Good and Bad News (RI Mag Ban Case)

[jcutonilli]

The judge in the RI magazine ban case has denied the preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs were seeking.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.53873/gov.uscourts.rid.53873.37.0.pdf

The judge determined that magazines were not arms.

The good news is that should this interpretation be adopted, there would be no semiautomatic or automatic firearm restrictions on magazine fed arms since the arm should be evaluated without the magazine. Without the magazine these arms are not capable of firing semiautomatically or automatically.

Bruen is not going to stop stupid reasoning by judges.

 

[Allen65]

The judge in the RI magazine ban case has denied the preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs were seeking.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.53873/gov.uscourts.rid.53873.37.0.pdf

The judge determined that magazines were not arms.

The good news is that should this interpretation be adopted, there would be no semiautomatic or automatic firearm restrictions on magazine fed arms since the arm should be evaluated without the magazine. Without the magazine these arms are not capable of firing semiautomatically or automatically.

Bruen is not going to stop stupid reasoning by judges.

I guess that judge didn't notice SCOTUS GVRed not one, but two, magazine ban cases with Bruen. Or, like many of the judges in 2CA, simply do not want to be responsible for relaxing gun control laws, and may be intentionally ignoring Bruen and punting the cases to higher courts to let someone else do any overturning.

Given the behavior seen in 2CA with staying of all the NY PIs, I'm really starting to think Option 2 is what's happening. Many district and appellate judges still don't believe 2A is an individual right and won't act as if it is unless directly ordered to on each specific case. It's almost a level of judicial insubordination equivalent to what happened in the South during the Civil Rights Era.

The ruling isn't stupid, it's likely fully informed and intentionally insubordinate.

 

[Tebonski]

Obama judge, what do you expect? Fidelity to the Constitution?

 

[Bob A]

Stephen Halbrook, in an article posted below in this section, seems to make the point that magazines are "arms" as they're an integral part of the firearm.

Here's two paragraphs pulled from the article:

On remand, California's lead argument is that "large-capacity" magazines are not "arms" because they are "not essential for the operation of any firearm." But the question is not whether "large capacity" magazines are essential for any firearm to operate. The question is whether magazines in general, regardless of whether they hold only ten rounds or more (or fewer), are an integral part of the firearm and thus "arms" under the Second Amendment.
What is a magazine? It is the essential part of a firearm that stores ammunition on board the gun and positions the ammunition for firing. A magazine of some type is necessary for repeating firearms, which do not require a new cartridge (bullet) to be inserted manually for each shot. Repeating firearms have been around since the 1600s, and became common in the mid-1800s. Lewis and Clark carried a 22-round repeater on their famous expedition West while Thomas Jefferson was President. You simply cannot have repeating or multi-shot firearms without a magazine, otherwise the gun would be limited to firing a single shot.
Being detachable does not change the status of a magazine as an integral part of the gun. Some bicycles have "quick detachable" front wheels, in which a lever is operated by hand to quickly remove or re-attach the wheel without tools. But that does not make the front wheel any less integral to the functioning of the bicycle than if it were permanently affixed.
Like barrels and triggers, magazines are essential for the operation of all multi-shot and repeating firearms, which are "bearable arms." The word "arms" must extend to these essential components of firearms. If it did not, the government could ban all magazines and limit individuals to single-shot firearms. Before Bruen the circuit courts consistently treated magazines as arms, including Ass'n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Att'y Gen. New Jersey (3d Cir. 2018), New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n , Inc. v. Cuomo (2d Cir. 2015), and Heller v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Since magazines holding over ten rounds are "arms," it is California's burden to prove that they are "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," which it cannot do.
In sum, when the Second Amendment's "plain text" covers conduct, it is presumptively protected. It is then the government's burden to show that a restriction is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

 

[jcutonilli]

I guess that judge didn't notice SCOTUS GVRed not one, but two, magazine ban cases with Bruen. Or, like many of the judges in 2CA, simply do not want to be responsible for relaxing gun control laws, and may be intentionally ignoring Bruen and punting the cases to higher courts to let someone else do any overturning.

Given the behavior seen in 2CA with staying of all the NY PIs, I'm really starting to think Option 2 is what's happening. Many district and appellate judges still don't believe 2A is an individual right and won't act as if it is unless directly ordered to on each specific case. It's almost a level of judicial insubordination equivalent to what happened in the South during the Civil Rights Era.

The ruling isn't stupid, it's likely fully informed and intentionally insubordinate.

To be fair, the plaintiffs did not really present a strong rebuttal as to why mags are not arms. Most of the time, rulings like these can be traced to poorly argued cases. Bruen is not going to stop rulings like this.

