high large capacity magazines
Previous Post
Next Post

Last summer a three-judge panel of the ninth circuit ruled, in a 2-1 decision, that California’s “high capacity” magazine ban was unconstitutional. As expected, California’s Attorney General immediately appealed the ruling in the case, Duncan v. Becerra, because as the AG said that the time . . .

“Our commonsense gun safety measures here in California have a track record of success in doing what they were meant to do — keep our communities safe,” said Attorney General Becerra. “We disagree with the Court’s initial decision and will continue to use every tool we have to defend the constitutionality of our laws.”

This afternoon, the Ninth’s chief judge, Sidney Thomas has issued a ruling quashing the three-judge panel’s ruling. The case will now be reheard en banc by an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.

You can read the brief order here.

Previous Post
Next Post


        • @LKB. Which is precisely what the 9th “Circus” will do with Duncan v. Becerra. PLUS the 9th “Circus” has (naturally) decided to place Rupp v. Becerra (the ‘assault weapons’ challenge) on indefinite hold, until the en banc panel conveniently gets around to ruling on Duncan v. Becerra. This way, there’s virtually no chance that either case will make it to SCOTUS before the end of Biden’s first term, if ever.

    • This yes you can no you cannot BS is what happens and will continue to happen when Gun Control has not been defined as a racist and nazi based agenda that in any shape or form is unacceptable in America.

      Instead the Truth About Gun Control is kept swept under the rug by the very people with the megaphones who claim to be on the side of the 2A. The very people who would be the first to proclaim that any agenda connected to racism and genocide is detestable.

      Face it…Gun Control is profitable and greed is behind a lot of it. Otherwise you’d see what happened to statues of the Confederacy and Swastikas in Germany happen to Gun Control.

      The breaking court room drama continues all while such things as the 10 Commandments, The Pledge of Allegiance have been thrown in the crapper by such courts. And that’s all while such courts allow the stench of racism and genocide to live on in Gun Control.

    • What’s the point of the constitution when the courts don’t follow it? That’s the real question. We should never have to rely on a court to save a right that shall not be infringed. It’s almost meaningless. When do we say enough already?

  1. “We’re excited to have another opportunity to defend what Californians already know…”

    Pardon my cynicism, but what Californians and the rest of us know, is that more than likely, this means the leftists have already won this battle.

    My holiday inn stay qualifies me as a certified legal opinion writer. Lol

  2. And the 11-Judge Panel, as always is for Appeals Courts 2nd Amendment Cases, will be a Democrat Judge Majority Panel siding with the $Bloomberg Gun Ban and Confiscation Lobby.

    Judging how ACB and Brett Kavanaugh have behaved like Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, and we have good ole John Roberts the Democrat Suck-a** on the SCOTUS too, a SCOTUS appeal will be denied Cert as always.

    • Not necessarily. Trump was successful in achieving a near even split between Republicans and Democrats on the Ninth Circuit, and with the exception of the Chief Judge (Stanley Thomas), the other ten judges are selected randomly. Thomas is an automatic reversal, being a dyed-in-the-wool anti, so it is no surprise that he ordered an en banc review. The good part is that the trial court decision by St. Benitez is solidly written, and the original three judge panel followed right along. On the other hand, this means that the stay on buying full capacity mags remains in place at least for the next several years. The Ninth has a track record of sitting on these 2A cases long after oral argument, perhaps for the purpose of preventing SCOTUS review as long as possible.

      • Not quite.
        The CTA9 CJ doesn’t get to decide whether something goes en banc — a majority of active service (i.e., excluding senior status) judges on the Court have to vote for rehearing en banc.
        If a majority of active service judges vote for REB, *then* the CJ issues the order, and thereafter the other panelists for the en banc rehearing are drawn by lot. (In all other circuits, ALL active service judges sit en banc, but CTA9 has so many that that is unworkable.)
        As noted in an above comment, however, I do agree that CTA9 does play games with sitting on en banc cases for years.

        • “… I do agree that CTA9 does play games with sitting on en banc cases for years.”

          Any chance the SCOTUS can force them (in some way) to speed up the review process? A time limit of some sort, arguing justice delayed is justice denied, perhaps?

      • I am surprised they risked a scotus review. Maybe they are planning to overturn the law BUT write a more gun control friendly ruling.

