Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

Discussion of other state's CHL's & reciprocity

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5350
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#1

Post by Jusme »

I know that Commifornia will appeal this, but if this holds, as is, several other states, will be affected. It will also affect anyone charged, criminally, under a magazine capacity law. I’m beginning to think the Nonth Circuit is getting tired of having their decisions overturned.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:
User avatar

AF-Odin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 739
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:00 pm
Location: Near Fort Cavazos (formerly Hood)

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#2

Post by AF-Odin »

Was this ruling a three judge panel with one dissent or was this en banc?
AF-Odin
Texas LTC, SSC & FRC Instructor
NRA Pistol, Home Firearms Safety, Personal Protection in the Home Instructor & RSO
NRA & TSRA Life Member
User avatar

Vol Texan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:18 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#3

Post by Vol Texan »

It reads to my layman’s eyes to be a panel of three.

2
DUNCAN V. BECERRA
Before: Consuelo M. Callahan and Kenneth K. Lee,
Circuit Judges, and Barbara M. G. Lynn,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Lee;
Dissent by Judge Lynn
Your best option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.

www.HoustonLTC.com Texas LTC Instructor | www.Texas3006.com Moderator | Tennessee Squire | Armored Cavalry
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5076
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#4

Post by ScottDLS »

Jusme wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:36 am I know that Commifornia will appeal this, but if this holds, as is, several other states, will be affected. It will also affect anyone charged, criminally, under a magazine capacity law. I’m beginning to think the Nonth Circuit is getting tired of having their decisions overturned.
I don't know if any other states in the 9th circuit other than California have mag capacity laws. Maybe Oregon or Washington?
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

strogg
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:51 pm
Location: DFW (Denton County)

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#5

Post by strogg »

So uh, I'm not a lawyer here. The old penal code essentially states that acquisition of LCMs is against the law, but possession of LCMs is perfectly legal. The new one, which is the one being challenged in the lawsuit, says that even possession is illegal. That has now been overturned in the opinion. Does this mean that the old penal code is still in effect? Or is that now completely wiped to the point that acquisition of said magazines are now perfectly legal?
User avatar

SQLGeek
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:48 am
Location: Richmond, TX

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#6

Post by SQLGeek »

AF-Odin wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:14 pm Was this ruling a three judge panel with one dissent or was this en banc?

It appears to be a panel. I'm not holding my breath for a favorable en banc review. That's usually where these cases lose.
Psalm 91:2

Texgun
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:51 am
Location: College Station, Texas

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#7

Post by Texgun »

Is Hawaii part of the 9th circuit jurisdiction? They have a magazine ban.

Hawaii prohibits “[t]he manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds which are designed for or capable of use with a pistol.”Oct 28, 2019
Texgun
College Station, TX
User avatar

oljames3
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:21 pm
Location: Bastrop, Texas
Contact:

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#8

Post by oljames3 »

Attorney Andrew Branca analyses the decision. https://lawofselfdefense.com/duncan-v-b ... azine-ban/
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
Safety Ministry Director, First Baptist Church Elgin
NRA, NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor, Rangemaster Certified, GOA, TSRA, NAR L1
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5076
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#9

Post by ScottDLS »

Texgun wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:46 pm Is Hawaii part of the 9th circuit jurisdiction? They have a magazine ban.

Hawaii prohibits “[t]he manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds which are designed for or capable of use with a pistol.”Oct 28, 2019
Yep. Looks like the only other state in the 9th circuit that may be affected, though someone may have to file separately in District Court there.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

Hoodasnacks
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:25 pm

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#10

Post by Hoodasnacks »

Vol Texan wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:34 pm It reads to my layman’s eyes to be a panel of three.

2
DUNCAN V. BECERRA
Before: Consuelo M. Callahan and Kenneth K. Lee,
Circuit Judges, and Barbara M. G. Lynn,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Lee;
Dissent by Judge Lynn
Wait a minute...Judge Lynn is from Dallas. So a Texas judge sitting in designation dissented on this 9th circuit case. She stated it was not an undue burden on the core function of home defense because Section 32310 “restricts possession of only a subset of magazines that are over a certain capacity. It does not restrict the possession of magazines in general such that it would render any lawfully possessed firearms inoperable, nor does it restrict the number of magazines that an individual may possess.”

This is our Chief District Judge in the Northern District of Texas.
User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5350
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#11

Post by Jusme »

ScottDLS wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:52 pm
Jusme wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:36 am I know that Commifornia will appeal this, but if this holds, as is, several other states, will be affected. It will also affect anyone charged, criminally, under a magazine capacity law. I’m beginning to think the Nonth Circuit is getting tired of having their decisions overturned.
I don't know if any other states in the 9th circuit other than California have mag capacity laws. Maybe Oregon or Washington?

Yes, but this will be appealed to an enbac. Who, if uphold this ruling, will force Commifornia, to either abandon the case, or appeal it to SCOTUS.
If they allow the ruling to stand, or refuse to hear it, then every other State can expect challenges to their laws. I'm sure States with magazine capacity laws, already have pro 2A lawyers drawing up lawsuits.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 26853
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#12

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Jusme wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:14 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:52 pm
Jusme wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:36 am I know that Commifornia will appeal this, but if this holds, as is, several other states, will be affected. It will also affect anyone charged, criminally, under a magazine capacity law. I’m beginning to think the Nonth Circuit is getting tired of having their decisions overturned.
I don't know if any other states in the 9th circuit other than California have mag capacity laws. Maybe Oregon or Washington?

Yes, but this will be appealed to an enbac. Who, if uphold this ruling, will force Commifornia, to either abandon the case, or appeal it to SCOTUS.
If they allow the ruling to stand, or refuse to hear it, then every other State can expect challenges to their laws. I'm sure States with magazine capacity laws, already have pro 2A lawyers drawing up lawsuits.
The problem is, whenever a pro-gun ruling comes out of a 3 judge panel in the 9th Circuit, the freedom-haters appeal for an en-banc ruling from the perennially leftist majority, and the ruling is overturned. I’d be VERY surprised if this ruling is allowed to stand.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 18245
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#13

Post by philip964 »

Normal capacity magazine.

Ordinary capacity magazine.

dhoobler
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:58 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Re: Big win in CA - "High capacity mags" case (Duncan et al)

#14

Post by dhoobler »

Revolver - An elegant weapon... for a more civilized age.
NRA Endowment Life Member
TSRA Life Member
Post Reply

Return to “Other States”