The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
9th Circuit strikes down large capacity magazine ban in CA
| 180 parlour | 08/14/20 |
| Ebony Supple Athletic Conference Brunch | 08/14/20 |
| Amethyst coffee pot dopamine | 08/14/20 |
| 180 parlour | 08/14/20 |
| cobalt candlestick maker | 08/14/20 |
| sooty locale faggotry | 08/14/20 |
| cobalt candlestick maker | 08/14/20 |
| arousing crusty set | 08/14/20 |
| gold cheese-eating laser beams home | 08/14/20 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 14th, 2020 12:41 PM Author: 180 parlour Not flame
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/6d809a9cc6fddb883f29559e63a83234/94d604dc/DuncanvBecerraOpinion.pdf |
Date: August 14th, 2020 12:43 PM Author: Ebony Supple Athletic Conference Brunch We need this to be done in NY. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4603695&forum_id=2#40755802) |
|
Date: August 14th, 2020 12:46 PM Author: Amethyst coffee pot dopamine trump has put a ton of his guys on the 9th circuit. it's almost 50-50 gop/dem nominees (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4603695&forum_id=2#40755820) |
|
Date: August 14th, 2020 1:06 PM Author: 180 parlour (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4603695&forum_id=2#40755893) |
|
Date: August 14th, 2020 1:14 PM Author: cobalt candlestick maker The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second Amendment protection. Proceeding to prong two of the inquiry, the panel held that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply. First, the panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home. Second, the panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights. Third, the panel held that decisions in other circuits were distinguishable. Fourth, the panel held that this circuit’s decision in Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015), did not obligate the panel to apply intermediate scrutiny.
The panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 did not survive strict scrutiny review. First, the panel held that the state interests advanced here were compelling: preventing and mitigating gun violence. Second, the panel held that Section 32310 was not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interests it purported to serve because the state’s chosen method – a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone – was not the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling interests. The panel held that even if intermediate scrutiny were to apply, Cal. Penal Code § 32310 would still fail. The panel held that while the interests expressed by the state qualified as “important,” the means chosen to advance those interests were not substantially related to their service. |
|
Date: August 14th, 2020 1:16 PM Author: sooty locale faggotry Reminder that “constitutional law” is pure flame and bullshit. It’s pure politics (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4603695&forum_id=2#40755932) |
 |
Date: August 14th, 2020 1:16 PM Author: cobalt candlestick maker These are common sense observations, right?
Second, the panel held that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second Amendment protection. |
|
Date: August 14th, 2020 1:34 PM Author: arousing crusty set (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4603695&forum_id=2#40756043) |
|
Date: August 14th, 2020 1:34 PM Author: gold cheese-eating laser beams home Judge who wrote the decision is a possible SCOTUS pick (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4603695&forum_id=2#40756046) |