Speculation: Will the standard capacity magazine ban ever be struck down?

T-Unit said:
There was no push for AWB in 2009 or 10 because there wasn't a focus on guns at the time and the Supreme Court wasn't tee'd up to strike down state based restrictions like it is now.

Guns were on the backburner until Sandy Hook and by then Scotch Boehner was the Speaker with a huge Republican majority.
Click to expand...
Not sure if serious. There was a concerted effort at AWB renewal every session since it expired in 2004. Including at least one two during Obama admin where they had full house control at least. Each attempt has resulted in a hard failure. I'm not saying they won't try again but it's a tough sell vs the economic issues going on now in post covid land. IOW good luck with that. Plus the moonbats are pretty tied up with trying in vain to kill more babies.
 
drgrant said:
Lol that's anyones guess especially if scotus decides to ignore or sidestep that issue during an awb case. It's still likely years regardless unless relief comes by way of a large decision with Bianchi or something.
Click to expand...
did scotus decide that any magazine in widespread use can not be banned?
 
crownfield said:
did scotus decide that any magazine in widespread use can not be banned?
Click to expand...
@pastera would know more but I don't think thar particular issue has been entertained by the SC yet. All you can do is cross your fingers and hope that the next couple rulings are just broad enough to accommodate that bit that end of it doesn't look great unless that CA mag ban case that's been perpetually marinating gets addressed somehow.
 
The mag size restriction suffers not only a failure to be historically based, but also a failure of rationality. It is based on the proposition that limiting mag capacity achieves protection from active shooter situations, but unless one couples a mag capacity limit with a limit of the number of magazines someone can carry, that proposition is irrational. See go to YouTube and search for "sherriff's demo magazine." (And spell "sherriff" as indicated.)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU&list=WL&index=27

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU&list=WL&index=27
 
Parker Schreiber said:
Yes, that's one of the "multiple holdings by lower courts striking down such bans." That case is currently before an en banc panel of the 9th circuit with oral arguments having been made in March.

Duncan v. Becerra - Michel & Associates, P.C.

Case Name: Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated v. Xavier Becerra District Court Case No.: 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Court of Appeal Case No.: 23-55805 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth...
michellawyers.com
Click to expand...
This magazine ban case was Granted Cert once already by SCOTUS, and then GVRd back to the 9th Circuit to be redone with the new Bruen Standard, who kicked it back down to the District Court.

It will eventually work it’s way back up to SCOTUS, where they already Granted Cert once.

Duncan v. Bonta - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
 
Cap'n Mike said:
This magazine ban case was Granted Cert once already by SCOTUS, and then GVRd back to the 9th Circuit to be redone with the new Bruen Standard, who kicked it back down to the District Court.

Duncan v. Bonta - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
Click to expand...

Instead of the GVR, the Supreme Court could have heard arguments and ruled on the merits. It did not. I have my guesses why, but they are only guesses. What happened next, to the surprise of absolutely no one, the same District Court judge then struck down the law a second time. The 9th circuit then granted a stay and elected to rehear the case en banc rather than going through the usual 3 judge panel. Oral arguments took place in March. Since then, Bonta has filed Notices of Supplemental Authority for Rahimi, DSSA, and Bianchi and the plaintiffs have responded.

Sometime later this year we can expect an opinion from the 9th circuit, where upon the losing side will once again petition the Supreme Court. But as we saw with Illinois cases in July, a grant of cert is by no means certain. My guess is that until there's a conflict in the circuits, they will continue to do so.
 
Parker Schreiber said:
Instead of the GVR, the Supreme Court could have heard arguments and ruled on the merits. It did not. I have my guesses why, but they are only guesses. What happened next, to the surprise of absolutely no one, the same District Court judge then struck down the law a second time. The 9th circuit then granted a stay and elected to rehear the case en banc rather than going through the usual 3 judge panel. Oral arguments took place in March. Since then, Bonta has filed Notices of Supplemental Authority for Rahimi, DSSA, and Bianchi and the plaintiffs have responded.

Sometime later this year we can expect an opinion from the 9th circuit, where upon the losing side will once again petition the Supreme Court. But as we saw with Illinois cases in July, a grant of cert is by no means certain. My guess is that until there's a conflict in the circuits, they will continue to do so.
Click to expand...
I agree, they should have decided it instead of GVRing it.
Wish they had.

I think/hope SCOTUS will grant it Cert again once once it makes its way back up to them unless the make up of the court changes.

It sucks that it takes so long.

There were one or two other cases GVRd with Bruen. One was a Mass carry case that was decided in the plaintiffs favor iirc.

There may have been another.
 
Parker Schreiber said:
Instead of the GVR, the Supreme Court could have heard arguments and ruled on the merits. It did not. I have my guesses why, but they are only guesses.
Click to expand...

They do that to give the lower courts (who they have to work with often) a shot at saving face instead of getting very publicly overturned on appeal.

