JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
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! :)


http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...12fQ-TqLJPWXleE7ieEOj6P2hguw6ohYp3SXJB1hR_ASo
 
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! :)


http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...12fQ-TqLJPWXleE7ieEOj6P2hguw6ohYp3SXJB1hR_ASo
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
My personal ramblings......

Page 13, lines 14-15

According to the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning, acquiring, possessing, or storing a commonly-owned 15-round magazine at home for self-defense is protected at the core of the Second Amendment. Possessing a loaded 100-round rifle and magazine in a crowded public area may not be.
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.

Page 16, lines 19-24

Because magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines are 'arms' within the meaning of the Second Amendment.") (citations omitted). Consequently, the same analytical approach ought to be applied to both firearms and the ammunition magazines designed to make firearms function.
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?

Page 20, Lines 18-21

Over the last three decades, one of the most popular civilian rifles in America is the much maligned AR-15 style rifle. Manufactured with various characteristics by numerous companies, it is estimated that more than five million have been bought since the 1980s. These rifles are typically sold with 30-round magazines.
The establishment of 'common use' of the AR-15 is established and that their 'common use' magazines are of 30 rounds. This is good.

Page 21, lines 10-12

Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun's lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed.
This is good, it shows the same protections apply to muskets as the newest types.

Page 26, lines 6-13

In addition to their usefulness for self-defense in the home, of course, larger capacity magazines are also lawful arms from home with which militia members would report for duty. Consequently, possession of a larger capacity magazine is also categorically protected by the Second Amendment under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). "Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying 'the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,' and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon's suitability for military use.'"
Good to show cause and historical context.

Page 28, lines 14-16

Yet, despite the existence of arms with large firing-capacity during the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, more than a century passed before a firing-capacity law was passed.
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.
 
Last Edited:
Better than nothing but will get overturned by the ninth.
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). :D:D

Irony

Perhaps the irony of § 32310 escapes notice. The reason for the adoption of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an oppressive state. The anti-federalists were worried about the risk of oppression by a standing army. The colonies had witnessed the standing army of England marching through Lexington to Concord, Massachusetts, on a mission to seize the arms and gunpowder of the militia and the Minutemen—an attack that ignited the Revolutionary war. With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.
 
Last Edited:
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"
 
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.
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top