Big 2A Win in CA!

T

TXAZ

New member
Don’t worry, the 9th circuit will likely stay that over the weekend using the theory of bovinesus excretas.
 
B

BJung

New member
Temporary Reprieve

This is a win but the illness is still there with Liberal Politicians there still wanting to destroy the 2A, Liberals voting to support them, and Liberals moving from these California and infecting Texas like a cancer.
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
We'll have to wait and see. Most likely, the state will ask the 9th Circuit for an en banc hearing, and then they'll overturn this. Since SCOTUS seems utterly disinterested in hearing 2nd Amendment litigation, the book gets closed on the matter.
 
M

Metal god

New member
I have a question , Is the stay still in effect ?

There seems to be some debate over this and I was told on another forum that the DOJ has sent out a letter saying the stay is still in effect . However the stay was supposed to be in effect until a ruling on appeal which has happened .

LHmHA2.jpg


I then read this on another forum

A "published" decision is the law until/unless overturned.

That means mag sales to CA should be okay until some further order is made by that court (the 9th) or a higher court (SCOTUS).

“Although the Ninth Circuit has granted a stay of the mandate in Butler, the panel decision remains the law of the Circuit. See, e.g., Chambers v. United States, 22 F.3d 939, 942 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We reject the government's argument that X-Citement Video is not binding precedent until the mandate issues in that case. In this circuit, once a published opinion is filed, it becomes the law of the circuit until withdrawn or reversed by the Supreme Court or an en banc court."), vacated on other grounds, 47 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gomez-Lopez, 62 F.3d 304, 306 (9th Cir. 1995) ("The government first urges us to ignore Armstrong since we have stayed the mandate to allow filing of a petition for certiorari; this we will not do, as Armstrong is the law of this circuit."); see also Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that "once a federal circuit court issues a decision, the district courts within that circuit are bound to follow it and have no authority to await a ruling by the Supreme Court before applying the circuit court's decision as binding authority").

Schuller v. Horel, No. EDCV 08-1128-PA (RNB), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125879, at *6 n.3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2008)

I’m not saying this is the “ law” pre mandate, but the courts Seem to treat the opinion as law from my research. So.... take that for what it’s worth. And, (something something, soon).....
Click to expand...

In fairness our lawyer put out this shortly after the ruling which indicates they believe the stay is still in effect .

Earlier today, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the CRPA-supported lawsuit Duncan v. Becerra. This momentous decision strikes down California’s statewide prohibitions against magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds as unconstitutional. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit upholds the 2019 decision from the United States District Court in San Diego that resulted in hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of magazines being lawfully purchased by California gun owners.

Today’s opinion, however, should not be read as immediately ending the ban on acquiring magazines over 10 rounds. While possession of these magazines remains legal under the injunction issued by the district court in 2017, it is unclear whether today’s decision lifts the district court’s 2019 order staying the injunction that would have halted the enforcement of the manufacture and acquisition ban. According to the terms of that order, it remains in effect “pending final resolution” of the Duncan appeal. And because the state of California may petition for an 11-judge en banc panel to rehear the case or file a petition directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, it may be months before this appeal is finally resolved. Put simply, take caution! It is unclear whether California residents may begin to purchase magazines over 10 rounds yet.

A more detailed analysis of today’s opinion and what’s next will be published shortly. To stay informed on the Duncan lawsuit, as well as other important CRPA-supported litigation efforts, be sure to visit the CRPA website and subscribe to CRPA email alerts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
F

Frank Ettin

Administrator
Metal god said:
I have a question , Is the stay still in effect ?....
Click to expand...

Yes, the stay is still in effect. See this from the CFPA. The information from the CRPA is a good deal more reliable than some anonymous post on some other gun forum.

The key phrase in the stay order is “pending final resolution”. The decision really isn't final until all possibilities for further appeal (e. g., en banc hearing, Supreme Court review, etc.) have been exhausted.
 
M

Metal god

New member
Ok thanks , it appears not even the smartest people in the room are sure and are recommending caution when moving forward. I do know there are several out of state vendors now shipping to CA .
 
T

TXAZ

New member
I’m hoping for a second Trump turn that sees the entire 9th circuit replaced with judges from Oklahoma, Idaho, Montana and West Texas. :D

(Can’t I dream a bit)
 
B

BJung

New member
Good to see some fellow Californians here. I live in Redwood City. Frank, do you know if the Golden Gate NRA Members Council is still active?
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) agrees with Frank. Froma recent e-mail blast:

NSSF said:
We have been asked by California retailers, distributors and ammunition magazine manufacturers across the industry whether Friday's landmark decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Duncan v. Becerra means they can now sell to California consumers, ship to California retailers or manufacture in the state for commercial sale in the state ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (so-called "Large Capacity Magazines" or LCM). The short answer is "NO."

While the holding in Duncan is a tremendous victory for the Second Amendment, members of the industry should continue to refrain from selling or shipping into California LCMs until after the appeal proceeding is concluded or the stay is modified or lifted. This is because the U.S. District Court’s Order Staying In Part Judgment Pending Appeal, dated April 4, 2019, remains in effect "pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment." The appellate proceedings have not concluded or been finally resolved, so the stay remains in place.
Click to expand...
 
K

KyJim

New member
A federal appellate court will normally issue a "mandate" to indicate a decision is final and enforceable.
 
K

KyJim

New member
AB --- The district court's stay would end once the Court of Appeals issues a mandate under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41. That would be 7 days after the time for filing a petition for rehearing or denial of rehearing or denial of a motion to stay the mandate in the Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court can stay the mandate for up to 90 days pending a cert petition and can extend it further for "good cause" or other specified reasons.

The appellate court does not have to specifically lift the district court's stay since it upheld the district court's summary judgment and there appears nothing left for the district court to do as things now stand. Of course, there will likely be a petition for rehearing and maybe later a cert petition. So, it could be awhile before a mandate is actually issued.

One caveat: I have not looked at the 9th Circuit rules so there could be some variation from the above, though it should not be substantial.
 
D

DaleA

New member
I'd just like to thank the folk that take the time and effort to dig into these things, use their knowledge and experience in these things and give us a concise, understandable explanation of these things.

And yeah, you can say I should not be so lazy that I ask others to do this stuff, and I should dig through it myself but I am that lazy and I do appreciate their efforts.
 
M

Metal god

New member
And yeah, you can say I should not be so lazy that I ask others to do this stuff, and I should dig through it myself but I am that lazy and I do appreciate their efforts.
Click to expand...

While I understand where you’re coming from I do not agree . I truly have no respect for those guys, the ones that just tell you to go figure it out yourself . These boards are exactly for asking those types of questions. There would literally be no reason to be here if all we/you we’re going to do was look it up ourselves . What would we need these boards for then . You get that kind of crap a lot over at CAL guns .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top