 

[E.Shell]

...The ruling isn't stupid, it's likely fully informed and intentionally insubordinate.

^^^^^^^^^^ THIS, X 1,000,000,000,000,,,,,,,,,,

These people are NOT stupid. That should be abundantly clear by now, even to the most dense of us.

If you don't realize that they are NOT stupid by now, WTF would it take to make you understand that this is a concerted effort to reduce our liberties and render us harmless? They would prefer you continue under the illusion that they are stupid and YOU are the smart one, LOL.

They continue, with ZERO consequences, to use our money and resources to create conflict so that we are forced to use our money and resources in efforts to correct their intentional infringements. How stupid is THAT?

Anyone calling them "stupid" these days should have their thinking cap and keyboard confiscated.

 

[kshaw]

Wouldn't overturning the case at the circuit level be to our advantage? If that happens, it would be resolved at the CA which would affect more states. Correct?

 

[teratos]

Wouldn't overturning the case at the circuit level be to our advantage? If that happens, it would be resolved at the CA which would affect more states. Correct?

Yes.

Hopefully then they will appeal it to SCOTUS and put this issue to rest.

 

[pcfixer]

Well---
Chief Judge McConnell Jr is without doubt in error- LCM ban's unconstitutional on its' FACE
See Bruen
Quoted:
Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).3


and https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2105&context=lawreview

 

[jcutonilli]

Wouldn't overturning the case at the circuit level be to our advantage? If that happens, it would be resolved at the CA which would affect more states. Correct?

No. There is almost no chance that a government willing to infringe on our rights is going to stop at a loss at the district level. Litigation at the circuit level is practically guaranteed. What is not guaranteed is what the circuit level courts are going to do to correct errors. 10+ years of 2A litigation has shown that the circuit level courts are unlikely to correct the problem.

 

[jcutonilli]

Well---
Chief Judge McConnell Jr is without doubt in error- LCM ban's unconstitutional on its' FACE
See Bruen
Quoted:
Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).3


and https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2105&context=lawreview

The judge in this case did not decide the 2A issue based on interest balancing. The 2A issue was resolved based on a technicality that magazines are not in and of themselves arms per the historical tradition. What appears as an interest balancing approach is actually part of the four criteria for determining a temporary injunction.

injunction

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Allen65]

The judge in this case did not decide the 2A issue based on interest balancing. The 2A issue was resolved based on a technicality that magazines are not in and of themselves arms per the historical tradition. What appears as an interest balancing approach is actually part of the four criteria for determining a temporary injunction.

injunction

www.law.cornell.edu

That's like saying flints or hammer springs aren't protected as arms. They're a necessary component for operating a firearm at the time of the enactment of COTUS. How did the plaintiff's attorney fail so horribly at making that comparison with magazines?

 

[pcfixer]

The judge in this case did not decide the 2A issue based on interest balancing. The 2A issue was resolved based on a technicality that magazines are not in and of themselves arms per the historical tradition. What appears as an interest balancing approach is actually part of the four criteria for determining a temporary injunction.

injunction

www.law.cornell.edu

Judge is in error to resolve LCM "resolved on a technicality of magazines are not in and of themselves arms"
It's very possible this ruling at District Court of Rhode Island could be reversed or overturned! Likely? I don't know.
Seems to me he didn't follow precedent!

More accurate University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2105&context=lawreview

1. First Prong on the Ninth Circuit Marzzarella Style Test: Are Second Amendment Rights Implicated?

Question one: Does the law regulate protected “arms”?
Question two: Is the weapon dangerous or unusual?
Question three: Is the regulation longstanding?
Question four: Is there any historical evidence that the right in question falls outside the Second Amendment?

It is clear from these facts that total bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds could not be called, in any sense, traditional or longstanding and are thus not presumptively lawful.
227 Furthermore, magazines holding more than ten rounds are incredibly common in America for lawful purposes, as even the Third Circuit and D.C. Circuit majorities admit
.228 Because these magazines are in common use for lawful purposes and are not traditionally regulated, any law categorically banning possession of them would be unconstitutional under Kavanaugh’s framework.

Furthermore, laws prohibiting possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds are unconstitutional, no matter what standard a court uses.290 Such laws do not have historical precedent on their side, and they categorically ban arms protected by the Second Amendment.291 They are not narrowly tailored or reasonably necessary to secure public safety.292 Whether a court uses a text, history, and tradition approach or a Marzzarella style test, laws prohibiting possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds are unconstitutional.