        • As Young v. Hawaii aptly illustrates, they can sit on an en banc case for essentially forever.
          The only way to force them to rule is via a writ of mandamus from SCOTUS. But unless and until SCOTUS issues some sweeping new pro-2A opinion, the chances of SCOTUS mandamusing CTA9 to decide an en banc case are somewhere between nonexistent and “whatever you’re smoking, it’s rude you aren’t sharing.”

        • The 2nd Amendment is written in plain English and is only one sentence long. What in the hell is so hard for these idiots to understand about the phrase in that sentence: “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?” That’s the problem in a nutshell. We have loony Liberals trying to re-write or erase our history. The Public Educational System is indoctrinating our youth and the Entertainment and Mass media industries are indoctrinating all of the sheep in this country. THIS WILL NOT END GOOD!

  3. “Commonsense” joined the term “racist” in the irrelevancy bucket a loooong time ago!! But I guess they must believe it still works.

    • Agreed. Additionally, if it truly was common sense, one wouldn’t have to assert that it is. It’d be self-evident.

    • How is this “Cool”? The panel’s ruling against the ban was cool. Chief Judge Sidney Thomas vacated the panel’s ruling (the opposite of cool).

  4. I am not sure how often en banc overturns a lower court ruling.
    Given the close to even balance of the ninth circuit, we have a real chance to get the lower court ruling to stand.

    • It doesn’t matter how often they overturn a lower court, because they already vacated that decision, now they’ll just do nothing for years.

  5. ““We’re excited to have another opportunity to defend…”

    How can they be excited about a kick in the balls?


  7. When did “commonsense” become a single word? I guess I don’t even really know what it means as it bears little resemblance to the phrase I’ve long known as “common sense”.

    • Since the anti-freedom lobby made it so. I always cringe when I see it written that way. Anyone with common sense knows “commonsense” is just a liberal propaganda term.

      • Correct. In fact, “commonsense” means the exact opposite of “common sense”, with a side serving of “we can fool these dumbasses with our tricky words.”

    • Well, it used to be common-sense, but the liberals have got so many identity groups now that the hyphen was needed elsewhere.

    • A big problem as I see it is how easily distracted some of you are. MyName, whoever you are, goes off on a tangent about the words “common sense” and a whole bunch of you follow him into the weeds. Stay on subject gentlemen, these matters of arms infringement are far too serious. This going off the rails is nothing new to this site. It happens all of the time. These Liberal Democrats have you all running around chasing your tails instead of fighting them in an intelligent manner. We have met the enemy and it is us. SMARTEN UP!

      • Having a bit of *fun* is a way of dealing with stress.

        And we are under stress.


  8. I, long ago, accepted that the government views me as a criminal.

    When You just accept that that is what you are, the laws are pretty amusing.

  9. The single word has the same meaning as “trickle down economics”

    In that there is no meaning at all.

  10. political pressure to manipulate rulings. Fucking lame. If the Judges actually get out of their court rooms and see what the PEOPLE are actually doing, buying, and using, they would see it another way. but they are influenced by politics and party lines.

  11. I am somewhat conflicted about this one myself. But ultimately I guess it’s a good thing as it’s one step futher towards a proper scotus challenge.

    • Best would have been for the decision to stand. The California would have no magazine limits or had to appeal to SCOTUS

      The 9th appeals cases and en banc are not liberal slam dunks since trump put 10 judge on the court. What used to be 3/4 liberal judge is now almost 50/50 at 16/13

      • Let’s face it, we have a politicized Judiciary. When is a Judge not a Judge? When he or she lets their politics determine how he or she rules and the LAWS BE DAMNED. If we had a fair and uncorrupted Press in this country, people would know what’s going on and put a stop to it. God help us because we have lost this country and too many of us don’t even know that much.

        • I agree. Look at the northern district court in California. CA has 3 district courts, north south and central. There are 16 judges on the northern district. One was appointed by bush and the rest by Clinton and Obama.

          That’s were they filed the majority of lawsuits against the trump admin and in 2017 the 9th circuit appeals court was very heavily liberal too.

          They picked the district for a reason, they knew what the judges would decide.

          In Duncan, well known what the decision will be based on what the panel looks like.

