JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Because the State did not succeed in justifying its sweeping ban and dispossession mandate with a relevantly similar historical analogue, California Penal Code § 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined. At this time, the Court's declaration does not reach the definition of a large capacity magazine in California Penal Code § 16740 where it is used in other parts of the Penal Code to define other gun-related crimes or enhance criminal penalties.
One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen. That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still.
 
The part that sucks is It's only enjoined for 10 days! We know Cali will drag it's feet with it's appeal up to the 9th, or they decide to take the loss, and then what? After the 10 days, what happens then, does Cali back off it's illegal bullsh!t and let it stand, or,............
 
The part that sucks is It's only enjoined for 10 days! We know Cali will drag it's feet with it's appeal up to the 9th, or they decide to take the loss, and then what? After the 10 days, what happens then, does Cali back off it's illegal bullsh!t and let it stand, or,............
You're getting the 10 days backwards. The ruling doesn't take effect for 10 days, to give California time to appeal. If California isn't able to get a stay from the appellate court, it goes into effect in 10 days.
 
The part that sucks is It's only enjoined for 10 days! We know Cali will drag it's feet with it's appeal up to the 9th, or they decide to take the loss, and then what? After the 10 days, what happens then, does Cali back off it's illegal bullsh!t and let it stand, or,............
My guess is state asks the 9th for an emergency stay of Benitez's ruling until the full appeal plays out. Then 3 judge panel, then to the full ninth. That could take years as they are going to want to delay every step of the way as long as possible.

Only counter move would be for plaintiffs to do an emergency appeal to scotus to enjoin the 9ths stay of Benitez ruling (assuming that happens). Something similar just played out in Illinois and coney- Barret made the Illinois state court speed up everything (which they did, so far anyway).
 
Been away for a little bit, but had to drop back in for a: "Can I get a F yeah?!"
We've all known this has been coming for a while.. waiting for at least a year now? Yet, I'm still pretty darn happy the day has finally come.
I'll take any win when we can get one, and this seems like a big one.
Also, even though I'm trying my best to not be a vindictive person, seeing the response from that greaseball sleazebag in CA (that shall not be named), the Schadenfreude is flowing hard and heavy this evening.
:s0010:
 
Saint Benitez just took a chainsaw to Newsome and the Dems. Ninth Circuit is not going to like this write-up, but they've been signalling that they're hostage to Bruen so.....gonna get super interesting.

I hope the 114 attorneys see this and bring it to bear in their discussion on Monday.

Edit: I'm still churning through all 71 pages, but every single page is a must-read. Skip to the end for the happy ending, but read the whole thing to appreciate how beautiful this takedown is.
I'm just starting it! Benitez's opinions are absolute works of art! They are ALWAYS a fantastic read and well worth the time!
 
I hope the 114 attorneys see this and bring it to bear in their discussion on Monday.
Plaintiff did bring it up today (about an hour after it was made public) simply as a point of awareness to the court and cited the case number info for Judge Raschio's reference.

Our Judge has made it clear, "I don't care" about any determinations of any other court, and especially if it has no relationship specific to OR's M114. I don't have much doubt he won't go give it a read over the weekend though. Plaintiff's made it clear they were fully aware of his stance and were not referencing any aspect of Saint Benitez's opinion.

The point was made though and undoubtedly may have some impact on his thought processess in our case.... one might think. 👍
 
Just think about this. SB 23 went into effect in the PRK in 2000. It's now 2023 and the issue still isn't really concluded
23 bubbleguming years just to get to this point. How many gun owners have passed away, denied their rights, since this bill went into effect? How do California gun owners get compensated for the 23+ years of denied rights?
 
Last Edited:
I just hope and pray that the Bruen decision and judge Benitez's latest ruling also can be applied to the state of Washington's equally unconstitutional laws recently passed by the communists in Olympia. Heck, if the AWB ban is overturned as it should be, I may not have to consider relocating to a free state!
 
A great read. There was a lot of shoving CA's legal reasoning right back up CA's arse.
but every single page is a must-read
Quite funny too! (If you like droll humor.)

Just think about this. SB 23 went into effect in the PRK in 2000. It's now 2023 and the issue still isn't really concluded
23 bubbleguming years just to get to this point. How many gun owners have passed away, denied their rights, since this bill went into effect? How do California gun owners get compensated for the 23+ years of denied rights?
Claim black heritage, use the ruling to demonstrate discrimination, and ask for reparations.
 
Just think about this. SB 23 went into effect in the PRK in 2000. It's now 2023 and the issue still isn't really concluded
23 bubbleguming years just to get to this point. How many gun owners have passed away, denied their rights, since this bill went into effect? How do California gun owners get compensated for the 23+ years of denied rights?
As far as I'm concerned, it can only be paid back in the blood of those responsible and if not in this life, surely the next one to come.

:s0118:
 
Wait, I thought attacks on judges were 'dangerous rhetoric,' and 'a threat to 'our' democracy'… Something change?

1695479357478.png
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top