California's "High Capacity" Magazine Ban Overturned!

Pete85 said:
The 44th lowest and 58% below the national average? What are the six states that have a higher gun death rate than California and how bad is the murder rate in those states that the push the average so high that the 7th highest state is 58% below the national average? The article is bullshit enough already pushing the 41,000 gun deaths a year number, 2/3 to 3/4 of them being suicides, which a standard capacity magazine ban would have no effect on.
Click to expand...

The "44th lowest" is bad editing. One source puts California 44th ranked highest to lowest -- the CDC ranks it 43rd on the same scale. Suicides make up a majority of those deaths, but the percentage isn't quite 67%, let alone 75%.

Magazine bans, like assault weapon bans, are a political "we must do something" response to "national newsworthy" shootings. Shootings like yesterday's in Columbia South Carolina (3 dead, 1 wounded) barely qualify.
 
GL2020 said:
Really think its a case of they don’t want to be bothered issuing because it’s work or because some chiefs are just pedantic about who gets LTC’s?

regardless same state…should have at least a uniform process IMO. If Foster can make it work with a small force I’m sure Cumberland/Westerly and the other PITA towns could too. Crazy idea I know.
Click to expand...
I think it's about covering their ass. If a pistol permit holder shot someone and it went to trial the PD that issued would be under a microscope and no chief wants that.
 
News this evening the 9th Circuit takes the unusual step of jumping the gun (pun intended) and bypassing the three judge panel and going straight to en banc review.

This draws loud decent from a couple of the pro constitution judges.

As far as Mark Smith videos go this one is fairly short and to the point.




🐯
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
News this evening the 9th Circuit takes the unusual step of jumping the gun (pun intended) and bypassing the three judge panel and going straight to en banc review.

This draws loud decent from a couple of the pro constitution judges.

As far as Mark Smith videos go this one is fairly short and to the point.




🐯
Click to expand...

So the dissents are good to hear but it essentially says the full court will extend a stay. Maybe they will overturn or perhaps just extend it long enough (while they consider their decision) to force the original plaintiffs to reach out to SCOTUS again. Sounds like they only thing that has the potential to undo their bias against the 2nd is SCOTUS.

As annoying as it is, I hope SCOTUS spanks them with the force they so richly deserve. And maybe when they do they'll put in language that make states look at the BS they're trying.
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
News this evening the 9th Circuit takes the unusual step of jumping the gun (pun intended) and bypassing the three judge panel and going straight to en banc review.

This draws loud decent from a couple of the pro constitution judges.

As far as Mark Smith videos go this one is fairly short and to the point.




🐯
Click to expand...

Is there someone else commenting on this yet without this guy's histrionics or at least someone whose nuts fell during adolescence and doesn't sound like an emotional tween girl on a phone talking about what boy asked what girl out?
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
News this evening the 9th Circuit takes the unusual step of jumping the gun (pun intended) and bypassing the three judge panel and going straight to en banc review.
Click to expand...
This is like when the MA SJC grabs a case sua sponte - they have decided what they want the result to be and that usually is not good for us.
 
Last edited:
GL2020 said:
So the dissents are good to hear but it essentially says the full court will extend a stay. Maybe they will overturn or perhaps just extend it long enough (while they consider their decision) to force the original plaintiffs to reach out to SCOTUS again. Sounds like they only thing that has the potential to undo their bias against the 2nd is SCOTUS.

As annoying as it is, I hope SCOTUS spanks them with the force they so richly deserve. And maybe when they do they'll put in language that make states look at the BS they're trying.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS taking the case back would be great for us.
Even if the 9th En Banc affirms that doesn't do much for us here in Lefty Land East Coast.
SCOTUS affirming puts the issue to bed everywhere
 
1sern said:
Is there someone else commenting on this yet without this guy's histrionics or at least someone whose nuts fell during adolescence and doesn't sound like an emotional tween girl on a phone talking about what boy asked what girl out?
Click to expand...
Agree that his delivery can be entirely too animated and overly wordy but given his knowledge and background we all would do well to put dislike.of his delivery aside and learn from him.
 
pastera said:
SCOTUS taking the case back would be great for us.
Even if the 9th En Banc affirms that doesn't do much for us here in Lefty Land East Coast.
SCOTUS affirming puts the issue to bed everywhere
Click to expand...

