9th Circuit ends California ban on high-capacity magazines

[newracer]

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/08/14/th-circuit-ends-california-ban-high-capacity-magazines/

[mindfold]

Damn beat me to it. But it will not be challenged any further to the Supreme Court. So now what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FoxtArt]

Damn beat me to it. But it will not be challenged any further to the Supreme Court. So now what?

Colorado has a mag limit and California won't (for awhile)? Talk about irony.

[Rumline]

Damn beat me to it. But it will not be challenged any further to the Supreme Court. So now what?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThere will be an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit which will uphold the law. They can choose to rehear it on their own without anybody even requesting a rehearing, a process called sua sponte en banc.

This decision was by a 3-judge panel. If a majority of the 29 judges on the 9th Circuit vote to rehear the case it's essentially a do-over, with anywhere from 11 to all 29 judges getting to hear and decide the case. Since there are a lot more liberal judges than conservatives in the pool, it should be obvious how this will turn out.

Edit to add: this is exactly what happened in Peruta v. County of San Diego which was challenging the "may issue" concealed carry scheme in California. When it got to the 9th Circuit, the 3-judge panel declared the system unconstitutional since California banned open carry by statute. Well the powers that be didn't like that decision, so whip out an en banc and no more win for gun rights.

The only thing I'm potentially jealous of is if the CO ban was incapacitated even for one day, they would have to reset the date of grandfathered mags to a future date and not 2013. That would legitimize a lot of people's "rebuild kits". I have no such kits since I stocked up ahead of time, but just saying. Or I guess they could just go the CA way and ban with no grandfathering, especially since it's about to get upheld in another circuit.

[CS1983]

There will be an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit which will uphold the law. They can choose to rehear it on their own without anybody even requesting a rehearing, a process called sua sponte en banc.

This decision was by a 3-judge panel. If a majority of the 29 judges on the 9th Circuit vote to rehear the case it's essentially a do-over, with anywhere from 11 to all 29 judges getting to hear and decide the case. Since there are a lot more liberal judges than conservatives in the pool, it should be obvious how this will turn out.

Edit to add: this is exactly what happened in Peruta v. County of San Diego which was challenging the "may issue" concealed carry scheme in California. When it got to the 9th Circuit, the 3-judge panel declared the system unconstitutional since California banned open carry by statute. Well the powers that be didn't like that decision, so whip out an en banc and no more win for gun rights.

The only thing I'm potentially jealous of is if the CO ban was incapacitated even for one day, they would have to reset the date of grandfathered mags to a future date and not 2013. That would legitimize a lot of people's "rebuild kits". I have no such kits since I stocked up ahead of time, but just saying. Or I guess they could just go the CA way and ban with no grandfathering, especially since it's about to get upheld in another circuit.

Translation: we are subjects, subjected to the capricious whims of oligarchs. Hence, many of us choose to approach the “government” like what it is: a mafia. Ergo, many of us simply recognize power and not authority. Hence, many of us actually don’t follow the “law” so much as work within the grey areas and just do what we want as long as it doesn’t violate our conscience.

[WETWRKS]

There will be an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit which will uphold the law. They can choose to rehear it on their own without anybody even requesting a rehearing, a process called sua sponte en banc.

This decision was by a 3-judge panel. If a majority of the 29 judges on the 9th Circuit vote to rehear the case it's essentially a do-over, with anywhere from 11 to all 29 judges getting to hear and decide the case. Since there are a lot more liberal judges than conservatives in the pool, it should be obvious how this will turn out.

Edit to add: this is exactly what happened in Peruta v. County of San Diego which was challenging the "may issue" concealed carry scheme in California. When it got to the 9th Circuit, the 3-judge panel declared the system unconstitutional since California banned open carry by statute. Well the powers that be didn't like that decision, so whip out an en banc and no more win for gun rights.

The only thing I'm potentially jealous of is if the CO ban was incapacitated even for one day, they would have to reset the date of grandfathered mags to a future date and not 2013. That would legitimize a lot of people's "rebuild kits". I have no such kits since I stocked up ahead of time, but just saying. Or I guess they could just go the CA way and ban with no grandfathering, especially since it's about to get upheld in another circuit.

