BREAKING: NRA Legal Team Wins Permanent Injunction Against California’s Mag Ban

BigStock.

Big news from the Golden State.  Word is coming out of California that the National Rifle Association’s legal team won a permanent injunction against California’s magazine ban.

Details to follow.

Here’s the decision from MichelLawyers.com.  The case is Duncan v. Becarra.

Spoiler:  The first three lines from the decision:

Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts. “The judiciary is – and
is often the only – protector of individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy.” —  Senator Ted Kennedy, Senate Hearing on the Nomination of Robert Bork, 1987.1

 

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    Let’s here from the anti NRA types on this one.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Reminds me the wife and I need to renew next month, well time to look intogun shows.

    2. avatar Tom T says:

      Definitely sounds like they scored a win. Gotta give credit where credit is due (although some won’t).

    3. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      About time.

      There you go. Happy to oblige.

      1. avatar Helms Deep says:

        If N.R.A. actually fought and challenged more often , we all would win more and their membership would grow not shrink.

        People are plenty tired of hearing NRA say they are waiting for a ” Perfect Case “, as excuse not to fight.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I know it’s annoying the way the NRA does things and even I roll my eyes at this excuse sometimes, but they do have a point. Legal precedent is hard to overcome and they don’t want to pick cases that they end up losing and create precedents that they then have to fight against in the future.

          I’d rather they be very selective and file five cases that then win rather than file 50 and lose 39 of them and set 39 precedents they’ll have to fight later on and probably lose.

          This is an area where winning makes winning easier and losing means winning becomes harder. I don’t want to see that “perfect” test case come along, one which could strike a really significant blow, be lost because the NRA scattergunned a bunch of previous cases that they lost and set the precedent that becomes their downfall in that “perfect” case.

        2. avatar Kevin says:

          If you bring the wrong case and lose, you create binding legal precedent that kills your chances at future wins. Picking the “right” case is incredibly important. Do it wrong and you do more harm than good.

          It’s complicated.

        3. avatar Chuck Michel says:

          Perfect case?? Where did you hear that? NRA and CRPA have over a dozen cases in California right now, and dozens more across the country, and they got the NYSRPA v NYC to SCOTUS. Dont mistake and lack of success in rigged California with a lack of effort. Join CRPA there is a California efforts report in every issue of the magazine.

    4. avatar Mark N. says:

      You will. Believe me you will. Next stop, the Ninth Circuit, where gun rights go to die. Although the decision remains in effect until the appeal is determined (thus protecting these mags from destruction or confiscation pending appeal), cynical me wonders whether the Ninth will issue a stay of the judgment in order to allow the law to take effect and thus render the issue moot before they ever have to decide it…

      1. avatar DDay says:

        The 9th is getting less liberal as trump nominees to it are confirmed. Within a few months the 29 judges on the 9th will be 16 dem, 13 Republican appointees

        If trump gets a second term and the GOP has the senate, Mitch McConnell and trump will make the 9th a majority GOP nominated court. People with small minds attack McConnell. Few have done more to help 2A rights and Conservative jurisprudence than Mitch

        1. avatar Ron says:

          Yes. If it was’t for Mitch we would have Garland instead of Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.

        2. avatar Paul says:

          The ninth has always been independent, regardless how many left/right justices were on it. It’s almost like another country. Right leaning justices are better than left leaning, almost always, but they’ll still have their own ideas about “justice”.

    5. avatar Kevin (The Other One) says:

      I still think NRATV is a huge waste of money and resources…..but they will get a membership dues from me this year.

    6. avatar m11nine says:

      Lifted from an Illinois facebook group comment: “It’s the NRA, they probably gave up the right to own the rifle, to get the mag ban lifted.”

      Life member here, but its still funny.

    7. avatar frank speak says:

      about time !…

    8. avatar barnbwt says:

      Good on them for fighting to win protection for one kind of molded plastic accessory in California, the same week that another molded piece of plastic was declared contraband across the entire nation by the very president whom they endorsed as a champion of our RKBA, with nary a peep from the NRA.

