Gun Laws in your state

[nittany03]

And a ray of hope in Commiefornia:

Federal court strikes down California gun magazine ban - Washington Examiner

A federal judge in California struck down the state's gun magazine ban Friday, saying it was unconstitutional. U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, who previously served on the California Superior Court and was appointed to the Southern District of California by George W. Bush in 2004...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Curious to see how federal courts deal with the two states’ magazine limitations going forward; ie: will they see a difference between 10 or 12-round magazine limitations?

Old old news. Gist is that the judge was asked to rule on a new law which banned possession, getting rid of the old grandfather clause for standard-cap mags. He instead threw out the entire law as a Second Amendment violation. He then stayed his order pending an en banc rehearing, which means a panel of judges will vote on whether or not he's right. So there was a week between the decision and the stay where folks were literally shipping pallets of mags to CA in order to meet the (insane) demand. The rehearing I believe is docketed in Pasadena this spring.

Step after a 9th Circuit en banc would be SCOTUS, but they already have a magazine capacity case in Worman v. Healey, which is challenging MA's AWB and mag restrictions. But everything gun-related at that level is on hold until they rule on NYSRPA v. New York City, which is the one challenging NY's ridiculous restrictions. But that might be moot. Who knows what's going to happen there.

 

[wink]

Gotta love Arizona. The governor just signed an executive order banning the closure of essential businesses and operations. Along with banks, grocery stores, and health care, gun stores, ammo and gun sales are considered essential in AZ, and may not be closed. ?

 

[jarhead]

Gotta love Arizona. The governor just signed an executive order banning the closure of essential businesses and operations. Along with banks, grocery stores, and health care, gun stores, ammo and gun sales are considered essential in AZ, and may not be closed. ?

And then you have this in LA.

"When seconds count, police are minutes away." As cities and states start to release folks from jails/prisons, I'm glad I live in rural TX with neighbors I trust.

S/F

 

[GroundPounder]

And then you have this in LA.

"When seconds count, police are minutes away." As cities and states start to release folks from jails/prisons, I'm glad I live in rural TX with neighbors I trust.

S/F

Letting dangerous people out of jail and prison early predates this current situation. When I retire, my goal is to have a state law passed that would require judges at sentencing to provide victims and/or their families the actual time the convicted could be expected to serve. I think that would finally turn the tide on letting people out after serving fractions of their sentences.

If you are convicted of a high profile crime with a sympathetic victim, you might serve close to your maximum. If you shoot a " nobody ", your 30 years might really mean 12.

Property crimes are even worse, as you can plea multiple burglary charges down to a few that you will plead to, and be out in several years on a 10 year sentence. Those guys are prolific serial offenders, and impact hundreds of people that either lose property that they will never be made whole on, and even worse, will never feel truly comfortable in their homes again.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Letting dangerous people out of jail and prison early predates this current situation. When I retire, my goal is to have a state law passed that would require judges at sentencing to provide victims and/or their families the actual time the convicted could be expected to serve. I think that would finally turn the tide on letting people out after serving fractions of their sentences.

If you are convicted of a high profile crime with a sympathetic victim, you might serve close to your maximum. If you shoot a " nobody ", your 30 years might really mean 12.

Property crimes are even worse, as you can plea multiple burglary charges down to a few that you will plead to, and be out in several years on a 10 year sentence. Those guys are prolific serial offenders, and impact hundreds of people that either lose property that they will never be made whole on, and even worse, will never feel truly comfortable in their homes again.

You want to see bad or non-existent prosecutions look at WA state, specifically any city/county around Seattle you will be lucky if a person is even prosecuted for a property crime.

 

[GroundPounder]

You want to see bad or non-existent prosecutions look at WA state, specifically any city/county around Seattle you will be lucky if a person is even prosecuted for a property crime.

A guy who used to work for my agency now works for Pierce County, Washington. Some of the stuff that goes on out there sounds like it comes from a parody site. I'm from the conservative side of the aisle, but at the same time, I can see where LE and punishment can get out of hand. What they do out there has swung so far the other way, it is hard to believe it is real. The newly elected DA in San Francisco is the poster child for not prosecuting whole categories of crime. The bizarre part of that strategy is that is hurts the people that he wants to help. I really feel sorry for people that can't get out of certain areas and have to live in areas where there is no enforcement of simple things such as befouling the streets with human waste and needles. In those neighborhoods you will find people that are working their asses off in low paying jobs, and they are paying the price.

