Last month, an en banc ruling by the Ninth District Court of Appeals upheld California’s ban on so-called high capacity magazines…basically any magazine that will hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.
The ruling outlaws the possession of millions of magazines legally bought and owned by law-abiding gun owners in the state, including those shipped in during “freedom week.” That was the period after Judge Robert Benitez struck down the law in 2019 and before a stay of his decision kept it in place until the Ninth Circuit could rule.
After the Ninth’s ruling, the plaintiffs in the suit, including the California Rifle & Pistol Association, announced they would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As the San Diego Union-Tribune reports, the Ninth Circuit has agreed to stay its ruling to give the plaintiffs time to do that . . .
The 9th Circuit agreed on Monday to the advocates’ request to stay the possession part of the law for 150 days to allow time for the writ of certiorari to be filed. If the petition is filed during that period, the stay will be extended until the high court makes a determination on whether it will consider the case.
The state Attorney General’s Office, which is defending the law in court, did not oppose the request.
So, if you’re a Golden Stater who owns some of the now-forbidden magazines, the state won’t be enforcing the ban on their possession (actually using them, even if loaded with ten or fewer rounds, could be problematic). And you don’t have to turn them in or destroy them. Yet.
What part of “shall not be infringed” doesn’t Kalifornia understand?
Walter,
Any part. The 9th Circus is a s***show, and has been for years. KKKalifornia is determined to commie it’s way into the future, and enact and enforce the most fascist, undemocratic laws you can imagine, and pat themselves on the back, claiming they are “woke”. Just let it burn. It’s actually quite a lovely state, once all the Dimocrat idiots die of terminal stupidity, and rational people can repopulate a once-great state. Remember, Ronald Reagan was once governor of California . . . and now we have Gavin Gruesome as governor of KKKalifornia.
LampofDiogenes I’ve been saying that for years. The 2nd Circuit here in NY is just as bad. They handing down a decision about ten years ago, that says that a landlord must advise a tenant of his right to send the letter contesting the amount owned for rent (called Federal Fair Debt Collection Notice) although the court says that this notice has absolutely no bearing on the eviction process. Talking about ridiculous…
Both NY and Kalifornia have gone to the dogs of Socialism.
There is a reason why in some legal circles it is referred to as the Ninth Circus, although I maintain that is a slur on Circus performers everywhere. Folks who work in circuses are highly skilled performers who practice their acts daily. They know what to do, how to do it and when to do it. They are not the bumbling, stumbling, sleep on the bench political lick-spittles that comprise the Ninth Circuit. The most overruled district in the whole federal appeals system. One would think that would give them a clue.
Next time Benitez gets a 2A case to rule on, he should make it effective immediately and issue no stay on his order. Benitez should give the 9th Circuit TWO BIG MIDDLE FINGERS and have those clowns scrambling to get an en banc hearing.
Obviously courts are quite comfortable using The Second Amendment for Ping Pong. It’s back and forth like high and mighty proper plantation owners traded slaves between seasons.
History clearly shows Gun Control goes hand in hand with slave shacks, nooses, cross burning, concentration camps, gas chambers, swastikas and the like. Any of the aforementioned atrocities certainly do not require any USSC decision and that applies equally or more for anything Gun Control.
Indisputable evidence throughout History connects Gun Control directly or indirectly to the aforementioned atrocities. And that evidence is more than enough to Bury Gun Control alongside slave shacks, nooses, cross burning, concentration camps, gas chambers, swastikas and the like.
Slave Control, Jew Control, Gun Control. There is no difference whatsoever and to allow Gun Control standing in any US Court is peeing on each and every defenseless person subjected to the atrocities that remain embedded in all forms of Gun Control. There is no “Gun Control Lite.”
Failure for Do It For Me Gun Owners to speak for those subjected to Gun Control atrocities is pathetic and what paves the way for Second Amendment Ping Pong.
To Walter.
Well unfortunately even SCOTUS has the opinion that rights aren’t unlimited and Scalias opinion in Heller so stated. The problem is that rights ARE UNLIMITED. That is what makes them rights and not privileges.
Gman,
In a vacuum where exercising your rights any way that you choose cannot possibly harm anyone else: yes, your rights are unlimited. When exercising your rights prevents other people from exercising their rights (and vice versa), rights are no longer unlimited.
You have an unfettered right to shadow box all you want–up and until your shadow boxing means punching someone in the face. Since you have no right to punch someone in the face, you lose your right to shadow box in that scenario.
Living in a society with others absolutely requires that we sometimes compromise on the extent to which we exercise our rights. The trick is ensuring that said compromises are necessary and reasonable.
