Duncan v Berrcerra

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Maestro Pistolero

    Active Member
    Mar 20, 2012
    876
    I haven’t had a chance to listen but was there any mention of the Scotus case coming up in the fall?
    If so then CA9 may not decide this case until that opinion is handed down.

    No mention of any other pending cases that I heard.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    5 pages just to discuss all the concurrences and dissents and responses to dissents and concurrences. What a shit show.

    Of course there will be an appeal lol. The NJ magazine ban case is on hold, this one will most likely get held.

    The relevant ******** is:

    The court applied a two-step framework to review the Second Amendment challenge, asking first whether the challenged law affects conduct protected by the Second Amendment, and if so, what level of scrutiny to apply. The court noted that ten sister circuits have adopted a substantially similar two-step test. The court assumed, without deciding, that California’s law implicates the Second Amendment, and joining its sister circuits that have unanimously applied intermediate scrutiny to other laws banning or restricting large-capacity magazines, determined that intermediate scrutiny applied because the ban imposed only a minimal burden on the core Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court held that section 32310 was a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence. The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms, and the record demonstrates (a) that the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense, as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine; and (b) that the limitation saves lives.

    Concurring, Judge Hurwitz wrote that he was reluctantly compelled to respond to the dissent of Judge VanDyke. Judge Hurwitz stated that judges can respectfully disagree on whether the measures California has adopted violate the Second Amendment. But an attack on the personal motives of the members of this court who reach the same result in this case as every other Circuit to address this issue neither advances the court’s discourse nor gives intellectual support to the legal positions argued by Judge VanDyke.

    I feel like a bunch of middle schoolers wrote this opinion.

    I am not reading anymore. I would have been embarrassed to write some of the stuff I see on the first few pages. A bunch of clowns pulled up in CA and put on black robes and called themselves judges.
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Here is what some of you all are forgetting…

    There is allready a Magazine ban case, ON HOLD with SCOTUS from NJ as we speak.

    There is a REASON that the case is on Hold, and has not been either granted or denied cert. Why put a case on hold for any length of time if you are just going to deny cert? SCOTUS usually puts cases on hold that they will either grant cert too, or issue a ruling/opinion on without hearing oral argument. They also put cases on hold that maybe affected by another case that they are either deciding on, or will hear oral arguments on in this session.

    Also keep in mind, that the 9th Circuit En Banc panel with the 8 liberal judges, had to reverse the lower court. They wanted Duncan to have to file for cert and not Bonta. There is a political motive behind that as well.

    Duncan V Bonta, WILL get appealed. And a petition for cert with SCOTUS will be filed. Probably will be filed at the last possible moment. They even may request an extension to file for Cert as well.

    WHY?

    1. To keep their case alive.

    2. In hopes that the NJ magazine ban maybe granted cert, in which case Duncan will be put “on hold”

    3. In hopes that NYSPRA v NY case will have been decided by then and an issued an opinion. While that case deals with permitting and good cause. It is possible that the opinion may also make comment about scrutiny. The Heller case was about possession in the home, yet that case still talked about scrutiny. Gorsuch is itching to issue a ruling on how to use scrutiny.

    4. It is possible that SCOTUS could be waiting on the Duncan v Bonta case to accept and is holding NJ until Duncan files for cert. IMHO the Duncan case is a better case to accept Cert, and have oral arguments.

    Personally and IMHO. I do believe SCOTUS will either accept cert on the NJ case, or on Duncan, or that the NYSPRA case will have an effect on the NJ and Duncan case, and therefor may even get a judgement/opinion issued without either case needing an oral argument.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Here is what some of you all are forgetting…

    There is allready a Magazine ban case, ON HOLD with SCOTUS from NJ as we speak.

    There is a REASON that the case is on Hold, and has not been either granted or denied cert. Why put a case on hold for any length of time if you are just going to deny cert? SCOTUS usually puts cases on hold that they will either grant cert too, or issue a ruling/opinion on without hearing oral argument. They also put cases on hold that maybe affected by another case that they are either deciding on, or will hear oral arguments on in this session.

    Also keep in mind, that the 9th Circuit En Banc panel with the 8 liberal judges, had to reverse the lower court. They wanted Duncan to have to file for cert and not Bonta. There is a political motive behind that as well.

    Duncan V Bonta, WILL get appealed. And a petition for cert with SCOTUS will be filed. Probably will be filed at the last possible moment. They even may request an extension to file for Cert as well.

    WHY?

    1. To keep their case alive.

    2. In hopes that the NJ magazine ban maybe granted cert, in which case Duncan will be put “on hold”

    3. In hopes that NYSPRA v NY case will have been decided by then and an issued an opinion. While that case deals with permitting and good cause. It is possible that the opinion may also make comment about scrutiny. The Heller case was about possession in the home, yet that case still talked about scrutiny. Gorsuch is itching to issue a ruling on how to use scrutiny.

