Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Three Clinton Appointed Judges Uphold Sunnyvale Mag Ban

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the City of Sunnyvale, California was within its rights to ban magazines with greater than 10-round capacity. The case, Fyock v. Sunnyvale, was an appeal by the plaintiffs from the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The three judges on the case - Michael Daly Hawkins, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and District Court Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn - were all appointed by President Bill Clinton.

From the case summary:
The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a request to preliminarily enjoin an ordinance enacted by the City of Sunnyvale, California, restricting the possession of “large capacity magazines” statutorily defined as a detachable ammunition feeding device capable of accepting more than ten rounds.

The panel held that the district court applied the appropriate legal principles and did not clearly err in finding, based on the record before it, that a regulation restricting possession of certain types of magazines burdened conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment. The panel further agreed with the district court that intermediate scrutiny was appropriate. The panel held that Sunnyvale’s interests in promoting public safety and reducing violent crime were substantial and important government interests. So, too, were Sunnyvale’s interests in reducing the harm and lethality of gun injuries in general, and in particular as against law enforcement officers. The panel held that the evidence identified by the district court was precisely the type of evidence that Sunnyvale was permitted to rely upon to substantiate its interest. The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining, on the record before it, that Sunnyvale presented sufficient evidence to show that the ordinance was likely to survive intermediate scrutiny and that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would likely succeed on the merits of their claim.
The Sunnyvale ban was not merely a ban on sale but a ban on possession of standard capacity magazines.

Amicus briefs on the plaintiffs' behalf included briefs from the NSSF, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the Pink Pistols, and the Gun Owners of California.

Those supporting Sunnyvale included the usual coterie of gun prohibitionists including the Brady Center, Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sic) (formerly LCAV), and the Cities of LA and San Francisco.


  1. LOL. I a bolt-action rifle at a sporting goods store in Sunnyvale -- in the late 90's -- and walked the three blocks back to my apartment. Open unloaded carry was the law and everybody knew it. Old rifles and shotguns were on sale in legal point-to-point purchases at the Sunnyvale Antique Show every year. Guns were fine, as long as you didn't look like a loonie and start pointing them at people.

    It's not like the rich heart of Silicon Valley has become a cesspit of gun-related violence. This is just more blue-state fascists burnishing their street cred in front of their own kind.

  2. That just sucks... I lived there in the 70s and again in the 80s. Fun, er... Gun shows were popular, and there were a number of good gun stores in Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

  3. That just sucks... I lived there in the 70s and again in the 80s. Fun, er... Gun shows were popular, and there were a number of good gun stores in Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

  4. So, how about the next city ban with a magazine limit of one (1) round in Berkeley to occur in

    A right restricted (or delayed) is a right destroyed (i.e. infringed). Congrats you Clinton pukes.
    I recommend horse-whipping these three black-robed imbecilic tyrants into a coma.
    When they wake up, slap them silly with a copy of the Constitution.