I honestly don't get this stupidity.

Let's say the USSC rules on civil rights in 1954 or so. BvBoE. Some d-bag states try and challenge it. They lose. I have to assume that SOME state tried to ignore this and pass additional laws to not allow desegregation. (Hell, it took mASSachusetts until the 70's. LOL)

Let's say. . . . Oregon or Hawaii decides to segregate their schools tomorrow. Can they claim that their circuit isn't involved so they can thumb their noses at BvBoE? Would we ever conceive of that????

I GET that a ruling in a certain circuit is for THAT circuit. But a ruling based on decided SC law??? Really???? At what point does everyone but the draconian state government say, "Look, we lost in the SC. The other circuit court, using that logic, busted it all to hell again. It's over."????

I'm just dumbfounded.

Although. BvBoA - 1954. Boston schools desegregated - 1975. So. . . . . . .
 
Dennis in MA said:
I honestly don't get this stupidity.

Let's say the USSC rules on civil rights in 1954 or so. BvBoE. Some d-bag states try and challenge it. They lose. I have to assume that SOME state tried to ignore this and pass additional laws to not allow desegregation. (Hell, it took mASSachusetts until the 70's. LOL)

Let's say. . . . Oregon or Hawaii decides to segregate their schools tomorrow. Can they claim that their circuit isn't involved so they can thumb their noses at BvBoE? Would we ever conceive of that????

I GET that a ruling in a certain circuit is for THAT circuit. But a ruling based on decided SC law??? Really???? At what point does everyone but the draconian state government say, "Look, we lost in the SC. The other circuit court, using that logic, busted it all to hell again. It's over."????

I'm just dumbfounded.

Although. BvBoA - 1954. Boston schools desegregated - 1975. So. . . . . . .
Click to expand...
Brown was a SC opinion so it is binding on all circuits - a holding of the 9th is binding on all lower courts in the 9th but only informative elsewhere.

We are seeing states and courts put forth weaselly worded arguments to try to reinterpret Bruen or trying to use blatantly race based laws from the post bellum era to try to support their claims even though post bellum restrictions are specifically excluded in Bruen.

At this time Bruen is still far to new to have enough case law built up around it to snuff out the dissenters - this will come eventually as long as we can hold onto SCOTUS so that it cannot be packed and Bruen reversed.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Let's say. . . . Oregon or Hawaii decides to segregate their schools tomorrow. Can they claim that their circuit isn't involved so they can thumb their noses at BvBoE? Would we ever conceive of that????
Click to expand...
Irrelevant comparison, since Brown vs Board of Education was a SCOTUS, not federal district court, decision and thus binding in all districts.
 
pdm said:
Branca on the en banc rehearing debacle:
Click to expand...

I don’t understand how this is a “debacle.” It was inevitably going to be heard en banc, and just as inevitably the losing side will appeal to the Supreme Court. The sooner that happens, the better.
 
Parker Schreiber said:
I don’t understand how this is a “debacle.” It was inevitably going to be heard en banc, and just as inevitably the losing side will appeal to the Supreme Court. The sooner that happens, the better.
Click to expand...
They're doing shenanigans against their own court rules to bypass the normal procedure. It's showing their bias against 2A cases.
 
This is good for our side, by skipping the 3 Judge review it makes it one step closer to the end, It could have been tied up for months, scheduling a date to be heard. It would appear with only an additional 10 days we could get a ruling soon, then on to the next step...... and that one is a big one that could help us here
 
Last edited:
Parker Schreiber said:
I don’t understand how this is a “debacle.” It was inevitably going to be heard en banc, and just as inevitably the losing side will appeal to the Supreme Court. The sooner that happens, the better.
Click to expand...

