9thCCOAs Oral Arguments -9:30AM PST-California Proposition 63 codified in 2016
9thCCOAs YouTube - Channel will likely stream the oral arguments
”___ we’ll do it live…”
…in all seriousness I can’t explain how important this case is. Plus I have to get back to my actual J-O-B which doesn’t include tweeting or live blogging…
- and I’d like to offer a preemptive apology. That is —I want to set your expectations based on the history of this case - both in terms of at the District Court (DC) level and at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (CCoAs ) - 3 judge panel. Each time the courts found in favor (the DC, and CCoAs affirmed DC rulings) concerning California’s Proposition 63 — in 2016 California Voters -63% voted in favor the Proposition 63 which reads in part:
Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition.
Prohibits possession of large–capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons.
Requires Department of Justice's participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.
Background- District Court, Twice found the the large capacity magazine law - unconstitutional
March 29, 2019 Order by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez
“individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts.” and then invoked a quote from the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Judge Benitez’s 86-page order ruled in favor and granting summary judgment the Plaintiff Virginia Duncan;
Declaring California Penal Code §32310 Unconstitutional and Enjoining Enforcement.
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted.
California Penal Code §32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.
Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310
November 1, 2018 USCA Mandate once again affirming the District Court’s ruling
The State of California’s Brief filed on August 20, 2020 - http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/enbanc/19-55376pfr.pdf
Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 970 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/14/19-55376.pdf -
“We affirm the district court’s summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310’s ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment”
Order Taking Case En Banc: 988 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2021)
Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: February 25, 2021
Status: Virtual oral argument scheduled on June 22, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. Pacific time
Members of En Banc Court: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GRABER, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, MURGUIA, WATFORD, HURWITZ, R. NELSON, BUMATAY, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges
Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in an action challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of large-capacity magazines ("LCMs") that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition
or you can follow the live streaming from the Ninth Circuit of Appeals website;
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/live_oral_arguments.php
18-State Coalition Supporting California's Ban On Large-Capacity Magazines
Also of note - in September 2020 the District of Columbia Attorney General Racine Lead an 18-State Attorneys General Coalition —Supporting California's Ban On Large-Capacity Magazines - their amicus brief - urge the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc (which the 9thCCOAs did in February 2021)
Attorneys General from Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington —argued that California’s ban on large-capacity magazines is a reasonable and lawful restriction because:
The Second Amendment permits states to enact common-sense gun safety measures: The brief explains that states are entitled to adopt reasonable restrictions on firearms to protect public safety. Restricting access to large-capacity magazines is a reasonable restriction because it reduces firearm injuries and deaths without infringing individuals’ core Second Amendment right to self-defense.
States have a responsibility to prevent gun violence and protect public safety: The brief notes that states have primary responsibility for ensuring public safety. This includes a duty to reduce the likelihood that their citizens will fall victim to preventable firearm violence and to minimize fatalities and injuries when such violence occurs. Population density, economic conditions, and the strength of local law enforcement all vary widely across the country, and all may have an impact on crime and effective crime-fighting efforts. The brief notes that deciding how best to protect the safety of state residents is a question better suited to legislatures than courts.
Courts have allowed states to regulate large-capacity magazines to protect the public: Every other court of appeals has allowed states leeway to respond to gun violence within their borders by regulating large-capacity magazines.
I will say this case is extraordinarily important because if the full panel agrees that California’s Proposed 63 is “unconstitutional”, and/or “violates the second amendment” —then prepare yourself for the litigation floodgates to bust wide open. The impact of the 9thCCOAs ruling will be far and wide.
Lastly I’m not anti-gun. I’m very much anti-mass shooting multiple times a day. I’m also very much anti-disgruntled employee going on a shooting spree. And lastly I’m also very much anti-squeeze out >1,000 rounds, shoot hundreds of innocent concert -goers, injuring >800 individuals and killing >59 individuals
LVMPD Criminal Investigative Report of the 1 October Mass Casualty Shooting
LVMPD Event Number 171001-3519
Report from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Force Investigation Team on the shooting that occurred on October 1, 2017, at 3901 S. Las Vegas Boulevard at the Route 91 Harvest music festival.Criminal Investigative Report of the October Mass Casualty Shooting
August 24, 2018 FEMA et al Joint After Action Report:
This report was compiled by the Clark County Fire Department and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in collaboration with the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Exercise Division with the intent of distributing best practices and lessons learned for other communities around the country to better prepare for a mass casualty incident should one occupy
Federal Bureau of Investigation
KEY FINDINGS OF THE BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS UNIT’S LAS VEGAS SHOOTER