    4. It is possible that SCOTUS could be waiting on the Duncan v Bonta case to accept and is holding NJ until Duncan files for cert. IMHO the Duncan case is a better case to accept Cert, and have oral arguments.

    Personally and IMHO. I do believe SCOTUS will either accept cert on the NJ case, or on Duncan, or that the NYSPRA case will have an effect on the NJ and Duncan case, and therefor may even get a judgement/opinion issued without either case needing an oral argument.

    SCOTUS put 10 cases on hold for the other NYSRPA case (v NYC) yet denied all of them one that case was mooted.

    There are likely a number of reasons why they hold cases. They then disposition the cases once that reason becomes clear. Dissents and per curium opinions are not usually put on hold, they typically relist them until the opinion is written.

    While we might see an opinion in the NYSRPA v Bruen before June, they tend to wait until June to release the more controversial opinions. Based on the oral arguments, I am not sure that there is going to be much impact that the carry case will have on the magazine ban cases.
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    SCOTUS put 10 cases on hold for the other NYSRPA case (v NYC) yet denied all of them one that case was mooted.

    There are likely a number of reasons why they hold cases. They then disposition the cases once that reason becomes clear. Dissents and per curium opinions are not usually put on hold, they typically relist them until the opinion is written.

    While we might see an opinion in the NYSRPA v Bruen before June, they tend to wait until June to release the more controversial opinions. Based on the oral arguments, I am not sure that there is going to be much impact that the carry case will have on the magazine ban cases.

    Well of course they were denied, because the first NYSRPA was mooted. If it had not of been, I am sure it would have affected those cases to some degree. Those cases also weren’t the cases they wanted to hear, because they didn’t have the right questions that SCOTUS either wanted to answer or felt like answering. JMHO.

    They allready denied a few other cases recently as well that pertained t the 2A as well. SCOTUS is looking for certain cases, with certain facts with certain questions to be answered without other underlying issues. I think too, it does make a difference on who the pontiffs and defendants are as well. I still fully believe their were reasons they took NYSPRA v NY case over the NJ case on permitting, and denied NJ, knowing full well they were going to accept NY.

    They could have easily denied the NJ Magazine ban case is my point, instead of just leaving it on hold. Obviously we don’t know why they are. And everything is just educated speculation. I just know that they wouldn’t put a case on hold without justification. However, I agree, and you are very much correct in that they could very well deny cert on the NJ Magazine case.

    Like I think I said though. IMHO I think the Duncan v Bonta case would be better suited for SCOTUS to hear oral arguments on instead of NJ. The 9th circuit justices as well as California really need a good slapping like NY does!

    Sadly though if you look at the timing though. They have 150 days to file a Petition for cert. that puts it right at the end of April, plus if they file for an extension, that gives them an extra 30 days. So end of May.

    Then there is time given for responses, amici briefs in support of either party to grant or deny cert.

    As a result, Duncan V Bonta won’t hit a conference for review until next year around August or September.

    Unless of course, something is written and said in the NYSPRA v NY case that somehow would have an effect on this case. Then that could change some things. Maybe 50/50.

    Truthfully though, no one knows anything for sure until the opinion is released.

    You are correct though, most of the time they do leave most of the controversial opinions to the end of the session.

    However this year, we have quite a few cases competing for the most controversial. Such as several abortion cases, a voting case, and even a Chevron Deference case over Medicare/Medicade and a couple of more.

    I still doubt the NY case will become the case will are the record with the longest wait time. I don’t see Thomas, or Gorsuch or even Alito willing to wait that long. especially since we all know that Thomas and Gorsuch have been chomping at the bits for a good 2A case to rule on!
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Well of course they were denied, because the first NYSRPA was mooted. If it had not of been, I am sure it would have affected those cases to some degree. Those cases also weren’t the cases they wanted to hear, because they didn’t have the right questions that SCOTUS either wanted to answer or felt like answering. JMHO.

    They allready denied a few other cases recently as well that pertained t the 2A as well. SCOTUS is looking for certain cases, with certain facts with certain questions to be answered without other underlying issues. I think too, it does make a difference on who the pontiffs and defendants are as well. I still fully believe their were reasons they took NYSPRA v NY case over the NJ case on permitting, and denied NJ, knowing full well they were going to accept NY.

    They could have easily denied the NJ Magazine ban case is my point, instead of just leaving it on hold. Obviously we don’t know why they are. And everything is just educated speculation. I just know that they wouldn’t put a case on hold without justification. However, I agree, and you are very much correct in that they could very well deny cert on the NJ Magazine case.

    Like I think I said though. IMHO I think the Duncan v Bonta case would be better suited for SCOTUS to hear oral arguments on instead of NJ. The 9th circuit justices as well as California really need a good slapping like NY does!

