Federal court blocks magazine ban in California 7 17 18

[tkdguy]

NRA-ILA | Federal Court Upholds Decision to Block California's Magazine Ban

Read More

 

[cigars]

The good 2A folks in Cali have been taking a beating on gun rights for years. They deserve a win.

 

[nammac]

Geeez... I fell outta my chair when I read this... Really??? The ninth circus upheld the people's right to magazines greater than 10 rounds??? Seriously???

Californians should be dancing in the streets... A meager gun rights win for a change. Here's to hoping it's the first bite taken out of the elephant...

 

[tkdguy]

I am thinking this might have impact on Oregon?

 

[mkwerx]

I am thinking this might have impact on Oregon?

Well, its the 9th Circus, so yes. Their decisions stand for pretty much the entire western US.

 

[fredball]

Amazing

 

[UserNameInUse]

For a Federal court judge, is it a blemish on your legacy to have a ruling overturned by the SCOTUS? I wonder if they are seeing the writing on the wall.

IIRC this case was about confiscation of previously owned magazines, not the ban on purchasing. But it is still great news and a huge step in the right direction.

 

[Slobray]

This celebration won't last long, as 9th Circus will do what they always do......

The PDRK will call for a full en banc hearing,
The leftist partisan activists of the 9th Circus will vote for it to be reheard en banc before the Court,
Since the leftist partisan activists outnumber the justices, they will overturn the 3 panel ruling,
SCOTUS will then be petitioned.................

The only question now, is if Kavanaugh is confirmed, will there be enough votes for SCOTUS to hear it. My guess is that it still won't be heard, as they'll be one vote short: Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be the only "yes" votes.

Edit: After reading This discussion on Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller 2, I'm not so sure about him taking this case.

As one who was born here, grew up in this community in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and has lived and worked in this area almost all of his life, I am acutely aware of the gun, drug, and gang violence that has plagued all of us. As a citizen, I certainly share the goal of Police Chief Cathy Lanier to reduce and hopefully eliminate the senseless violence that has persisted for too long and harmed so many. And I greatly respect the motivation behind the D.C. gun laws at issue in this case. So my view on how to analyze the constitutional question here under the relevant Supreme Court precedents is not to say that I think certain gun registration laws or laws regulating semi-automatic guns are necessarily a bad idea as a matter of policy. If our job were to decree what we think is the best policy, I would carefully consider the issues through that different lens and might well look favorably upon certain regulations of this kind. But our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principles or policy. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 420–21 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring) [striking law against flag-burning] ("The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result."). A lower-court judge has a special obligation, moreover, to strictly and faithfully follow the lead of the "one supreme Court" established by our Constitution, regardless of whether the judge agrees or disagrees with the precedent.

Ray

 

[ob1]

For a Federal court judge, is it a blemish on your legacy to have a ruling overturned by the SCOTUS? 9th Circuit.

FIFY​

 

[ob1]

Meanwhile today at Oregon Ceasefire Headquarters...



Oh Penny Okomoto !....knock knock...Did ya hear what just happened ?? Penny...are you there ???​

 

[Stomper]

The lights are on, but no one's home.....

 

[awshoot]

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but this just upholds the preliminary injunction ordered at the trial level. It does not overturn CA's mag ban, it just keeps the status quo while the actual challenge wends its way through trial after which undoubtedly, the loser will appeal. Obviously it's very good to keep the preliminary injunction in place because half of the challenge to CA's law is based on a takings clause argument and if CA takes all the mags now before the case ends, that argument sort of becomes pointless.

 

[deadseed]

interesting reading. -- https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/ninth-circuit-protects-gun-rights-california/