Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by tkdguy, Mar 29, 2019.
NRA-ILA | Breaking! Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment
Very cool. Might it be our first gun case before kavanaugh?
Folks this is huge! This is a District Court turning the notion of limiting magazine size...like Oregon trying to limit mags to 5 rounds...on its ear.
Below is a link to the decision which was written by Justice Roger T Benitez. It's 86 pages and I'm still reading through it but it's pretty much a work of art. It is one of the most coherent, intelligent, factual and eloquent gun control take downs I've read in a long time.
And I'm no legal expert, but it sure looks like it applies to the acquisition of new magazines. Meaning, up until now, people in CA have been prohibited from buying mags over 10 rounds. But after this ruling they should be able to...if it stands.
But with that said, don't go getting any hopes up just yet. This is the 9th District Court and you can just about bet that the CORRUPT 9th will overturn this on appeal. Which likely means this is bound for SCOTUS. It is, however, incredibly good and positive news!
Does this mean, After you pass your background check to purchase your Ammo from Walmart . You can fill your Magazine to top ???
Now it goes to the 9th circus
And when it gets to the USSC if we're not betrayed by Roberts the ruling will be applied nationwide. That's what we can hope for. And maybe Ginsburg will be gone by then and we'll have a lock on it.
Awesome I have reading material for tonight while my wife watches game shows.
Things are getting INTERESTING!
Here is the order from Judge Benitez. At this point in time it would appear that the previous restriction on high/standard capacity magazines in California is dead. Now there may be a subsequent injunction coming from the court so that this ruling can be appealed. But right this second, it appears legal in California to buy, possess, and unblock any high capacity magazines. And you can bet that many Californians want and will take advantage of this reprieve. Stack high and deep as the saying goes.
And note, I'm not an attorney so if any of you do happen to be in CA, proceed with caution...and monitor Calguns for how this all plays out. Hopefully Chuck Michele (the attorney who tried this case and is a Calguns member) will post shortly on what exactly this means and what is permissible.
To be clear, PC 32310 is dead in it's entirety:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order,or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise,actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
DATED: March 29, 2019
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge
There are reports that Brownell's legal team is reviewing the decision to see if they can begin selling STANDARD capacity mags to California.
FYI: This NRA-IlA post that the California magazine ban was posted on FB under Oregon Firearms Advocates about 90 minutes or more ago, and the post has been taken down. I just posted my concern asking what happened to the NRQA-ILA notice with that question. Seems very odd that the California ban was just ruled unconstitutional and the notice was taken down.
Better than nothing but will get overturned by the ninth.
Well the folks in California need to challenge the Ammo BGC rule too. Same judge, Similar result. So far GOOD NEWS!
My personal ramblings......
The issue here as we all may see it, is the lack of a provision for these capacity magazines. This is a dangerous line that can be expanded.
This is a good part, where the magazines are considered arms and therefor protected under the 2nd Amendment. It is good to establish, but the downside is this opens the door to the same type of ownership requirements for magazines as firearms are. See the issue?
The establishment of ‘common use’ of the AR-15 is established and that their ‘common use’ magazines are of 30 rounds. This is good.
This is good, it shows the same protections apply to muskets as the newest types.
Good to show cause and historical context.
Reenforces that there are and were higher capacity firearms during the time of the Bill of Rights and importantly the 2nd Amendment.
--- and I stopped at page 30 for the moment
Just posted this notice on the Cali Ban Ruled Unconstitutional over at FB; let's see if it is taken down; again.
I do not see the Cali Ban appearing on Fox News or other big name news stations.
While that is true, there is a deep understanding by this Judge and it's evident in his ruling.
The work is being done to later be setup for a Supreme Court showdown.
It is also to note that this does and will apply to Oregon as well when they pass the same type of ban. It is not 'if' they do, it is 'when' they do it.
The judge literally said this in his decision and he literally titled the section "Irony!"
This is freaking beautiful! Talk about a scathing rebuke of the moron AG of California (Becerra).
I got a lol here:
"Nothing in the Second Amendment
makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is
assumed. The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down
pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous"
Right!? The judge is awesome!
The other positive is the opportunity to test a revamped 9th. I believe Mr. Trump has 6 vacancies to fill (at least there were as of Jan). If all goes well, at the least there will be a positive legacy.
This is a trial court ruling, so it is not binding on other courts regardless of whether they are within the 9th Circuit. It is very likely to be overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals either on procedural grounds (this new ruling was won on summary judgment; equivalent to hitting a home run from the on deck circle) or on the merits. I have not read the full opinion but it might apply only to possession and not acquisition. If it applies to both expect all online vendors to be sold out of mags for months.