Other State California's Mag Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[Diamondback]

Very cool. Might it be our first gun case before kavanaugh?

Don't bet the wagon on Roberts's pet sausage-remora...

 

[L84Cabo]

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.

It sure reads like it applies to acquisition.

And yes, the odds are good that it will be appealed. Although they may not do that. An appeal would most likely send this to SCOTUS...and a rendering by SCOTUS would apply to the entire country. They many not be willing to risk that now with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

But what is most interesting is what this may mean right this second. If high caps are once again legal in the state of CA right this second, it means the entire state could unblock their 10 rounders legally...even if on Monday an injunction gets issued. If nothing else that is a giant F.U. to the anti gunners in Ca. That alone is is priceless.

And a temporary shortage on mags would be a very small price to pay here. The market would recover in 3-6 months (probably). The overall win would be huge to the 2A cause.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

I just got to the part where he rips the AG a new one. Lol.

Top law enforcement officer for CA, submits mother Jones articles instead of police reports. So much win.

 

[JuglansRegia]

Well, if Californias can buy standard capacity magazines again, expect shortages for a minute

 

[L84Cabo]

I just got to the part where he rips the AG a new one. Lol.

Top law enforcement officer for CA, submits mother Jones articles instead of police reports. So much win.

I know. It's absolutely beautiful! And astounding that an attorney general would base his legal opinion/case on a Mother Jones article. The stupidity as well as the blatant contempt for our rights and the Constitution is just staggering.

 

[L84Cabo]

So much winning.

California has deemed large-capacity magazines to be a nuisance. See Cal. Pen. Code § 32390. That designation is dubious. The Supreme Court recognized a decade before Heller, "[g]uns in general are not 'deleterious devices or products or obnoxiouswaste materials.'" Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 610 (1994) (citation omitted). Casting a common sized firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds as a nuisance, as a way around the Second Amendment, is like banning a book as a nuisance, as a way around the First Amendment. It conjures up images from Ray Bradbury'snovel, Fahrenheit 451, of firemen setting books on fire, or in this case policemen setting magazines on fire.

 

[awshoot]

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.

NBC has it, including that it would invalidate the ban in total: Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns

and a slew of others:
Judge blocks California's high-capacity ammunition ban
Judge blocks California's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds
Prop. 63: Federal judge declares California's ban on high-capacity gun magazines unconstitutional

and more. It's a real decision. Forget about what gets taken down in the FB echo chamber. That means nothing.

 

[awshoot]

Well, if Californias can buy standard capacity magazines again, expect shortages for a minute

I won't begrudge them their mags. Someone should set up a charity to give them away (to firearm owners of course). I'd donate to that.

 

[Diamondback]

I won't begrudge them their mags. Someone should set up a charity to give them away (to firearm owners of course). I'd donate to that.

I'll throw in six Hexmags.

 

[L84Cabo]

The judge hit everything!

On page 81 begins the discussion on "Taking." The notion that the ban essentially deprives California residents of a legally purchased item without any type of compensation by the government.

Here, California will deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of property rights. Of course, a taking of one stick is not necessarily a taking of the whole bundle. Murr, 137 S. Ct. at1952 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) ("Where an owner possesses a full 'bundle' of propertyrights, the destruction of one strand of the bundle is not a taking, because the aggregatemust be viewed in its entirety."). Nevertheless, whatever expectations people may have regarding property regulations, they "do not expect their property, real or personal, to be actually occupied or taken away." Horne, 135 S. Ct. at 2427. Thus, whatever might be the State's authority to ban the sale or use of magazines over 10 rounds, the Takings Clause prevents it from compelling the physical dispossession of such lawfully-acquired private property without just compensation.

 

[leadcounsel]

This is great news!

 

[awshoot]

I just started reading and realized I'd seen surveillance video of the 2nd incident mentioned in the ruling:

 

[L84Cabo]

Aaaaand the beautiful conclusion!

I love how he explains it's rejected under both intermediate and strict scrutiny. He's going to make the appeals court really work to come up with justification for overturning the decision.

And it's the 9th so I'm sure they'll come up with something. But at least it won't be easy for them.

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms." California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that law- abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits law- abiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.68

Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuineissue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgmentis granted.69 California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.

 

[L84Cabo]

I just started reading and realized I'd seen surveillance video of the 2nd incident mentioned in the ruling:

Yes, that one was pretty recent. Even that mother with the six shot revolver wasn't that long ago...2-3 years maybe.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

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

Anyone up for a poetry reading using excerpts from this document?

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Yeah just finished

For the most part it was pretty good including the part at the end when he orders "enjoinment" for the AG and other officers in the state. (Hey ma I learned a new word).

I will say though the bit in there when he sets down a blueprint for what restrictions "might" be acceptable made me cringe a little as did the part where he said "clip" a few times.

I'm looking forward to reading more judges at the federal level. I learned a lot of history there I didn't know. My wife even read a book on the Lewis and Clark expedition and had no idea they carried that many rounds.

They tend to delve into history and I get little bits along the way of their findings I learn. I also read Scalia's opinion in DC vs Heller and it was pretty historically enlightening as well.

 

[L84Cabo]

Yeah just finished

For the most part it was pretty good including the part at the end when he orders "enjoinment" for the AG and other officers in the state. (Hey ma I learned a new word).

I will say though the bit in there when he sets down a blueprint for what restrictions "might" be acceptable made me cringe a little as did the part where he said "clip" a few times.

I'm looking forward to reading more judges at the federal level. I learned a lot of history there I didn't know. My wife even read a book on the Lewis and Clark expedition and had no idea they carried that many rounds.

They tend to delve into history and I get little bits along the way of their findings I learn. I also read Scalia's opinion in DC vs Heller and it was pretty historically enlightening as well.

Did he himself ever use the word "clip?" It seemed like he was mostly quoting other sources but I may have missed something.

 

[User 1234]

How many thousand liberal tax-and-ban activists are looking through this judge's kindergarten yearbooks right now for evidence that he gave out valentines in an inequitable fashion?

 

[GWS]

This is outstanding news. I commend Judge Benitez on his loyalty to the Constitution and his thoroughness in dismantling this onerous law.
Well done, your honor!

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Did he himself ever use the word "clip?" It seemed like he was mostly quoting other sources but I may have missed something.

That may have been the case the quotes and commentary kind of blurred together in spots in there.