Saint Benitez Strikes Down Calif. Magazine Ban in Duncan v. Bonta -- Again (9-22-23)

[JAL]

Judge [Saint] Benitez strikes down California's Magazine Ban -- again in his decision issued today (Sept 22nd 2023).

Duncan v. Becerra (3:17-cv-01017) District Court, S.D. California
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.533515/gov.uscourts.casd.533515.149.0_1.pdf

The decision is 71 pages and is exceptionally thorough. Injunction is stayed for 10 days. California will undoubtedly appeal to 9th Circuit. I would expect more to come out of Benitez' court soon. He's had several stacked up for decision.

If there's an older thread on the California Duncan v. Bonta . . . or Duncan v. Becerra as it was originally filed . . . magazine ban case, please consolidate this with it. Looked for it briefly and didn't find it.

 

[Alamo]

The Conclusion is smokin’.

Excerpt:

“One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen. That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still.”

I’m sure our current DOJ has him on a watchlist. He should be on SCOTUS nominee shortlist. Although right now he’s probably doing the most good right where he is.

 

[Mgderf]

The Conclusion is smokin’.

Excerpt:

“One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen. That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still.”

I’m sure our current DOJ has him on a watchlist. He should be on SCOTUS nominee shortlist. Although right now he’s probably doing the most good right where he is.

I wonder if someone won't try to conVINCE him to FOSTER a different plan?

 

[KellyinAvon]

I wonder if someone won't try to conVINCE him to FOSTER a different plan?

I see what you did there.

 

[Mgderf]

I see what you did there.

I'm sure glad someone remembers

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Slowly, then all at once.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[NyleRN]

Hopefully everyone feels comfortable for the time being with the amount of high capacity mags you currently have. Once the stay is up and the law is struck down there's gonna be a huge run on mags from guys in California

 

[Mgderf]

Hopefully everyone feels comfortable for the time being with the amount of high capacity mags you currently have. Once the stay is up and the law is struck down there's gonna be a huge run on mags from guys in California

Let's hope so, and oh yeah,
Let's go Brandon!

 

[Alamo]

More that caught my eye:

There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme.

This Court previously determined that a ban on magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds has no historical pedigree. Detachable magazines were invented in the late 19th Century.137 In 1990, New Jersey introduced the first ban on detachable magazines, initially imposing a 15-round limit and later a 10-round limit. California put its ban in place in the year 2000. A historical tradition of magazine bans, this is not.

The State Asked for Time for Discovery
Because the Bruen approach places the burden upon the government to justify its firearm restrictions by demonstrating that they are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as understood at the founding, and because judicial review under the Bruen standard is in its infancy, the State has been given generous time and leeway to satisfy its new burden. The State’s experts have been studying historic firearm regulations for more than 20 years.138 This Court has reviewed all of the declarations of the State’s experts and historians as well as many of their cited sources, and finds no support for the State’s ban.

St Benitez channels Ron Swanson:

Benitez:

British sources pre-dating the Constitution are not particularly instructive because the American Revolution was a rejection of British rule.

Ron:

History began on July 4, 1776. Everything that happened before that was a mistake.

A coincidence? I think not!

 

[DadSmith]

Judge [Saint] Benitez strikes down California's Magazine Ban -- again in his decision issued today (Sept 22nd 2023).

Duncan v. Becerra (3:17-cv-01017) District Court, S.D. California
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.533515/gov.uscourts.casd.533515.149.0_1.pdf

The decision is 71 pages and is exceptionally thorough. Injunction is stayed for 10 days. California will undoubtedly appeal to 9th Circuit. I would expect more to come out of Benitez' court soon. He's had several stacked up for decision.

If there's an older thread on the California Duncan v. Bonta . . . or Duncan v. Becerra as it was originally filed . . . magazine ban case, please consolidate this with it. Looked for it briefly and didn't find it.

How long until California gun owners can buy standard capacity magazines?

Like this Judges reasoning.

Removeable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Therefore, magazines come within the text and the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because millions of removeable firearm magazines able to hold between 10 and 30 rounds are commonly owned by the law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and because they are reasonably related to the service in the militia, the magazines are presumptively within the protection of the Second Amendment...

One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen. That kind of solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms - Judge Benitez

 

[JAL]

How long until California gun owners can buy standard capacity magazines?

Like this Judges reasoning.

