Other State California's Mag Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[JustShoot]

There are reports that Brownell's legal team is reviewing the decision to see if they can begin selling STANDARD capacity mags to California.

-
Don't know about Brownells , But Cheaper Than Dirt will be 1st for sure to fill orders, @ 100-$ each for Pmags like they did in the past .
-

-

 

[etrain16]

Good to hear this news, not just for the ruling itself, but the depth to which this judge qualified his ruling. I suspect the information he provided in his ruling will be used to help build other cases against such infringements. Really hoping this CA ruling can become the basis of positive action for gun rights around the country. If they can uphold the unconstitutionality of magazine capacity all the way to SCOTUS, man, that would be something.

 

[awshoot]

Footnote 25 is great:

Here is an example of the way in which the state's firearm laws are so complex as to obfuscate the Second Amendment rights of a citizen who intends to abide by the law. ...
...
[demonstrates how byzantine CA laws are on mags]
...
It is enough to make an angel swear. Suffice it to say that either the law-abiding hunter returning home with a 30-round rifle magazine, or the resident that receives from another a 15-round pistol magazine, or the enthusiast who makes a 12-round magazine out of a 10-round magazine, may be charged not with a minor infraction but with a felony. And perhaps not ironically, conviction as a felon carries with it the complete forfeiture of Second Amendment rights for a lifetime. For Second Amendment rights, statutory complexity of this sort extirpates as it obfuscates. And in the doing, it violates a person's constitutional right to due process. "[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law." ...

 

[awshoot]

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?

Beverage through the nose moment. ;-)

 

[awshoot]

Hardware test (forget scrutiny levels -- wow!):

[discussing Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II] ("In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny."). It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are "yes," the test is over. The hardware is protected.

 

[Geardo]

I already told friends I would ship them some mags the second we all agree it is legal.

 

[tkdguy]

Unbelievable. The original NRA-ILA announcement reporting the Cali Ban Unconstitutional over at FB Oregon Firearms Advocates was taken down, then, I posted and re-posted; and it appeared once, then, taken down, and then, the last time waiting approval; but not available for the readers. What gives?

 

[L84Cabo]

Unbelievable. The original NRA-ILA announcement reporting the Cali Ban Unconstitutional over at FB Oregon Firearms Advocates was taken down, then, I posted and re-posted; and it appeared once, then, taken down, and then, the last time waiting approval; but not available for the readers. What gives?

I'm not familiar with this group. Why would they take it down? If their firearms advocates, this would would good news for Oregon. WTF?

 

[tkdguy]

Maybe FB is not publishing the news?

 

[User 1234]

I doubt FB wants to allow any pro NRA or pro 2A broadcasting.

 

[awshoot]

Unbelievable. The original NRA-ILA announcement reporting the Cali Ban Unconstitutional over at FB Oregon Firearms Advocates was taken down, then, I posted and re-posted; and it appeared once, then, taken down, and then, the last time waiting approval; but not available for the readers. What gives?

The sooner you quit using FB, not only will your life be better, the sooner FB goes away and takes its echo chamber with it.

 

[Geardo]

Mutiple websites are shipping right now!

 

[Open_Wire]

I peeked on CalGuns, it's awesome to watch them get excited and basically buy every mag over ten rounds in the country LOL

 

[4Freedom]

Wow, I don't know what to say.. But, it is not every day that I actually read good news in California. Looks like we have a judge who actually believes that document most politicaisn think is outdated (its called the Constitution) actually still has some meaning and should dictate the laws of our land. It's good to know there is still a drop of justice left in this country and congratulations to those in California who support the 2nd Amendment and now have had some of their rights restored from the unconstitutional fascist decrees being imposed by the invaders who call themselves politicians in that states. If California spent as much time protecting its criminals and illegals and persecuting law abiding citizens , it actually may become a great place to live once again.

I also want to give my respects to Judge Roger Benitez. I cannot imagine it is easy being a pro-Constitution judge in a draconian police state like California. This guy definitely will be facing the wrath of his less enlightened peers.

So my message to my fellow American gun-owning citizens in California, congratulations and go buy yourself some high capacity magazines!!

It does appear that the state of California may appeal to the US Supreme Court. But, the state of California also may be terrified to have their unconstitutional gun laws challenged in Supreme Court. We saw how that worked out for Illinois and Washington DC. So, it will be interesting to see how things go from here .


Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns

 

[Flymph]

Is this because of the detatchable part or on the limit of 10 rounds as a whole?

Hopefully this will continue in our favor, and finally prove in our favor before the supreme court.

 

[4Freedom]

Is this because of the detatchable part or on the limit of 10 rounds as a whole?

Hopefully this will continue in our favor, and finally prove in our favor before the supreme court.

According to the article, the judge struck down the ban because he said it violated the 2nd Amendment and was unconstitutional. He cited cases of where there were women who were limited to 10 round magazines and ran out of ammunition while taking on multiple attackers in a home invasion. He also cited an instance, where a woman successfully defended herself against multiple attackers using a high capacity magazine and needed to use the extra ammunition to defend her life. Basically, he just made the ban on high capacity magazines null and void, altogether. I don't see any references to the detachable or bullet button laws in the article.

 

[Flymph]

I just ask because a detachable magazine is commonly used, so it would seem that it implies to those as well.

 

[GWS]

Is this because of the detatchable part or on the limit of 10 rounds as a whole?

Hopefully this will continue in our favor, and finally prove in our favor before the supreme court.

Yep This is all about detachable magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, though fixed magazines were also limited to 10 rounds of centerfire ammo as well.
Watch for the spike in magazine prices online.

 

[4Freedom]

Hopefully, this excerpt taking out of the article I posted in the link of the original post , should answer that question:

Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.

In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone.

"She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.

He ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "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."

 

[Flymph]

From my understanding, this proves madatory alteration of firearms from detachable magazines to fixed magazines is also unconstitutional... even if the case is only about capacity restrictions.