      High-cap mags are a lot less useful when semi-autos are banned for being machine guns. I’m still glad the NRA helped press this case (though CRPA gets most of the credit, no doubt). I just don’t understand how they expect the membership to remain committed to the organization when they rather blatantly trade away the less-popular freedoms we have left for political connections. It’s probably for the best I’m not going to the NRA convention this year (though I’m still hoping for a Roadhouse-style brawl when Adam Kraut is defrauded of victory in the board of directors election for the third time)

  2. avatar Kenneth says:

    So how long until the CA burrocrats use taxpayer funds to appeal?
    I’m going to guess…. tomorrow. Oops, tomorrow’s Saturday. Make my guess Monday.

  3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    Any national implications?

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      You really think a radical like Becarra isn’t going to that this to the Ninth Circus?

      And what happens from there? Especially after the NY case gets decided…

      You can do the math.

      John

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        How is the New York case likely to go? If there’s a circuit split, making it to the Supreme Court becomes a lot more likely…

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          NYSRPA v. NYC was already taken up by the Supreme Court. They’ll hear arguments in October.

        2. avatar William Sullivan says:

          The NY case is about permission to transport out of the city, if I remember.

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “You really think a radical like Becarra isn’t going to that this to the Ninth Circus?”

        I’m sorry, what are you trying to say?

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Probably something about that presidential Second Amendment Coalition he was appointed to.

          https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/11/john-boch/ttags-john-boch-trumps-second-amendment-coalition/

      3. avatar DDay says:

        The 9th is still a circus but with trumps nominees, it’s getting closer to a 50/50 split dem nominees vs GOP. If trump gets a 2nd term, he’ll flip the 9th to a majority GOP court.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          I’d rather see it split up. Way too much already-questionable judicial authority housed in that single looney bin, even if Trump manages to turn the tide back briefly.

    2. avatar Kevin (The Other One) says:

      I would say that it is very likely….the judge ruled that the magazine limitation was unconstitutional and against the purpose of the 2nd amendment (Right to defend ones self), so it is likely that either other state judges will follow suit or this will end up at the supreme court for a final decision.

      And this was already at the ninth circuit court and they sent it back to the district court, so I do not think the CA attorney general has anything left to prevent CA penal code 32310 from being overturned.

      It looks like this was already in the hand of the 9th circuit and they sent it back to the district court…..but I am not a lawyer and a lot of the language is hard to follow, but here is the link that I found.

      VIRGINIA DUNCAN V. XAVIER BECERRA, No. 17-56081 (9th Cir. 2018)

      Link to ninth circuit case: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-56081/17-56081-2018-07-17.html

  4. avatar John Boch says:

    This is why smart folks use top tier legal minds to take gun cases to the individual states’ supreme courts, or the US Supreme Court. Hiring bankruptcy attorneys or one man shops with a less than proven reputation for winning substantive 2A decisions is fool-hardy and does a disservice to gun owners nationwide!

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      I suspect you are referring to a specific group. I don’t want the name. I will research for myself. Thanks for the tip.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      So…just leave it to the NRA & give them our money instead, is what you’re saying? Might I direct your attention to the events of Tuesday this past week, wherein the NRA did less than *nothing* to stop an unprecedented “disservice to gun owners.”

      You guys are unbelievable. One (potentially) big win –over what, the past six years?– does not earn the NRA sole claim to RKBA legal defense efforts or donations. It’s pretty arrogant to suggest that while spiking the football as well, seeing how many of their legal & legislative efforts have been botched in that same time. No one has a perfect record on RKBA issues, because the legal system is solidly stacked against us.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I guess redress of grievance is a collective right too now?

    4. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      It takes a top tier legal mind to persuade a federal judge who graduated from community college and an unranked law school to get a decent ruling defending plain English constitutional rights?

