9th Circuit says Mag Capacity Restrictions Unconstitutional

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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    stand back, boys....these lawyers is fightin'...if ya get too close you might get a tongue lashin' like you ain't never did have.

    Skip to the end when our elected officials start realizing that "shall not be infringed" is. not. debatable.

    sigh...I wish.

    Instead we get a war of attrition based on case law which is tiresome to sift through, basically a bunch of legal nerds trying to out nerd each other with who knows the more obscure ruling that will either vindicate or villify what the founding fathers already stated:

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Have you not been paying attention?

    Our elected officials have not started realizing that "shall not be infringed" is not debatable. They seem hell bent on figuring out how to reduce the right to absolutely nothing.

    The courts don't seem to be protecting the right either. SCOTUS denied cert to 10 cases in June. When are they going to protect the right?


    I am trying to understand why we keep losing so that we can make better arguments. I see that as the best course of action currently. Do you have a better solution?

    You can shout "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" as much as you want. I don't see that solving the problem.
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,143
    As a non lawyer, I read you constantly typing the discussion about arguments. It makes sense on one hand, and another.

    As you also note, I feel that all branches of gov are laughing at the idea of the 2a. Purposely thumbing their respective noses at the entire notion. Well, almost all of it. Pushing nullification. SCOTUS included at this point.

    My question is, to you and the legal folks here, especially @wolfwood, who seems to be getting cases pushed up the chain pretty well...

    Are 2a lawyers sharing knowledge and theories for the arguments? Actively discussing, in person, or electronically, plans for how best to present the cases?

    Seems like that sharing of the brain trust would be good thing. Something that works in other areas of occupation. .. and I mean if it’s not already being done.

    I would suspect it to be a relatively small, specialized group, but still valuable.

    Just thinking this every time we get a defeat, and victory, sort of making the most of after action analysis.

    And if something is ruled upon, like the jersey mag cap thing, with bad arguments, now does that get redressed?




    Have you not been paying attention?

    Our elected officials have not started realizing that "shall not be infringed" is not debatable. They seem hell bent on figuring out how to reduce the right to absolutely nothing.

    The courts don't seem to be protecting the right either. SCOTUS denied cert to 10 cases in June. When are they going to protect the right?


    I am trying to understand why we keep losing so that we can make better arguments. I see that as the best course of action currently. Do you have a better solution?

    You can shout "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" as much as you want. I don't see that solving the problem.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Turner is Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)
    Turner II is Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997)

    Interesting. Deference to Legislative Fact Determinations in First Amendment Cases after "Turner Broadcasting"!

    (b) Even in the realm of First Amendment questions where Congress must base its conclusions upon substantial evidence, courts must accord deference to its findings as to the harm to be avoided and to the remedial measures adopted for that end, lest the traditional legislative authority to make predictive judgments when enacting nationwide regulatory policy be infringed. See, e. g., Turner, 512 U. S., at 665 (pluralityopinion). The courts' sole obligation is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence. Id., at 666. Pp. 195-196.
    ..
     

    Attachments

    • DeferencetoLegislaturedownload.jpg
      DeferencetoLegislaturedownload.jpg
      130.7 KB · Views: 413

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    stand back, boys....these lawyers is fightin'...if ya get too close you might get a tongue lashin' like you ain't never did have.

    Skip to the end when our elected officials start realizing that "shall not be infringed" is. not. debatable.

    sigh...I wish.

    Instead we get a war of attrition based on case law which is tiresome to sift through, basically a bunch of legal nerds trying to out nerd each other with who knows the more obscure ruling that will either vindicate or villify what the founding fathers already stated:

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    see my signature.
     
    Last edited:

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    Five amici have filed briefs supporting an en banc hearing. You can find them at https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

    As a non-attorney, I'm wondering if amici really have much, if any, effect on the outcomes of cases. I thought decisions were supposed to be made on the basis of the law and arguments presented by the parties joined to the case? Well, and that any pre-existing biases of the judges, of course. :sad20:
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    As a non-attorney, I'm wondering if amici really have much, if any, effect on the outcomes of cases. I thought decisions were supposed to be made on the basis of the law and arguments presented by the parties joined to the case? Well, and that any pre-existing biases of the judges, of course. :sad20:

    I believe this provides some perspective. https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/persp...ns/no-date/amicus-briefs-in-the-supreme-court

    Short answer: They rarely affects the outcome, but good ones do round out the opinion.
     

    wabbit

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2010
    5,205
    I hope every gun owner realizes how important the election on Nov. 3 is. If Biden wins, the Supreme court will be lost for ever to the gun banners. If Trump wins, he will be able to replace Ginsberg with a pro-2nd A justice. Her time was over many years ago, but she's clinging on for a Democrat win.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Last edited:

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I wonder why GOA or 2AF have not filled amici briefs?


    https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...cus-Brief-of-John-Cutonilli-ISO-Appellees.pdf
    Well written brief of which I pray all judges read. Why no judicial deference in this amici??
    thank you.

