Calif: Fyock v Sunnyvale CA 11+ Magazine ban

[Librarian]

In 2013, the city of Sunnyvale passed a ban on mags greater than 10 rounds.

Michel & Associates filed suit.

District Court for the Northern District of California denied a temporary injunction, requested in December, replying one day before the law was to take effect.

9th Circuit also denied the injunction.

"EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL" was filed to SCOTUS - Justice Kennedy, assigned to 9th Circuit.

Justice Kennedy has today (March 11, 2014) requested briefs.

Here is the appellant's brief: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ation-for-Injunction-Pending-Appeal_____1.pdf

Particularly notable is the argument that the damage is irreparable

Injunctive relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm during the appellate process and any further review by this Court to gun-owning residents of Sunnyvale, including Applicants, and all nonresidents who travel through the City with their legally owned magazines in tow.

On Thursday morning, the City presented each Applicant with a Hobson’s Choice, requiring they either dispossess themselves of their protected magazines, risking their lives and the lives of their loved ones, or continue exercising their constitutional right to possess the items in violation of the law, subjecting themselves to criminal penalties.

Further, because state law prohibits the lawful transfer of these magazines, those residents who have or will surrender their magazines in compliance with the Ordinance have no lawful means of recovering them, and they will forever be divested of their Second Amendment right to possess them. Cal. Penal Code §§ 32310, 32400-50.

Reply brief from Sunnyvale expected tomorrow.

Here is SCOTUSBlog's page for the case: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/new-test-of-gun-rights/

Six Californians asked the Supreme Court on Monday to block a city ordinance banning gun ammunition-holders (“magazines”) that contain more than ten bullets, while that limit is being tested in an appeal in federal courts. The application in Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale (docket 13A918) can be read here; the filing includes lower court orders.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Librarian Wrote;

Particularly notable is the argument that the damage is irreparable

In this instance, it would be, as the brief explains;

Further, because state law prohibits the lawful transfer of these magazines, those residents who have or will surrender their magazines in compliance with the Ordinance have no lawful means of recovering them, and they will forever be divested of their Second Amendment right to possess them. Cal. Penal Code §§ 32310, 32400-50.

I believe that "irreparable damages" is one of the criteria that must be present to be granted an emergency injunction.

 

[doofus47]

I thought 10 was the magic number everywhere in California.

 

[Librarian]

Sunnyvale filed its response.

Justice Kennedy denied the motion without comment.

See the SCOTUSBlog page http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/new-test-of-gun-rights/

So, appeal to 9th Circuit goes ahead. Per the law firm, briefs for that appeal are due in early April.

 

[Librarian]

I thought 10 was the magic number everywhere in California.

For buying and selling/transferring, yes.

Possession and use of legally acquired large-capacity magazines is not regulated at the State level; this case, of course, is arguing it should not be regulated at lower levels of jurisdiction.

"legally acquired" generally means pre-2000 possession in the state.

ETA, since this always comes up:

The term "large-capacity magazine" has a California legal definition. It does not make any difference that the definition makes no sense, nor that the term is clearly a successful effort to control the vocabulary and control the discussion. In the context of California law, using any other term except the legal one causes confusion.

 

[Librarian]

Update from Michel & Associates

Here is the latest update on this case.

Appellants' Opening Brief in the Ninth Circuit is due April 2. Amicus briefs in support are due April 9.

The City's Responsive Brief is due April 30. Amicus briefs in support are due May 6.

Appellants' Reply Brief is due May 14.