If we really wanted to improve conditions and help the homeless, spending money on mental health facilities and drug and alcohol programs would be the key. It is very rare to find a person who is homeless that is not in that situation due to untreated mental health problems or substance abuse. Our homeless advocates here spend most of their time and money trying to figure out how to make being homeless " better " rather than getting them off the streets in the first place. I think their sentiments are in the right place, but they make things worse in the long run.

 

[wink]

This from a legal blog I watch. SOCTUS not to hear cases regarding Heller in the next term.

The Court also denied certiorari in several cases challenging state and local gun regulations on Second Amendment grounds. Although circuit courts are all over the place in their interpretation and application of Heller and McDonald, the Court does not appear eager to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment right now. Justice Thomas dissented here too, joined in part by Justice Kavanaugh.

 

[nittany03]

This from a legal blog I watch. SOCTUS not to hear cases regarding Heller in the next term.

The Court also denied certiorari in several cases challenging state and local gun regulations on Second Amendment grounds. Although circuit courts are all over the place in their interpretation and application of Heller and McDonald, the Court does not appear eager to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment right now. Justice Thomas dissented here too, joined in part by Justice Kavanaugh.

Disappointing, to say the least. Honestly, at this point, even if it's not a ruling I want . . . give a damn ruling one way or the other. Set the freaking left and right limits. Their job description is literally graven in stone in the Supreme Court building. To say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison, 1803. So say what the law is, already.

Internet scuttlebutt is neither "side," so to speak, knows what Roberts would do, so neither "side" was probably willing to grant cert. There were four votes to do so in NYSRPA, but Roberts didn't join that part of the opinion/dissent. And there are for sure four votes on the other side to grant cert if they knew Roberts would sharply limit Heller, just like the Dems accuse the GOP of doing on abortion.

Part of me wonders if this is a way of letting Trump know he's dealing with a co-equal branch of government, and just because he appoints folks to the bench doesn't mean he's going to get the rulings he wants. But I'm more than a little worried that instead it's because Whitehouse et al basically tried to extort the court in that amicus brief in NYSRPA: "moot this, or we pack the court." Which is stupid, because even nationwide shall-issue and the striking down of AWBs would leave a whole universe of regulations that could still reduce violence. And some of the laws, like Cali's handgun roster, are nothing more than formalized harassment and unadulterated bullshit that dubiously claims to support "safety." It would just require people to stop being lazy, look at the data, actually think, and not just Ban All The Things.

 

[wink]

Also just marking time for a change of personnel. If the DEMS take the white house, which is very possible, they will immediately get one Justice to replace Ginsburg and shortly after Bryer. Robert's matters less then.

 

[wink]

Ninth Circuit shoots down CA magazine limit of 10 rounds. Should be noted. This was a regular three judge panel chosen randomly from the circuit. Just happened to get two more conservative judges on this one. If the state asks for an en banc hearing it could go differently. Only regular circuit judges sit for en banc hearings vs senior list judges that are essentially retired part time and heavily favor liberals. There are 29 regular circuit judges. Thirteen are appointed by GOP presidents, if that means anything. Ten are chosen randomly for an en banc hearing.

 

[Hair Warrior]

So would that invalidate other states’ similar laws?

 

[scoolbubba]

So would that invalidate other states’ similar laws?

Not yet.

 

[OscarMyers]

So would that invalidate other states’ similar laws?

Not if the supreme court keeps refusing to see any 2A cases....

 

[nittany03]

So would that invalidate other states’ similar laws?

No. The initial court judge who heard the case agreed a week later to stay his decision until it is finally adjudicated. So the initial law is still enforced. So the CA AG is probably going to ask it to be reheard en banc, and possibly appeal to SCOTUS if that goes against him. The only way this would affect other state laws is if the AG were to lose en banc, lose at SCOTUS, or give up appealing, which is unlikely. After that, someone with standing would have to bring suit to overturn the other state law. Then, the lower court would strike the other law and cite the (hypothetical) final en banc or SCOTUS decision as binding precedent.

But unless it hits SCOTUS, it would only be binding on state laws in the 9th Circuit. It would only be persuasive, not binding, in the others.

 

[Hair Warrior]

The Judiciary is the one branch that totally confuses me.

Sometimes a single low-level federal judge can strike down a law instantly and nationally on the grounds if violated another law. In this case, a higher-circuit panel of three judges strike down a law that violated the Constitution - but the law stays in place for a while until some other judges weigh in, and even if it sticks it only applies to a portion of the country?