The question is...will they rehear and possibly over turn the decision and risk it going to the Supreme Court where they might decide in our favor on a national level.

[Bailey Guns]

The 9th Circuit Court is nowhere nearly as liberal as it was in the past. That's been one of Trump's biggest accomplishments...flipping that court.


Smith predicts the full effect of the Trump appointees won?t be seen until 2021, when they will be carrying full caseloads.

But even now, Democratic appointees are likely to be more reluctant to ask for 11-judge panels to review conservative decisions because the larger en banc panels, chosen randomly, might be dominated by Republicans, judges said.

That happened in July after a panel of three Republican appointees upheld a Trump ruling denying federal family planning funds to clinics that referred women for abortions. A Democratic appointee called for en banc review, and a majority voted in favor. But the randomly selected 11-member panel had a majority of Republican appointees, including two named by Trump.https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-22/trump-conservative-judges-9th-circuit


Not saying it's a done deal by any means, but liberals no longer own that court.

[def90]

The question is...will they rehear and possibly over turn the decision and risk it going to the Supreme Court where they might decide in our favor on a national level.

I’ve read justice Thomas say something to the effect that the progun side of the supreme court doesn’t think they have the majority yet so rather than risk getting a bad decision they have been rejecting cases that some of them would really like to hear.

[JohnnyDrama]

Translation: we are subjects, subjected to the capricious whims of oligarchs. Hence, many of us choose to approach the “government” like what it is: a mafia. Ergo, many of us simply recognize power and not authority. Hence, many of us actually don’t follow the “law” so much as work within the grey areas and just do what we want as long as it doesn’t violate our conscience.

Nicely said.

[Rucker61]

I’ve read justice Thomas say something to the effect that the progun side of the supreme court doesn’t think they have the majority yet so rather than risk getting a bad decision they have been rejecting cases that some of them would really like to hear.

In other words, no one trusts Roberts.

[Bailey Guns]

And Gorsuch is trending as Roberts 2.0.

[eddiememphis]

There will be an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit which will uphold the law...
If a majority of the 29 judges on the 9th Circuit vote to rehear the case it's essentially a do-over, with anywhere from 11 to all 29 judges getting to hear and decide the case.

Interesting.
Can you explain why the numbers don't make sense?

Why would only 11 be able to decide?

I can speculate, but I'm just a cook.

[Ranger353]

Quote Originally Posted by def90 View Post
I?ve read justice Thomas say something to the effect that the progun side of the supreme court doesn?t think they have the majority yet so rather than risk getting a bad decision they have been rejecting cases that some of them would really like to hear.

In other words, no one trusts Roberts.

Yup, Roberts is the wildcard and rather than risk it, they just keep kicking those cases down the schedule for committee. Everyone is waiting on Ginsberg to kick the bucket, no disrespect to that bag of bones.

[brutal]

https://i.imgur.com/gV4SJrR.png

[Bailey Guns]

Interesting.
Can you explain why the numbers don't make sense?

Why would only 11 be able to decide?

I can speculate, but I'm just a cook.

Reader's Digest version: There are 29 judges on the 9th Circuit. But the 9th Circuit en banc panel is 11 judges. It's possible all judges might hear a case but it never (or very rarely) happens. 11 is considered the full en banc panel. And they're assigned cases randomly, I think. The 9th used to be a very liberal circuit but that's not the case any longer, thanks to Pres Trump. It's no longer automatic for the left to request their case (when they lose, like this instance) be heard by the full panel because it's likely more conservative judges might be assigned to the case than more liberal judges.

[Gman]

From what I last read of the makeup of the 9th Circuit, it still leans left, but not nearly as far as it used to.

[Rumline]

Thanks for the info about the change in the makeup of the 9th circuit. I was being very pessimistic in my previous post. I'll happily eat crow if it doesn't go en banc.

Sent from my SM-G977U using Tapatalk

[CS1983]

So what I’ve gathered is the Constitution is Toilet Paper and whatever is “ruled” is based on a combo of bull and shit.

Cus precedent, case law, and fuck your grandkids’ chances of not being forced to accept x, y, and z.

So in other words, bike tires are the new zip gun.