      Naww…..it just takes judges who are not wild-eyed radicals using, abusing, and raping the hell out of their authority to jam their statist personal politics down our throats and who instead will just interpret the Constitution as understood at the time it was written. That’s the problem with the legal profession: too many top tier legal mind gunslingers twisting words and manufacturing meanings and not enough decent human beings with respect for the rule of law and individual freedom.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I like and agree with your post.

        “and who instead will just interpret the Constitution as understood at the time it was written.”

        However, I want to point out that they weren’t granted explicit power of Judicial Review and it was created as doctrine in the unconstitutional Marbury v. Madison decision. The Supreme Court has no business ruling on constitutionality. To wield that power means that the court is already disregarding the Constitution right out of the gate. IMHO, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Court twists the Constitution while using a usurped power to do so. Unconstitutional power begets unconstitutional rulings.

  5. avatar OBOB says:

    Okay I am not attorney by any means…so how far does this go??

    only the last ban over 30 is gone
    Or all the bans over 10 are gone??

    we have many ‘ban’ levels at question here…..

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Effective January 1, 2000, California banned any magazine that could hold more than ten rounds, but “grandfathered in” all existing mags, such that mags legally acquired prior to January 1 remained legal. But the Legislature recently passed, and Brown signed, a new law that banned the grandfathered mags, so that there could be no legally possessed 10+ mags in the state.
      A lawsuit was filed and the trial court issued an injunction barring enforcement. After an appeal of the injunction, trial was recently concluded and resulted in a permanent injunction against the new law. So the status is that if you have 10+ mags that you acquired prior to 1/1/2000, you can keep them.
      For now.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        And if you have an old GI mag, there no way to disprove it was not aquired prior to 2000. Thats why many CA AR15 owners have 10 rd Pmags and old GI Mags.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        I suspected this was about that.

        Congratulations NRA! You won a textbook takings clause case! Call me begging for donations to LaPierre’s salary when you actually do something HARD.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Nah man, this is evidence that only the NRA can possibly win any RKBA case, and we should only ever donate to them. They’re the professionals, and we laymen simply aren’t capable of deciding what battles are worth fighting, and which should be ceded unilaterally. We don’t need upstart groups like FPC or GOA that reliably mount some sort of opposition (within their means) to practically every anti-gun effort they can. They’re just scams and a distraction, tricking us into sending them the money that rightfully belongs to the NRA, who will see to its proper use on our behalf.

      3. avatar Westward Ho says:

        Actually, Judge Benitez struck down the entire statute, and did an analysis in his order as to why the entire statute affecting plus-10 round magazines (including the acquisition and manufacture bans originally enacted in 2000) was unconstitutional.

        Until the Ninth Circuit stays enforcement of the District Court’s judgment pending the state’s appeal (which stay is likely), manufacture and importantion are de jure legal. Rumblings from inside the DOJ from this afternoon are that they are going to treat the judgment as only affecting the Prop 63 aspects of the law (I.e., the possession ban), so there may be some interesting legal ramifications if DOJ or another law enforcement agency try to prosecute a magazine importer while the order is still in effect.

        1. avatar OBOB says:

          be real neat to see someone sell 30 no 50 no 100 rnd mags in cali now and see how long before the cops og nutz!

  6. avatar Squiggy81 says:

    I only became a member a couple years ago, but this is the proudest I’ve felt to be a member since joining. I’m no legal expert, but this seems like a game changing win.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      The wheels of justice turn slowly, this is going to be in-process for a while. CA is certain to appeal, then there’s going to be another ruling, then maybe another appeal. I wouldn’t expect a final ruling this side of 2020.

  7. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Congratulations to the NRA and to California gun owners for a big win. I will disagree with any gun rights group, or individual, when they are wrong. But my NRA dues are still being well spent.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      I have been renewing and not renewing for many years. I have a frew family members that are lifetime members. But I still believe if we needed a leader to unify us POTG, it would be the NRA, of course we should all still contribute to GOA, our own state gun groups and the like. JMO.

