Other State California's Mag Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[etrain16]

Reading the section below is amazing. I didn't really think that anyone in power took the events from over 200 years ago that serious anymore. When ever you attempt to use that type of reasoning in a conversation with the anti's, or fence sitters, you get that "look", like ancient history isn't that relevant in these times.

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.

Sure is sweet.

I saved a copy of that quote - I'll be re-posting that everywhere I can. I hope all future lawsuits fighting for 2A rights make a reference to this as well.

 

[User 1234]

The judge also took the state to task for giving its Hollywood elite an exemption to the magazine ban; asking why in the age of special effects the movies could not be made with dummy magazines.

I am sure the highways to Phoenix and Las Vegas are full today with 36 hour vacationers. If the state's theory about magazines causing mass shootings was correct then the entire state would be dead by next Friday. Of course we know that isn't true because gangsters have been importing magazines and stolen guns into the state the entire time the ban was in effect.

 

[tkdguy]

The newspapers around the country are on fire with this decision.

 

[awshoot]

I think their is a reference that the 9th already stated that they will not reverse this Judge's decision because they referred this case back to him or her earlier.

That was the earlier decision Benitez made to issue a temporary restraining order (issued because the case could not be decided before the law went into effect). CA appealed that temporary order to the 9th circuit and in a 2-1 decision, the 9th Cir left the temporary order in effect. One of the 9th Cir judges then made a request for an en banc hearing (new hearing with more judges) on the 9th's temporary order ruling, but eventually withdrew that request.

This decision we are talking about is a completely different order -- it is the judge's final decision and it is appealable to the 9th Circuit. California has a choice now -- it can ditch these laws or appeal. In Heller, the local powers decided to fight the case even though they were getting pressure from anti-gun groups to drop it -- their hubris gave us the Supreme Court Heller decision. The same pressure is being pressed against NY City in the case recently accepted at the SCOTUS and I would imagine this topic will be discussed by CA in this case. In some ways, I want to see them act as arrogantly and idiotically as Wash.DC did in Heller, though that might be risky - the SCOTUS could rule against the 2A. Overall though, I would like to see these cases get SCOTUS treatment.

 

[User 1234]

California's ultra-left ruling government is 90% likely to push this case up through the courts. If they get a win at the 9th circuit (it would not be surprising if the 9th slow walked it for two years until the next election) then the ban will resume, and if Trump is not re-elected a D president will replace RBG with a liberal justice. Combined with Roberts' potential to vote against 2A, California could eventually win.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

California's ultra-left ruling government is 90% likely to push this case up through the courts. If they get a win at the 9th circuit (it would not be surprising if the 9th slow walked it for two years until the next election) then the ban will resume, and if Trump is not re-elected a D president will replace RBG with a liberal justice. Combined with Roberts' potential to vote against 2A, California could eventually win.

If so... its time for left coast gun owners to entertain single issue voting and save our 2nd Amendment at the polls next election, if the current insanity isnt enough to shake you up

 

[awshoot]

Back to reading the case, this thing is full of quotable lines:

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe.

 

[awshoot]

Critical Pause v. Lethal Pause:

The State argues that smaller magazines create a "critical pause" in the shooting of a mass killer. "The prohibition of LCMs helps create a "critical pause" that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter." Def. Oppo., at 19. This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a "lethal pause," as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading "pause" the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help. The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack.

 

[tkdguy]

This judge's decision, also, points out, how stupid the people in Cali are and maybe same for the masses of Oregon people who are anti-gun and support the crazy bills. This decision points how willing some of the masses are to take away the rights of others.

 

[tkdguy]

This judge's decision, also, points ou

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.

I think that sales are ongoing now to Cali. Love the judge's decision.

 

[awshoot]

This judge's decision, also, points out, how stupid the people in Cali are and maybe same for the masses of Oregon people who are anti-gun and support the crazy bills. This decision points how willing some of the masses are to take away the rights of others.

Yep -- and he directly addresses initiatives.

Regardless of current popularity, neither a legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights. "An unconstitutional statute adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity." [at page 6]
...