Fundamentally, that kind of process is not about SCOTUS itself; it's about the Chief Justice's role as head of the federal judiciary. He's giving the lower court judges the respect he feels they're due, institutionally, to manage legal affairs in their own circuits. In doing that, he's strengthening the entire institution of the federal judiciary.

Which sucks for us. But it's how things happen.

Now? He's given the lower court their chance to demonstrate to the public, and to posterity, that the federal courts are on the same page. This lower court publicly declined to toe that line. So now the Chief is institutionally justified in forcing them to do so. It's not just about SCOTUS; it's about the entire structure that leads to SCOTUS. The Chief is in charge of keeping all that legitimate.
 
crownfield said:
did scotus decide that any magazine in widespread use can not be banned?
Click to expand...
No, while the definition of "arms" in Heller would cover magazines and other case law places those items required to enjoy a right are under the same protection (taxes on printing ink).

However, SCOTUS hasn't made any attempt at reviewing magazines and magazine bans.
The best we may see in the near future is strong dicta in an AW ban case that they may take up.
 
RKG said:
The mag size restriction suffers not only a failure to be historically based, but also a failure of rationality. It is based on the proposition that limiting mag capacity achieves protection from active shooter situations, but unless one couples a mag capacity limit with a limit of the number of magazines someone can carry, that proposition is irrational. See go to YouTube and search for "sherriff's demo magazine." (And spell "sherriff" as indicated.)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU&list=WL&index=27

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU&list=WL&index=27
Click to expand...
None of this is rational or objective.
The end game is the eradication of private arms. If the people accept a completely irrational excuse it's much better for them.
 
Cap'n Mike said:
This magazine ban case was Granted Cert once already by SCOTUS, and then GVRd back to the 9th Circuit to be redone with the new Bruen Standard, who kicked it back down to the District Court.

It will eventually work it’s way back up to SCOTUS, where they already Granted Cert once.

Duncan v. Bonta - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
Click to expand...
Yes, but the level of review in that case was nothing more than the 9th's reasoning was so outside of Heller and Bruen that no review was necessary.
Similar to Heller"s lack of investigation of scrutiny on the DC law since it wasn't able to survive any level of scrutiny.
 
drgrant said:
You missed his whole point. You still have choices. Nobody's holding a gun to your head, not even the stupid shitty laws. You could shop better, ride dirty (like everyone else) and buy new mags, or say f*** it and stick with cheap 10rd or blocked/pinned mags.
Click to expand...
The sourcing is the 1st issue
The 2nd is some people are newbies, myself included and was not in the hobby yet or was too young.
 
Parker Schreiber said:
Instead of the GVR, the Supreme Court could have heard arguments and ruled on the merits. It did not. I have my guesses why, but they are only guesses. What happened next, to the surprise of absolutely no one, the same District Court judge then struck down the law a second time. The 9th circuit then granted a stay and elected to rehear the case en banc rather than going through the usual 3 judge panel. Oral arguments took place in March. Since then, Bonta has filed Notices of Supplemental Authority for Rahimi, DSSA, and Bianchi and the plaintiffs have responded.

Sometime later this year we can expect an opinion from the 9th circuit, where upon the losing side will once again petition the Supreme Court. But as we saw with Illinois cases in July, a grant of cert is by no means certain. My guess is that until there's a conflict in the circuits, they will continue to do so.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS doesn't like to revisit a subject ot believes current case law fully explains.
Therefore GVR is the right disposition for many cases (in which the dissent often has correctly applied controlling SCOTUS cases)

In truth, SCOTUS could GVR Snope (Bianchi) referencing Heller, Bruen and Caetano without need to expound any further.
 
BlastingRaccoon47 said:
I wonder what it would take get suppressors to be legal in Mass as well
Click to expand...
SCOTUS using the Bruen standard that invokes the 14th Amendment where states cannot wholly ban possession of NFA items while other states don't. Unlike throwing out the entire NFA, the removal of state based NFA bans has a high chance of being tossed by SCOTUS and it is possible that with this Maryland AWB case that SCOTUS may write it in such a way that it opens up challenges to state NFA bans, which would of course be funded by the usual lobby groups (GOA, SAF, etc.)
 
BlastingRaccoon47 said:
With all of the lawsuits going around, I believe there are a few which challenge the standard capacity magazine bans.

What are the odds that these will make it to the Supreme Court and eventually allow Mass citizens to own normal people sized magazines?
Click to expand...
The odds are 100%, once standard-capacity mags become as obsolete as..........switchblades.
 

Similar threads

Blocking Pre Ban Magazines to 10 Rounds
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
3K
cstockwell
cstockwell
H4885 Lawfare Speculation Funhouse Megathread
Replies
22
Views
1K
vicorjh
V
Large Capacity Firearm ?
Replies
9
Views
462
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
With the New firearms safety laws what pistols can be owned
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
Rick O'Shea
Rick O'Shea
How do the new laws affect face to face ammo sales in MA?
Replies
14
Views
624
zboys
zboys
Back
Top Bottom