The response from the City of Sunnyvale to the Supreme Court can be found here. TL;DR there’s no exigent circumstance here, and there’s no right to have a magazine holding more than ten rounds anyway. They say that at least one applicant is already storing his magazines outside of town, and that this shouldn’t be a problem for other applicants.
Applicants are merely attempting toÂ circumvent the appeals process by asking this Court to prejudge the very issuesÂ that are now before the Ninth Circuit in this appeal.
They also note that no lower court has found for a right to keep and bear magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Every court that has considered the constitutionality of a ban on LCMs, includingÂ the D.C. Circuit, has applied intermediate scrutiny and held that such a ban doesÂ not violate the Second Amendment. See Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3dÂ 1244, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 2011); San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Assâ€™n v. City &Â Cnty. of San Francisco, C-13-05351 WHA, 2014 WL 644395, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb.Â 19, 2014); New York State Rifle & Pistol Assâ€™n, Inc. v. Cuomo, C-13-291S, 2013 WL6909955, at *18 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2013); Shew v. Malloy, C-13-739 AVC, 2014 WL346859, at *9 (D. Conn. Jan. 30, 2014); Tardy v. Oâ€™Malley, C-13-2861, TRO Hrâ€™g Tr.,at 66-71 (D. Md. Oct. 1, 2013).3
And after all, all courts agree that the Second Amendment is a Second Class Right:
Since this Court recognized the Second Amendment right to keep andÂ bear arms, the Circuits have adopted a careful and measured approach to theÂ various gun control ordinances they have evaluated, deciding each case on itsÂ merits and avoiding broad pronouncements that would up-end the development ofÂ Second Amendment jurisprudence. In keeping with this careful approach, aÂ consensus has emerged in the Circuits that while severe restrictions on the right toÂ keep and bear arms either fail categorically without regard to their justifications orÂ fail strict scrutiny, more modest burdens that permit armed self-defense but onlyÂ regulate the exercise of that right are subject to less demanding scrutiny.
The response drips with disdain for the Second Amendment, and for the rights of gun owners. I hope the Court can help us out here with an injunction, but I’d be a liar if I said I was optimistic.
UPDATE: The motion was denied without comment. There’s not too much in the way of tea leaves to read here.