There is another problem with according deference in this case. Strictly put, this case is not solely about legislative judgments because § 32310(c) and (d) are the products of a ballot proposition. No federal court has deferred to the terms of a state ballot proposition where the proposition trenches on a federal constitutional right:

As one court stated, no court has accorded legislative deference to ballot drafters. Legislatures receive deference because they are better equipped than the judiciary to amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data bearing upon complex and dynamic issues. Because the referendum process does not invoke the same type of searching fact finding, a referendum's fact finding does not "justify deference."
​

[at page 55]

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

Strictly put, this case is not solely about legislative judgments because § 32310(c) and (d) are the products of a ballot proposition. No federal court has deferred to the terms of a state ballot proposition where the proposition trenches on a federal constitutional right:

LOVE IT

 

[User 1234]

He just breathed life back into the constitution and reminded everyone why it exists and what purpose it serves: to take certain individual rights outside of the ruling class' purview.

 

[JD42]

Palmetto state arms is just started takeing orders from Ca again for mags!

 

[MrRob96]

Hahaha. I'm gonna dress up as the Honorable Judge Benitez for Halloween this year.

 

[Camelfilter]

Hahaha. I'm gonna dress up as the Honorable Judge Benitez for Halloween this year.

Interesting that he was born in Havana. Point that fact out to some anti-2A folk while talking about his ruling...

 

[GWS]

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

LOL indeed! Caravans of people heading to Nevada, Arizona and even Oregon cleaning out gun stores. Some guys in CA are spending thousands of dollars buying stuff.
Rumor has it Cabela's in Reno overnighted cases of magazines in after hearing about this. Go CalGunners, GO!

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.

No! This is strictly about ownership of magazines. "Assault Weapon" laws are a whole 'nother animal. Don't tell your friends in CA to stuff 30 rounders in their fixed mag rifles, they would be violating AW laws.

 

[GWS]

View attachment 564678

Interesting that he was born in Havana. Point that fact out to some anti-2A folk while talking about his ruling...

Indeed He's someone who saw and heard first hand what government oppression is all about. And he helped put it down.
God bless Judge Benitez!

 

[L84Cabo]

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.

It is because the Overlords of California got greedy. Large capacity magazines were banned almost 20 years ago but there was a grandfather clause. If you owned them at the time you could keep them. But since then you could no longer import or buy large cap mags into the state. And that was pretty much regarded as the law of CA land until a year or two ago when the Overlords decided to go after them.

Rather than being content that mags were securely banned, the Sacramento DoucheNozzles passed a law that demanded the surrendering of ALL mags in excess of 10 rounds. And they demanded this without any form of compensation. Incremental confiscation at it's finest.

Anyway, A stay was issued against the law going into effect to give the Pro 2A groups time to initiate legal proceedings over the constitutionality of the law. And the decision that came down Friday is the culmination of that lawsuit. And the beauty of the decision is that it not only obliterated the part of the law that demanded the surrender of the mags but it obliterated the entire notion that the government could limit mag capacity to what is essentially an arbitrary number...10.

And while this is all still playing out and we're still learning about the details of this, I happen to believe that the judge on this case...District Judge Roger Benitez...is a patriot of the highest order. His decision seems so complete and so thorough they're really going to have to work to overturn it. And if they do overturn it the case seems well positioned for an ultimately favorable SCOTUS decision.

Moreover, I don't believe that his releasing of this decision, late in the afternoon on a Friday, is a coincidence. Monday is also a state holiday in California...it's Cesar Chavez day. And there's a good chance that the courts will be closed until Tuesday (I'm still trying to figure that out).

However, at minimum, the decision gives at least a 48 hour period and quite possibly a 72 hour period where these mags are once again legal. It's impossible to know how many of these mags will be unblocked, purchased, and/or brought into the state during this time but the number has to be huge. Even if they do overturn this thing they will now need to figure out what becomes of all these new mags. And you can damn well bet that gun owners will NOT be surrendering them if so ordered...which I view as a giant F.U. to Sacramento.

Now this decision, of course, only applies in the 9th District but its implications are huge. If the decision stands, it will most certainly setup a challenge to the other magazine capacity limits in a handful of other states and SCOTUS would likely have to step in and resolve this. One way or the other it will probably go to SCOTUS. Because if it gets overturned it will most certainly be appealed as well.

Add all of this to recent 9th District case of Young vs. Hawaii whereby the 9th upheld the notion that Hawaii must offer the constitutionally protected right to open carry, and you've got a tremendous amount of WINNING coming out of the 9th lately. Hard to believe.

WOLVERINES!

 

[L84Cabo]

Back to reading the case, this thing is full of quotable lines:

It's a work of freaking art!

I love that he rendered opinions under BOTH Intermediate Scrutiny and Strict Scrutiny. He said, "you're full of crap whichever way you want to go!"

Seriously people, it's worth your time to read this thing if you haven't already.