CA Dunkan vs Bonta High capacity magazine ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL

L

LeverGunFan

New member
MG, aren't there two court actions going on here?

1st - emergency motion by the state for a stay pending appeal

2nd - appeal by the state to overturn the decision by Judge Benetiz

It seems likely that the 9th en banc panel will grant an indefinite stay, pending the outcome of the appeal. Clearly the 9th did not want the three judge panel to allow the ruling to go into effect for any length of time while the appeal process works through the courts.

Currently the appeal is scheduled for appellant brief on November 21st and appellee brief on December 21st. So the appeal process will drag out into next year, while the stay remains in effect. :(
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
I am passingly familiar with the 9th Circuit Court's history of supporting gun control laws, and I expect, as long as the same people are involved, they will attempt to continue their business as usual.

What I am curious about is what will happen, post-Bruen and if/when the Supreme Court will "spank them" for not following the rules established by that SCOTUS ruling.

If I understand it correctly (and I may not) SCOTUS won't rule on various state laws, until a case involving them reaches it. HOWEVER, the actions and operating system of the lower Fed courts are within their purview, and they do not need to wait for a specific case to reach them in order to instruct and correct the lower courts if they are in error.

I don't know if it is, but isn't it possible SCOTUS is giving the 9th enough "rope" for them to hang themselves with??

Personally, I think I'd enjoy seeing that happen...but, that's just me. ;)
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
I think the majority at the Ninth Circus is just shoveling water against the tide. Sooner or later, they'll vacate Judge Benitez's decision, their ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will again cite Bruen in telling the Ninth Circus to pound sand.

But they will have delayed the matter by more years, and they will have cost those uppity peasants who appealed California's wise laws more money, so they will have done all they could to advance the cause.
 
L

LeverGunFan

New member
The makeup of the Supreme Court could change depending on the outcome of the 2024 and later elections, either by court packing or by replacements for current justices. So the 9th Circuit is playing the long game by delaying this ruling and hoping that Bruen will be overturned or ignored by an anti 2A court.
 
M

Metal god

New member
Levergunfan : correct and the 3 judge panel normally would hear both of those .

We’ll see how this goes . My prediction is they stay and vacate his ruling , put a hold on the proceedings until they join the Washington case. Then they allow the Washington lawyers and whoever to file briefs blah blah blah delay, delay delay, blah blah blah delay, delay delay. Then by the time they finally get around the ruling, maybe the Supreme Court make up will have changed.
 
R

raimius

New member
This seems like a transparently unethical move to achieve a desired outcome in defiance of SCOTUS precedence, that I wish there was some appropriate remedy that could be quickly applied. Unless the Democrat elected officials and their supporters suddenly decide judicial integrity is more important than denying the people their civil rights, I don't think anything will happen. What a sad state.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
... is more important than denying the people their civil rights,...
Click to expand...

Well, see, that's part of the problem, those folks don't consider gun ownership (and all that goes with it) to BE a valid civil right.

Our Founders had good intentions, but they were, after all, slave owning white men, who were woefully undereducated by today's standards, and so, could not be expected to get everything "right" and some folks consider it their obligation to make things "right" (as they see it) and don't consider our feelings, thoughts, and beliefs relevant or important, because they are convinced that they are right, and we are not.

I think gun control laws are like drilling holes in the hull of a leaking ship to let the water out. They don't do anything about the leaks, and they don't let the water out, in fact, they tend to do just the opposite, and let more water in. Despite the law (Constitution) saying "don't put holes in the hull" these people keep doing it, because they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. Eventually this will sink the ship, and then, we drown...in the water they claimed they were protecting us from while they were drilling holes in the ship.

For the first time in over half a century, SCOTUS and some of the lower courts are actually trying to plug some of those holes. Others keep right on drilling...:rolleyes:

Time will tell if we can keep the ship afloat, or if the efforts are too little, too late.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
If it were any court other than the 9th Circus, I would have said "Unbelievable." Unfortunately, though, it IS the 9th Circus.

In his decision, Judge Benitez spent 70 pages eviscerating the State's arguments under the lens of Bruen. And now a majority of the judges on the 9th Circus decided that "we conclude that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits."

Sheesh!
 
M

Metal god

New member
I believe there’s a way for the plaintiffs to appeal to SCOTUS to by pass the en-banc panel . The question is will they ? Normally I’d say that would be a bad move . However in this specific cases and it’s history of already being to SCOTUS with a GVR and what appears to be some funny business with the 9th , it might be worth a shot .
 