He stayed his own decision and the injunction for 10 days. California has already filed an emergency appeal to the 9th Circuit requesting they stay his decision indefinitely as tens of millions will die if they don't. The arguments being made by Bonta in their 9th Circuit appeal are beyond absurd. Make popcorn and wait for 9th Circuit to render a decision on a stay of Benitez' decision and final judgement (the injunction).

 

[NyleRN]

All the high crime/murder areas already have mag capacity bans and have Democrats in charge. Seems like magazine capacity isn't the problem.

 

[printcraft]

Won't matter if you can't afford them...

California Gov. Newsom Doubles Tax On Guns And Ammo In Latest Gun Regulation Effort

Newsom also signed an additional law restricting where concealed weapons can be carried.

www.forbes.com

 

[xwing]

Hopefully everyone feels comfortable for the time being with the amount of high capacity mags you currently have. Once the stay is up and the law is struck down there's gonna be a huge run on mags from guys in California

Well, that may be a while. I find it very likely that 9th Circuit will grant an injunction against his order and stay it indefinitely or strike it down (like they did last time.) The liberal courts continue to ignore the Constitution and play the game of "waiting another few years for U.S. Supreme Court", while hoping that the Dems will be able to get a couple more gun-hating leftists on the court by the time they next look at this issue.

Won't matter if you can't afford them...

California Gov. Newsom Doubles Tax On Guns And Ammo In Latest Gun Regulation Effort

Newsom also signed an additional law restricting where concealed weapons can be carried.

www.forbes.com

Yes. The laws Newsom signed yesterday are just as bad as you'd expect. They are happy to flat-out tax a Constitutional right (with the plan being to keep on upping that tax every year until only the Hollywood and Tech Executive elite can afford to excursive the right.) And they know darn well that taxing ammo will completely harm the law-abiding gun owner who enjoys target shooting or practicing with their firearm while having almost no impact on the criminal thug who only needs a few rounds to destroy lives and doesn't bother to practice.) And the other law he signed is even worse!

 

[JAL]

Well, that may be a while. I find it very likely that 9th Circuit will grant an injunction against his order and stay it indefinitely or strike it down (like they did last time.) The liberal courts continue to ignore the Constitution and play the game of "waiting another few years for U.S. Supreme Court", while hoping that the Dems will be able to get a couple more gun-hating leftists on the court by the time they next look at this issue.
. . .

Quite predictably, Bonta (California) appealed Benitez' decision to the 9th Circuit with an emergency motion for a stay of that decision. The 9th Circuit has extended that stay to October 10th in order to hear arguments on California's motion (it would have expired on October 2nd). In an exceptionally unusual move, the 9th Circuit is taking it up en banc versus the normal 3 judge panel. The 9th Circuit decision to do has some scathing dissents worth reading. The order for 9th Circuit to take it up en banc and the temporary administrative stay can be read at the link provided (it's a PDF). The dissents from Judges Bumatay and VanDyke start on the 4th page of the entire order (see the blue header at the top of it)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.3.0.pdf

From the first paragraph of VanDyke's dissent:

I think it is clear enough to everyone that a majority of this en banc panel will relinquish control of this case only when it is pried from its cold, dead fingers. And I think it is clear enough to everyone why.

That should be enough teaser to motivate a few here to read the scathing dissents, especially VanDyke's.

In further notes, the appeal itself will drag well into January or February next year. For those that geek out on this stuff and to show how slowly the courts move, the appeal schedule (not the emergency stay motion schedule) can be read here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.1.1.pdf

 

[MCgrease08]

Wow, Judge VanDyke is exposing all sorts of shenanigans going on behind the scenes of the 9th Circuit as it relates to how they're handling this case.

 

[xwing]

Wow, Judge VanDyke is exposing all sorts of shenanigans going on behind the scenes of the 9th Circuit as it relates to how they're handling this case.

But this is the 9th Circuit. They just know they want to squash all 2nd Amendment rights and will rule that way no matter what. Everything else is just the mental gymnastics and dirty dealings necessary to come to their pre-decided conclusion. It's already a foregone conclusion that they will strike down Judge Benitez' decision and wait again for SCOTUS to overrule them.

 

[Ark]

Wow, Judge VanDyke is exposing all sorts of shenanigans going on behind the scenes of the 9th Circuit as it relates to how they're handling this case.

Ninth Circus for a reason. Anything and everything to degrade gun rights.

 

[jwamplerusa]

So, if Judges willfully ignore and functionally violate a SCOTUS precedent, does SCOTUS have any power to remove those Judges? If not, there certainly needs to be some authority to do so, I would think.