Ninth Circuit did something good for a change
>A federal judge in California on Friday ruled against the Golden State’s ban on gun magazines that are able to hold more than 10 rounds.
>U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez said the rule violates the Second Amendment and infringes upon citizens’ rights to defend themselves.
archive.is
Where were you when the worst appellate court in the country was more pro-gun than the current Republican president?
Other urls found in this thread:
nraila.org
d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net
twitter.com
Thats not the 9th circuit
Ninth circuit agreed with Benitez original ruling and sent it back, and now Benitez's ruling final.
So does that put NY SAFE under threat too?
Unless they appeal it again
Not unless it hits the supreme court
just 3d print a larger magazine and call yourself an entrepreneur
Appeals would have to go to the supreme court, which takes something like 2% of appeals from the circuit courts.
In the mean time, the ruling by Benitez would still be in effect until the supreme court denied taking up the case
>Where it'd be okay'd
Or they'd take the case
>And we'd finally have a supreme court verdict on ancillary bans like magazine sizes
The latter, with a conservatively dominated Supreme Court, errs in the favour of the ruling.
Incoming false flag in California involving a man white a high-capacity drum magazine who shoots up [insert false flag location here]. Days after there is an overwhelming call for removal of ALL magazines. Citizens will be limited to single breech or muzzle loaded weapons only. This is just step 1.
The 9th ruling was only a stay of enforcement while this case was decided.
In the months during this I've watched local PD gang busts recover 10+Rd mags and charge on possession of those, so locals have not been listening to that ruling.
Benitez is a George W appointment, random luck it went infront if him, and he was blue slipped.
This will go to 9th Circuit on appeal over the merits of the case, and then onto SCOTUS.
Entirely possible that 9th rules in the opposite and SCOTUS refuses to take the case. There's a number of important 2A cases SCOTUS is ignoring right now (Kansas NFA, FPC Bumpstock)
No, the appeal will go to Circuit and then SCOTUS.
9th Circuit only ruled on a stay of enforcement, not merits, so when the AG appeals, it goes to the 9th on its merits.
Suck it. We get to keep them and use them against Liberals in the coming civil war.
Trump didn’t ban magazines you fucking retard.
That was Moonbeam with support from king faggot Obummer who was hoping to make this crap national.
Possession is legal, just not buying, selling, or transportation across state lines. Not sure about manufacture.
If ever asked about how they came to be in your possession, take the 5th.
>Where were you when the worst appellate court in the country was more pro-gun than the current Republican president?
Voting for Trump, who's been stacking the circuit courts with conservative originalists and building the wall while you were dying on bumpstock hill.
None of Trump's picks were involved, but nice try Moshe.
Well, what you said is true before this ruling. Now, according to the ruling (document here: d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net
>IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
>1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
>2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
I believe since he specified the actual penal code (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Bump stocks have not been banned yet because the law is unconstitutional. If they want to ban possession, they have to buy them from you. If they don't buy them from you, they can't ban the possession of them.
Technically Florida's ban on bump stocks would also be unconstitutional because there was no buy back.
it's literally the slippery slope.
Wife is a lawyer, I'm going to have her take a look, I couldn't find the ruling and just read a few stories, thank you for the links, give us a few.
Great now get rid of the assault weapons ban, 10 day waiting period, approved handgun list, ammo registration, etc.
Just as a heads up, I got the document link of the ruling from here: nraila.org
>inb4 69 muzzies sprayed all over the place in the grooming house with high cap mags
Also, if your wife is a lawyer, please come back and let us know what she says. I'm fairly certain that the way the judge wrote the ruling, there should be no wiggle room for interpretation, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I'm not qualified to give out advice.
So, what'd she say?
Here's the reality of what will happen.
Major stores will still enforce the ban regardless of the law
California will treat all accessories as FFL items and require transactions go through approved FFLs
No approved FFL will allow for anything over 10 rounds.
Still feel like that would be an undue burden on exercising your rights, especially after the judge said magazines are "arms" and we have a right to bear arms (see page 79-80 of the document d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net
>The district court found that the large capacity magazines qualify as “arms” for purposes of the Second Amendment.
>California Penal Code § 32310 unconstitutionally impinges on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding responsible ordinary citizens who would like to acquire and possess for lawful purposes firearm magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.
>Major stores will still enforce the ban regardless of the law
Why?
>California will treat all accessories as FFL items and require transactions go through approved FFLs
They'll have to pass a law, first.
Nothing yet? Disappointing.