Judge blocks CA Magazine ban

[DireWolf]

Looks like a Fed Judge just blocked a CA mag ban as unconstitutional...

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/article158965184.html


I wonder how this will or can be made to impact the situation in CO....

ETA: Mods, can you please fix typo in thread title? [MOD: Got it.]

[DenverGP]

this isn't blocking the law against buying/selling mags > 10 rounds, but rather the removal of the previous grandfathering, attempting to make even owning mags over 10 rounds into a crime.

Colorado hasn't taken that step yet, so this ruling would have no effect here. How a judge can say that the new law is unconstitutional while the previous law banning transfer/sale of mags was constitutional is beyond me, but judges don't seem to care much about logic, the constitution or common sense.

[Rumline]

How a judge can say that the new law is unconstitutional while the previous law banning transfer/sale of mags was constitutional is beyond me

Easy. The takings clause of the 5th Amendment is still viewed by the judiciary as a right worth supporting,* while the 2nd Amendment is not.

* Unless it's civil asset forfeiture, in which case, game on.

[Zundfolge]

this isn't blocking the law against buying/selling mags > 10 rounds, but rather the removal of the previous grandfathering, attempting to make even owning mags over 10 rounds into a crime.

I'm not so sure that it's just based on the "takings clause". According to the story:

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

So the injunction attacks not just the taking of the mags without adequate compensation, but the actual ban of "common magazines" in and of itself.

So there could be some application of this ruling here.

[DireWolf]

Would it not be possible for a single non-commie Judge here (if there are any remaining) to issue the exact same ruling with regard to the CO law, use this one as a reference if needed to support their own (identical) argument, then let that injunction ride until picked up by the SC?

Would seem to be consistent with how other things have gone down recently with single-Judge rulings, and turnabout is fair play after all....

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[Rumline]

Oh...he used the 2nd amendment as justification for the injunction? That means it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell once the 9th Circuit gets ahold of it.

[BPTactical]

"people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size"


I like this angle.....


What's the common mag size for:
AR?
AK?
FAL?
Galil?
M1A?
HK91?
HK93?
MP5?
Uzi?
MP40?
Steyr AUG?
Thompson?
Daewoo?
STG44?
M249?
M2?
Oerlikon?