 

[jcutonilli]

That's like saying flints or hammer springs aren't protected as arms. They're a necessary component for operating a firearm at the time of the enactment of COTUS. How did the plaintiff's attorney fail so horribly at making that comparison with magazines?

I don't know. Feel free to evaluate the docket. It is available here

Docket for Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. State of Rhode Island, 1:22-cv-00246 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. State of Rhode Island, 1:22-cv-00246 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

 

[HaveBlue]

^^^^^^^^^^ THIS, X 1,000,000,000,000,,,,,,,,,,

These people are NOT stupid. That should be abundantly clear by now, even to the most dense of us.

If you don't realize that they are NOT stupid by now, WTF would it take to make you understand that this is a concerted effort to reduce our liberties and render us harmless? They would prefer you continue under the illusion that they are stupid and YOU are the smart one, LOL.

They continue, with ZERO consequences, to use our money and resources to create conflict so that we are forced to use our money and resources in efforts to correct their intentional infringements. How stupid is THAT?

Anyone calling them "stupid" these days should have their thinking cap and keyboard confiscated.

100% Correct. When we get all spun up identifying the gaping holes in their logic, I think we are simply playing the wrong game.

One facet of this systemic problem, is we are funding one side with donations and the other side with our taxes.

Im starting to wonder if impeachment and/or recall petitions should be higher on our list of options for these public servants? Can this judge really say that his hands were tied by precedents? Or was he ignoring Mt. Bruen and shopping for an excuse to rule the way he did?

Most of these ‘laws’ have negative impacts on sympathetic victims. Either the weapon charges are dropped leaving a marginalized community in danger. Or they’re disproportionately enforced on a demographic. Either way, there should be a stack of scandals like this to keep them on defense.

 

[jcutonilli]

Judge is in error to resolve LCM "resolved on a technicality of magazines are not in and of themselves arms"
It's very possible this ruling at District Court of Rhode Island could be reversed or overturned! Likely? I don't know.
Seems to me he didn't follow precedent!

More accurate University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2105&context=lawreview

1. First Prong on the Ninth Circuit Marzzarella Style Test: Are Second Amendment Rights Implicated?

Question one: Does the law regulate protected “arms”?
Question two: Is the weapon dangerous or unusual?
Question three: Is the regulation longstanding?
Question four: Is there any historical evidence that the right in question falls outside the Second Amendment?

It is clear from these facts that total bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds could not be called, in any sense, traditional or longstanding and are thus not presumptively lawful.
227 Furthermore, magazines holding more than ten rounds are incredibly common in America for lawful purposes, as even the Third Circuit and D.C. Circuit majorities admit
.228 Because these magazines are in common use for lawful purposes and are not traditionally regulated, any law categorically banning possession of them would be unconstitutional under Kavanaugh’s framework.

Furthermore, laws prohibiting possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds are unconstitutional, no matter what standard a court uses.290 Such laws do not have historical precedent on their side, and they categorically ban arms protected by the Second Amendment.291 They are not narrowly tailored or reasonably necessary to secure public safety.292 Whether a court uses a text, history, and tradition approach or a Marzzarella style test, laws prohibiting possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds are unconstitutional.

The judge is saying it fails question one because the law in question does not regulate protected "arms" as magazines are not historically considered arms in and of themselves. What you are addressing are questions two and three, but they do not matter if you fail at question one.

 

[jcutonilli]

100% Correct. When we get all spun up identifying the gaping holes in their logic, I think we are simply playing the wrong game.

One facet of this systemic problem, is we are funding one side with donations and the other side with our taxes.

Im starting to wonder if impeachment and/or recall petitions should be higher on our list of options for these public servants? Can this judge really say that his hands were tied by precedents? Or was he ignoring Mt. Bruen and shopping for an excuse to rule the way he did?

Most of these ‘laws’ have negative impacts on sympathetic victims. Either the weapon charges are dropped leaving a marginalized community in danger. Or they’re disproportionately enforced on a demographic. Either way, there should be a stack of scandals like this to keep them on defense.

I believe that the judge believes that he has followed the precedent in Bruen. There certainly are gaping holes in his logic. The question is why are there gaping holes in his logic. Using just the arguments that were presented in the briefs show me where our side identified those holes.

The docket can be found here

Docket for Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. State of Rhode Island, 1:22-cv-00246 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. State of Rhode Island, 1:22-cv-00246 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

They filed document 8, 22 and 32 to present their case.
The state filed document 19 and 35 in response

I believe you will find that the briefs do not adequately identify the holes in the logic. Prove me wrong.

