TexasCHLforum.com

I know that Commifornia will appeal this, but if this holds, as is, several other states, will be affected. It will also affect anyone charged, criminally, under a magazine capacity law. I’m beginning to think the Nonth Circuit is getting tired of having their decisions overturned.

Was this ruling a three judge panel with one dissent or was this en banc?

It reads to my layman’s eyes to be a panel of three.

2
DUNCAN V. BECERRA
Before: Consuelo M. Callahan and Kenneth K. Lee,
Circuit Judges, and Barbara M. G. Lynn,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Lee;
Dissent by Judge Lynn

Jusme wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:36 am I know that Commifornia will appeal this, but if this holds, as is, several other states, will be affected. It will also affect anyone charged, criminally, under a magazine capacity law. I’m beginning to think the Nonth Circuit is getting tired of having their decisions overturned.

I don't know if any other states in the 9th circuit other than California have mag capacity laws. Maybe Oregon or Washington?

So uh, I'm not a lawyer here. The old penal code essentially states that acquisition of LCMs is against the law, but possession of LCMs is perfectly legal. The new one, which is the one being challenged in the lawsuit, says that even possession is illegal. That has now been overturned in the opinion. Does this mean that the old penal code is still in effect? Or is that now completely wiped to the point that acquisition of said magazines are now perfectly legal?

AF-Odin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:14 pm Was this ruling a three judge panel with one dissent or was this en banc?

It appears to be a panel. I'm not holding my breath for a favorable en banc review. That's usually where these cases lose.

Is Hawaii part of the 9th circuit jurisdiction? They have a magazine ban.

Hawaii prohibits “[t]he manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds which are designed for or capable of use with a pistol.”Oct 28, 2019

Attorney Andrew Branca analyses the decision. https://lawofselfdefense.com/duncan-v-b ... azine-ban/

Texgun wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:46 pm Is Hawaii part of the 9th circuit jurisdiction? They have a magazine ban.

Hawaii prohibits “[t]he manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds which are designed for or capable of use with a pistol.”Oct 28, 2019

Yep. Looks like the only other state in the 9th circuit that may be affected, though someone may have to file separately in District Court there.

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:34 pm It reads to my layman’s eyes to be a panel of three.

2
DUNCAN V. BECERRA
Before: Consuelo M. Callahan and Kenneth K. Lee,
Circuit Judges, and Barbara M. G. Lynn,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Lee;
Dissent by Judge Lynn

Wait a minute...Judge Lynn is from Dallas. So a Texas judge sitting in designation dissented on this 9th circuit case. She stated it was not an undue burden on the core function of home defense because Section 32310 “restricts possession of only a subset of magazines that are over a certain capacity. It does not restrict the possession of magazines in general such that it would render any lawfully possessed firearms inoperable, nor does it restrict the number of magazines that an individual may possess.”

This is our Chief District Judge in the Northern District of Texas.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:52 pm

Jusme wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:36 am I know that Commifornia will appeal this, but if this holds, as is, several other states, will be affected. It will also affect anyone charged, criminally, under a magazine capacity law. I’m beginning to think the Nonth Circuit is getting tired of having their decisions overturned.

I don't know if any other states in the 9th circuit other than California have mag capacity laws. Maybe Oregon or Washington?

Yes, but this will be appealed to an enbac. Who, if uphold this ruling, will force Commifornia, to either abandon the case, or appeal it to SCOTUS.
If they allow the ruling to stand, or refuse to hear it, then every other State can expect challenges to their laws. I'm sure States with magazine capacity laws, already have pro 2A lawyers drawing up lawsuits.

Jusme wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:14 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:52 pm

Jusme wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:36 am I know that Commifornia will appeal this, but if this holds, as is, several other states, will be affected. It will also affect anyone charged, criminally, under a magazine capacity law. I’m beginning to think the Nonth Circuit is getting tired of having their decisions overturned.

I don't know if any other states in the 9th circuit other than California have mag capacity laws. Maybe Oregon or Washington?

Yes, but this will be appealed to an enbac. Who, if uphold this ruling, will force Commifornia, to either abandon the case, or appeal it to SCOTUS.
If they allow the ruling to stand, or refuse to hear it, then every other State can expect challenges to their laws. I'm sure States with magazine capacity laws, already have pro 2A lawyers drawing up lawsuits.

The problem is, whenever a pro-gun ruling comes out of a 3 judge panel in the 9th Circuit, the freedom-haters appeal for an en-banc ruling from the perennially leftist majority, and the ruling is overturned. I’d be VERY surprised if this ruling is allowed to stand.

Normal capacity magazine.

Ordinary capacity magazine.

Appeal for en banc hearing filed.

https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/5250546 ... -magazines