Federal judge rules CA magazine ban violates 2A

[Irving]

Reading this felt like a hoax, so I made sure to check the links. It's still hard for me to believe this wording. It feels fake, but there is no evidence that it is.

[DenverGP]

On the "Historical Prohibitions Exception":

To sum up, then, while detachable firearm magazines have been common for a
century, government regulation of the size of a magazine is a recent phenomenon and still
unregulated in four-fifths of the states. The record is empty of the persuasive historical
evidence needed to place a magazine ban outside the ambit of the Second Amendment.
Thus, it can be seen that California?s prohibition on detachable ammunition magazines
larger than 10 rounds is a type of prohibition that has not been historically accommodated
by the Second Amendment.

Faced with a dearth of magazine capacity restrictions older than 1990, the Attorney
General pivots and tries a different route. He argues that the historical prohibition question
is not one of detachable magazine size, but instead is a question of firearm 'firing
capacity.' With this change of terms and shift of direction, the Attorney General contends
that firearm firing-capacity restrictions have been subject to longstanding regulation dating
back to the 1920s. Yet, even his new focus falters under a close look at the historical
record.

It is interesting to note that during the Nation?s founding era, states enacted
regulations for the formation and maintenance of citizen militias. Three such statutes are
described in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Rather than restricting firing
capacity, they required firing capacity. These statutes required citizens to equip themselves
with arms and a minimum quantity of ammunition for those arms. None placed an upper
limit of 10-rounds, as ? 32310 does. Far from it. Each imposed a floor of at least 20-
rounds. Id. at 180-83 (Massachusetts law of 1649 required carrying ?twenty bullets,? while
New York 1786 law required ?a Box therein to contain no less than Twenty-four
Cartridges,? and Virginia law of 1785 required a cartridge box and ?four pounds of lead,
including twenty blind cartridges?). In 1776, Paul Revere?s Minutemen (a special group
of the Massachusetts militia) were required to have ready 30 bullets and gunpowder. These
early American citizen militia laws suggest that, contrary to the idea of a firing-capacity
upper limit on the number of rounds a citizen was permitted to keep with one?s arms, there
was an obligation that citizens would have at least 20 rounds available for immediate use.
Simply put, there were no upper limits; there were floors and the floors were well above
10 rounds.

[DenverGP]

Section 32310 runs afoul of the Second Amendment under the simple Heller test.
It fails the Heller test because it criminalizes a law-abiding citizen’s possession of a
common magazine that is used for lawful purposes and prohibits its use for self-defense
in and around the home. It strikes at the core of the inalienable Constitutional right and
disenfranchises approximately 39 million state residents.
This conclusion should not be considered groundbreaking. It is simply a
straightforward application of constitutional law to an experimental governmental
overreach that goes far beyond traditional boundaries of reasonable gun regulation.

[DenverGP]

If a law-abiding, responsible citizen in California decides that a handgun or rifle
with a magazine larger than 10 rounds is the best choice for defending her hearth and
home, may the State deny the choice, declare the magazine a “nuisance,” and jail the
citizen for the crime of possession? The Attorney General says that is what voters want
in hopes of preventing a rare, but horrible, mass shooting. The plaintiffs, who are also
citizens and residents of California, say that while the goal of preventing mass shootings
is laudable, banning the acquisition and possession of magazines holding more than 10
rounds is an unconstitutional experiment that poorly fits the goal.

Regardless of current popularity, neither a
legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights. 'An unconstitutional statute
adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity.'

[DenverGP]

When they occur, mass shootings are tragic. Innocent lives are senselessly lost
while other lives are scarred forever. Communities are left shaken, frightened, and
grieving. The timeline of the tragedy, the events leading up to the shooting, and the
repercussions on family and friends after the incident, fill the national media news cycle
for days, weeks and years. Who has not heard about the Newtown, Connecticut, mass
shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or the one at a high school in Parkland,
Florida? But an individual victim gets little, if any, media attention, and the attention he
or she gets is local and short-lived. For example, who has heard about the home invasion
attack on Melinda Herman and her twin nine-year old daughters in Georgia only one
month after the Sandy Hook incident?15 Who has heard of the attacks on Ms. Zhu Chen
or Ms. Gonzalez and her husband?16 Are the lives of these victims worth any less than
those lost in a mass shooting? Would their deaths be any less tragic? Unless there are a
lot of individual victims together, the tragedy goes largely unnoticed.
That is why mass shootings can seem to be a common problem, but in fact, are
exceedingly rare. At the same time robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals are
common, but draw little public notice. As in the year 2017, in 2016 there were numerous
robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals in California and no mass shootings.

[DenverGP]

Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is
a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the
everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes,
and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a
firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With
rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a
chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or
traumatized.

[DenverGP]

A couple more and I'll stop....

Saying that large capacity magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a
tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning.

See Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015)

“Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly used. A law’s existence can’t be the source of its own constitutional validity."

Since the 1980s, one of the most popular handguns in America has been the Glock
17 pistol, which is designed for, and typically sold with, a 17-round magazine. One of
the most popular youth rifles in America over the last 60 years has been the Ruger 10/22.
Six million have been sold since it was introduced in 1964. It is designed to use
magazines manufactured by Ruger in a variety of sizes: 10-round, 15-round, and 25-
round. Over the last three decades, one of the most popular civilian rifles in America is
the much maligned AR-15 style rifle. Manufactured with various characteristics by
numerous companies, it is estimated that more than five million have been bought since
the 1980s. These rifles are typically sold with 30-round magazines. These commonly-
owned guns with commonly-sized magazines are protected by the Second Amendment
and Heller’s simple test for responsible, law-abiding citizens to use for target practice,
hunting, and defense.

[DenverGP]

Reading this felt like a hoax, so I made sure to check the links. It's still hard for me to believe this wording. It feels fake, but there is no evidence that it is.

I completely agree....

[DenverGP]

On "no one needs more than 10 rounds":

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.

This judge is my fucking hero!

[BushMasterBoy]

Media statement in link below...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...er-2nd-n989136