Jump to content
voyager9

CA 10-Round mag limit struck down

Recommended Posts

Score one for NRA.  As they say though, it will be appealed most likely.  Will be awesome to see it go to supreme court!

Text below.

 

 

 

In one of the strongest judicial statements in favor of the Second Amendment to date, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California determined on Friday that California’s ban on commonly possessed firearm magazines violates the Second Amendment.

The case is Duncan v. Becerra.

The NRA-supported case had already been up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the question of whether the law’s enforcement should be suspended during proceedings on its constitutionality. Last July, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s suspension of enforcement and sent the case back to him for further proceedings on the merits of the law itself. 

Judge Benitez rendered his opinion late Friday afternoon and handed Second Amendment supporters a sweeping victory by completely invalidating California’s 10-round limit on magazine capacity. “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he declared.  

In a scholarly and comprehensive opinion, Judge Benitez subjected the ban both to the constitutional analysis he argued was required by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and a more complicated and flexible test the Ninth Circuit has applied in prior Second Amendment cases. 

Either way, Judge Benitez ruled, the law would fail. Indeed, he characterized the California law as “turning the Constitution upside down.” He also systematically dismantled each of the state’s purported justifications for the law, demonstrating the factual and legal inconsistencies of their claims.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox hailed the decision as a “huge win for gun owners” and a “landmark recognition of what courts have too often treated as a disfavored right.” 

“Judge Benitez took the Second Amendment seriously and came to the conclusion required by the Constitution,” Cox said. “The same should be true of any court analyzing a ban on a class of arms law-abiding Americans commonly possess for self-defense or other lawful purposes.”

Unfortunately, Friday’s opinion is not likely to be the last word on the case. The state will likely appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has proven notably hostile to the Second Amendment in past decisions.

Nevertheless, the thoroughness of Judge Benitez’s analysis should give Second Amendment supporters the best possible chance for success in appellate proceedings, particularly if the case ultimately lands before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime, Friday’s order prohibits California from enforcing its magazine restrictions, leaving its law-abiding residents safer and freer, at least for the time being. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Displaced Texan said:

More importantly, what does this mean for us?

Nothing yet.

It would mean someone needs to file a mag capacity case in NJ and have it go through our court system.  They would be able to use the Cali decision as case law.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, reloaderguy said:

Yep. Saw this. Can this be used to help our NJ case?  CA Federal court ruling. Does the federal level have more weight in other states that have the same ban or restrictions?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

... Unfortunately, Friday’s opinion is not likely to be the last word on the case. The state will likely appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has proven notably hostile to the Second Amendment in past decisions. ...

So maybe in another 2-3 years we can knock down NJ's prohibition?  After this runs up to SCOTUS?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

So it says the entire law was invalidated. So does that mean CA residents can get 30’s again or is it back to the old limit which I think was 15

I’d have to think that can get what they wish now. If I’ve read the ruling right. If the law was found to be unconstitutional as I am understanding then any limitations are same.

Time for NJ to get this case going or updated citing this ruling  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI: the Honorable Roger T. Benitez was born in Havana, Cuba.  He understands these communists and sees right through them:

"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."

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 6
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Maksim said:

Nothing yet.

It would mean someone needs to file a mag capacity case in NJ and have it go through our court system.  They would be able to use the Cali decision as case law.

ANJRPC already has the case open... may need to add info from this ruling

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spartiati said:

Unfortunately the 9th circus will swoop in and present a strained argument for how it is constitutional...

Okay, SO how many people had this exact same reaction when they read about the decision.  I know that was my first thought.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Krdshrk said:

ANJRPC already has the case open... may need to add info from this ruling

I don’t think a CA district court ruling can be used as precedence outside thst district. It would have to make it to SCOTUS to apply everywhere. 

9 minutes ago, PeteF said:

Okay, SO how many people had this exact same reaction when they read about the decision.  I know that was my first thought.

Keep in mind the 9th sided with Benitez already when they denied the appeal on the injunction. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maksim said:

In the meantime, Friday’s order prohibits California from enforcing its magazine restrictions, leaving its law-abiding residents safer and freer, at least for the time being. 

Darn, now all those firearm owners who had tragic boating accidents and lost their high capacity mags, will have to go back out in that lake and dive to see if they can find their old mags.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the droughts in Kali, I suspect that many of those horrible, horrible boating accidents took place in locations which may now be simply puddles.

If it hits the supreme court and is ruled in our favor, I hope there's a drought in NJ too, for all you guys who lost your mags in similar aquatic tragedies.  At least most of us who suffered through these countless boating accidents did not have to go through 7 sawzall blades trying to destroy our highly dangerous 15 round Glock mags.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Crazy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Judge blocks California's high-capacity ammunition ban

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets.

"Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.

California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.

In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.

Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades.

"We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.

The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.

Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.

But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country."

Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "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."

Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.

In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone.

"She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.

https://www.omaha.com/news/nation/judge-blocks-california-s-high-capacity-ammunition-ban/article_2b9c16b9-2592-5507-b871-218e70617699.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, best 2A news I've heard in a long time!

15 hours ago, Spartiati said:

Unfortunately the 9th circus will swoop in and present a strained argument for how it is constitutional...

But yes, I'm sure many of us had that same reaction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great decision. For us it is meaningless at the moment. Also, it is not an Appellate Court decision, it would carry greater weight if the Ninth Cir. affirms his decision. Then it could be used more effectively on any case raising the same issue that reaches the N.J. Supreme Court or the U. S. Supreme Court. However, I think his reasoning and logic is very compelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



×
×
  • Create New...