Not sure if the 9th is next for this case. Besides, Trump recently appointed some new blood to that circuit and its not the lefty slam dunk it used to be. I read about a year ago that despite its reputation, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is actually much more left-leaning. And that's the one that handled 'Heller" on its way to SCOTUS.
As for the California magazine restriction case, Calif AG Javier Becerra (remember that name, he'll run for President someday) will certainly ask for a stay of the injunction pending appeal. So its not over.
The root of the case is fairly simple. The anti-gunners arbitrarily chose 10 rounds as their limit and started referring to anything larger as "high capacity" and deemed them unnecessary for use by civilians. Under the Constitution you can't just enact laws based on arbitrary numbers. Had the gun grabbers done some kind of scientific/statistical study concluding that more crimes were committed by users of 10+ round magazines and that lawful civilian shootings in cases of self-defense never reached the 10-shot threshold, the magazine ban would be harder to overturn. But instead they plucked the number '10' out of a hat and decided that's where they'd draw a line.
I left the PRK five years ago and really don't miss it. But thanks to the overwhelmingly leftist mentality there I became very familiar with gun laws. Every gun show I ever went to in that state had seminars and other such presentations hosted by gun lawyers and such, helping to educate California gun owners as to what was legal and what wasn't. One big problem is that the cops don't get very good information on gun laws. Over on www.Calguns.net they often report cases where guns and/or related items were confiscated improperly by cops who didn't know the law and believed something to be illegal. In such cases the law abiding gun owner has to go through a crapload of red tape to get his property back, even though it was seized improperly. That's the nature of Kalifornia oppression. I'm very glad I left.
Good stuff there, but to think real data has anything to do with any law is mistaken.
When Indiana was working on the drunk driving alcohol levels, I called my state senator, I asked a simple question that should have been the ONLY data considered, how many DD accidents and fatalities were there involving DD that were under the former .1 level and above the .08 level that was proposed at the time. From that data a rational discussion could begin as to the level society wanted. Tha data was not even available nor created for the discussion.