Here is one example as food for thought: I have every right to walk wherever I want at whatever pace that I want–until my walk will foul-up other people’s lives. Thus, I cannot walk down the middle of an interstate highway and hold up everyone else.
The problem with firearm laws is that they are almost always unnecessary and unreasonable because exercising our right to keep and bear arms never hinders other people from exercising their rights.
U_C,
“The problem with firearm laws is that they are almost always unnecessary and unreasonable because exercising our right to keep and bear arms never hinders other people from exercising their rights.”
Exactly so. Second Amendment harassment laws have everything to do with erasing the Constitution and moving us toward tyranny.
U.C.
I see it this way: Article VI dictates that ‘the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land’, that only the laws made ‘in pursuance thereof’ shall be valid, and that ‘every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or LAWS of any State to the Contrary’ is ‘notwithstanding.’ in law. Said “supreme Law” was enacted to preserve the American people’s rights by limiting the government(s), both the States’ and the General’s, ability to interfere with and/or abolish those enumerated rights. Therefore, said enumerated rights were/are enacted to be absolute. Nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment (2A) is positive language that permits government(s) to regulate “Arms” or the possession thereof in any manner. To the contrary, in writing, it prohibits them from ‘infringing’ upon that right. This means that every law enacted by the States’ and the General government to regulate and/or abolish “Arms” is colorable and therefore null and void. And because the courts are a part of the government, any ruling made by them that ‘infringes’ upon the absolute ‘right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry, possess on one’s person) Arms,’ is thereby colorable and said judges are guilty of the treasonous act of “warring on the Constitution” (re: Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1). Git a Rope!
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson
Now, it is legal.
Now, it is not.
Now, it is legal.
Now, it is not.
Now, it is legal.
Sounds like a game of “Red Light, Green Light, 1,2,3”
Or, maybe, “Simon Sez”.
When the Constitution was written, no one thought it was a game. Those folk were deadly serious.
When the Constitution was written, they hadn’t envisioned the internet , nor idiots such as dacian on it, yet here we are.
Pb_fan59,
Agree. But did they have peanut butter?
LOL!!
Probably not, although that would be PB, or maybe just pb… dig deeper, grasshopper.
If only the internet had achieved it’s purpose in taking mankind’s intelligence to a higher level. Unusually, it appears to have dragged us into new lows.
They will have turn them in or destroy them anyway because the Supreme Court won’t bother and the ban will be upheld setting the precedent that magazine capacity bans are completely legal and ‘constitutional’.
There are only two possibilities here: the Supreme Court does not take up the case which is HIGHLY likely (I put it at 99.999%) or SCOTUS sides with California.
I mean the ninth circuit is the most overturned court in the nation but this involves guns, something all courts and almost all judges hate.
This action (9th Circuit Court temporarily suspends their own ruling) baffles me. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is arguably the most hostile of all of the Circuits to the Second Amendment–which is why that Court upheld California’s firearm magazine restriction. And yet they prevent California law enforcement from enforcing that law for five months while the plaintiffs create and file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court–and provisionally prevent enforcement indefinitely if the plaintiffs filed an appeal? Why?
The 9th Circuit has gone out of its way to hamstring firearm ownership any way it can, including upholding pretty much every firearm restriction that has ever come before it. Why is the court being so nice and allowing possession of those super-duper dangerous “high capacity” (a totally bogus and meaningless term) magazines when it clearly thinks they should be illegal?
I suspect they just don’t want to thumb their nose at SCOTUS. With all the twists and turns in the case it might be seen as ‘bad form’ to oppose a limited stay for the purposes of letting the justices look at the issue without worrying about what is happening in the meantime.
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution
This is not a case of ex post facto laws. Research that legal principle a bit more.
Will the last American that leaves Californiastan,… please take the American flag with them..
Simply waiting for a person in authority to tell you what your Liberties are. Or what your Liberties are not. Is simply wishing into a wishing well. You can either stay and fight in California. And seek out like-minded individuals so you can fight together. Or you can leave the state as many people have done so.
Just don’t become a modern-day “Locust plague”. On the new land you have decided to settle in. You will not be welcome there.
“Locust Effect Warning for Red States, What Is It? (Pt. 3) | Allen West | POLITICS | Rubin Report.” video 9 min long
“Simply waiting for a person in authority to tell you what your Liberties are. Or what your Liberties are not. Is simply wishing into a wishing well. ”
A more libertarian sentiment has never been spoken 😉
Our Washingto AG, the governor, and the democrat legislature is turning blue holding their breath to oass the same laws.
Kalifornia’s idea of “high capacity” is my idea of barely enough.
Buy ’em cheap, hide them deep, I suppose.
Comments are closed.