Quote of the Day
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code § 32310.
2. Defendant Rob Bonta shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute.
Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge
September 22, 2023
Virginia Ducan v. Rob Bonta
This is the 9th Circuit. If upheld on appeal, initially this will affect the standard capacity magazine bans in California. Then, almost immediately, it will be used to attack the bans in Oregon and Washington. This will be is a good start.
About time.
Chet
Rogue River
Yes, a good start. And it shows that logic and courage inspire others to act and think the same.
All the caterwauling aside. Freedom is excellent for society.
Now if we could only set a few blazing examples for contempt of court. And go heavy on the blazing.
“…who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined…” Well, that seems awfully generous; the same courtesy isn’t applied to us peasants when we are unaware of some newly minted infringement. Isn’t it their job to know about the laws they are enforcing? Ignorance of the law being no excuse should work both ways.
But yes, a good start.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but much of the content of that order addresses other 2A cases, directly or indirectly, as a roadmap for plaintiffs in those other cases. The order always ties those matters back to the legal and Constitutional question at hand—the magazine ban—but offers arguments to counter the other issues, such as fee-shifting. There is a coherent corpus in 2A jurisprudence emerging. “Scholarship of 2A history is already done.” “Laws used to require armed trained citizenship.” “Racial and religious reasons for disarmament are a non-starter.”
All settled matters, now roll up the sleeves and apply this jurisprudence to the laws. It’s becoming difficult to predict what gun laws will stand.
“Scholarship of 2A history is already done.” And if it takes 2 years to discover other laws or cases that help the State defend its law, those laws and cases are so few, so obscure, so hard to find, that they do not constitute a history or tradition.
Here’s another: “American history and tradition from the period relevant to Bruen analysis offer many examples of a legal minimum amount of ammunition in possession, not a maximum.”
And another: “American history and tradition from the period relevant to Bruen analysis offer several examples of a right to carry that is more acute when the person travels away from one’s home town and State, regardless of the mode of transportation.”
Expect the gun grabbers to rewrite this, change a few words and try again.
It’s not their money being spent implementing it…it’s tax dollars. And it’s private money spent fighting their gun grabbing efforts. They will never give up, go away or stop trying to remove our Rights as long as they suffer zero personal consequences for their repeated nonstop efforts to do so. Yes…it’s a victory. But
it’s is NOT the end of the war.
“It’s not their money being spent implementing it…it’s tax dollars. And it’s private money spent fighting their gun grabbing efforts. They will never give up, go away or stop trying to remove our Rights as long as they suffer zero personal consequences for their repeated nonstop efforts to do so.”
All the more reason to starve the beast with draconian budget cuts.
It should be expected that when faced with a 50% reduction in available funds they will stop doing the right things and double down on the wrong things.
The answer the that is to cut not by 50% but by 100%.
That means direct, and constant, engagement with the Budgeteers – elected representatives – those scum-sucking wannabe criminals we chose to represent us, and, with frequency and malice, replacing them with a fresh batch of scum-sucking wannabe criminals. Large quantities of money – evensmall quantities of money – attract the criminal class, understand that and deal with it by applying FOIA-fueled sunshine to everything they do.
Pro Tip: Do not depend on The Media for any assistance – they are lifelong partners with the Budgeteers dedicated to aiding and abetting the Budgeteers’ every action; think “sharks and remoras.” And, while it is often said in business that “a children’s crusade cannot succeed, it must be driven from the top” in Voting World the “children” are the top.
It is not wrong to offer hints that Voting World offers a wide range of other options as well; among them, select engagement with certain individuals possessing large quantities of legal knowledge can, and, does, lead to multiple years of state-sponsored residency quite different from that preferred by Budgeteers.
Correct me if I am wrong, but SCOTUS remanded this case to the Ninth Circuit immediately after they decided Bruen, with instructions to apply the text, history, and tradition test and no interest-balancing to it.
The Ninth was expected to do so, but they instead further remanded it down to Judge Benitez.
What did the Ninth expect? Did they smell a loss, and just shuffle it back to Benitez to buy more time for a change of faces on SCOTUS?
That is my assumption. And now they will buy more time by dragging out the appeal.
Why has Benitez continued to play the 9th’s game by issuing a stay to his own order? wtf?
Would it prevent a 30-day stay on appeal?
It also gives time for word to get out to law enforcement.
Completely off topic, but I’ve recently been thinking about the concept of “victimless crime.”
This was a big deal a few decades ago, but doesn’t seem to be much commented now.
These are activities which do not have any direct or identifiable victims. Things like drug use and drug possession, public drunkenness, gambling, prostitution, assisted suicide, and public nudity. It occurs to me that many “gun safety” laws are aimed at restricting activities which have no victim, standard capacity magazine bans, concealed firearm carriage, modern sporting rifle bans, restrictions on DIY firearms, etc.
https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/what-is-a-victimless-crime.html