Habeas case: James v. Woodford, United States District Court, C.D. California, Docket No. No. CV 06-2882-AHM(E), just popped up in my automated searches: 2007 WL 9733801.
See also Duncan v. Becerra, also out of CA:
"The State of California (“California”), through its Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, appeals the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining California from enforcing California Penal Code §§ 32310(c) & (d) [prohibiting 'high capacity' magazines] . . . . . The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Second Amendment grounds. Thalheimer, 645 F.3d 1109 at 1115. . . . .
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. . . . Second, it did not exceed its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon “that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” . . . . ; and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the magazine for a weapon, Jackson, 746 F.3d at 967 (“ ‘[T]he right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right’ to obtain the bullets necessary to use them.” (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) ) ).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the incorrect level of scrutiny. The district court applied both intermediate scrutiny and what it coined the “simple test” of Heller. The district court found Plaintiffs were likely to succeed under either analysis. Although the district court applied two different tests, there is no reversible error if one of those tests follows the applicable legal principles and the district court ultimately reaches the same conclusion in both analyses.
Here, in its intermediate scrutiny analysis, the district court correctly applied the two-part test outlined in Jackson. The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a “historical pedigree.” Next, the district court concluded, citing Fyock, that section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment right, but, citing Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 . . . . that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate scrutiny level. The district court concluded that California had identified four “important” interests and reasoned that the proper question was “whether the dispossession and criminalization components of [section] 32310’s ban on firearm magazines holding any more than 10 rounds is a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals.”
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that sections 32310(c) and (d) did not survive intermediate scrutiny. The district court’s review of the evidence included numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence, as well as repeated credibility determinations. Ultimately, the district court concluded that section 32310 is “not likely to be a reasonable fit.” California articulates no actual error made by the district court, but, rather, multiple instances where it disagrees with the district court’s conclusion or analysis regarding certain pieces of evidence. This is insufficient to establish that the district court’s findings of fact and its application of the legal standard to those facts were “illogical, *222 implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.” . . . .
2 The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Takings Clause grounds. Thalheimer, 645 F.3d at 1115. First, the district court, . . . . outlined the correct legal principles. Second, the district court did not exceed its discretion by concluding (1) that the three options provided in section 32310(d) (surrender, removal, or sale) fundamentally “deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of property rights”; and (2) that California could not use the police power to avoid compensation, . . . .
AFFIRMED."
Duncan v. Becerra, 742 F. App'x 218, 220–22 (9th Cir. 2018)
On the other hand, see Wiese v. Becerra, from the E.D. of CA:
"This case concerns a challenge to California's prohibition on the possession of gun magazines that can hold more than ten bullets, or “large capacity” magazines (“LCM”). Although California had banned the purchase, sale, transfer, receipt, or manufacture of such magazines since 2000, it did not ban the possession of these magazines. Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2015). In effect, Californians were allowed to keep large capacity magazines they had obtained prior to 2000, but no one, with a few exceptions such as law enforcement officers, has been allowed to obtain new large capacity magazines since 2000.: Wiese v. Becerra, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1194 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
"Here, as discussed in the court's prior order, intermediate scrutiny is appropriate because “the prohibition of ...large capacity magazines does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.” See Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1262; Fyock, 779 F.3d at 999 (quoting Heller II). The ban may implicate the core of the Second Amendment because it restricts the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess large capacity magazines within their homes for self-defense. See Fyock, 779 F.3d at 999. However, the ban “does not affect the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess the ‘quintessential self-defense weapon’—the handgun. Rather, [it] restricts possession of only a subset of magazines that are over a certain capacity.” Id. . . . ."Wiese v. Becerra, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1196 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
"Thus, notwithstanding plaintiffs' allegations that the ban will not in fact reduce the incidence and harm of mass shootings, California's stated interest of reducing the incidence and harm of mass shootings “would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation,” Fyock, 779 F.3d at 1000, and there is a reasonable fit between the ban and California's important objectives. Because of this reasonable fit, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the large capacity magazine ban fails intermediate scrutiny, and the court will dismiss the Second Amendment claim. . . . ." Wiese v. Becerra, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1197 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
(Clearly, I got a bee in my bonnet about this thread today.)
