DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[treelogger]

The unambiguous and clear meaning of the 2nd ...

... is defined by the courts. That's their job. Panta rhei: Like everything in the world, this is in flux. Right now, we have Heller, MacDonald and Bruen to tell us what the 2A means. There are lots of nuances we can read into those.

... has been litigated by Nichols for 16 years or so.

Chuck Nichols is a nutcase. He has tried to do terrible damage to the 2A, in pursuit of his quixotic quest. Fortunately, most of the universe ignores him, and he just wastes some time of the courts.

Punishment for the misbehavior of public officials ... in the executive and the judiciary and the legislature ... needs to be swift
and effective. In the Caswell case (friends of mine since around 1970) I suggested public hangings. Not a bad remedy here.
These are unambiguous, clear civil rights issues. Brief trial by jury, prompt hanging. One month should be more than enough
time.

Assuming that your "swift and effective" you mean some form of lynch justice, you have put yourself squarely outside our society's consensus.

 

[BeAuMaN]

That's a good distinction. I probably should have separated "legislative advocacy" from actually having a full-time Sacramento lobbying presence. CRPA and GOC clearly have people regularly working the Capitol, while FPC's California presence today seems much more litigation-focused.

And I agree with the larger point. Given California's tendency to be a proving ground for gun-control legislation that later shows up elsewhere, having only a couple of people consistently working Sacramento seems pretty thin. A jointly funded additional lobbyist among some of the organizations would make a lot of sense.

That said, they're fighting on different fronts—lobbying, litigation and national advocacy. I'd rather see people support ANY of the effective 2A organizations than get hung up on finding the perfect one. Supporting more than one is even better.

Oh yeah definitely. I just bring it up since that kind of work doesn't get as much visibility. Formerly Sam Paredes would do some press (and Adam Wilson hasn't done as much but he's replacing Sam Paredes) and Rick Travis does press on it, but it's also not something that's super clear to most folks; it doesn't get as much coverage as when new court filings come out in litigation for example. You'll also see Keely Hopkins show up at various bill hearings on behalf of the NRA, but she's kinda part time for California since she's a regional director for multiple western states, and so she splits her time between them.

I'd like to think if we had at least another hand on deck last year, that AB-1263 would have at least had some amendments to soften it a bit. The problem is when California has not just a bumper crop of gun bills, but also a bunch of particularly bad ones that need more focus like last year.

But I digress, I'm starting to steer too far off topic in the Duncan thread.

 

[Dvrjon]

Bonta responds to CRPA Petition for Cert.

 

[Gravel]

Bonta responds to CRPA Petition for Cert.

Bonta wants to be in his next job before getting a big loss on his record.

That reply was a poor attempt at delaying the process. The worst thing is that it just might work..

Edit: my mistake, I had thought Bonta was out as AG this year, his getting another term is just depressing.

 

[Dvrjon]

Bonta wants to be in his next job before getting a big loss on his record.

That reply was a poor attempt at delaying the process. The worst thing is that it just might work..

Bonta’s “next” job is a second elected term as California Attorney General. The election is this November and barring some tectonic shift in CA politics, he will be elected and sworn in long before SCOTUS issues rulings on these cases.

With a new Governor in place, Bonta will become the visible face of “Common Sense” gun laws.

 

[FreedomWeekLawyer]

Bonta responds to CRPA Petition for Cert.

I know we’re all tired of waiting, but I see progress here. Bonta went from asking SCOTUS to deny cert to now asking the Court to simply hold Duncan. The Third Circuit ruling striking down its magazine ban and creating a circuit split was a very favorable development, and this response shows it.

 

[exnds]

SCOTUS doesn’t necessarily even have to grant cert. They could rule on Viramontes/Grant then issue a per curium on Duncan.

 

[RustVendor]

SCOTUS doesn’t necessarily even have to grant cert. They could rule on Viramontes/Grant then issue a per curium on Duncan.

Viramontes may actually rule on magazines because the way that Illinois wrote the assault weapons ban includes "A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds". Magazine limit is also discussed in the plaintiff brief to the court.

 

[MK6M9]

i apologize. do not let me insert logic and reality here and distract you guys. please continue with the delusions that this has gone anywhere in the last ten years or that it will go anywhere in the next-- except another ten more years of the same exact laws and bills passed, which is exactly what has been going on in the last ten years. (shrugs). comical

 

[Librarian]

i apologize. do not let me insert logic and reality here and distract you guys. please continue with the delusions that this has gone anywhere in the last ten years or that it will go anywhere in the next-- except another ten more years of the same exact laws and bills passed, which is exactly what has been going on in the last ten years. (shrugs). comical

No, no, treelogger has a point.

It's true that the existing legislators and other elected officials (and judges) are enabling the continuation of anti-gun laws and behaviors.

What's your plan to replace enough of those to make changes in that behavior?

My suggestion has long been 'get sensible people to run for school boards'. That's because in most of CA, school board is the jumping off point for a political career, leading to elected City offices, then County, then Assembly and Senate.

It has two major drawbacks: (1) it's about a 20-year plan; (2) it relies on 'conservative' candidates overcoming an aversion to politics and 'leaving people alone, as I wish you would leave me alone'.

 

[Drivedabizness]

No, no, treelogger has a point.

