One of California's new gun regulations got another setback in court Tuesday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld an injunction on a law restricting gun magazines to 10 bullets. The injunction stemmed from a case in San Diego filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association an affiliate of the National Rifle Association. The law was supposed to go into effect last July. Joining me is Dan Eaton legal analyst and attorney with Selsor Kaplan Rick and Witek in San Diego and Dan welcome back. Thank you Maureen. Good to be with you again. Now this is a law intended to ban high capacity gun magazines. Tell us what the law says and what the argument is against it. The law bans as of July 1st 2017. The mere possession of magazines as you said in the opening holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition it requires that people who do hold those either sell them to a licensed firearm dealer dealer surrender them to law enforcement or take them out of state. And what these people said those who are challenging a group of San Diego County residents including at least two veterans said was that look this burdens our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and also constitutes a taking that violates the Fifth Amendment that prohibits the government from taking property without just compensation. Why did the San Diego judge issue a preliminary injunction in the first place. There was a likelihood that the plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit were likely to prevail on the merits. Well he said that this was a burden. There wasn't a reasonable fit between the state's interest and requiring the turning over of these high capacity magazines the state identified for interest protecting citizens from gun violence to protecting law enforcement from gun violence. Protecting the public safety and preventing crime. And what Judge Vernita said Athens order granting the preliminary injunction was that there wasn't a reasonable fit between this law and those interests. So what does this ruling from the 9th Circuit mean does it mean that they agree with what the San Diego judge said. No. All in all the 9th Circuit did was decide whether Judge Benito's abused his discretion in applying the relevant legal test in deciding that there was a likelihood the plaintiffs were going to win this lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit said no he didn't abuse his discretion. So we're going to send it back. So the case King continue. There was a dissent in this case. What did that say. The dissenting judge was a San Diego judge Clifford Wallace a longtime member of the 9th Circuit incredibly respected member of the court and he said Look judge Bonitas just applied the wrong test in deciding there wasn't a reasonable fit between the state interest and this particular law. He said the state had amassed a wealth of evidence talking about how this law would prevent the lethality of mass shootings and the judge just got it wrong by applying the wrong test and putting the state to two higher burdens. This doesn't decide the ultimate question on the merits that will have to wait for another day. What happens now where are we in this litigation process. I actually looked at the docket on the sand where we are right now is that the motion for summary judgment that was heard by Judge minidisc on May 10 and he heard that and what he did was he ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs. Those are now before the judge and the judge could very well decide that you don't need a trial that as a matter of law and undisputed evidence the plaintiffs win this case there's too great a burden on their second amendment rights and this constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment one or both of those grounds. And you could decide other constitutional issues that weren't part of the preliminary injunction. Just one more question about this case. There was a decision in 2015 that upheld a similar law restricting gun magazine capacity in Sunnyvale. What's the difference in that case. Well of course Sunnyvale is a densely populated urban area and the issue here was of course the ability to have these magazines in rural areas that are not so densely populated as you know San Diego has a wide swath of areas that are not very densely populated and that's a different of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence and if you're called into action for militia is enshrined under the Second Amendment and judgment it is just decided under these facts under the circumstances the state's law went too far. In another courtroom there has been an extraordinary legal skirmish between the Los Angeles Times and a federal judge over material the Times published about a Glendale police officer. Can you tell us what happened in that case. Sure the case involved a Glendale police officer who allegedly cooperated with the Mexican Mafia and was brought on criminal charges. The judge basically said to the L.A. Times they had to delete information that was already published that gave details of this law enforcement officers a plea agreement. And the judge said this could jeopardize his life because it talked about him being willing to cooperate with law enforcement going forward. The L.A. Times challenged that on First Amendment grounds. Why did the judge say he ordered the times to remove information from the published article. It seems an unusual thing to do in issuing the order. The judge was concerned that the law enforcement officers life would be in danger from the details of the plea agreement so he ordered the L.A. Times to take down this material that had already been published. After it was in the public domain. Very very unusual. And as it turns out probably unconstitutional as the judge recognized yesterday what was the L.A. Times position the L.A. Times position was you can't do that for published information you cannot restrain the press that way in information that is published that the newspaper got from whatever source as it turns out the judge determined that the L.A. Times had gotten that information lawfully it actually had been accidentally put online for a day and a half. But regardless the L.A. Times said We have a right to publish it. The public has a right to know and you cannot make us delete this information by vacating his order. The judge agreed. Is this even a question though I mean can newspaper be lawfully ordered to remove information. Generally not. I'm not going to say that what the judge did was unlawful. But it appears that he recognized that it was mistaken understand that the L.A. Times wasn't the only one to challenge this order. There were a broad number dozens of news organizations that joined the L.A. Times in challenging this and ultimately were successful because this is very very rare and arguably contrary to Supreme Court precedent going back decades. I've been speaking with Attorney Dan Eaton and Dan thank you so much. Thank you Maureen.
California's law restricting gun magazines to 10 bullets was to go into effect in July 2017.
It was delayed first when U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego granted a preliminary injunction until a lawsuit by gun owners (Duncan v. Becerra) made its way through the courts.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delayed it further, upholding Benitez' injunction in a 2-1 ruling. The law cannot go into effect until the litigation process reaches its end, perhaps in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The San Diego Union Tribunes reported a 2015 ruling on a similar magazine restriction in the Bay Area city of Sunnyvale upheld that law. But Sunnyvale is a densely populated city in Silicon Valley whereas San Diego and Imperial counties have vast backcountry areas.
Los Angeles Time Succeeds In Court Challenge
And a First Amendment case in Los Angeles has captured the attention of journalists and legal scholars.
On Tuesday U.S. District Judge John F. Walter lifted his order requiring the Los Angeles Times to remove information in an already-published article about a former Glendale police detective accused of working with the Mexican Mafia.
The judge had issued the order on Saturday after the Times published information on its website about a plea agreement between prosecutors and the detective. The agreement was mistakenly published in a court database of documents accessible to the public and was available for 31 hours.
After the Times challenged the order, Walter said he didn't know whether the newspaper had legally obtained the agreement, but found it had. He lifted his order.
Journalists and legal scholars noted that the judge's actions were highly unusual and likely unconstitutional.
