Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
(Reuters) -A federal judge in California on Friday declared that state's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition unconstitutional, saying it violated the Second Amendment ...
Berzon wrote a 44-page concurring opinion in Duncan v. Bonta, a major 2nd amendment case challenging a law that limits gun magazine capacity to 10 bullets. [36] Berzon's concurrence went through the history of firearms and explained what a judge's role should be.
In Duncan v. Becerra and Rhode v. Becerra, he struck down portions of 2016 California Proposition 63 that prohibited possession of high-capacity magazines and required background checks for ammunition purchases, respectively. The state appealed both decisions; [7] the ruling in Duncan v. Bonta was reversed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of ...
One of these dissents was in Duncan v. Bonta , a challenge to a California law that limits gun magazine capacity to 10 bullets. The en banc panel upheld the law, and VanDyke accused the majority of "distrust[ing] gun owners and think[ing] the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution" and having an "undefeated, 50–0 ...
In March 2019, in the case Duncan v. Becerra (currently Duncan v. Bonta), [ 7 ] the Federal District Court stayed enforcement of the new law as the state failed to show how this law didn't violate the Second Amendment or the property rights of owners of previously legal goods.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta , 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations . The case challenged California's requirement that non-profit organizations disclose the identity of their donors to the state's Attorney General as a precondition of ...
574 U.S. 1 Decided October 6, 2014. Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, if a state prisoner claims that a state court misapplied federal law, a federal court of appeals may only grant habeas relief if the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as ...