It's true that the existing legislators and other elected officials (and judges) are enabling the continuation of anti-gun laws and behaviors.

What's your plan to replace enough of those to make changes in that behavior?

My suggestion has long been 'get sensible people to run for school boards'. That's because in most of CA, school board is the jumping off point for a political career, leading to elected City offices, then County, then Assembly and Senate.

It has two major drawbacks: (1) it's about a 20-year plan; (2) it relies on 'conservative' candidates overcoming an aversion to politics and 'leaving people alone, as I wish you would leave me alone'.

Our opponents are intellectual and physical cowards. As stated elsewhere - once they are given reason to realize they have skin in the game (e.g. a few of them get frog marched, convicted. financially ruined, etc.) you'd be amazed how fast other issues will take their attention.

 

[RustVendor]

The challenge with that is a LOT of Californians treat the Democratic Party as their religion. It’s been taught in the schools, reinforced by the media and echoed back and forth for decades. Even when I’ve had issue by issue conversations with CA dems and they don’t like the ideas and policies of the dem party, they still loyally vote blue. It’s wild..

In 2016 prop 63 passed with over 60% of the vote, this was the ammo background check bill in addition to some other things like magazine restrictions. Besides that, the GOP has never been less popular here more than ten years later. The battle is in the courts, the legislature is out of reach.

 

[Gravel]

In 2016 prop 63 passed with over 60% of the vote, this was the ammo background check bill in addition to some other things like magazine restrictions. Besides that, the GOP has never been less popular here more than ten years later. The battle is in the courts, the legislature is out of reach.

The 2A is supposed to make those things off limits to the legislatures but tyrants are gonna tyrant..

 

[RustVendor]

The 2A is supposed to make those things off limits to the legislatures but tyrants are gonna tyrant..

Well it really should have included a few more sentences to make it clear because even in the early 1800 there were certain forms of gun control hence why Bruen used the historical analogue test to say that CCW licensing and background checks are completely constitutional. Another oddity of the bill of rights is that it didn't apply to state legislatures until the 14th amendment in the 1860s. None of it is actually straightforward, the good news though is Viramontes is likely to open up a lot of things depending on how it's written. Its about more than AR15s because it's about restricting a weapon in common use which could apply to pistols as well, it also could include magazines because the Illinois assault weapon ban includes magazine restrictions. So the odds are in our favor for the next session.

 

[HibikiR]

The battle is in the courts, the legislature is out of reach.

Voting decides who gets to run those courts. You don't really think St. Benitez got to where he was by himself do you?

Stop voting blue.

 

[RustVendor]

Voting decides who gets to run those courts. You don't really think St. Benitez got to where he was by himself do you?

Stop voting blue.

wrong court, but same concept. The electoral college means your vote for a republican president means nothing, same for a California senator.

 

[Hit Factor]

Vote 3rd party, vote Republican, just take that first step and stop voting for the people that fill the courts with gun grabbers.

 

[ikeo1]

Let's keep it chill guys.. Don't need to overtake the thread...

 

[treelogger]

No, no, treelogger has a point.

Actually, my real point is the following: I strongly suspect that MK6M9 is not advocating to "get rid of anti-gun legislator" using democratic and legal means (such as voting for pro-gun legislators), but instead by making holes in the current ones. For a whole slew of reasons that should be obvious, I think that this would be a very bad approach, and even advocating in its favor does serious harm to the cause of gun rights. In one thread, we nearly got MK6M9 to admit to this, and I'm trying to get him to stop just doing the "hint hint blink blink" and instead come out and show us his cards.

My suggestion has long been 'get sensible people to run for school boards'. That's because in most of CA, school board is the jumping off point for a political career, leading to elected City offices, then County, then Assembly and Senate.

I partly agree with you, partly disagree with you. Agree: We need to create a deep bench of pro-gun politicians. And just like creating a new sport (for example soccer in the US or rugby in Germany), it has to start by training a lot of young people early, and then having decades of patience. Disagree on two counts: First, most pro-gun wannabe politicians who could run for something like school board will never make it through the first election; and if by coincidence they do, their ridiculous ultra-conservative positions will end their political careers right at the school board stage. Second, the traditional path used to be school or volunteer fire department board -> city council -> county supervisor -> assembly -> senate or secretary. A (centrist pro-gun democrat) friend of mine went law degree -> school board -> county supervisor -> judge -> higher judge, and at that point unfortunately had a fatal heart attack. But today that is not the common one; instead we see more pol sci degree -> legislative staffer (often at a low level like county supervisor staff) -> add party volunteering or organization -> civil service -> assembly -> ... And that path is not accessible to someone with the "wrong" partisan credentials: a republican will never get hired as a staffer.

As long as people think that "pro gun" implicitly requires "republican" and "ultra conservative", we have no chance for improving the gun rights situation in this state.

 

[mbuss101]

Well this thread got off course… the simplest answer is Balkanization which the country is already seeming to do on its own. The Soviet Union collapsed before my time but look at how many nations came out of that seemingly overnight. One thing I hate about Newsom aside from the obvious is his comment he always touts “national divorce isn’t an option” Were in a failed marriage as a country and it shows in a lot of ways. Best you can hope for is a quick severance and a fast fall in standard of living to get people’s heads back to the reality of what is important in a functioning society. Anything else is just kicking the can down the road imho