Federal judge rules CA magazine ban violates 2A

[Ramsker]

I'm sure CA can't appeal fast enough . . . but this ruling is an amazing takedown. Hopefully it's the start to something larger scale on mag bans

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019...cond-amendment

https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/sta...56700179144704

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ntiffs-MSJ.pdf

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms." California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.

The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds ? magazines that law abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home.

It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored ? it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits law abiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties.

Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of ? 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds. Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs? motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code ? 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.

[ChadAmberg]

Damn I was just coming in here to post that. I've read most of the decision, and it's well written, easy to read, and pretty darn thorough. Looks like something we would have written.

[Ramsker]

vi. irony
Perhaps the irony of ? 32310 escapes notice. The reason for the adoption of the
Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an
oppressive state. The anti-federalists were worried about the risk of oppression by a
standing army. The colonies had witnessed the standing army of England marching
through Lexington to Concord, Massachusetts, on a mission to seize the arms and
gunpowder of the militia and the Minutemen—an attack that ignited the Revolutionary
war. With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment
guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors
foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its
citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.

[iego]

2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[wctriumph]

I guess I will not need that 10 round mag I bought just so I could shoot my Browning in CA when I visit my brother next year.

Oh well, it is still CO legal.

[iego]

Just shoot three times as many rounds

[FoxtArt]

Prediction: 9th will tailor an opinion in such a fashion to deprive the anti-magazine ban crowd from appealing it to the US Supreme Court, potentially sustaining the reversal of the law, but using such language as to make it possible to re-ban it once they recover the supreme court.

Judges aren't stupid, they won't let this fight go to SCOTUS even if they have to swallow their barf to temporarily let high capacity mags back into CA.... high capacity constituting 11, or 12 rounds, of course.

[iego]

Who decided we were ruled by government, anyway?

It's better to assert individual rights, rather than rely on Government today.

-John

[DenverGP]

Holy shit this ruling is just one 2nd amendment quote after another. Amazing to read.

On the "lethality" argument:

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.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal.A gun holding 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 downpillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous.

On the "2nd amendment protects the firearms not the magazines":

Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense. This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment. The simple test applies because a magazine is an essential mechanical part of a firearm. The size limit directly impairs one?s ability to defend one?s self.

Neither magazines, nor rounds of ammunition, nor triggers, nor barrels are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment. Neither are they mentioned in Heller.But without a right to keep and bear triggers, or barrels, or ammunition and the magazines that hold ammunition, the Second Amendment right would be meaningless.

[Bailey Guns]

...and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties.

Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of ? 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess...

Isn't that exactly what's happening with the bump-stock ban?