 

[pcfixer]

The judge is saying it fails question one because the law in question does not regulate protected "arms" as magazines are not historically considered arms in and of themselves. What you are addressing are questions two and three, but they do not matter if you fail at question one.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1194.html
Vacated and Remanded. 30 June 2022

First, the court asked “whether the law regulates ‘arms’ for purposes of the Second Amendment.”

Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

quoted
1. Firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment.

Firearm magazines are "arms" under the Second Amendment. Magazines enjoy Second Amendment protection for a simple reason: Without a magazine, many weapons would be useless, including "quintessential" self-defense weapons like the handgun. See Heller , 554 U.S. at 629, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
Also found in #32 dtd Nov 14 2022

Interestingly, Judge statement on page 26; independent reason that such magazines constitute firearms "accessories" rather than protected "arms"." referenced by NYSR&P vs Cuomo

This judge seems to me have a circular reasoning in his judgement! LCM's are a new terms. OEM magazines or standard capacity magazines have been the precise wording for either 20 or 30 round magazines. (My Army career does give credibility)
Also noticed terms of use of magazines with bullets!
In context the referenced statement for accurately mean cartridges, that is with brass cartridge include the primer, powder and bullet.
We sometimes hear in error that referenced magazines in some circles are called clips. Wow, sure wonder why the judge didn't approach that? Judge in this case didn't follow precedent! JMHO John.

"I believe you will find that the briefs do not adequately identify the holes in the logic. Prove me wrong."
I will not go down that rabbit hole.

 

[jcutonilli]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1194.html
Vacated and Remanded. 30 June 2022

First, the court asked “whether the law regulates ‘arms’ for purposes of the Second Amendment.”

Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

quoted
1. Firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment.

Firearm magazines are "arms" under the Second Amendment. Magazines enjoy Second Amendment protection for a simple reason: Without a magazine, many weapons would be useless, including "quintessential" self-defense weapons like the handgun. See Heller , 554 U.S. at 629, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
Also found in #32 dtd Nov 14 2022

Interestingly, Judge statement on page 26; independent reason that such magazines constitute firearms "accessories" rather than protected "arms"." referenced by NYSR&P vs Cuomo

This judge seems to me have a circular reasoning in his judgement! LCM's are a new terms. OEM magazines or standard capacity magazines have been the precise wording for either 20 or 30 round magazines. (My Army career does give credibility)
Also noticed terms of use of magazines with bullets!
In context the referenced statement for accurately mean cartridges, that is with brass cartridge include the primer, powder and bullet.
We sometimes hear in error that referenced magazines in some circles are called clips. Wow, sure wonder why the judge didn't approach that? Judge in this case didn't follow precedent! JMHO John.

"I believe you will find that the briefs do not adequately identify the holes in the logic. Prove me wrong."
I will not go down that rabbit hole.

The state pointed out in their brief that firearms including the "quintessential" self-defense weapons like handguns can still fire with a ten round magazine. The judge also noted a 9CA opinion indicated that "without a magazine, [the] weapon would be useless," is not really true.

To be fair, most firearms can fire without a magazine. The plaintiffs in the case don't point out that there are a number of handguns that do not fire without the magazine due to a magazine disconnect. They also do not explain why they would be useless.

It seems like a lot of people want to blame the court for the bad decisions, but these bad decision can usually be traced to poor arguments. I believe it is important to understand why these type of decisions keep occurring.

 

[HaveBlue]

The state pointed out in their brief that firearms including the "quintessential" self-defense weapons like handguns can still fire with a ten round magazine. The judge also noted a 9CA opinion indicated that "without a magazine, [the] weapon would be useless," is not really true.

To be fair, most firearms can fire without a magazine. The plaintiffs in the case don't point out that there are a number of handguns that do not fire without the magazine due to a magazine disconnect. They also do not explain why they would be useless.

It seems like a lot of people want to blame the court for the bad decisions, but these bad decision can usually be traced to poor arguments. I believe it is important to understand why these type of decisions keep occurring.

You are correct about poor arguments. I heard an excellent example in a recent bump Stock case.

What’s frustrating, is the courts are so “understanding” of ******** gun control laws and seem so oblivion to arguments or situations that attempt to curtail honest citizens being trampled by gov overreach.

Even when they know their logic is ridiculously flawed, that doesn’t stop them from immediately accepting any scheduling delay proposed by the state.

Wait a year for a form 4 or 90 days for a permit to carry background check? Totally reasonable. Person murdered or assaulted while waiting. System is fair.

Don’t allow someone to cast a ballot on Election Day with no ID? Civil Rights have been trampled!