    I suspect that GOA and 2AF did not file an amicus brief because they do not support an en banc hearing. Duncan's brief in opposition is due around the end of next week or the beginning of the week after. If GOA and 2AF do file an amicus brief then they will file it approx one week after Duncan's brief is filed.

    I doubt the judges will review any of the amicus briefs that were filed as part of the panel hearing. The only question they currently need to answer is whether to grant an en banc rehearing. That is a very different question compared to the panel hearing.

    The two republican judges on the panel decided to write a very pro 2A opinion. I think they over played their hand and failed to adequately address certain issues. The 9CA is still mostly liberal and is there is a high likelihood that this case will be overturned just like all the other 2A cases that were won in the 9CA.

    You can read the CA's petition for rehearing to see the issues that they identified. The most glaring is how they distinguished Fyock, which was a local CA LCM ban, and all of the other circuits' LCM bans that were deemed acceptable under intermediate scrutiny. I doubt Paul Clement will be able to make a persuasive enough argument to prevent an en banc hearing, but I need to see his argument to be sure.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Typical liberal strategy coming from the 9th Circus...Extend the judicial process out as far as possible to the final, easily determined, conclusion. Just another no injury case that will be denied certiorari. The gun club attorney's have quite the scam going on here.

    Unspoken rules of the 9th Circus Court when the 2nd Amendment is involved:

    1) Stack the judges to give them a majority panel ruling
    2) Accept the en banc petition for the lengthy, obvious decision
    3) Finally reverse the panel ruling

    SCOTUS...CERT DENIED
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Typical liberal strategy coming from the 9th Circus...Extend the judicial process out as far as possible to the final, easily determined, conclusion. Just another no injury case that will be denied certiorari. The gun club attorney's have quite the scam going on here.

    Unspoken rules of the 9th Circus Court when the 2nd Amendment is involved:

    1) Stack the judges to give them a majority panel ruling
    2) Accept the en banc petition for the lengthy, obvious decision
    3) Finally reverse the panel ruling

    SCOTUS...CERT DENIED

    Agreed ..>> This is exactly why this...https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363

    "He applied for a permit to carry his handgun for self-defense. But, to obtain a carry permit in New Jersey, an applicant must, among other things, demonstrate “that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:58–4(c) (West 2019 ***. Supp.)"

    Fatal error. When will they ever learn...I'm guessing, NEVER. Here's a hint...In Personam jurisdiction.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    "He applied for a permit to carry his handgun for self-defense. But, to obtain a carry permit in New Jersey, an applicant must, among other things, demonstrate “that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:58–4(c) (West 2019 ***. Supp.)"

    Fatal error. When will they ever learn...I'm guessing, NEVER. Here's a hint...In Personam jurisdiction.

    The hint is no judicial deference (see post #243)

    From Rogers v Grewal along with Heller and McDonald explain the judicial review is "historical analyses". Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or means end, along with "government interest in public safety(or justified need) is no longer a standard of review for 2A. Historical analyses is the standard along with no deference from the general assembly.

    of the full scope of the Second Amendment.” Id., at 626–627. Instead, we indicated that courts could conduct historical analyses for restrictions in the future as challenges arose. Id., at 635.

    In affect then, "shall not be infringed" holds up in making bans laws in AR's, LCM, and CCW. GOA people do contend that NICS is unconstitutional under this review. Not longstanding or historical evidence to do so. JM2 cents. I'm not a lawyer. I think jcutonilli is conveying that message.
     
    Last edited:

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Duncan has posted their response to the petition for rehearing en banc. It is pretty much what I expected, a rehash of the opinion.
     

    Attachments

    • Duncan V Becerra BIO.pdf
      127 KB · Views: 160

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,276
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom