Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Case on SCOTUS docket: 2A and 6A | Main | Armed robbery stopped by armed citizen »

9th circuit strikes down magazine ban, applies strict scrutiny

Posted by David Hardy · 14 August 2020 02:56 PM

It's pretty dramatic. Majority are a Bush and a Trump appointee, dissent is a district court judge sitting by designation. Look for the motion for en banc rehearing.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Harry Schell | August 14, 2020 7:21 PM | Reply

Poor Becerra has a real problem. Go big and lose big or go small and lose small.

The combination of Benitez' opinion and this one is going to be harder for an en banc panel of the 9th Circus to overturn.

What the en banc panel did with Peruta was hysterically false, but the three-judge panel was reversed and SCOTUS ran away from the debate.

I have a day job and so I am not sure how much of a break between the Circuits this will create, but only 41 states apparently don't restrict magazine capacities.

I feel confident that when you have a law that makes half of the magazines legally owned by peaceful US citizens are prima facia a dire threat to CA citizens is laughable. Hugo Chavez and others, to include Nancy Boy Newsome, would disagree, as if I cared what they think.

The human right of self-defense is not a creation of government, and so government should have a very limited ability to limit this right.

Fyathyrio | August 14, 2020 8:36 PM | Reply

It would be nice if Judge Benitez would rescind his injunction of his own ruling so that mags can once again flow into California. Leaving it in place because CA may ask for en banc keeps the unconstitutional practice in place even after a judge and later a 3 judge panel clearly state it's an infringement. If it is an unconstitutional infringement, and the law is enjoined, then let the people have their freedom, and make the state try and defend their unconstitutional law the hard way.

Dave D. | August 15, 2020 9:01 AM | Reply

...Never discount the perfidy of the ninth. Those who trust the MSM for their legal news are even now packing their range bags with banana mags for a Saturday of blazing away. Wouldn't be surprised I'd Becerras Boys bust 'em at the range. He eats the Constitution for breakfast.
...Roberts and the fat ladies haven't sung yet. It ain't over.

HSR47 | August 15, 2020 4:01 PM | Reply

So, if we assume that senior judges won't get selected for the presumed en banc panel, then the remaining bias of the 9th is assumed to be roughly 16 vs 13 against us--10 Trump, 3 Bush II, 7 Obama, and 9 Clinton.

All 10 of those Trump-appointed judges have been seated since 2018--2 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 1 so far this year.

At the moment, our chances of getting a positive result from an en banc hearing in the 9th are better than they've been in decades. It's far from a sure thing, but it's no longer a sure thing for the other side.

Tom replied to comment from Fyathyrio | August 15, 2020 6:12 PM | Reply

I just received an email from Thunder Mountain Custom telling me that they are now shipping 20 round M14 mags to California.
Not much in stock, however, and I presume they are now sold out.

Bill Wiese | August 17, 2020 8:50 PM | Reply

Tom,
Thunder Mtn Custom needs to rethink their policy of illegal shipment and maybe talk to a gun lawyer or read the actual decision and NRA, FPC, SAF etc commentary.

While the court held nicely for us, there is no 'action' and the prior 'stay' continues. This means
existing owned mags are protected but getting new ones yet is not. DOJ can easily sue/subpoena the vendor and get a customer list to boot - and trigger warrants. This happened with mag parts kits and the SF DA office a coupla years ago already. One vendor IIRC went broke.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Leave a comment