N

natman

New member
Aguila Blanca said:
If it were any court other than the 9th Circus, I would have said "Unbelievable." Unfortunately, though, it IS the 9th Circus.

In his decision, Judge Benitez spent 70 pages eviscerating the State's arguments under the lens of Bruen. And now a majority of the judges on the 9th Circus decided that "we conclude that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits."

Sheesh!
Click to expand...

I think it's a foregone conclusion that the AG will succeed on the merits, at least with this panel, given the flamboyant intellectual dishonesty the en banc panel has displayed.

Having been instructed by SCOTUS to abandon interest balancing and use Text, History and Tradition, they start my taking parts of Heller out of context: “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”. The original quote went on to list several existing laws that were beyond the scope of Heller. It was NOT a blank check to impose any limit you want.

Then they try to cite the fact that similar cases are pending elsewhere (because the other courts are stalling, just like the Ninth will). None of those PENDING cases establish any precedent.

Then they regress into using interest balancing again, despite the crystal clear prohibition from SCOTUS: "Finally, we conclude that the public interest tips in favor of a stay. "

SCOTUS doesn't usually get involved in inferior court appeals before the inferior court issues a ruling, but the Ninth's behavior is so blatant they might in this case.

Here's a link to the ruling. The ruling ignores SCOTUS, the dissent rigorously follows SCOUTS, Bruen and THT:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123/gov.uscourts.ca9.345123.10.0.pdf
 
Last edited:
4

44 AMP

Staff
Consider this, SCOTUS sent the case back down because they determined the ruling was wrong. (under the post Bruen guidelines, it was). What will SCOTUS do, when the case comes back to them with the wrong ruling AGAIN???

I expect them to be most put out with the 9ths failure to correctly interpret the law in the case.

I also expect their displeasure will be made known and felt throughout the court system. It seems unlikely that the 9th courts judges will be replaced, but I don't think its impossible, and would certainly be something a lot of us would be happy to see.

More likely is that we see some "voluntary resignations" or retirements, but even that isn't a given.

Judges can be...well.. judgmental:rolleyes:, and protective of their kingdoms and rulings, but when the high court says "do it this way" and a lower court does not, because they know they are right and high court is wrong, someone is going to lose and its not going to be the SCOTUS.

Still some time to go before this one finishes playing out, but from where I sit at this time, I don't see the state of CA winning and keeping its ban.

And, when that does finally happen, every other states bans will be on the table and will, hopefully wind up in the trash can.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
I'm watching this one with much interest. I read Judge Benitez's second ruling (the one he issued after the case was sent back down to him) and I thought it was well-researched and well-thought out. My initial reaction was, "There's no way the Ninth Circuit can overturn this."

Apparently, I was wrong. But, as one of those old-time baseball managers said, "It ain't over 'til it's over." This latest little fiasco is not a decision on the case -- it's just putting a hold on the injunction, meaning the California magazine capacity law stays in effect at least until the Ninth Circus releases their ruling on the actual appeal (which, I believe, hasn't even been filed yet). They may just be trying to string it out as long as they can, even though they may recognize that the handwriting is on the wall and that they can't possibly justify overturning Benitez's ruling.

Stay tuned. : popcorn:
 
N

natman

New member
Aguila Blanca said:
They may just be trying to string it out as long as they can, even though they may recognize that the handwriting is on the wall and that they can't possibly justify overturning Benitez's ruling.
Click to expand...

I agree that there's no rational, honest way they can justify overturning Benitez's ruling. However, they have already ruled that the state is likely to prevail on the merits of the case and justified it by quoting Heller wildly out of context and using interest balancing. As absurd as that is in the real world, if they can muster the dishonesty to do that, they can do anything.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
However, they have already ruled that the state is likely to prevail on the merits of the case and justified it by quoting Heller wildly out of context and using interest balancing.
Click to expand...

Point of order question, DID they actually "rule" that?? OR is it just an opinion, of one (or more) of the judges, and not an official ruling???

Sadly I get my information from the popular press and they are notoriously lax in accuracy reporting technical points. And their headlines often bear little or no relation to reality...

right now there a headline reporting the court "upholds" CA Mag Ban, when that is not actually the case. SO, everything they report is, to me, suspect. It's not a new thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top