Federal judge rules CA magazine ban violates 2A

[avandelay]

Now if we could only get this ruling to apply in all of the other states where standard capacity magazines have been banned. I read somewhere that our mag ban case was going to the state supreme court. Is that correct? I thought our case had been tossed many years ago.

[KAPA]

So I think the order of events goes like this:

1. 9th circus overturns this ruling.
2. SCOTUS gets case and overturns all mag bans in the US

Anyone know if you can buy a 30 rounder in Cali tomorrow at a gun store? Sell them while you can, right?

Why do I get the feeling that liberals are prepping their next nut to shoot up some soft target in the next few days?

[FoxtArt]

Most likely:
1. 9th overturns ruling.
2. SCOTUS declines to hear it.

Maybe less likely:
1. Or, more likely, 9th retains technical ruling (some reason why the specific magazine ban should be overturned, but not because of what the judge opined), and guts the opinion, so that SCOTUS can't reliably be petitioned - CA won't pursue it, and the petitioner will still have won.
2. CA comes back fixing the technicality and re-bans magazines.

Quite unlikely:
1. 9th Overturns
2. SCOTUS decides to hear the case. They traditionally don't touch 2A or controversial cases, and they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

[Jer]

Now if we could only get this ruling to apply in all of the other states where standard capacity magazines have been banned. I read somewhere that our mag ban case was going to the state supreme court. Is that correct? I thought our case had been tossed many years ago.

It's my understanding that this decision in CA will likely go to SCOTUS now and a ruling in our favor would then be beneficial here & other non-free states as well.

[Great-Kazoo]

Most likely:
1. 9th overturns ruling.
2. SCOTUS declines to hear it.

Maybe less likely:
1. Or, more likely, 9th retains technical ruling (some reason why the specific magazine ban should be overturned, but not because of what the judge opined), and guts the opinion, so that SCOTUS can't reliably be petitioned - CA won't pursue it, and the petitioner will still have won.
2. CA comes back fixing the technicality and re-bans magazines.

Quite unlikely:
1. 9th Overturns
2. SCOTUS decides to hear the case. They traditionally don't touch 2A or controversial cases, and they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

They then rule to refer it back to the lower courts, citing states rights.

[brutal]

They then rule to refer it back to the lower courts, citing states rights.

"powers not delegated" seems to be dismissed.

I'm no Constitutional scholar, or even smart enough to stay in a Holiday Inn, but it's my understanding that states may "enhance" the Constitution but not diminish it.

Unfortunately, with 2A, it seems the courts have allowed the states rights to "regulate" certain things to come to bear. Regulating away our rights via excessive fees, egregious taxes (ammo), wait times, and other barriers to exercising our rights is one of their tactics and they're largely getting away with it. Hopefully this ruling gains momentum and stands as a precedent to return some of those rights to the people.

[Rucker61]

So I think the order of events goes like this:

1. 9th circus overturns this ruling.
2. SCOTUS gets case and overturns all mag bans in the US

Anyone know if you can buy a 30 rounder in Cali tomorrow at a gun store? Sell them while you can, right?

Why do I get the feeling that liberals are prepping their next nut to shoot up some soft target in the next few days?

The 9th just recently upheld the 2nd in Young v Hawaii with regards with the right to keep and bear arms in public. Sometimes you can't guess which way they'll swing.

[Jer]

They then rule to refer it back to the lower courts, citing states rights.

Protecting individual rights from states who would unconstitutionally rule to infringe on them is one of the chief responsibilities of the Federal Government. That and protecting our borders are the two primary purposes of the .gov even though they seem to forget this from time to time.

[Skip]

Finally some common sense!

The obsession with number of rounds are arbitrary limits has never been the way to frame this. It's the effectiveness of the weapon and the parts (magazines) that determine the capabilities. If citizens can't have weapons in common use, with common capabilities, there is no 2A.

So I think the order of events goes like this:

1. 9th circus overturns this ruling.
2. SCOTUS gets case and overturns all mag bans in the US

Anyone know if you can buy a 30 rounder in Cali tomorrow at a gun store? Sell them while you can, right?

Why do I get the feeling that liberals are prepping their next nut to shoot up some soft target in the next few days?

I hope (on #1 and 2)!

I'm not a CA expert other than studying their laws to see what they would try here in CaliforniaWest but I think there's a stack of other laws that limit the ability to have a detachable magazine in an "unregistered assault weapon" or some other nonsense. Hence the bullet button and now the quick take-down solutions.

All of it's unconstitutional and at odds with UBCs being the solution to everything.


ETA: Now would be a good time for Judge Benitez to stop sleeping with a pillow.

[SouthPaw]

Plenty of online retailers have opened their doors to CA.