9th Circuit says Mag Capacity Restrictions Unconstitutional
- Thread starter JerseyMike
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Boats
Broken Member
Sadly, I think you're right. Except the USSC will probably just deny cert instead of taking a stance
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
A good way to look at it. The Left has always proven patient by scoring incremental victories because if they came out and said what their ultimate goal is they would lose votes and support big time.
Even small wins are still wins. Not saying don't go for the grand slam but base hits are far more common...play a strong defensive game and take the 3-run homers when they happen...but any win...even an ugly win...is still a win.
Silverlode
Ultimate Member
I have to believe it is far worse than that. He is compromised. He flipped seemingly over night. And maybe having the goods on him is why he sailed through confirmation relatively easily to begin with.
Edit: By the way, where are all the people crying about how the NRA sucks?
They have to. Letting it stand creates a split in the courts and would guarantee a supreme court petition. If they get an en banc review odds are it will be reversed and the Supreme court will ignore future petitions.
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
You are wrong... cert to SCOTUS is denied
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
Hawaii is in the 9CA, so this would affect them. I'm sure the politicians there will find some way around it.
Probably require a serial number provided by the state, and then never issue one.
bigmancrisler
2A Preacher
Probably right, although it’s no longer a slam dunk as Trump appointees have almost evened the score between dems and GOP nominees. Also, this is one of the few times the district and 3 judge panels have agreed on a pro 2A ruling.
En Banc is an optional appeal process when the majority of all of the judges in an Appellate Circuit vote to hear an appeal of a 3-judge panel opinion in their Circuit. It's very rare because rehearing the case in front of a large panel of judges has a significant impact on the other business in the Circuit. That said, in 9th Circuit, pretty much every pro-2A panel ruling has been reheard En Banc because a majority of the judges believe 2A is a "collective" right rather than an individual right.
IIRC it can be requested either by one of the parties to the case, or by a group of judges in the Circuit. But a request doesn't mean En Banc rehearing wil be granted, just like filing for Cert at SCOTUS doesn't guarantee Cert will be granted.
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,219
Simple layman’s explanation.
The case here got heard by 3 judges selected from the 9th circuit. And was rule for the pro2a side, against the state.
Loser feels the ruling is wrong.
They appeal to the FULL set of judges on the 9th circuit. I don’t recall exactly how many, but google or our legal eagles can answer precisely. Maybe 13?15? I’ll defer to the lawyers that respond.
That’s the “en banc” part. Not just the 3 judges on the normal panel, but ALL of the judges rehear the case.
They group appealing hopes their loss to the 3 judge panel is overturned.
The case here got heard by 3 judges selected from the 9th circuit. And was rule for the pro2a side, against the state.
Loser feels the ruling is wrong.
They appeal to the FULL set of judges on the 9th circuit. I don’t recall exactly how many, but google or our legal eagles can answer precisely. Maybe 13?15? I’ll defer to the lawyers that respond.
That’s the “en banc” part. Not just the 3 judges on the normal panel, but ALL of the judges rehear the case.
They group appealing hopes their loss to the 3 judge panel is overturned.
bigmancrisler
2A Preacher
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,219
Just curious, but does this automatically cancel the Hawaii law?
Or would someone like @wolfwood have to file a lawsuit?
Or would someone like @wolfwood have to file a lawsuit?
Nickberg500
Ultimate Member
Removing suppressors from the NFA hasn't happened under a Republican Senate, house, or president. We need to demand more than the bare minimum, because that's pathetic. Also to quote a ban-happy Trump:
“I don’t like it. I don’t like it,” Trump said.
“Would you like to see those banned?” Morgan asked.
“Well, I’d like to think about it,” Trump said. “Nobody’s talked about silencers very much. They did talk about the bump stock and we had it banned. And we’re looking at that. I’m going to seriously look at it. I don’t love the idea of it. I don’t like the idea. What’s happening is crazy, okay? It’s crazy.”
Let Ca take the DC approach. They keep regular mag sizes and let the 4th circuit suffer. Don't want the SCOTUS to make the decision.
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
Huh? SCOTUS just punted on a whole bunch of 2A cases, including the soft throw NYC case.
SCOTUS won't make a decision with its current makeup.
Roberts or one of the liberals must vacate.
But yes, 9CA gets standard mags and 4CA suffers.
I have a feeling the en banc will reverse.
The dissenting judge said magazine restrictions should be enforceable. There is a greater difference between a rifle and a pistol than there is between a 10 round and an 11 round magazine. Regulating how many bullets you can shoot before reloading is regulating how you can use a gun. Not guns.
I call total BS on that crap.
First of all, there is a huge difference between 10 and 11 if you needed that 11th bullet. And in many cases we are really talking the difference between 10 and 15-18 or 10 and 20-30.
That’s a rather substantial difference in ones ability to defend themselves.
rob
DINO Extraordinaire
No. Trump is ramming them through with Mitch. The are completely ignoring the screams of the Cali senators crying foul because they are not consulting with the local senators on the appointments.
Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
It's 11 judges (Chief judge + 10 randomly chosen CA9 judges). There is a mechanism where ALL 29 judges can hear a case but I don't believe that's ever happened, but I don't put it past them to try and call for this if en banc is granted and the state loses yet again.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
MDS Team Building. Intro to Pistol AND Rifle with Ninja. July 27&28 Clear Run, NC. (1 Viewer)- Latest: r3t1awr3yd
-
-
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PG County getting some Liberty Doll love over a bill that would ban computers for minors- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 6