You are looking at it from the point of view of an unconcerned party who hopes for a wider impact from a case that you are not involved in either legally or financially. That is not a slight toward you just a fact, and I would be lying if I said I didn't also hope to benefit.

But look at it from the point of view of the actual plaintiffs in CA who have paid for riding this case up and down the courts for years, and have just been told, "We are changing the normal order to just skip past the three judge panel that ruled in your favor the first time this case was heard." Then I can see where there might be room to call it a debacle, no?

If I am suing over water rights in CA I am not necessarily concerned whether folks get to drink in MA.

It points out the corrupt bias of the 9th Circuit at the expense of the CA plaintiffs, and even if I too might be grateful to receive the benefit of a favorable SCOTUS appeal, I can feel for them getting jerked around.


🐯
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
You are looking at it from the point of view of an unconcerned party who hopes for a wider impact from a case that you are not involved in either legally or financially. That is not a slight toward you just a fact, and I would be lying if I said I didn't also hope to benefit.

But look at it from the point of view of the actual plaintiffs in CA who have paid for riding this case up and down the courts for years, and have just been told, "We are changing the normal order to just skip past the three judge panel that ruled in your favor the first time this case was heard." Then I can see where there might be room to call it a debacle, no?

If I am suing over water rights in CA I am not necessarily concerned whether folks get to drink in MA.

It points out the corrupt bias of the 9th Circuit at the expense of the CA plaintiffs, and even if I too might be grateful to receive the benefit of a favorable SCOTUS appeal, I can feel for them getting jerked around.


🐯
Click to expand...
The only place where I might disagree is that they just got fast tracked bank to the full panel, which, after the needless remand to Benitez, puts us finally back where we left off last year after Bruen.

If the panel finds as they did before, it's safe to assume SCOTUS takes it again. If they finally reverse their earlier decision (per guidance) then the nightmare potentially ends for the plaintiff.
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
But look at it from the point of view of the actual plaintiffs in CA who have paid for riding this case up and down the courts for years, and have just been told, "We are changing the normal order to just skip past the three judge panel that ruled in your favor the first time this case was heard." Then I can see where there might be room to call it a debacle, no?
Click to expand...

Not really, because the plaintiffs also know that any ruling from a 3-judge panel would be appealed and then taken up again en banc. It's hard to contradict a claim that this "proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance." So remanding to a 3-judge panel would be just as much of a waste of time as it was to remand to Benitez.
 
pdm said:
Branca on the en banc rehearing debacle:
Click to expand...

I'll have to check this guy's earlier point on point review of the Benitez ruling and read it myself because Benitez saying militia weapons were protected if they were useful for military and civilian use, and then also also using the 1792 Militia Act as an example in his judgement seems at odds.
The 1792 Militia Act called for people to own military arms that were both useful and not useful for civilians. A musket or rifle could be used for hunting, a tomahawk for cutting wood a pistol for home defense. Spontoons, sabers, bayonets, cuirasses were distinctly military. It was the 1790's, past the era when men wore fashionable light swords and heavy cavalry swords were not the type that had been used for carrying by civilians anyway. Spontoons were basically spears, useless to civilians who had firearms. Bayonets were inferior to knives outside military use and their low popularity among American civilians can be seen from the early revolution when American troops had plenty of firearms but notoriously few bayonets. Cuirass/breastplate well that's pretty useless outside of a battle to stop bayonets, swords in a cavalry melee or Indian arrows. Who is going to walk around with a hunk of steel covering their chest won't even stop a ball?
So I'm puzzled at Benitez' claim because it flies in the face of evidence from something he referenced.
 

Attachments

  • Columbiancentinelxvii.jpg
    Columbiancentinelxvii.jpg
    590.8 KB · Views: 6
Back
Top Bottom