Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: CA 10 Round Mag LImit Destroyed [Again]

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    2,027
    Feedback Score
    0

    CA 10 Round Mag LImit Destroyed [Again]

    If anyone is keeping track, Judge Benitez released his decision in Duncan vs Becerra yesterday. This challenges CA's 10-round magazine limit (and the criminalization of import, transfer, possession, etc.).

    You can read it here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...can-v-becerra/

    Decision is 71 pages total. There's actually only about 30 pages worth of decision, and the rest is an incredible number of footnotes citing relevant cases, evidence, etc.

    This is the second time Benitez has heard this case. The first time he also ruled against the state and it resulted in "Freedom Week." The case went up to the 9th for appeal, and the state lost again. Then it went en banc, where it was overturned. Then it went to SCOTUS, who sent it back to be heard again after they released the Bruen decision last year.

    Of course, it's all not all over yet. This has to work its way back through the appeals process all over again. BUT, Judge Benitez did such a thorough job dismantling every argument the state brought to the table that you might find it useful in your own discussions on the topic.

    • Heller says "dangerous AND unusual" not "dangerous OR unusual" as the state tried to argue, it's a non starter
    • State tries to argue that applies to "commonly used for self defense" rather than what SCOTUS defined as "commonly used for lawful purposes," state furthermore tries to argue that "used" only includes situations where the weapon was actually discharged. Judge wasn't having either argument.
    • 10 rounds is clearly arbitrary, and the state's expert witness was unable to define or defend their logic when questioned
    • Magazines are considered arms, and are therefore part and parcel with the 2A. State got caught in a bind when they tried to argue that handguns can operate without a magazine since they also have the handgun roster that requires magazine disconnects and therefore a handgun cannot function without its magazine. Furthermore, Judge called out that CA law lists magazines within the relevant definition of firearms, so they can't argue both ways.
    • State presented over 300 "analogous" laws as prescribed by Bruen, and not one was actually applicable. Judge clealry points out that there was NEVER any firearms law that limited possession and ownership of any particular firearm until the 20th century. Furthermore, the only laws that did exist were there to control behavior (i.e. carrying a firearm with intent to do harm)
    • Judge calls out the state for claiming that modern weapons are so much more devastating than founding era. He points out that both revolvers and lever action guns developed in the 1800s represented incredible increases in firepower for the individual, and yet no law was made to control them.
    • Judge points out at the end that the state conveniently omitted one analogous founding era law that did not place a maximum limit on how much ammunition could be carried, but instead defined a minimum amount of ammunition to be carried (20 rounds)


    There's a lot more to dig into. The take down of the state's expert witness on the "2.2 rounds fired per defensive use" statistic is extremely well done.

    There are a few more cases pending release form this judge, including one about CA's assault weapons ban. Interesting times.
    Last edited by BrigandTwoFour; 09-23-23 at 09:38.
    "Man is still the first weapon of war" - Field Marshal Montgomery

    The Everyday Marksman

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    5,118
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I believe the decision was stayed for 10days though. Giving the state time to appeal and get a full stay of the decision. So no freedoms week 2.
    I am part of that power which eternally wills evil, and eternally works good.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    2,027
    Feedback Score
    0
    Yeah, it was preemptive stay since the state signaled they were going to do it anyway. I have a strong suspicion that Judge Benitez is playing it as straight and narrow as possible so that the 9th or CA can't cry foul and get the can kicked back for stupid technicalities or political bias.
    "Man is still the first weapon of war" - Field Marshal Montgomery

    The Everyday Marksman

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,107
    Feedback Score
    0
    We on the right really need to learn from the left. Bruen didn't change anything, it was just the first case that applied Heller methodology. We have had all these 'rights' since Heller, or really since the 2A passed, or in actuality since forever since the BOR doesn't "give' rigths- but I digress.

    The reality is that they can restrict our rights for 30, 20, 10 years while these court cases are manipulated by the left through their left wing court system.

    Somehow for the gays, they get the right to schtuff each other in Texas and a couple of years later its gay marriage all over- with no new laws allowed that could be tailored around the ruling.

    We keep winning in court, and they keep on passing worse laws. It's like the gay won in SCOTUS, and we were able to pass laws saying that we could now burn gays at the stake- and it take a decade for it to work itself out in the courts.

    That assymetry has to be either eliminated or brought to heal for our side in issues like immigration, culture crap, and others.
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,107
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BrigandTwoFour View Post
    Yeah, it was preemptive stay since the state signaled they were going to do it anyway. I have a strong suspicion that Judge Benitez is playing it as straight and narrow as possible so that the 9th or CA can't cry foul and get the can kicked back for stupid technicalities or political bias.
    I agree. He gave such an intellectual and legal smackdown of CA and Newsome, he had to throw them a bone that probably won't mean much in the end.
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    2,027
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    We on the right really need to learn from the left. Bruen didn't change anything, it was just the first case that applied Heller methodology. We have had all these 'rights' since Heller, or really since the 2A passed, or in actuality since forever since the BOR doesn't "give' rigths- but I digress.

    The reality is that they can restrict our rights for 30, 20, 10 years while these court cases are manipulated by the left through their left wing court system.

    Somehow for the gays, they get the right to schtuff each other in Texas and a couple of years later its gay marriage all over- with no new laws allowed that could be tailored around the ruling.

    We keep winning in court, and they keep on passing worse laws. It's like the gay won in SCOTUS, and we were able to pass laws saying that we could now burn gays at the stake- and it take a decade for it to work itself out in the courts.

    That assymetry has to be either eliminated or brought to heal for our side in issues like immigration, culture crap, and others.
    Agreed in principle.

    The problem is institutional capture. The left has been so successful in getting their agenda pushed through precisely because they own the cultural machinery that is pop culture, academia, social media, and ESG. The right can fight and win on logic, but it has to fight for every step of the way because the institutional machinery is so thoroughly entrenched against it. The right used to have sway within the church, but that's faded away.

    I think both sides of the aisle have their issues with fractured constituencies and infighting. The right fails to push things through because of it, while they left succeeds despite it because they have enough momentum.
    "Man is still the first weapon of war" - Field Marshal Montgomery

    The Everyday Marksman

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    The Absent Minded Perfesser
    Posts
    8,084
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Any day that California or any other Blue Hell gets raped in the ass by the Federal courts is a good day for America.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    387
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Anyone remember when people bought into the notion of, where California goes, so goes the USA?

    Thankfully that notion didn't age well. Now bring on the NFA challenges. Whole notion of NFA needs to be abolished.
    Listen. Tell. Run Like Hell.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    146
    Feedback Score
    0
    I thought he very nicely brought up Miller and the implicit covering of weapon of war which is the whole basis of these types of bans. It also seems to set up an avenue for going after the Sporting Clause.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,391
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Both states I own homes in went to 10ths bans in the last couple years. One says you couldnít keep them. The other says you can keep but not transfer them.

    Itís all garbage. This would certainly set all that BS straight.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •