Judge Declares California Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

[Nightvisionary]

In one of the strongest judicial statements in favor of the Second Amendment to date, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California determined on Friday that California’s ban on commonly possessed firearm magazines violates the Second Amendment.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019...lXuN82Vs_4eomc

[soulezoo]

Ho-lee sh!t!!!
There's hope for us yet

[BrigandTwoFour]

I was going to make a post about it, too. I'm reading the decision now, it's a good one.

Here are some of the money shots so far.

Lethality is Not the Test
Some say that the use of "large capacity magazines" increases the lethality of gun violence. They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings. That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holdig more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive.

Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun's lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed. The Second amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous.

And this is from the citations and footnoes, same section:

Constitutional rights would be come meaningless if states could obiterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate eah restriction by itself when determining its constitutionality.

Artificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament. It is an insidious plan to disarm the populace and it depends on for its success a subjective standard of "necessary" lethality.

It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to rpedict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds. To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round "loophole" and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legilsature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are "necessary." Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round "loophole" and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds is "necessary."

And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun. Or perhaps, one gun, but no ammunition. Or ammunition issued only to persons deemed trustworthy.

This is not baseless speculation or scare-mongering. One need only look at New Jersey and New York. In the 1990's, New Jersey instituted a prohibition on what it would bale "large capacity ammunition magazines." These were defined as magazines able to hold more than 15 rounds. Slipping down the slope, last year, New Jersey lowered the capacity of permissible magazines from 15 to 10 rounds.

You can read more here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ntiffs-MSJ.pdf

It's 81 pages of well-reasoned and thoroughly cited material.

Judge Benitez is one of us, but you can bet this case will get challenged to the 9th. Trump's been on a tear appointing new judges to the 9th, so there's a good chance that a three-judge panel might go in our favor. But you can still bet that the state will appeal again to en banc, where it historically wins these fights. If they lose again, I'm not sure they'd want to take it to SCOTUS where NY, NJ, MD, VT, and CO would have their bans threatened as well.

[Kyohte]

The 9th won’t let this stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[docsherm]

Don't worry, Cali will outlaw springs or something gay like that until they can win this

[Diamondback]

Judge Benitez is one of us, but you can bet this case will get challenged to the 9th. Trump's been on a tear appointing new judges to the 9th, so there's a good chance that a three-judge panel might go in our favor. But you can still bet that the state will appeal again to en banc, where it historically wins these fights. If they lose again, I'm not sure they'd want to take it to SCOTUS where NY, NJ, MD, VT, and CO would have their bans threatened as well.

I don't think "Earl Warren 2.0" Roberts would have the balls to take this one... and we don't WANT him and his cock-remora Kavanaugh being the deciding votes on a SCOTUS that factoring them out is still 4-3 for the Other Team. We NEED at least to replace Ginsburg, unless we can find whatever blackmail material the Left has on Roberts and use it to leverage him and his pet minion our way...

[platoonDaddy]

I don't think "Earl Warren 2.0" Roberts would have the balls to take this one... and we don't WANT him and his cock-remora Kavanaugh being the deciding votes on a SCOTUS that factoring them out is still 4-3 for the Other Team. We NEED at least to replace Ginsburg, unless we can find whatever blackmail material the Left has on Roberts and use it to leverage him and his pet minion our way...

What he said!

[soulezoo]

We (Californians) need to take advantage of the window of legality and buy a crap ton of standard capacity magazines.

[Dr. Bullseye]

OMG, this is huge.

"In the meantime, Friday’s order prohibits California from enforcing its magazine restrictions, leaving its law-abiding residents safer and freer, at least for the time being."

Xavier Becerra got kicked in the balls.

I am in California and this is huge for us. Prohibiting enforcement means no more futzing around with issues of when you purchased the mags, if you have proof of purchase, the date of purchase and so on.

[jpmuscle]

I was going to make a post about it, too. I'm reading the decision now, it's a good one.

Here are some of the money shots so far.



And this is from the citations and footnoes, same section:



You can read more here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ntiffs-MSJ.pdf

It's 81 pages of well-reasoned and thoroughly cited material.

Judge Benitez is one of us, but you can bet this case will get challenged to the 9th. Trump's been on a tear appointing new judges to the 9th, so there's a good chance that a three-judge panel might go in our favor. But you can still bet that the state will appeal again to en banc, where it historically wins these fights. If they lose again, I'm not sure they'd want to take it to SCOTUS where NY, NJ, MD, VT, and CO would have their bans threatened as well.

Surprisingly strong words


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk