Under intermediate scrutiny, “[i]t is the legislature’s job, not [the courts’], to weigh conflicting evidence and make policy judgments.” Pena, 898 F.3d at 980 (quoting Kachalsky v. Cnty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 99 (2d Cir. 2012)). Based on the summary judgment record, and the decisions of the six federal circuit courts upholding ten-round LCM restrictions, section 32310 is constitutional under the Second Amendment.
Attorney General of California
October 7, 2019
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN, RICHARD LEWIS, PATRICK LOVETTE, DAVID MARGUGLIO, CHRISTOPHER WADDELL, AND CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Plaintiffs and Appellees,
Interesting claim. What appears, to this non-lawyer, to be the claim is that if the standard of review is “intermediate scrutiny” then no constitutional protection exists. It’s open season on whatever, supposedly, protected right the legislature takes aim at.
It would appear such decisions and thought processes are in need of a serious reset.—Joe]