Other State California's Mag Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[ZigZagZeke]

So if mags are arms in the same way firearms are arms, in the same way ammo is arms, then would this open up the gate so to speak for magazine background checks just as ammo background checks have already been proposed just as firearm background checks have existed for years?

Nobody has gotten around to the legal argument that a fee for a background check is a tax on a right, or that the background check itself is an unproductive burden on the 2nd Amendment that doesn't fit the interest of the state in promoting public safety. That will come someday.

 

[User 1234]

Cali's position that a smaller capacity mag gave people a greater opportunity to escape did not hold water with the Cali Fed Judge.

The judge pointed out that in nearly all of the mass shooting incidents in the last decade the shooter did NOT use a 11+ magazine.

 

[tkdguy]

15% fewer homicides in states with universal background checks - Futurity
This article is "15% fewer homicides in states with universal background checks" referencing this article below.

Please have a look at the questions and answers cited above from the researcher specific to Study: 'Assault Weapons and Magazine Bans do not lower homicide rates.

 

[Massolo]

Now it goes to the 9th circus

Yep, those old liberal geezers will overturn it, and it will head to SCOTUS. At least they have something in the mean time. My praise to the judge in the case.

 

[Deacon]

The 9th Circuit should be overruled by the Constitution. All these BS laws are an infringement plain and simple. We need more patriots in office and fewer traitors...

 

[TCMartin]

NRA-ILA | Breaking! Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment

Great outcome, error in that it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. The magazine ban was a California law, not an Unconstitutional Federal Law. The 2nd Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. The Bill of Rights (including the 2A) were restrictions on the Federal Government. Read your Constitution folks, especially the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights.

Most people are not aware that there is a preamble to the Bill of Rights, which states, in part, the following:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." (emphasis added)

Ignore the NRA, they are a gun control organization. They have a long history of supporting unconstitutional Federal Gun Control beginning with their support of the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Undetectable Firearms act of 1988, Federal Gun Free Zones and on and on. The NRA is proud of their historical support for what they like to call "workable gun laws." Yeah, violating our rights is a workable solution to the NRA. Here's one example
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

In 1999, NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre had this to say:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud." There you have it they are proud of supporting unconstitutional federal firearms laws.

 

[Goosebrown]

The magazine ban was a California law, not an Unconstitutional Federal Law. The 2nd Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. The Bill of Rights (including the 2A) were restrictions on the Federal Government. Read your Constitution folks, especially the pre-amble to the Bill of Tights"

You are incorrect sir.

Parts of the bill of rights apply to the feds and some apply to that states and feds. The concept is incorporation and at least the first and second amendments are incorporated so they DO apply to the states. See McDonald 2010

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

now they just need to overturn all the other dimwitted bans they have there

 

[Lilhigbee]

Read your Constitution folks

A fine idea. I have, many times. I like this part here (Bold mine);

Article VI

1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

BOR doesn't apply to states?? Right...

 

[Stomper]

The magazine ban was a California law, not an Unconstitutional Federal Law. The 2nd Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. The Bill of Rights (including the 2A) were restrictions on the Federal Government. Read your Constitution folks, especially the pre-amble to the Bill of Tights"

You are incorrect sir.

Parts of the bill of rights apply to the feds and some apply to that states and feds. The concept is incorporation and at least the first and second amendments are incorporated so they DO apply to the states. See McDonald 2010

Which nyukphuckle are you quoting who spouted that tripe above, "you are incorrect sir"?

 

[Goosebrown]

A fine idea. I have, many times. I like this part here (Bold mine);

Article VI

1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

BOR doesn't apply to states?? Right...

Actually without incorporation, the rights of the BOR do NOT extend to the states. For instance it wasn't a violation of the 1st amendment to shut down a newspaper in a state. It took a Supreme Court case to incorporate the first amendment and apply it to the states. That process happened in 2010 for 2a in McDonald.

Sounds weird but there wasn't an individual right as such to free press til 1934 I believe

 

[Goosebrown]

@Stomper the poster I quoted stated that the BOR only applied to the federal government which was true until 1865 with the 13th amendment which was incorporated to apply to the states. The 1st amendment didn't apply to states till the 1920s and the 2nd amendment technically was incorporated in 2010.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

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.

Summary judgment was based on the fact the CA DOJ did not present a credible defense.

 

[GWS]

Great outcome, error in that it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. The magazine ban was a California law, not an Unconstitutional Federal Law. The 2nd Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. The Bill of Rights (including the 2A) were restrictions on the Federal Government. Read your Constitution folks, especially the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights.

Most people are not aware that there is a preamble to the Bill of Rights, which states, in part, the following:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." (emphasis added)

Ignore the NRA, they are a gun control organization. They have a long history of supporting unconstitutional Federal Gun Control beginning with their support of the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Undetectable Firearms act of 1988, Federal Gun Free Zones and on and on. The NRA is proud of their historical support for what they like to call "workable gun laws." Yeah, violating our rights is a workable solution to the NRA. Here's one example
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

In 1999, NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre had this to say:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud." There you have it they are proud of supporting unconstitutional federal firearms laws.

So, by your interpretation we can own slaves again and deny women the vote as well? The state can torture me in jail while they billet National Guardsmen in my home?
Or was your misbegotten conclusion just a preamble for your anti NRA screed?

Try reading ALL of the Constitution.

 

[awshoot]

... The magazine ban was a California law, not an Unconstitutional Federal Law. The 2nd Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. T....

I didn't read the rest because the premise is the opposite of reality so I presume the conclusions drawn from the false premise are also false: McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

 

[Defense Minister]

The sad part is it took them so long to figure out what we've known all along.

The good part is that President Trump has been replacing lower federal court justices at a breakneck pace since taking office, and this is part of the result. On that note, I'd like to respectfully point out to our Liberal/Democratic brothers/sisters on the forum here that the ONLY way to retain our 2A rights in the long run, short of Revolutionary War 2.0, is to elect people who will uphold their oath of office!

 

[titsonritz]

Stay filed. Can't express my hatred for CA here in words without getting banned.

Duncan v. Becerra | Michel & Associates, P.C.

Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Ex-Parte Application for Temporary Stay of the Judgment

 

[Geardo]

Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Ex-Parte Application for Temporary Stay of the Judgment

I just hope it holds off long enough for me to get all my shipments in the mail!

 

[tkdguy]

I would guess the judge anticipated the "stay" action, but not knowing what issue the state of California would want to argue. If the judge dismisses the stay then Cali goes to the 9th circuit.

 

[tkdguy]

Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Ex-Parte Application for Temporary Stay of the Judgment

It may be that McDonald vs Chicago may be the basis where the Oregon legislator is proceedings under these gun bills?