California appeals court upholds ban on higher-capacity magazines, spurring unusual video dissent - 21 March 2025

[JackRydden224]

Remind me, wasn't Duncan v Bonta sent down to the lower courts by SCOTUS after BRUEN?

 

[treelogger]

Indeed. And that's the en banc ruling discussed above: the 9th circuit recently (last few weeks) found that the magazine law is constitutional, and has ordered the district judge to close out the case. That ruling is on hold for 90 days, to give Duncan and friends time to appeal to the Supreme Court. It is likely they will, and that will hold up the final result for somewhere between 3 months and a year.

 

[JackRydden224]

In summary, the 9th screwed us twice, once pre-Bruen and now post-Bruen is that right?

Benitez ruled in our favor which gave us freedom week in 2019
9th 3 panel judge ruled in our favor
9th en banc ruled against us
SCOTUS send it back down to Benitez after Bruen in 2023 and he ruled in our favor again
9th skips 3 panel judge, went straight to en banc and rules against us again

If Scotus doesn't pick up this case then we are definitely screwed on everything else

 

[Jimi Jah]

The political court will play it safe.

Ever since Kavenaugh got targeted the SC is running scared.

 

[Ro-bo]

So we will have clarity either this fall, or next summer.

Even that's not a guarantee. Clarity would mean whatever decision is rendered, leaves absolutely no doubt that Bruen is being consistently misapplied in the lower courts. We need a slam dunk at this point or else we risk being stuck in this pattern of sending every individual case up the ladder for judgment. That's sub-optimal considering the speed of operation of the overall judiciary.

The other risk, perhaps bigger than whether they take a case to clarify Bruen at all, is that it'll even be in our favor (i.e. 5-4 minimum). Given the scant feedback we've seen since Rahimi & more recently VanDerStok, I'm not that completely confident we have beyond 2-7 for sure.

There's also the very real possibility that with the exception of Thomas, the supremes are 'ok' with how Bruen is being applied, therefore the court will continue to take peripheral controversies like (above) "ghost guns", while continuing to ignore the more polarizing 2A questions.

 

[p--and--p]

In summary, the 9th screwed us twice, once pre-Bruen and now post-Bruen is that right?

Benitez ruled in our favor which gave us freedom week in 2019
9th 3 panel judge ruled in our favor
9th en banc ruled against us
SCOTUS send it back down to Benitez after Bruen in 2023 and he ruled in our favor again
9th skips 3 panel judge, went straight to en banc and rules against us again

If Scotus doesn't pick up this case then we are definitely screwed on everything else

This is so sad to see. Isn't it amazing how fast the 9th C can work together to screw us over? Everything in gov takes forever but they can reverse / injunction anything within a couple days- disgusting! Took 6 years to get here and still the SC hasn't taken this case to say enough is enough. I do feel if they don't we will continue to lose the 2A to these wacko laws and the SC will not help us. Bruen means NOTHING if they dont step up to squash these horrible laws

 

[JackRydden224]

This is so sad to see. Isn't it amazing how fast the 9th C can work together to screw us over? Everything in gov takes forever but they can reverse / injunction anything within a couple days- disgusting! Took 6 years to get here and still the SC hasn't taken this case to say enough is enough. I do feel if they don't we will continue to lose the 2A to these wacko laws and the SC will not help us. Bruen means NOTHING if they dont step up to squash these horrible laws

That's what I'm saying. If SCOTUS does not pick up Duncan v Bonta after the 9th screws it up post Bruen then the 9th will just go ahead and rule against us on every 2A case. The other circuit courts will also do the same without fearing their decision getting overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm not sure how many 2A cases the circuit courts got it wrong again after Bruen but SCOTUS really needs to step it up.

 

[p--and--p]

That's what I'm saying. If SCOTUS does not pick up Duncan v Bonta after the 9th screws it up post Bruen then the 9th will just go ahead and rule against us on every 2A case. The other circuit courts will also do the same without fearing their decision getting overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm not sure how many 2A cases the circuit courts got it wrong again after Bruen but SCOTUS really needs to step it up.

I mean WTF, the SC sent this case back down so they can re-do it after Bruen.. then the 9ht wastes years playing games by taking it back down to Benitez and then in a moment just rule the exact same way. They pretend they are ruling according to bruen but its a complete scam. The SC knows it is but if they dont do anyting, it wlil get worse and worse. The roster list goes against Bruen, but yet here we are years and years and years later with seemingly no hope. Kavanah and Amy Berret are complete traitors because they think they need to be more moderate to appeal to lunatic s

 

[treelogger]

This is so sad to see. Isn't it amazing how fast the 9th C can work together to screw us over? Everything in gov takes forever but they can reverse / injunction anything within a couple days- disgusting! Took 6 years to get here and still the SC hasn't taken this case to say enough is enough. I do feel if they don't we will continue to lose the 2A to these wacko laws and the SC will not help us. Bruen means NOTHING if they dont step up to squash these horrible laws

Injunctions and stays are easy to do, they're boilerplate, no reasoning or arguing required. That's why they're so fast. I've been involved in quite a few lawsuits, and my attorneys nearly always predict how procedural rulings will work. Decisions, on the other hand, require the judges to think, read background, analyze, and in multi-judge panels to argue with each other and come to a compromise. That takes time, often a heck of a lot of time. Add to that: most judges have way too little help from staff attorneys (clerks, assistants), so a lot of that work falls on themselves.

Bruen means exactly what the Supreme Court wants it to mean, no more and no less. If these laws really were horrible, SCOTUS is free to grant cert to all the cases it is getting. While we are all taught to not read any meaning to denials of cert, in practice they mean that the justices are good with leaving things in place. Or at least that they don't see this as a problem sufficiently important to invest their time in.

 

[YoungGun88]

I wonder if Trump is rethinking his SCOTUS picks with regards to Kavanothingburger and Scummy Barrett

 

[USMC06RET]

I wonder if Trump is rethinking his SCOTUS picks with regards to Kavanothingburger and Scummy Barrett

Trump thinking? Good one......

 

[Ro-bo]

If Bruen had been decided unanimously, things would be different. But the case was decided exactly along predictable lines (with the exception of Roberts possibly a wobbler). But in one breath we went from courts must pay attention to "text, history and tradition", to an 8-1 clarification saying "oh but (gun) laws aren't trapped in amber", in Rahimi.

From that, we absolutely *can* read plenty into the denials for review in all these other pertinent cases.

Another round of clarification of Bruen could weaken it even further if it's not done right. The problem with all this waiting is the growing backlog of cases that will have to be revisited if such a clarification comes. We're looking at decades if we're lucky and that's par for the course.