Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of California’s restriction on the possession of magazines that hold 10 rounds or more.
“This is a significant win for law-abiding gun owners in California,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “This unconstitutional law criminalizes mere possession of many standard capacity magazines and would instantly turn many law-abiding gun owners into criminals.”
California Rifle and Pistol Association lawyers, with the support of the NRA, sought an injunction against the magazine possession ban, arguing the law violated the Second Amendment as well as Americans’ due process rights. A federal district court judge agreed and issued a preliminary injunction before the law was set to go into effect. California appealed the decision.
On Tuesday, the 9th Circuit upheld the injunction.
Meanwhile, in the trial court, a motion for summary judgment is pending and a ruling on the merits of the case is expected soon. Regardless of the outcome, the case will most certainly be appealed again to the 9th Circuit. By that time, the Supreme Court will likely have a new justice who respects the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.
“Tuesday’s ruling was a step in the right direction. The National Rifle Association will continue to fight for the rights of Californians to protect themselves,” Cox concluded.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Article says magazines that hold “10 rounds or more”; should be “more than 10 rounds.”
Is that a typo?
Are you sure this came from The 9th Circuit Court and not The 99th Circuit Court?
Or mebbe The .09th Circuit Court?
You’re correct it would seem. The 3 member panel supported the injunction. When it goes back to the 9th it will likely go before the full court. This has been the process in the past, and the full court overturns the 3 panel court. But, as stated, we hope to have Kavanagh sitting on the SCOTUS. In the past, SCOTUS has decided not to hear an appeal. This time, it is hoped that with Kavanagh, SCOTUS will take up the appeal and the result will be to overturn the full 9th, and, hopefully, hand down a ruling which upholds the… Read more »
Amazing, truly amazing. What might we next discern, that the 9th Circuit Court has lately discovered that 2 + 2 = 4? Think that a majority of the court might actually agree, and so rule?
I believe that the support came from the same ones who have supported prior injunctions (which were later overturned by the full court), so I would not count on the full court understanding that 2+2=4. They likely hold that we should all use the new math where 2+2= whatever you want it to equal, which reminds me of the 1960s when they taught “new math” which followed which base one used, essentially it was computer math.
@Albbac2, Don’t get too enthused, the 9th circuit only backed the lower court’s issuance of a temporary injunction.
I am stymied by Colorado’s Insane law that I can’t sell 16 round+ magazines along with any of my long-time collection of firearms now that I am retired….And yes, a magazine ban is a de facto firearm ban, as anyone wanting to buy a standard capacity firearm having over 15 rounds in Colorado has found out..I may have to move out to a free state if the Dems turn Colorado more blue this Fall…The Kalifornia immigrants have ruined Colorado for me….Too much like the alien life forms going from planet to planet in the movie “Independence Day” where they destroy… Read more »