DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[grandpapeepap]

read a book

 

[MK6M9]

But thanks for coming by to express your agreement with me that you don’t know the difference between a Petition submitted to a court and an Opinion of the Court

comical. sure, whatever you need to tell yourself (shrugs)

But, to answer your question:
Heller:
How long did it take? 5 years; not “forever”
First filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 10, 2003, and concluding when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling on June 26, 2008.

first, i never asked a question. it was a statement. second, half of a decade. yes, i exaggerated the word, but half of a decade is forever.

What did it do?
The Heller decision ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes like self-defense, independent of service in a militia. The Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement to keep firearms nonfunctional in the home.

Why is that important?
For the first time in U.S. history, the nation's highest court clarified that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual citizen's right to own a gun for self-defense, fundamentally reshaping gun laws and future Second Amendment litigation.

Okay, so we are still filing lawsuits because it still did nothing. got it.

And note, Heller wasn’t in the 9 CA which is widely recognized as the most corrupt federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the country. The long fight with Duncan has taken place because Duncan directly calls out and challenges the underpinnings of the judicial philosophy of that court.

i never stated that heller was part of the 9th circuit. strange. also so in other words, " which will take years. and also yes, a couple of those cases were rejected and then kicked back down to the 9th circuit and then appealed again and sent back up. (shrugs) you seem not to realize the endless game that is played with these lawsuits and how they are designed to go on forever with stay orders. and junctons."

 

[MK6M9]

this feels like it took a turn....

so disagreeing with anyone on here is trolling? comical.

 

[grandpapeepap]

comical. sure, whatever you need to tell yourself (shrugs)

first, i never asked a question. it was a statement. second, half of a decade. yes, i exaggerated the word, but half of a dead is forever.

Okay, so we are still filing lawsuits because it still did nothing. got it.

i never stated that heller was part of the 9th circuit. strange. also so in other words, " which will take years. and also yes, a couple of those cases were rejected and then kicked back down to the 9th circuit and then appealed again and sent back up. (shrugs) you seem not to realize the endless game that is played with these lawsuits and how they are designed to go on forever with stay orders. and junctons."

you actually asked at least 2 questions, " what was that one lawsuit that went on forever and then finally a decision was made? oh yeah was it heller ?"

 

[MK6M9]

you actually asked at least 2 questions, " what was that one lawsuit that went on forever and then finally a decision was made? oh yeah was it heller ?"

again, it was a statement, the part where it said, "oh yeah, was it heller?" i understand that the question mark might have confused the low level minded but it is very common in english context.

 

[Dvrjon]

you actually asked at least 2 questions, " what was that one lawsuit that went on forever and then finally a decision was made? oh yeah was it heller ?"

Don’t try…he can’t even remember that he said he was done here.

 

[MK6M9]

Don’t try…he can’t even remember that he said he was done here.

yes, i thought i was done, but i guess i am not for a moment (shrugs) so now what ?
and another thing. these ridiculous "reactions" to my post are quite adorable and pathetic. hilarious

 

[grandpapeepap]

again, it was a statement, the part where it said, "oh yeah, was it heller?" i understand that the question mark might have confused the low level minded but it is very common in english context.

rhetorical questions are still questions, im sure a high level minded person like yourself would know that? you also ignored the first question?

 

[MK6M9]

rhetorical questions are still questions, im sure a high level minded person like yourself would know that? you also ignored the first question?

comical. okay, yes correct it is still a question. (shakes head) my god. and yes, i am doing a lot of ignoring. i am trying to have a conversation about this without your and the other guy's pathetic remarks

 

[Dvrjon]

Wolford Case: SCOTUS rules 6-3, Hawai’i “Vampire” rule is unconstitutional.
Wolford

So, Wolford and Hemani are settled.
The rest of today is scheduled conference and Duncan is on the list.
We’ll now see if it is impacted by these cases.
SCOTUSBLOG is reporting Monday will also be an opinion/conference day.
Also, Monday will not be the last day of Session.

 

[ButteFlyFisher]

Sorry if this has already been asked: but if the Supreme Court rules in our favor how long will it be until I can add LCMs to my cart and have them ship to me?

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Sorry if this has already been asked: but if the Supreme Court rules in our favor how long will it be until I can add LCMs to my cart and have them ship to me?

Well first they need to take the case, let’s worry about that first.

 

[treelogger]

... if the Supreme Court rules in our favor how long ...