    • Yes. A majority of the 11 judge panel will trump Bush judges. I’m optimistic the random drawing will be in our favor this time

      • I wonder, not knowing the internal workings of the court, whether the chief judge sits on it because a majority is selected that he’s not happy with, thinking the decision may not be to his liking. If the majority goes his way, he may schedule it sooner. Wondering…

        • Chief judge sits on all en bank because that’s the rule in the 9th. It’s not new.

          But Sidney Thomas is a POS and will do crooked crap to overturn things he doesn’t like. Look at his action in the Peruta case 7 years ago. But the make up the 9th isn’t what it was in 2014 so he’s not going to have the same results

    • The difference between a Liberal Judge and a Conservative Judge is just this. A conservative Judge always follows the Constitution and a liberal Judge only follows the Constitution when it agrees with that Judge’s political viewpoint. Liberal Judges have been eroding our Constitutional Rights for as long as I can remember and I am 79 years old. What this country needs is a Supreme Court that is loaded with Conservative Judges who reverse all of the unconstitutional rulings of the liberal Judges on the lower courts. Instead of trying to erase our history, it is about time we embrace our history and follow the inspired wisdom of our founding forefathers.

  12. “Ninth Circuit Vacates Duncan v. Becerra High Capacity Magazine Ruling, Will Rehear the Case”

    Of course it will. The fix is in. Welcome to America.

    • Relax, this was expected. When the panel is picked, it’s randomly chosen, we’ll have a better idea in the likely ruling

      • Sorry, but I’ve seen this movie before. If the Ninth wanted to uphold the previous ruling, all it had to do was nothing. The en banc rehearing is only necessary to overrule the previous ruling. Which is exactly what’s going to happen.

        • The majority of the court is democratic appointees so goin to en bank they have an advantage 16-13. The panel will only be 11 though and it’s a random drawing. If that panel is 6-5 or better conservative, they’ll uphold the lower court. It’s all about the drawing

          What you’ve seen in the past is from a very different court. Trump changed the make up of the court dramatically.

        • Like a long ago Communist dictator said, “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

          The equivalent here is, who is the “random” picker?

          Don’t discount any thing in a democrat (communist) controlled organization.

  13. Well of course you can have high capacity magazines now just try to fill them. These guys are playing 3d chess and it’s the same game for a long time.
    Speaking of time , isnt it about time for another mass ass fully bumpstock, now suppressed, assault weapon massacre to happen.
    Paddock was zipped up hauled off to the plastic surgeon sent to Cuba and living now it up. Used to hang out with Osama bin, till he died of liver sht. Theres a bunch more down there I know about but if I tell yah, I’ll have to shoot yah.

  14. There has to be a movement for Court reform, as the lawyers and politicians use the courts to hinder rights by NOT doing anything at the Hurts everyone. Someone in congress has to take it on to enact change to get the courts to do a 30 day limit on dealing with cases so they don’t sit on the docket for decades. The Court has to rule on it or kick it back to previous judgement, not just ignore it based on politics. Seems like no one wants to bring this up. The COURT itself is a hindrance of the rights of the Citizens

  15. What type of craziness is going on? 1 judge can overrule 3 other judges. Never heard of this before. No wonder our federal system of courts is so messed up. This will be thrown out when it is reheard en banc by an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. This will probably go to the Supreme Court and this is a big maybe thou.

    • One judge didn’t. The 27 active judges vote. There is a 16-13 democrat vs republican split. The 11 judge panel will be the chief judge, Thomas is a liberal POS, and 10 other judges picked randomly. If 6 or 7 of those 10 are trump and Bush judges, they will uphold the lower court ruling.

      Relax. We’ll know more when the panel is picked

  16. Question: I’m kind of new to the debate. I know what “en banc” means, but I don’t know whether it’s good or bad for 2A rights. It seems good to demand that more judges participate, but I could be wrong.

    • “I know what “en banc” means, but I don’t know whether it’s good or bad for 2A rights.”

      It all depends on the political bias of the majority of the members on that particular court.

      If there are more conservative voting members than Leftist, it can be good. If the reverse is true, it’s better for the Leftists.

      The 9th circuit is currently biased in favor of the Leftists. That means, 2A rights get slow-walked to the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, while unconstitutional infringements remain in law…

      • Yeah, that makes sense. And it never seems to matter what 2A rights are gained in CA because they’re gone within a week.

        People who study history can see that totalitarianism will be at the door soon.

