Duncan V Becerra
November 2016 – Idiot Californians approved the Proposition 63 1 July 2017 ban on high-capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds), adding to California’s already oppressive and convoluted gun laws. The proposition, citing certain exceptions, requires owners of high capacity magazines to surrender the magazines for destruction, remove hem from the state, or sell them.
May 2017- Virginia Duncan and a handful of other plaintiffs sued the California Attorney General Becerra in California Southern District USDC in May 2017, seeking an injunction against enforcement of the ban on high-capacity magazines, maintaining that it violated the 2nd Amendment and the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause. Judge Roger Benitez ruled against the state and for the gun owners, granting the preliminary injunction. See Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1106 – Dist. Court, SD California 2017. The court acknowledged as follows (p 1116):
“The Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes firearms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. Millerimplies that possession by a law-abiding citizen of a weapon that could be part of the ordinary military equipment for a militia member, or that would contribute to the common defense, is protected by the Second Amendment. Concluding that magazines holding more than 10 rounds might be found among today’s ordinary military equipment or that such magazines would contribute to the common defense, requires only a modest finding.”
17 July 2018 – Virginia Duncan v. Calif. A.G. Becerra – 9th Circuit panel affirmed the opinion of USDC SDCA Judge Roger Benitez, allowing the injunction against Proposition 63’s ban of high-capacity gun magazines, saying Benitez did not abuse his discretion in ruling against the state because the magazine surrender, removal, or sale provisions of Section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment right and violated the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause (“private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”). One of the three judges, Wallace, pedantically dissented in a long-winded, irrational diatribe, attempting to substitute his own discretion for the trial judge’s. See Duncan v. Becerra, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2018.
We can expect more litigation on this issue as the plaintiffs seek a full ruling that Prop 63 is unconstitutional.
Young v Hawaii
12 June 2012 George Young sued the County and State of Hawaii in Hawaii USDC 42 USC 1983 for violating his 2nd Amendment rights by denying his application for a permit openly to carry a firearm. Judge Helen Gillmor granted motions to dismiss under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and sent George off to sulk. See Young v. Hawaii, 911 F. Supp. 2d 972 – Dist. Court, D. Hawaii 2012.
12 Feb 2018 George Young appealed the adverse ruling to the 9th Circuit. The panel reversed as to the County, dismissed as to the state, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. See Young v. Hawaii, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2018.