Edit: Kalif mag ban back ON

[smithers599]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/04/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-california-judge-reinstates-high-capacity-magazine-ban-as-of-5pm-friday/?fbclid=IwAR254eP6QPdOPx30DVlfGE2rAY4vMHYqFmQinmVzKiV0i8N03_JdnlFQ5Yw

The ban on possession of “high capacity” magazines will not be enforced while the case is argued and decided, but California residents will not be able to buy them after 5:00pm tomorrow.
[highlight=yellow]Have you ordered your magazines yet?[/highlight]

I am confident that the people who have bought mags during this "window" will turn them in should the ban become permanent. Right?



https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-blocks-californias-high-capacity-ammunition-ban/2019/03/29/2658e032-5277-11e9-bdb7-44f948cc0605_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6c82f732d081

How about Judge Benitez to replace Ginsburg?

By Don Thompson | AP
March 29 at 7:54 PM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets.
“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.
California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.
In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group’s argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

 

[Suck My Glock]

Here's an excerpt from The Firearms Blog report, which I find exciting,....


In an 86 page judgment, the court viciously tore into California law and California’s attorney general.

First Judge Benitez listed a variety of anecdotal cases in which the law directly harmed Californians. Most notably, a series of cases in which Californians were unable to stop a home invasion due to running out of ammunition. Secondly, and after hammering that point home, he laid out a thorough dissection of California’s reasoning behind the ban. Needless to say, he found it wanting.

Additionally, the court discussed 5th Amendment implications, specifically the Takings Clause. The Takings Clause prevents the government from seizing private property for public use without just compensation. Previous case law has established the precedent that even private property being seized without the intention of public use can be subject to Takings Clause limitations. As the court put it “the Takings Clause prevents [California] from compelling the physical dispossession of such lawfully-acquired private property without just compensation.”

Furthermore, the Court declared that magazines constitute bearable arms, and are thus protected rights under the Second Amendment. While the total reasoning is too elaborate and lengthy to get into here, it is recommended reading. In the order, the Hon. Roger T. Benitez waxed nearly poetic on the rights of Americans. Because of the rhetoric and fire, the opinion reminds me of the late Justice Scalia. The first full paragraph of page 40 is of particular interest.

 

[smithers599]

Here is the decision:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.533515/gov.uscourts.casd.533515.87.0_1.pdf

Here is the first full paragraph on page 40:

Others have acknowledged that the burden on a citizen may be severe but consider it a worthwhile tradeoff. San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 18 F. Supp. 3d 997, 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“Nonetheless, in those rare cases, to deprive the citizen of more than ten shots may lead to his or her own death. Let this point be conceded.”). In a peaceful society, a 10-round limit may not be severe. When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. 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. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

 

[shooter444]

" Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. "

For me, nuff said,... covers it all, simply!

Sounds like a REAL CONSTITUTIONAL judge, for a change, we need more of them.

 

[mtptwo]

Wow, that judge stomped them.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Now.....who wants to be first to test the waters?

 

[smithers599]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-californias-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines-unconstitutional/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=21208229

A federal appeals court on Friday overturned California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, ruling that the prohibition violates the Second Amendment.

“Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” Appellate Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, adding that California’s ban “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense.”

Not sure, but I suppose KA will now appeal to the full court.

Then, Supreme Court. If Biden wins, no hope. If Trump wins, some hope.