The One Case That Could Overturn Magazine Bans

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the recent petition to the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Duncan v. Bonta (formerly Duncan v. Becerra). This is a challenge to California Penal Code Sec. 32310, which prohibits the possession of any magazine which holds more than 10 rounds. This is somewhat similar to the recent ban passed by our State Legislature in ESSB 5078 (link below). California's law is actually more restrictive that the new Washington legislation in that the moment it was passed, millions of magazines became illegal contraband, owned by otherwise lawful and responsible gun owners, without any just compensation from the State of California.

And while it is easy to focus on the obvious question posed, which is the Constitutionality of California's uber-restrictive magazine ban, there is much more at stake in this case. This is a chance for SCOTUS to once and for all announce to all appellate courts the standard that must be used when reviewing restrictive firearm legislation. That is the critical question of this case. Learn more and arm yourself with education.
_____________________________________________________________
Applicable Bills:

Other Resources:

___________________________________________________________
Other Videos:

______________________________________________________________

Follow us on Twitter @GunWashington

[Mmartlaro]

I left cali years ago to get away from all the gun control (and many other reasons obviously) only to have it happen all over again in WA. They are literally ruining the west coast. Anyway, Thank you for keeping us informed, you have been a huge help in this fight. Keep it up, we need more voices like yours.

[urnaighean_shamhach]

"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” –Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

[people]

So cool having a channel that is focused on the state I live in. Thanks for helping us stay informed and digest all of this stuff.

[urnaighean_shamhach]

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” –Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

[TheWoodsman]

Hopefully the SCOTUS will give a ruling on California's mag ban there by overturning our ban

[urnaighean_shamhach]

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.  The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute,  whether federal or state,  though having the form and name of law,  is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose,  since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW,  in legal contemplation,  IS AS INOPERATIVE AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED.“ – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 256"

[urnaighean_shamhach]

“An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law.  An offense created by it is not crime.  A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but isillegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.” – Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)

[evanwindom]

Washington says it's a "shall issue" state. But the way they've worked around that is by severely limiting your ability to submit an application. Check out how many of the Sheriff's office locations either aren't accepting appointments at all, or are only accepting apps from one city. The wait for the downtown location is over 100 days just to file an app.

[BMXIX]

RI just passed a mag ban today. No mag over 10 rounds is legal, and no grandfather clause. Mags must be turned in or sold out of state. Getting caught with one is a felony with 5 years in prison. Hopefully law suits are filed soon

[LarsBars]

Top notch video William. Lately I've been watching a channel called The Armed Scholar here on YouTube and he's been using these different terms about scrutiny. I literally searched his channel today to see if he had a primer video explaining the terms.

You have delivered! Thank you!

[poppavein]

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, Section 24.

“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Seems pretty clear to me. What corruption in the State SC caused us to get to where we are today?!

[bthemedia]

Such a great explanation on this scrutiny topic, especially with the definition slides. Thank you!

[dougsmith]

How is it the 9th Circuit can just choose to ignore Heller and apply intermediate scrutiny when direct scrutiny is the proper? You always close you video with the responsible gun owner knows the law but how do I as a citizen jive that with the fact a high court can choose to ignore proper application of the law?

[poorpauly]

We are electing politicians who break their oath to protect the Constitution. Right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

[david]

Intermediate scrutiny sounds like it essentially puts the interests of the government and its lobbyists ahead of the people versus strict scrutiny. It’s basically a tool to use when people’s rights are going to be violated. In my opinion that might only be acceptable under a temporary state of emergency if the law is essential to and proves to be effective in getting us out of that state of emergency.

Also, whenever it goes to the en banc panel, they always rule keep the infringements. They’re something like 50 out of 50 times. That’s nonsense. The ninth circuit behaves like an inhuman communist rubber stamp judicial system.

What if the ninth circuit doesn’t give a hoot what SCOTUS does and continues to use intermediate scrutiny to infringe on 2A even more aggressively? Can they be stopped by SCOTUS action? Can a circuit like the ninth be dissolved for continued belligerence? I know nothing of law, but have observed that limits in many places are being tested like never before.

[urnaighean_shamhach]

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere."

[flightfan]

Thank you for the clear definitions and updates.

[prime-rib]

Excellent video. If Heller declares that strict scrutiny be used for 2A cases, should that not abrogate any previous court decisions related to 2A in which strict scrutiny was not applied?

[dand]

WELL EXPLAINED. THANK YOU WILLIAM KIRK

[rem]

Thanks for the great explanations...Unfortunately I don't have high hopes that this case will be heard anytime soon. (I hope I'm wrong)