Wins in 9th district court Win #1

[Darryl]

In another blow to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-gun agenda, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday, upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of Proposition 63’s restriction on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Following the enactment of Proposition 63, CRPA attorneys sought an injunction against the magazine possession ban, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment, as well as the due process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution. Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction just days before the law was set to take effect. California quickly appealed the decision.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Benitez did not abuse his discretion, holding that he applied the correct legal standards and made reasonable inferences based on the record. But one judge on the panel disagreed. Responding to the dissent, the majority noted that it was not within the panel’s authority to re-weigh the evidence of the case, nor could it substitute its discretion for that of the district court. What’s more, referencing the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 ruling in Fyock v. Sunnyvale, which affirmed the denial of an injunction against a local magazine ban, the majority held that simply because a judge disagrees with another district court does not necessarily mean the district court abused its discretion on the matter.

Meanwhile, in the trial court, a motion for summary judgment is pending and a ruling on the merits of the case is expected soon. Regardless of the outcome, the case will most certainly be appealed again to the Ninth Circuit. But by that time, the Supreme Court will likely have a new Justice who respects the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

[Darryl]

Large capacity magazine ban is gone.

Good thing I kept my old mags and didn't toss them!!

I though at first it was the Ammo ban that was over turned. That one is still hanging in there.

I'll take this one!!

Congratulations to everyone and the Constitution of the United States.



The other one we have is they enacted an "Assault weapons ban" on certain rifles. Roughly 69,000 rifles were registered. That is less then what was sold the week prior to the implementation of this law. They figured that was roughly 4.6% compliance in the State. That means 95.4% did not comply. That is not going to end well.

Darryl

[awalker1829]

That’s good news. Having a conservative Supreme Court may see the circuit courts putting the brakes on some of the anti-gun appeals more than they have in the past.

Most folks don’t understand how the federal court system works-Supreme Court won’t generally hear a case unless the circuit courts are not in agreement on that matter of law. Folks in California May become wary of appealing certain anti-gun defeats if they are unlikely to prevail as that could establish precedent at the national level.

[thughes]

Most folks don’t understand how the federal court system works-Supreme Court won’t generally hear a case unless the circuit courts are not in agreement on that matter of law. Folks in California May become wary of appealing certain anti-gun defeats if they are unlikely to prevail as that could establish precedent at the national level.

Which is probably the main reason why Washington DC did not appeal when their "may issue" permit system was struck down as unconstitutional. Too much squawking on their part may have resulted in a trip to the SCOTUS, possibly endangering "may issue" in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, etc.

[Darryl]

Which is probably the main reason why Washington DC did not appeal when their "may issue" permit system was struck down as unconstitutional. Too much squawking on their part may have resulted in a trip to the SCOTUS, possibly endangering "may issue" in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, etc.

We took out "may issue" to court and lost in the state. Then took it to the 9th with a 3 judge panel and won. The rest of the 9th district said no wait a minute and retried it with I think it was 9? judges and over turned the 3 judges. We have been waiting for the proper time to take it to SCOTUS. It may be here now. Who is pissed aabout it is Oregon, Hawaii, and Washington because they have a "may issue" also. If it is over turned in SCOTUS it could go national, ot they could restrict it to just Hawaii, Oregon Calif, and Washington. Either way those other states are pissed Calif started this "mess" as they call it.

D

[awalker1829]

Interesting goings on in the 9th Circuit with the three judge panel getting reversed, yet another panel striking Hawaii’s open carry prohibition. We need to see that Kavanaugh gets confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.

[Darryl]

Win ONE MORE TIME!!


This is our second win in just a few weeks. Right to carry!!!!

*******************************************************************************

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that confirmed the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.

“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”

The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.

“This is an important ruling that confirms what NRA members already know – the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” Cox concluded.