If the court did indeed rule in favor of Duncan, it would de facto be hours. The moment the opinion is published, no sane LE would arrest, no DA would charge, and no judge would convict. An uninformed LE or DA might still do that for a few days, but courts work on a more measured and contemplative schedule.

BUT: The Supreme Court will not rule on Duncan this season, since they haven't even granted cert, and hearings are over. The fastest they could do right now is GVR it for reconsideration in light of Wolford (and I haven't read Wolford yet, so I don't know how much guidance it really gives). If the court wants to rule on it, the earliest the case could be heard is in the fall, and a decision would then take a few months.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

It looks like they clarified a good amount with Wolford for issues with how the plain text needs to be looked at, and also that courts need to look at national laws, not just a few local or regional laws and say that’s “good enough” to claim a historical precedent. They could GVR the 2nd amendment cases due to the Wolford decision. I hate to see a delay again, because we know the 9th will try to twist things again, but it’s better than denial. Wolford is pretty strong from what I’ve read so far.

 

[1911-CV]

The problem with a GVR on Duncan based on the new guidance in Wolford is that the 9th decided magazines were not 'arms' (in this decision anyway). That means the first test under Bruen would fail and we would get to start all over again...

 

[treelogger]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think the question whether a magazine is an arm or not is all that important. Because the 2A protects the right to keep and bear FUNCTIONING arms. Thought experiment: Is a firing pin or a screw an arm? Clearly not, because by itself it can not do any of the things arms do, which is lob lead downrange. But a full ban on all firing pins or screws would be relevant under the 2A, because without screws and firing pins, firearms can not work. Remember Heller: Part of the reason there was that firearms had to be disassembled, which made them non-functioning in the eyes of Justice Scalia.

So a full ban on magazines would be a non-starter under the 2A. The question in Duncan can be rephrased such: whether a partial ban on certain magazines, those that are more (perhaps too much?) dangerous and/or unusual because of their larger capacity makes arms non-functional for the purpose considered here.

 

[JackRydden224]

If SCOTUS doesn't pick it up then 1911's are gonna make a come back lol

C'mon guys do us a solid

 

[JackRydden224]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think the question whether a magazine is an arm or not is all that important. Because the 2A protects the right to keep and bear FUNCTIONING arms. Thought experiment: Is a firing pin or a screw an arm? Clearly not, because by itself it can not do any of the things arms do, which is lob lead downrange. But a full ban on all firing pins or screws would be relevant under the 2A, because without screws and firing pins, firearms can not work. Remember Heller: Part of the reason there was that firearms had to be disassembled, which made them non-functioning in the eyes of Justice Scalia.

So a full ban on magazines would be a non-starter under the 2A. The question in Duncan can be rephrased such: whether a partial ban on certain magazines, those that are more (perhaps too much?) dangerous and/or unusual because of their larger capacity makes arms non-functional for the purpose considered here.

I think you are right on this and that's why it's taking so long for SCOTUS to make a call. A complete ban would be an easy call but California wisely (by accident or not) only does partial bans almost all things 2A items. This is also why Duncan v Bonta is tied to the roster case which is another partial ban. Would a favorable ruling from SCOTUS essentially mean any bit of infringement on 2A is unconstitutional ?

 

[adrkwan]

If the court did indeed rule in favor of Duncan, it would de facto be hours. The moment the opinion is published, no sane LE would arrest, no DA would charge, and no judge would convict. An uninformed LE or DA might still do that for a few days, but courts work on a more measured and contemplative schedule.

BUT: The Supreme Court will not rule on Duncan this season, since they haven't even granted cert, and hearings are over. The fastest they could do right now is GVR it for reconsideration in light of Wolford (and I haven't read Wolford yet, so I don't know how much guidance it really gives). If the court wants to rule on it, the earliest the case could be heard is in the fall, and a decision would then take a few months.

It depends largely on how SCOTUS rules. If they said limiting mags to 10 rounds infringes ones 2A rights and strikes down the limitation then I imagine we'd be seeing "Welcome Back California" advertisements same day. If SCOTUS says mags are protected by 2A and punts back to the lower courts for further analysis, I'm not sure we'd see any action for a few months.

 

[1911-CV]

All I'm saying is that Wolford's clarification of Bruen does nothing to clarify what is an "arm" so the 9th's mental gymnastics to say that magazines are not 'arms' would be unaffected by Wolford and therefore not a good prospect for a GVR based on Wolford