Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
California Can Do What It Wants (But It Can't Do That)
GrundleStiltzkin
Member Posts: 61,485 
in Tug Tavern
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of large- capacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the Second Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment: (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; and (2) if so, what level of scrutiny to apply to the regulation. United states v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013)
The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second Amendment protection.
The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment: (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; and (2) if so, what level of scrutiny to apply to the regulation. United states v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013)
The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second Amendment protection.
Suck it @CirrhosisDawg
Comments
2. en banc appeal to move from a 3 judge panel to 11 judge panel
3. delay en banc review as long as possible
4. likely lose in en banc because its still the 9th circuit
5. Eventually appeal to supreme court
6. ?????
Trump personally has been a disappointment on the 2nd amendment but thanks to his judges there atleast appears to be some strain in the system rather than the typical trampling of civil rights... If he is not relected it all probably goes down the drain.
Meatloaf was talking about felching in that song, right? That’s what I’ve always assumed.
Axxe @DanSavageDawg91
By JA'S logic, other than @RaceBannon , none of us existed in 1789 so nothing in the Constitution applies.