        People who don’t study history should start.

  17. I think it would be reasonable to compare a gun-rights victory against CA in the furthest-left of the circuit courts with winning the Super Bowl against overwhelming odds. If you were the underdog, would you regard being stripped of the championship pending a rematch as “good”?

    There’s a strong chance you’ll lose, and you can’t win anything more than you had the first time. You’re getting blocked and tackled throughout, and you’re paying your team (lawyers) overtime for a game they’ve already won.

    • The 9th isn’t a far left court anymore. Trump put 10 judges in the court. It’s 16-13 D vs R judges now. When trump took office it was 21-8 I believe. He transformed the court

      • 55+% D is D.

        Are you seriously arguing that it’s good to go from a win to a rematch with a 55+% chance of a loss?

        • Look at my other comments. Best would have been to allow it to stand. But going en Bancorp is a majority vote of the 26 judges, we knew how that vote would go

          And no it’s not a 55% D panel. It’s the chief and 10 other randomly chosen judges. We will know everything when those 10 judges are picked. If 6 or 7 of those judges are bush and trump judges it’s going to be a 2a victory.

          We won’t know the chances so a win or lose until the panel is picked

        • Your one other comment that you made after I wrote that? As opposed to the others that ooze gushy, unjustified optimism?

          “55+% D” was in response to your “The 9th isn’t a far left court anymore” comment. How would you characterize a 55+% D (i.e. worse than now) House or Senate?

          But you’re right: it’s actually worse than I previously noted. If the Chief is automatically a member, that means the odds are more like 59.25% against a conservative panel.

        • My other comments were posted before yours, scroll up.

          You’re percentages are garbage. They’d be accurate if all the judges sit for cases as is the situation for en banc panels in other circuits but the don’t in the 9th.

          Appeals are 3 judge panels and whom is drawn on those cases matter. There are some panels where there are 2 trump judges and one bush. That would definitely favor a 2A position.

          In the en banc there are 10 judges chosen randomly and the chief. The drawing is random so how they’ll decide depends on who is chosen.

          Uou have a sky is falling attitude that’s not based in reality

        • I admit, while scrolling way up and down the page, I misread a digit, and that you had one realistic post before mine.

          One of two things will happen. Maybe, as several others have posted, Thomas skews things his way. Best case, one guaranteed leftard plus an honest random selection from a 55+% leftist pool. That’s not even taking into account the fact that some judges become RINOs and none ever seem to become DINOs. How can you possibly interpret a negative view of the slide from an already-won case, to either of those two situations, as “not grounded in reality”?

  18. The State should not be allowed to appeal.

    Once one of it’s courts or Federal court has made a decision that should be it for the States attorney. They should not have an interest in the decision because the State can always rewrite or create a new law to compensate. To me it’s just being vengeful and taking up more time and money. Mostly it keeps the AG’s busy

    Now the defense if the judgment goes against them has no other redress but to appeal to a higher court.

    This bouncing back and forth has made the courts more important and lessened the work of our legislatures and they’ve grown lazy because of it.

  19. “You can’t have a mass shooting if there are no mass gatherings.”

    “mass gathering” is in the eye of the beholder. Based on contemporary definitions of “mass shooting”, no more than two people can be gathered in any location.

  20. Missing the damn point. Maybe he graduated near the bottom of his class in law school.

    Son, they didn’t rule on the effectiveness of your legislation. They ruled the legislation was unconstitutional.

  21. “Our commonsense gun safety measures here in California have a track record of success in doing what they were meant to do — keep our communities safe,” said Attorney General Becerra.

    Show me the factual evidence that a mag capacity limit saves lives. I’ll wait.

  22. We are @ war. There were no credible claims of voter fraud yet countries in Europe are ditching the machines. Only God or violence will change this and God does approve of violence. Kill them all don’t even spare their stock

  23. “If that panel is 6-5 or better conservative, they’ll uphold the lower court. It’s all about the drawing”


    It’s all about who defines and controls “random selection”.

  24. “Uou have a sky is falling attitude that’s not based in reality”

    When it comes to Demunistas, reality is that the sky really is always falling.

  25. Becerra is in DC now. Got a new job working for Barackobiden. Picking his nose, wiping the spital drizzling from the corners of his mouth, or some other thing that is not worthwhile.

Comments are closed.