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        Go life. It simplifies things, you stop thinking about renewing your NRA membership and start thinking about which other groups also deserve your support.

        I suggest SAF.

  8. avatar Sian says:

    countdown to 9th circus overturning the decision

    3

    2

    1

    1. avatar Kevin (The Other One) says:

      It looks like this was already in the hand of the 9th circuit and they sent it back to the district court…..but I am not a lawyer and a lot of the language is hard to follow, but here is the link that I found.

      VIRGINIA DUNCAN V. XAVIER BECERRA, No. 17-56081 (9th Cir. 2018)

      https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-56081/17-56081-2018-07-17.html

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        That appeal was as to the trial court’s issuance of the temporary injunction only, which the State sought to overturn.. However, the issuance of such orders “lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” The Court of Appeal concluded there was no abuse of discretion, and the temporary injunction remained in place pending trial. IT DID NOT ADDRESS WHETHER THE LAW WAS OR WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM. Hence it is of no further consequence.

        1. avatar Kevin (The Other one) says:

          So if I understand what you are saying………now that the district judge has ruled that the “magazine ban” is unconstitutional, now the state can appeal it to the ninth circuit to test whether or not it is constitutional?

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          “We find the statement; ‘Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts’ to be evidence of a gross abuse of judicial discretion” 😉

  9. avatar Kevin (the other one0 says:

    Damn I hope this actually sticks. Glad to see that the NRA hasn’t abandoned us here in California.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      NRA is mostly reactive than proactive when it comes to CA. Many inovative gun companies have figured out ways to ease the ristrictions on things like the evil looking AR15. CA folks are still buying a boat load of guns every year.

  10. avatar W says:

    Unpossible.
    Commenters everywhere have been posting that the NRA is really a Soros/ Pelosi shadow/false flag/ MkUltra organization. They all write that I need to donate to their Uncle Billy Bob’s foundation.

  11. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    This isn’t a perminant injunction. It’s only pending the trial on the case merits.

    But you’d think CA would be a little scared to kick this up the latter after leg city and Gorsuch are on the court. There is a good chance they throw this law out for the whole USA. And by the tome it hits scotus RGB could easily be where she belongs ( NZ Hell take your pick ) and we could have a sixth trump 2 a friendly justice on the court.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      WRONG. Instead of a trial, the court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, i.e., by motion, which is a trial. this decision is a final judgment on the merits.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      There wasn’t an injunction issued today, it was a decision on the merits. As of now, the law is unconstitutional and it’s thrown out. There will be an appeal to the 9th but as of now, the law is dead.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    “…based upon the law and the evidence,upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.”

    Not that it can’t be appealed- it will. And it will almost certainly be reversed. It’s not wishy washy enough to survive the appeals process.

  13. avatar rosignol says:

    Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts. “The judiciary is – and is often the only – protector of individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy.”

    —Senator Ted Kennedy

    Lulzy.

    I’m going to get some scotch before reading the rest. Something tells me this is gonna be good.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      It’s one of the more enjoyable reads from a court that I’ve seen recently.

  14. avatar fteter says:

    Big early win, with additional legal maneuvering to follow.

    Summary judgement, so the Court essentially found that the ban clearly violated the 2nd Amendment – no need to try the issue further. Of course, State of California will appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 9th will likely reverse and remand for trial, if not overrule outright. But I suspect a further appeal to SCOTUS may uphold the District Court decision – the 9th is the most frequently overruled Appellate Court in the United States.

    This is a great start in turning the tide on the left coast.

  15. avatar John says:

    I just sent this to the democrat chairman of the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee. They will be considering a spate of anti 2A bills next week of which several include bans on magazines. Gun owners in every state need to read this ruling and use these arguments in filing in all federal judicial districts in states that place a ban on commonly used magazines.

  16. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Another win, well whatya know about that…

  17. avatar B says:

    Sweeeeeet!

