slow legal process to get there. Keep in mind that this case is already 5 years old (give or take).

Calguns has a very long thread that has been following the case in their "Litigation Updates" board, if anyone wants to follow it there.

 
Last Edited:
Messages
6,376
Reactions
10,595
The case is Duncan v. Bonta

It's hard for me to imagine that Judge Benitez would change his initial opinion (that mag capacity restriction are unconstitutional). Bruen only strengthens his initial findings. The question, however, is what will the state do if he upholds his initial decision and rules mag restrictions unconstitutional? Will they accept it or appeal it?

If they appeal it, then it goes back up to the 9th and they would have to get VERY creative at this point to overturn it. But the 9th is corrupt and crazy enough to do just that. And then the case would go back up to SCOTUS. And I just can't see SCOTUS agreeing with the 9th in light of the recent Bruen decision.

I'm extremely confident that mag restrictions will ultimately be deemed unconstitutional but we may have to suffer though the ridiculously slow legal process to get there. Keep in mind that this case is already 5 years old (give or take).

Calguns has a very long thread that has been following the case in their "Litigation Updates" board, if anyone wants to follow it there.

Yep, the 9th's ruling (which used the now-bunked 2 step process of weighing societal good vs constitutionally guaranteed individual freedom) was voided by scotus and the 9th remanded it back to Benitez some time ago. We should hear Benitez's ruling any day now.

After Benitez says the mag ban is unconstitutional I don't know if that will automatically mean CA can buy standard capacity mags again immediately or will have to wait for the appeal. The 9th is playing a delaying tactic here by most expert opinions. I don't know if their game is to simply delay as long as possible to keep more mags out of the state or if they intend to somehow indefinitely delay it until a possible change in makeup of scotus in the far future.
 
Messages
222
Reactions
398
State governments that favor gun control have tens of millions of dollars in the bank and hundreds of lawyers on their payrolls. They will continue their legal (and illegal) maneuvering until all we all die of old age.
And people who believe in our Constitution will continue legally fighting them until our dying breath's too,...
 
Messages
85
Reactions
124
Yes-and CA tried to delay, but the judge gave them until October--no waiting until 2023 beotches:
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/09/ju...-california-assault-weapon-ban/#ixzz7g8dEHCQ4
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
The California government said they did not seek to delay the proceedings and then requested to delay the proceedings for a minimum of seven months, until March 3, 2023.

Judge Benitez did not grant them seven months. He allowed 45 days for new briefs to be submitted (until mid-October). Then another 15 days for briefs to be submitted in response to those briefs (end of October 2022). From the court record:
 
Yes-and CA tried to delay, but the judge gave them until October--no waiting until 2023 beotches:
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/09/ju...-california-assault-weapon-ban/#ixzz7g8dEHCQ4
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
The California government said they did not seek to delay the proceedings and then requested to delay the proceedings for a minimum of seven months, until March 3, 2023.

Judge Benitez did not grant them seven months. He allowed 45 days for new briefs to be submitted (until mid-October). Then another 15 days for briefs to be submitted in response to those briefs (end of October 2022). From the court record:
Even that’s 45 days too much. This thing needs to be overturned, embalmed, boxed up and buried six feet under…

It’s time for American Citizens to have and enjoy the unrestricted Second Amendment the Founding Father put forth…

Enough with this illegal infringement…
 
Messages
34,123
Reactions
117,643
Even that’s 45 days too much. This thing needs to be overturned, embalmed, boxed up and buried six feet under…

It’s time for American Citizens to have and enjoy the unrestricted Second Amendment the Founding Father put forth…

Enough with this illegal infringement…
This case has now been going on for OVER THREE YEARS…. SCOTUS should have just overturned it instead of remanding it back to the 9th “Circus” so they could conduct all this GLARINGLY OBVIOUS legal gymnastics, but then again all of their lawyer buddies wouldn’t have been able continue to make a killing on more billable hours.


ENOUGH ALREADY!! :mad:
 
Messages
3,386
Reactions
9,693
Yep, the 9th's ruling (which used the now-bunked 2 step process of weighing societal good vs constitutionally guaranteed individual freedom) was voided by scotus and the 9th remanded it back to Benitez some time ago. We should hear Benitez's ruling any day now.

After Benitez says the mag ban is unconstitutional I don't know if that will automatically mean CA can buy standard capacity mags again immediately or will have to wait for the appeal. The 9th is playing a delaying tactic here by most expert opinions. I don't know if their game is to simply delay as long as possible to keep more mags out of the state or if they intend to somehow indefinitely delay it until a possible change in makeup of scotus in the far future.
If I were a betting man, I would expect the state to ask for an immediate stay of the order (assuming there is time), and for them to appeal. My guess is that the state wants to be as big of A Holes as they can on the gun laws so they'll drag things out as long as they can. And maybe they get lucky and a justice has a heart attack or gets hit by a bus while they're delaying. But the state knows they are in trouble here with Bruen. They've really got nothing to lose by throwing as much crap up on the wall and seeing if anything sticks. :rolleyes:
 
Messages
1,872
Reactions
3,819
If I were a betting man, I would expect the state to ask for an immediate stay of the order (assuming there is time), and for them to appeal. My guess is that the state wants to be as big of A Holes as they can on the gun laws so they'll drag things out as long as they can. And maybe they get lucky and a justice has a heart attack or gets hit by a bus while they're delaying. But the state knows they are in trouble here with Bruen. They've really got nothing to lose by throwing as much crap up on the wall and seeing if anything sticks. :rolleyes:
If they choose that direction, and lose again, the issue is decided, and it becomes even harder to overturn.

On the other hand, failing to appeal leaves the State in a position to try again when (not if) the Supreme Court is again controlled by anti-gun justices. Just try a different "spin". This strategy has been used in the past.
 
Messages
85
Reactions
124
Even that’s 45 days too much. This thing needs to be overturned, embalmed, boxed up and buried six feet under…

It’s time for American Citizens to have and enjoy the unrestricted Second Amendment the Founding Father put forth…

Enough with this illegal infringement…
The WA mag case is set for opening arguments in December…2023!!! So delays are the name of the game by the state.
Hoping to bleed the plaintiffs dry if $$ or they can replace some SCOTUS seats and make it a true banana republic
 
Messages
6,590
Reactions
17,416
It’s not about the constitution, rights, or the law for the left. It’s what agenda they want to push and damn anything that gets in their way.

New York had been legally challenged on an anti-gun attempt recently and they literally stopped their effort to defend their side because they saw/predicted the case wouldn’t end favorably for their side and they didn’t want a precedent set that what they were attempting was unconstitutional.
 

Upcoming Events

Rickreall Winter Gun Show December 10th & 11th
Rickreall, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top