Posted on 04/05/2020 5:57:17 AM PDT by marktwain
On 2 April, 2020, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the Duncan v. Becerra case. The District Court had decided the outright ban of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The opinion, by Judge Roger T. Benitez, was brilliant and extremely well written.
The video lasts over an hour, with strong questioning by the judges. Judge Consuelo Callahan presides and does most of the questioning. Judge Kenneth K. Lee asks some pointed questions, and Judge Barbara M. Lynn asks a few questions.
The appealing attorney for the State of California was John Darrow Echeveria.
The plaintiffs' attorney for Duncan and the Second Amendment was Erin E. Murphy.
The State of California did its best at attempting to reduce the Second Amendment right to the minimum possible under the Heller ruling. The argument made was essentially, if California residents had access to some effective means of self-defense in the home, then Heller was satisfied, and the State could ban and regulate almost anything they wished to do.
When asked if the ban could be extended from a 10 round ban to a 1 round ban, Echeveria thought that might be unconstitutional.
This argument was specifically rejected in Heller as being off the table, but the Ninth Circuit has worked hard to forward it.
The attorney representing Duncan and Second Amendment supporters, generally, simply reiterated the Heller and McDonald decisions. Weapons in common use which are used for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment. In particular, a complete ban is off the table.
When asked if the ban violated the “takings clause” of the Constitution, Murphy said it was primarily an issue of compensation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
BFL. Thank you, MarkTwain, for posting this.
“Shall NOT be infringed,” damn it!
if California residents had access to some effective means of self-defense in the home,
= = =
That one bullet that we will be allowed. . .
An effective self-defense would be suicide.
Supposedly in the Old West, some saved their last bullet for that use.
Thanks!
“Save the Last Bullet!”
.
Here are some things to consider:
Does "Shall not be Infringed" mean prisoners cannot be disarmed in jail or prison?
Does "Shall not be Infringed" mean those confined to mental institutions have the right to carry weapons on their person at all times?
Does "Shall not be Infringed" apply to those who are 18 years old? 17? 16? 12? 10? 6?
Does "Shall not be Infringed" mean a private business must allow customers to be armed?
There are limits. We need to be able to persuasively argue for narrow, sharply defined limits, as exist on other enumerated rights.
An analogy, as people are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire; people are not allowed to fire a firearm in a crowded theater when there is no deadly threat.
Magazines are the one thing covered by both the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
I must be a simpleton. Yes, I know I am. The argument should have lasted long enough to say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. What part of that don’t you get you F’n gun grabbing moron.”
She simply quoted the relevant portions of the Heller decision, and made clear that banning magazines of over 10 round capacity was effectively banning many guns that have over 10 round capacity.
The AG attorney, John Echeverria (misspelled in the article, there are two r's in the name) worked hard at using rulings from the other circuits to claim the Second Amendment is very narrowly defined. He, of course, did not rely on the wording of the Second Amendment.
We have laws that if broken punish the misuse of a weapon. Owning, holding, looking at a weapon should not be against the law for any free person of any age. It's how you use the weapon.
As for businesses, I am a firm believer in private property rights and owners of property, and lease holders for that matter, can do what they want. I believe in this so firmly, that if the business owner wants to post a sign that says, "No Irish Allowed" (I'm one, by the way) that it is his prerogative and he loses out on my business. I don't go to Buffalo Wild Wings for example because they don't allow you to carry. The government should have no say in the matter.
I did not think you were. There was some context involved.
We are both passionate on the subject.
As is common, the opposition takes the border conditions and works very hard to extend them to the central right.
Progressives do not believe in limits on government power, except, perhaps on limits of the government on sexual behavior.
I was just making sure you didn’t think so. I am full of hyperbole today and I know it doesn’t come off right all the time.
Both prisoners and mental patients have temporarily lost some of their rights.
Those under the age of 18 never had them.
Private businesses have the right to say who can be armed while in their business.
This may be the worst analogy I've seen on FR in a long time (and that's saying something).
First, there is no law against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There are two types of government legal action, criminal (which normally imposes a prior restraint; i.e "You may not do X") and civil (which creates a case where if you do X and it causes damage, you are liable for it). The oft-cited fire-in-a-theater example is NOT criminal (or subject to prior restraint). The effects of yelling "Fire!" might by punishable by a criminal charge if the result causes another crime to be committed (disrupting a public gathering, etc.), but it will most likely be civil (you'll be sued by the people trampled on the way out). Read the USSC rulings on this, the fire-in-a-crowded-theater ruling was struck down a long time ago.
Likewise, there is a difference between possession and usage. Your analogy treats firing a weapon the same as possessing it. This is stupid. Doctors possess enough sedatives to kill any patient; their conduct isn't criminal unless they administer enough to a patient to do so.
In order for your analogy to be reasonable, you'd have to compare yelling "Fire!" in a theater to carrying a gun into the theater. This analogy doesn't work (which I'm sure is why you didn't use it). It's stupid.
No, it does not.
Show me where it does.
It equates an action, "Shouting Fire!" with an action "Firing a weapon".
Both actions are impermissible in certain circumstances.
This court case isn’t about “firing” a weapon. It’s about possessing one with a certain amount of bullets. So either your analogy is flawed (if you are talking about the topic of this thread) or irrelevant (since it has nothing to do with this case).
THANK YOU! The “fire in a crowded theater” line is pure propaganda. Absolute complete propaganda conjured up by Socialists, and it ISN’T THE LAW and hasn’t been for over 50 years.
Nice attempt to backtrack, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.