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.
Xavier Becerra
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,
V.
XAVIER BECERRA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND DOES 1-10, Defendant and Appellant.
[See all the court filings in this extremely important case.
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]
Like this:
Like Loading...