Judge Issues Time Limits for Briefs in California Magazine Ban Case

USGI Metal AR-15 Magazines
USGI Metal AR-15 Magazines

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)-– Judge Benitez found California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be unconstitutional on its face. On March 29, 2017, Judge Benitez issued an injunction preventing the enforcement of the ban. In the week that followed, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of magazines were sold to California residents who had been deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

The week of March 29, 2017, to April 5, 2017, has become known as Freedom week.

The name of the case changed as the name of the California AG changed.

Subsequent court actions reversed the injunction, upheld Judge Benitez’s opinion, reversed the three-judge panel with an en banc hearing, and appealed the en banc hearing to the Supreme Court. On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Bruen case. On June 29, the Supreme Court vacated the decision by the Ninth Circuit en banc on Duncan v. Bonta and sent it back to the Ninth Circuit to be re-decided.

The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to Judge Rodger T. Benitez. Judge Benitez is now following proper procedure. He is not allowing delays. On September 26, 2022, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order as to the timing for briefs on the now Duncan v. Bonta case.

From the District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Roger T. Benitez:

On June 29, 2017, this Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) & (d) requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed. The preliminary injunction was affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 17-56081 (9th Cir. July 17, 2018). On March 29, 2019, on summary judgment, this Court concluded that California Penal Code § 32310 is unconstitutional. On April 4, 2019, this Court made the preliminary injunction on subsections (c) and (d) permanent but stayed, pending appeal, the injunction of § 32310 (a) & (b).

This Court was again affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020). The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated its opinion, and entered an opinion reversing the judgment of this Court.Duncan v. Bonta, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further consideration. Duncan v. Bonta, No. 21-1194, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (June 30, 2022). The Ninth Circuit now remands the case to this Court for further proceedings in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) and the mandate has issued.

This Court hereby spreads the mandate upon the minutes of this Court. 

The Defendant shall file any additional briefing that is necessary to decide this case in light of Bruen within 45 days of this Order. Plaintiffs shall file any responsive briefing within 21 days thereafter. This Court will then decide the case on the briefs and the prior record or schedule additional hearings.

The previously entered preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) for magazines able to hold more than ten rounds shall remain in effect for all those who previously acquired and possessed magazines legally (including those persons and business entities who acquired magazines between March 29, 2019 and April 5, 2019), pending further Order of this Court. Dated: September 26, 2022 

The 45 days to file briefs ends on November 10th, by my calculations; the time given for response briefs ends on November 30th.

The Miller v. Bonta case briefs will have been in and responded to about a month earlier, at the end of October.

Miller v. Bonta and Duncan v. Bonta are closely related cases about restoring Second Amendment rights.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cruiser

Clogg the system with endless law suits, so important cases can’t be heard.
It’s all a sideshow to keep conservetives and gun owners on their heels.
“Shall not be infringed.”
Shame on any gun owner who votes Democrat.

nrringlee

Correct. Broaden your scope. Any voter who votes for any Progressive of any type is an enemy of their own liberty. One such case in Utah, Mittens Romney is a case in point. There are meny RINO Progressives hiding under sheep skins just waiting for their chance to subvert your liberty. And those of you who continue to live in. a Blue Utopia like California please riddle me this: Why would you trust a government that does not trust you? I ask because I spent three decades fishing people out of the South China Sea and out of minefields in… Read more »

USMC0351Grunt

Shame on ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN that voted Democrat!

Ope

USMC, that’s about as bad as it gets, esp.when knowing that the socialists only want so destroy our republic. A vote for them SOB’s is condoning that.

swmft

could also be people voting for a cleansing war

Arizona

Yup. They’re two wings of the same bird, going to the same place, and the public is conned into thinking there’s a difference. Maybe one gets there a mite slower than the other. Both corrupt and treasonous, betraying the People. Voting for the authoritarian donkeys just accelerates the timeline of rev war 2.0

Chuck

Amen Sir, and Thank You for your Service.

linkman

This one is going to have a big impact. With the 9th Circuit handling several states with mag capacity limits (CA, HI, WA, and potentially OR), it’ll probably overturn those. And Benitez can probably take his previous opinion and simply change the date for an easy writeup.

swmft

9th could have affirmed original ruling and saved time and money they dont want their name on it

Chuck

Way to go Judge Benavitez. You’re a Hero in my books.
Now maybe we can get Lickshispooper’s (Hickenlooper) stupid Cap Restriction in Colorado shot down.

DunRanull

AMEN! This unConstitutional legal embarrassment must be thrown out!
-Coloradicus Atrox

Last edited 2 months ago by DunRanull
Ledesma

Complying with Californias asinine firearm requirements should be done with maximum discretion. Don’t let state lawmakers make a circus act out of you. Most additional requirements and restrictions now usually make no sense anyway. Serving only to run those complying in circles and inflict frustration and social spectacle. At the rate they’re going now, the gunners in California determined to remain armed will be out of compliance eventually anyway. Don’t forget the San Francisco law that requires all gun purchases to be filmed and stored in permanent police record. Would you comply with that?

henrymosley

The judge noted that the state had not presented any evidence that such magazines were more dangerous than others, and that the ban, therefore, violated the right to bear arms. This ruling is a victory for gun rights advocates, who have long argued that such bans are ineffective and infringe on the Second Amendment. It is likely to be appealed, and the final decision will likely rest with the Supreme Court. In the meantime, California residents can continue to purchase and use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Last edited 2 months ago by henrymosley
USMC0351Grunt

Once citizens realize that their balls are more valuable WHEN YOU USE THEM, life will begin to become easier for EVERYONE! You can either read and learn or remain ignorant. ALSO GOOGLE: REPUGNANT LEARN: VOID ORDER; EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT VOID JUDGMENTS BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties, Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P. 955 (1931); Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914); and Milliken v. Meyer, 311… Read more »