    Sadly though if you look at the timing though. They have 150 days to file a Petition for cert. that puts it right at the end of April, plus if they file for an extension, that gives them an extra 30 days. So end of May.

    Then there is time given for responses, amici briefs in support of either party to grant or deny cert.

    As a result, Duncan V Bonta won’t hit a conference for review until next year around August or September.

    Unless of course, something is written and said in the NYSPRA v NY case that somehow would have an effect on this case. Then that could change some things. Maybe 50/50.

    Truthfully though, no one knows anything for sure until the opinion is released.

    You are correct though, most of the time they do leave most of the controversial opinions to the end of the session.

    However this year, we have quite a few cases competing for the most controversial. Such as several abortion cases, a voting case, and even a Chevron Deference case over Medicare/Medicade and a couple of more.

    I still doubt the NY case will become the case will are the record with the longest wait time. I don’t see Thomas, or Gorsuch or even Alito willing to wait that long. especially since we all know that Thomas and Gorsuch have been chomping at the bits for a good 2A case to rule on!

    If you look at when SCOTUS started holding the 2A cases in the NYC case, it did not start holding cases until NYC indicated its intention to moot the case. Kavanaugh's concurring opinion certainly indicated that they had a number of 2A cases where they could address concerns that other courts are not properly applying Heller and McDonald.

    The timeframe for filing cert is 90 days. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/071921zr_4g15.pdf

    There are no conferences in July, August, and most of Sept. Sometimes there are no conferences in Sept if the first Monday in Oct (official start of the new term) is late enough.
     

    wabbit

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2010
    5,205
    if they do appeal to SCOTUS and SCOTUS takes the case it might end up as another smack down to 9CA again.Their is a reason that 9CA is called the basta** child of the federal circuits

    I've heard people refer to it as the 9th Circus, which is appropriate for California.
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    weren't the cases that Roberts wanted to hear

    Well at least not enough to get 4 votes to hear!

    Before we had a clear majority without Roberts.

    Many of the cases were denied for the last 10 years mainly because they weren’t for sure which way Roberts would roll se cases back then. & didn’t want things to go south with bad rulings.

    Now that Barret is on the court, it has changed dynamics quite a bit.

    However, things are still NOT as slam dunk as many want to think.

    We aren’t going to get the wide sweeping opinion that many of us would love to see.

    Ie…. Permitting is unconstitutional, and we should always use strict scrutiny.

    That just isn’t going to happen.

    The petition for cert from Duncan though won’t be filed until close to deadline.

    Current deadline is end of April. If they get an extension, end of May.

    That’s quite a long time from now.
    So many things could happen between now and then. Especially since the Opinion of NYSPRA will be released by then, or shortly thereafter.

    Also don’t forget, that the NJ magazine ban is still “on hold” pending their Cert being granted, or denied, or issued per curium. If the NJ cert is granted, or issued a per curium, then that case alone will directly impact what happens with Duncan as well.

    I see many commenting on many different threads on many different firearms forums saying that the NYSPRA opinion won’t have any effect on other 2A cases that don’t have anything to do with permitting. But I say they are wrong.

    Look at Heller and McDonald. Look at the questions asked. Then look at how they were answered. Now look how what was said in both of those opinions have affected ALL 2A cases no matter what the 2A case what’s about.

    Same thing will happen with NYSPRA.
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    If you look at when SCOTUS started holding the 2A cases in the NYC case, it did not start holding cases until NYC indicated its intention to moot the case. Kavanaugh's concurring opinion certainly indicated that they had a number of 2A cases where they could address concerns that other courts are not properly applying Heller and McDonald.

    The timeframe for filing cert is 90 days. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/071921zr_4g15.pdf

    There are no conferences in July, August, and most of Sept. Sometimes there are no conferences in Sept if the first Monday in Oct (official start of the new term) is late enough.

    90 days is normal time, however due to Covid, it was lengthened to 150 days. They have not yet rescinded that 150 day time frame. One can still file for a 30 day extension as well.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/announcements/COVID-19_Guidance_April_17.pdf
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    90 days is normal time, however due to Covid, it was lengthened to 150 days. They have not yet rescinded that 150 day time frame. One can still file for a 30 day extension as well.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/announcements/COVID-19_Guidance_April_17.pdf

    You obviously did not read the order I referenced. They rescinded the 150 day time frame in July. If you bothered to read the guidance you referenced, you would find that there were no extensions allowed beyond 150 days because that is the max time frame allowed by law.
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    So once again the bastard child of all the federal circuits is back on the docket again refusing to follow SCOTUS guidance and or giving SCOTUS the middle finger saying we dare you to overrule us thus proving that they do not learn from their past "spankings" and need one again..
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,928
    Messages
    7,259,423
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom