A federal appeals court has overturned the decision of a lower court judge who invalidated California's ban on possession of large-capacity magazines for firearms,
Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Attorney General Rob Bonta were among those who applauded the 7-4 decision by an en banc panel of the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the ban, which state voters passed via Proposition 63 in 2016.
In the majority decision by the 11-judge panel, the court said the ban on the large-capacity magazines “reasonably supports California's effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings.”
Large-capacity magazines were used in the killings at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority earlier this year, as well as the recent fatal shootings at a Michigan high school.
A dissenting opinion by Judge Lawrence VanDyke said that “the majority of our court distrusts gun owners,” compared the large-capacity magazine ban to a hypothetical ban on cars because of drunk driving and other misdeeds by drivers, and encouraged the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez from San Diego had earlier granted a summary judgment to plaintiffs who had sought to overturn the state law on Second Amendment grounds. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit had upheld that ruling, but in February, the full court voted to rehear the appeal with a larger "en banc" panel.
Newsom wrote on Twitter following the Court of Appeals decision: “Weapons of war don't belong on our streets. This is a huge victory for the health and safety of all Californians.”
Bonta said in a statement: “I’m thankful to the court for giving this case a second look, and confirming what we know to be true, [that] our laws keep Californians safe while allowing law-abiding gun owners to exercise their constitutional rights.”
The 9th LOL
Gov. Newsom said Judge Benitez is a “wholly-owned subsidary of the gun lobby”. Let’s hope that’s been reported to the FBI.
Next Stop… After the 9th Circus… The Full Supreme Court.
With escalating Crime through-out DEM Led cities in Decline,
and more attacks on 2nd Amendment Rights,
citizens are having to take responsibility for their own safety.
—2A World Wins Again! Record Breaking Gun Sales Over Holiday Weekend (JShepherd Nov2021)—
“The FBI announced that it’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System processed 187,585 different checks on Black Friday.”
“For the entire week leading up to Black Friday, we saw 687,788 background checks. This is about the population of Denver, CO or Nashville, TN.”
“This year has already been shaping up to be the second strongest year for firearm sales on record, second only to 2020’s record-breaking number of 21 million background checks for a firearm sale,”
“When people buy guns they get to see the process for themselves… they get a better understanding of the complicated pieces of legislation that are constantly being put forward.”
“Helping the 2A community call it like it is,
…how we are able to win battles like Constitutional Carry and Defeat Gun Control Policies that are Anything but Common Sense.”
The Ninth Circus shows its political self-undermining of legitimate authority again.
Higher-capacity magazines and higher-capacity multi-shot capability has been sought and existed for ages. It never was a problem until more pathological leftism in contemporary times became especially deranged. You see this as well now with other examples like auto-loading (or semi-automatic) actions, that have existed for more than a century and never have been sought for prohibition until this especially deranged present condition of leftism in the USA.
The Ninth Circus’s behavior was unsurprising, but is again embarrassing and a disgrace to Americans of higher quality, as with the deranged anti-gun mentality iand behavior t supports with this ruling.
Notice that Newsom provides people with an unpleasant whiff of the notorious “public health” far-left activism (including in academia and among a number in the medical professions) with his reference to “health” in addition to “safety” in his incorrect and improper remark in support of the Ninth Circus’s ruling.
What will be interesting is if this ruling is appealed and how things go, at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court experiences refreshing reduction and even opposition to illegitimate judicial activism for 50+ years by the Left (which sicker activists including Sotomayor become rabid about defending, and debase themselves and with Sotomayor, herself and the Supreme Court recently, notably with Roe v. Wade). It also is less amendable to the deranged anti-gun mentality and behavior the Ninth Circus supports with its own ruling, as I referred to earlier. Better people wipe the floor with those wanting bans on higher or any multi-shot capacity, autoloaders, etc, and it is increasingly possible the U.S. Supreme Court will return itself and its rulings to propriety as well.
I think these gun companies secretly pay these judges to rule against them and these mayors to son clown suits and debase themselves at the feet of criminals. Cause sure seems supply is consumed at light speed everytime.
We will have to see if the Supreme Court takes up this case.
Background checks leads to registration which leads to confiscation.
Exactly, Informer.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has, for decades, overwhelmingly been the appeals court who has the most rulings overturned.
The Ninth Circuit judges have allowed their own politics to enter into rulings. So blinded are these jurists by idealogy that its members are not even remotely embarrassed by the number of times their decisions have been overturned, a situation that reasonable jurists would find troubling.
On the bright side, when the Ninth Circuit needs to be checked, it is.
Good, and thank god for the 9th circuit. Polite society doesn’t need to squeeze out 20-30 rounds without reloading. Ten is plenty enough damage.
The gun zealots above know nothing about the Second Amendment and even less about our own history. Almost every dimension of the original American system of government required major concessions to enable slave-holders and the slave system. The Second Amendment, in particular, was never seen by Madison, or any founding father, as being about freedom or liberty. Originally it was all about Madison assuaging anti-Federalist holdouts among states dominated by slaveholders.
The Amendment insured the existence of state-level and state-controlled militias (i.e. slave patrols), rather than exclusively federal militias. Possessing guns was tied explicitly to being part of a White-only group–a patrol–whose existence was to prevent the escape of slaves to non-slave states and to suppress slave rebellions. The fear among slaveholders was that a federal militia, because of the influence of non-slave state officials, would not be a reliable force to robustly, consistently and swiftly suppress slave uprisings (see https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment). Anti-Black racism produced by White fear of slave revolts and slave retribution were, and are, at the very core of U.S. gun laws.
California is an excellent case in point. Prior to 1967, California was an open carry state, like Texas is today–people could legally carry loaded weapons on their person in the open in this “liberal” state. The Black Panther Party in Oakland was a strong supporter of the open carry law and used it to their advantage in the 1960s. To deter wanton police violence against Oakland’s Black residents, the Panthers created armed patrols–their very own “well-regulated militias”–who would openly carry loaded guns near, but at a legal distance from, police stops of local residents. The aim was to “police the police” in order to eliminate excessive violence for which the Oakland police were well known.
The idea of an armed Black militia instilled terror in the minds and hearts of White conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike. In short order, the state legislature overwhelmingly passed, and Governor Ronald Reagan immediately signed, the Mulford Act of 1967. With the firm support of the National Rifle Association, the Act outlawed open carry in California, a law that is with us to this very day. The main point of the law was specifically to disarm the Black Panthers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act). Can any of the conceal carry libertarians claim this was a “color blind” public safety decision?
What do you think accounts for the surge in gun sales in California–and nationally in the past two years? (https://laist.com/news/criminal-justice/california-sees-record-increase-in-gun-sales-in-2020) Is there any doubt that the surge in anti-racist protests around the country–mobilizations of unprecedented magnitude and duration involving Black Americans–stimulated a lot of nervous White people (and perhaps others) to buy more guns?
So let’s dispense with the glorification of constitutional law whose original intent was to enable and protect slavers (think Electoral College), as well as the other propertied and commercial classes, and that continues to protect those same interests primarily (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-the-electoral-college-is-tied-to-slavery-and-the-three-fifths-compromise/ar-AAJDauP. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution).
O’Conner: The 9th hears many more cases than any other court. Ergo, more by raw number of cases are expected to be overturned when compared to other Courts of Appeal. It’s the percentage of cases overturned, not the raw number that is more reflective of your assertion that the 9th is out of step with other Courts of Appeals opinions. “In the 2017 term, the Supreme Court heard 14 cases from the Ninth Circuit, reversing or vacating 12. That is a rate of nearly 86 percent, which is lower than the 100 percent rates of the First, Third and Sixth Circuits. In the 2016 term, the Ninth Circuit’s rate was nearly 88 percent, still behind the 100 percent reversal or vacating rates of four other circuit courts. From 2006 to 2015, the Supreme Court heard 160 cases from the Ninth Circuit, reversing 106 decisions and vacating 24, according to a law journal article by Judge Timothy B. Dyk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That is a reversal or vacating rate of about 81 percent, which is higher than the average reversal rate of nearly 73 percent. But the highest rate belongs to the Sixth Circuit, with nearly 84 percent.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/fact-check-trump-ninth-circuit.html
O’Conner: The 9th hears many more cases than any other court. Ergo, more by raw number of cases are expected to be overturned when compared to other Courts of Appeal. It’s the percentage of cases overturned, not the raw number that is more reflective of your assertion that the 9th is out of step with other Courts of Appeals opinions.
“In the 2017 term, the Supreme Court heard 14 cases from the Ninth Circuit, reversing or vacating 12. That is a rate of nearly 86 percent, which is lower than the 100 percent rates of the First, Third and Sixth Circuits. In the 2016 term, the Ninth Circuit’s rate was nearly 88 percent, still behind the 100 percent reversal or vacating rates of four other circuit courts. From 2006 to 2015, the Supreme Court heard 160 cases from the Ninth Circuit, reversing 106 decisions and vacating 24, according to a law journal article by Judge Timothy B. Dyk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That is a reversal or vacating rate of about 81 percent, which is higher than the average reversal rate of nearly 73 percent. But the highest rate belongs to the Sixth Circuit, with nearly 84 percent.”
