The state of California argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the Owners. We disagree with the government’s position, and we affirm. California Penal Code section 32310 severely burdens the core of the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. The statute is a poor means to accomplish the state’s interests and cannot survive strict scrutiny. But even if we applied intermediate scrutiny, the law would still fail.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN; RICHARD LEWIS; PATRICK LOVETTE; DAVID MARGUGLIO; CHRISTOPHER WADDELL; CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
August 14, 2020
[Great news out of the ninth circuit. The case is about the constitutionally of bans on normal capacity magazines. This is the second time this case has been decided in our favor. See also these posts about the first time.
This lawsuit was supported by FPC and SAF who I (and my employer) have been donating thousands of dollars to each year. This is a partial return on my investment.
Almost for certain there will be a motion for en banc rehearing. “And as the Hawaii open carry case demonstrates, CTA is perfectly willing to sit on such requests for, quite literally, years.”—Joe]
When I heard that this came down from the 9th Circus, my mind went to the scene from 300 where Leonidas is talking to the Persian Emissary: “…If those philosophers and boy lovers found that kind of nerve…”
When you’re too far out for the 9th to find a way to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution…
Maybe Trump working to change the court is having an effect? Hope so.
I still think we should let BLM/Auntie burn it down for passed sins.
If the 9th wants to sit on it, fine. The injunction to prohibit enforcing the law can stay in effect. By the time they get around to it, the common use argument will be even stronger… as in “what’s the point, you idiots?”
You misunderstand the situation. There is a stay on the injunction to prohibit (sort of a doubt negative there) enforcing the law. Until the appeal is complete the law continues to be enforced.
You’re right, I hadn’t factored in the triple negative of the stay on the injunction on the ban.
Keeping triple negatives in mind so as to correctly explain said triple negatives during oral argument before the judges without permanently (they claim) spraining their brains is why lawyers earn the big bucks for what it is they do.