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. First, the panel held that the state interests advanced here were compelling: preventing and mitigating gun violence. Penal Code § 32310 did not survive strict scrutiny review. 2015), did not obligate the panel to apply intermediate scrutiny. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. Fourth, the panel held that this circuit’s decision in Fyock v. Third, the panel held that decisions in other circuits were distinguishable. Second, the panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights. Penal Code § 32310 struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home. ( ORDER HERE.)įirst, the panel held that Cal. WHAT HAPPENED: Today, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed (by a 2-1 vote) a federal district court's ruling that so-called "large capacity" magazines are protected by the Second Amendment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |