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.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!
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
This is good, it shows the same protections apply to muskets as the newest types.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.
Good to show cause and historical context.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.’”
Reenforces that there are and were higher capacity firearms during the time of the Bill of Rights and importantly the 2nd Amendment.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.
While that is true, there is a deep understanding by this Judge and it's evident in his ruling.Better than nothing but will get overturned by the ninth.
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.
Right!? The judge is awesome!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"