Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down California Magazine Ban

[Frank59]

Federal appeals court strikes down California's ban on high-capacity magazines, says restrictions violate 2nd Amendment

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down California’s ban on high-capacity magazines on the basis that its restrictions violate the Second Amendment -- noting that it would criminalize half the magazines in the U.S.

www.foxnews.com

 

[BRD@66]

Wow!

 

[HKaltwasser]

Big time, Congrats Cali. Let the added frenzy begin.

 

[FireInTheWire]

Well done!

 

[jrbfishn]

That's a surprise from any court in California.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Army 1911]

It that gets appealed, Robrts will uphold the ban

 

[Dougw1515]

USPS will not have time/manpower to deliver ballots. Gonna be too busy delivering LCM's to Cali.!

 

[Shady]

it was just a 3 judge panel if appealed it goes to the full 9th circus and then can be appealed to the USSC

So no way its getting anywhere close this year.

 

[Renegade]

My guess? It will be appealed en banc, the full 9th will reverse, and SCOTUS will refuse to take up. Thus the ban will be constitutional.

 

[rotor]

California will figure a way to screw it's residents anyway. Don't get too happy here.

 

[Shady]

Dont bother trying to order from the 10 or so web pages that have started shipping to Cali as they are slammed and your unable to order lol

 

[Frank59]

My guess? It will be appealed en banc, the full 9th will reverse, and SCOTUS will refuse to take up. Thus the ban will be constitutional.

From the Article:
California now has the option of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. It may also seek a delay on implementation of the decision to prevent a surge in purchases

@Renegade.... I know your pretty smart about these types of matters but the article seems to suggest that there is nothing between this ruling and an appeal to the SC. How does this actually work?

 

[Wiliamr]

Just wait for HR 5717, then mandatory license from Fed or state to buy/possess ammo or gun and a license for each firearms. We wont have to worry about magazine ban. Word I got from friend who works in the House side, is Pelosi is going to get it moved out of subcommittee soon and onto a floor vote before end of year. She has said that they will reintroduce it next year when Biden is president and Both Houses of Congress are Democrat.

 

[Renegade]

From the Article:
California now has the option of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. It may also seek a delay on implementation of the decision to prevent a surge in purchases

@Renegade.... I know your pretty smart about these types of matters but the article seems to suggest that there is nothing between this ruling and an appeal to the SC. How does this actually work?

The ruling was from a 3 judge panel and CA can appeal for the entire 9th to rule.

 

[Dougw1515]

Just wait for HR 5717, then mandatory license from Fed or state to buy/possess ammo or gun and a license for each firearms. We wont have to worry about magazine ban. Word I got from friend who works in the House side, is Pelosi is going to get it moved out of subcommittee soon and onto a floor vote before end of year. She has said that they will reintroduce it next year when Biden is president and Both Houses of Congress are Democrat.

Whewww.... I was worried for a minute there until I read the part that said "... when Biden is president..." Looks like it won't get reintroduced for at least 4.5 years. Rest assured that it would end up in front of USSC and would probably receive an injunction prior to becoming law. Yeah, in the event that happened, there's a chance Roberts sides with the enemy, again.

 

[oldag]

My guess? It will be appealed en banc, the full 9th will reverse, and SCOTUS will refuse to take up. Thus the ban will be constitutional.

I would not bet against you.

 

[oldag]

The ruling was from a 3 judge panel and CA WILL appeal for the entire 9th to rule.

FIFY

 

[SQLGeek]

Like every other recent victory in a panel review, this won't survive en banc.

 

[etmo]

From the Article:
California now has the option of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. It may also seek a delay on implementation of the decision to prevent a surge in purchases

@Renegade.... I know your pretty smart about these types of matters but the article seems to suggest that there is nothing between this ruling and an appeal to the SC. How does this actually work?

Renegade has it right, and there is another avenue as well. CA can ask for an appeal from the 9th within 14 days, and that request can be ignored, granted or rejected. However, the 9th itself can decide, "Hey, this was a really important case, and we need to take another look at it, so we'll try this case again".

The new panel that will hear the case de novo (meaning a complete do-over, not just an appeal where only certain things can be reviewed) is called an "en banc" panel.

The process is this: any judge in the 9th can ask the 9th to re-hear the case via an en banc panel. The clerk schedules a time for the vote, and all the judges in 9th will vote, and if there's a majority, then the case is taken en banc. This is called a "sua sponte" request for a re-hearing en banc.

An en banc panel of a Circuit Court consists of 11 judges, one of which must be the Chief Judge, who sits on every en banc panel. In case you didn't know, the current Chief Judge is WILDLY anti-2A, a complete a-hole named Sydney Thomas. He actively hates the 2A, and will definitely push for this decision to be taken en banc. So you can be sure it will go to a vote.

After 100 years, the en banc panel will give us their complete BS response, and at that point, it can be appealed to SCOTUS.

The 9th has done this before. In fact, the only time in living memory when the 9th ever issued a pro-2A opinion it was taken en banc, with Sydney Thomas leading the charge, and reversed. SCOTUS then took a crap on us, and would not grant our case cert. So expect the worst, and you will not be disappointed. Sorry, but that's probably what's going to happen.

 

[Renegade]

Renegade has it almost right. CA cannot ask for an appeal from the 9th, that's what this case was. However, the 9th itself can decide, "Hey, this was a really important case, and we need to take another look at it, so we'll try this case again"

The new panel that will hear the case de novo (meaning a complete do-over, not just an appeal where only certain things can be reviewed) is called an "en banc" panel.

The process is this: any judge in the 9th can ask the 9th to re-hear the case via an en banc panel. The clerk schedules a time for the vote, and all the judges in 9th will vote, and if there's a majority, then the case is taken en banc.

An en banc panel of a Circuit Court consists of 11 judges, one of which must be the Chief Judge, who sits on every en banc panel. In case you didn't know, the current Chief Judge is WILDLY anti-2A, a complete a-hole named Sydney Thomas. He actively hates the 2A, and will definitely push for this decision to be taken en banc. So you can be sure it will go to a vote.

After 100 years, the en banc panel will give us their complete BS response, and at that point, it can be appealed to SCOTUS.

The 9th has done this before. In fact, the only time in living memory when the 9th ever issued a pro-2A opinion it was taken en banc, with Sydney Thomas leading the charge, and reversed. SCOTUS then took a crap on us, and would not grant our case cert. So expect the worst, and you will not be disappointed. Sorry, but that's probably what's going to happen.

Can you explain why one of the judges on the 3 judge panel was taken from the 5th? She was the dissenting vote and is from Northern District of Texas, Clinton appointee.