In support of your assertion is this from the same article, “A spokesman for Mr. Sasse pointed to a separate analysis from Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, that instead looks at how often a circuit court’s decision was reversed for every 1,000 cases it terminated from 1994 to 2015. By this metric, the Ninth Circuit does come out on top, with 2.5 cases per 1,000. The next highest rate is from the Sixth Circuit, at 1.7 cases per 1,000.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/fact-check-trump-ninth-circuit.html
Apologies for the nearly identical post…..website kept deleting the post and acting strange….
Econoclast: I disagree with some of the support for your argument:
1. The Second Amendment, in particular, was never seen by Madison, or any founding father, as being about freedom or liberty.” Yes, they did. The quartering of British soldiers was a real insult to the people of the colonies and elimination of the Government’s (any government’s) authority (power) to do this was the 2nd amendment, at least in the minds of some of the Founding Fathers–specifically the one’s outside of the “slave states” such as NY, NJ, Del, & NH who bore the brunt of British quartering. Especially egregious was the quartering of mercenaries, particularly the German ones.
2. The “slave patrols” is true when viewed from the perspective of the “slave states,” and receives most of the headlines when attacking the 2nd Amendment. Fair enough, that alone does show support for the inherent evil of the 2nd Am in a civilized society, but if the “slave patrol” argument did not exist, point #1 still would, and in my opinion would have still resulted in the 2nd Am being ratified because no state (or citizen thereof) wanted to support the cost of paying for a standing army–especially after the debt (much from the Danes/Netherlands) coming due. This was a real issue because taxation was a problem for the Fed Gov, and whether income tax (which would predominantly mean professionals living in Cities) or wealth tax (farmers and others who worked/mined/used the land). See Shay’s rebellion which was a dispute that gave rise to violence over this issue. 2A was a way to deal with “rebellions” as much as “tyrannical governments” WITHOUT the associated cost of a standing army.
The 2A was “quartering” without the soldier present in one’s home.
I agree with your implied conclusion that the 2A needs to go away, but so does the
A: The electoral college,
B: 2 Senators per State no matter it’s size….(Wyoming with 5 electors (1%) of the voting power when selecting our President is nuts…). You shouldn’t have more Senators than Representatives….
C: Income taxes and Sales taxes need to be treated equivalently so that blue states are not taxed more than red states and vice versa (taxed at the federal level). Either both are federally deductible or neither are.
D: In exchange for repeal of 2A there should be a replacement with something that prevents the militarization of local police departments. PD’s don’t need tanks…(bearcats and their upgraded brethren).
E: Same as “D” but qualified immunity for Police Officers needs to be eliminated. Without a reduction in the potential for a “tyrannical government” the argument for the necessity of the 2nd A is not reduced. PO’s can buy insurance against civil liability for their “negligence” just like Doctors (who per capita have people in their care die far more often than police….so it’s not like the concept of insurance for screwing up at work doesn’t have a long precedence of feasibility).
F: My bonus Amendment would be a prohibition on any elected official lying while performing their elected duties. How can a voter exercise their most important duty of voting when lies cover every truth? The fact that enforceability of such a prohibition is often used to prevent enaction didn’t stop drug laws, or a slew of other equally (or even more) difficult to enforce. (sleeping on the streets, speed laws, etc…).
This website sure is strange! Hee hee hee! Tanks but no tanks! I’m gon tase ya, bro!
The above post is not from the real Try Logic…. Not sure what the motive for using an identical screen name is.
Yeah, yeah, right. I’m Spartacus and you’re the imposter!
Of course, the real figure of merit is the number of 9th Circuit cases that never get taken up by the Supreme Court at all. Those are 100% all wins. Ding, ding ding!
So, Econoclast’s NPR story featuring the esteemed Constitutional Scholar Carol Anderson:
NPR now ‘allows’ its journalists to participate in activism.
Umm, Wow. Way to go!
Carol Anderson is also a voting rights scholar and an expert on White Supremacy. She even wrote a book exposing “White Rage” and how it got Trump elected.
It seems she’s an incredibly educated and insightful person that can(and has) opined on many topics.
The only thing is this:
She’s a professor of African American studies and everything she chooses to opine sbout is racist.
Nice try Facendo Guaio.