  18. avatar thunder says:

    really need trumps court nominees to be seated

  19. avatar former water walker says:

    Good going NRA! After the bumpstock debacle I wondered aloud if i’d bother renewing. I can see progress in Illinois and now Commiefornia(!)

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      They’ve got a lot of good briskets in the pit for sure, and these things take a long time to pay off.

      But the BBQ is much less appealing when they lay a big turd down on the grill every once in a while…then get all offended when their customers tell them to clean that shit up or they won’t be coming back to buy another helping.

  20. avatar Rswartze says:

    Just hit life member status on the 3yr payment plan. I understand the complaints about the NRA, but I’m still overall happy with their lobbying and court cases. This one makes $25/month for the past 3 years worth it because I don’t see how I in Colorado don’t eventually taste this fruit.

  21. avatar Roymond says:

    I think this is perhaps the most significant line:

    ” The size limit directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self.”

  22. avatar Darkman says:

    Anyone who relies on Judges or Politicians to Preserve Your Rights. Especially your 2A Rights is living in La La Land. And I don’t mean just Commiefornia. The Founding Fathers knew this in 1788. That is one of reasons the Bill of Rights was written. Unfortunately people over the years have turned a blind eye to what has and is being done to those Rights. Every excuse in the book has been used for that lack of oversight. We have allowed those in Government and Judiciary to slowly whittle away at the very Foundation of not only Bill of Rights but, All forms of Freedom. All supposedly for the greater good of society. The errors of our ways are plain for all to see. The question is do We continue to Hope these people will Preserve Our Rights. Knowing full well they care not about what we desire. Only that they remain in power. I don’t believe this battle/war will ever be won at the ballot box. It may not be won with the bullet box. That is for time to tell. The question is How will We be remembered. Subjects willing to conform or Patriots who at the very least fought for what was Right. Win or Loose? Keep Your Powder Dry

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Spot on.

      Yep. They knew that the People couldn’t trust the judiciary to keep them free. That’s why the Supreme Court wasn’t explicitly granted the power of Judicial Review in the Constitution.

  23. avatar W says:

    The opinion is really something. It shows a judge that gets judicial responsibility, history, reasoning, and the rest. I’d recommend it to TTAG’ers. Here’s an unexpected snipped (unexpected by me to see a judge write this). Note that when he says the burden is severe, he means the burden to the individual. This is a welcome perspective from a federal judge.

    Others have acknowledged that the burden on a citizen [the 10 round limit] may be severe but consider it a worthwhile tradeoff. San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 18 F. Supp. 3d 997, 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“Nonetheless, in those rare cases, to deprive the citizen of more than ten shots may lead to his or her own death. Let this point be conceded.”). In a peaceful society, a 10-round limit may not be severe. When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

  24. avatar vvactor says:

    https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf
    ” A Special Report by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics published in 2013, reported that between 2007 and 2011 “there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender.”8 How many more instances are never reported to, or recorded by, authorities?”
    ” Nationally, the first study to assess the prevalence of defensive gun use estimated that there are 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians each year. Of those, 340,000 to 400,000 defensive gun uses were situations where defenders believed that they had almost certainly saved a life by using the gun”

  25. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    I find it pretty funny that AG Becerra’s main piece of “Evidence” supporting his contention that the magazine restriction would reduce mass shootings was a an article written in Mother Jones magazine.

    That guy must be a complete idiot.

    After reading the whole judgement I don’t see even the 9th overturning it.

  26. avatar Mr No says:

    Dummies don’t realize that a 10 round magazine can be changed just as fast as a full capacity magazine. Unbelievably funny

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      That assumes 1) you have free use of both hands; and 2) you have another magazine within reach; 3) you’re calm, cool and collected enough to make the switch without fumbling.

      Personally, I’d rather start the show with 30 rounds than call a time-out twice so I can reload.

  27. avatar LIAMD34 says:

    Permanent injunction wasn’t very permanent. Some other libtard judge reinstated the ban effective at 5pm today.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email