10-Round Magazine Limit Is Unconstitutional

[eddiememphis]

https://reason.com/2023/09/24/califo...e-rules-again/

"There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity," U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez says, calling the state's cap "arbitrary," "capricious," and "extreme."

"There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried," writes Roger Benitez...

California's law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home...

When "asked to identify the best historic analogue to its sweeping prohibition on large
capacity magazines," Benitez says, California cited a 1784 New York City law that imposed a 28-pound limit on the amount of gunpowder that could be stored in a building. But that law had "nothing to do with gun violence," Benitez notes. Rather, it was "a fire safety regulation.

"There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,"... survey data on defensive gun uses suggest that incidents where more than 10 rounds are needed "happen between 1,500 and 9,000 times" every year.

In other words, the magazines that California has deemed intolerable are clearly "in common use" for "lawful purposes," fitting the Supreme Court's definition of the "arms" that Americans are presumptively entitled to own.

[Fromk]

Out of curiosity I checked out PSA's site and they already have a disclaimer saying they're preparing to ship to California when/if that ruling is finalized. It's a very interesting development.

[APEXgunparts]

APEX Gun Parts is also actively monitoring these changes to the California magazine restrictions.

If it is finalized in the citizens favor we are happy to service those customers.

Richard