Federal Judge blocks California's high capacity magazine law

A small victory for gun owner's rights. From a federal Judge, no less. Wonders never cease.

Perhaps the lower courts now recognize that there's little use in Judicial Activism when the SCOTUS is likely to overturn them.

www.foxnews.com...

I wish I could say that this will put an end to CA's ways but they will try again. Sure as I know anything.

originally posted by: Excallibacca
I wish I could say that this will put an end to CA's ways but they will try again. Sure as I know anything.

Of course! The same argument applies to magazine size as to guns, themselves, For both sides of the issue. Jihadists aren't going to comply with a mag restriction or overall gun restrictions. Neither will gang-bangers.

It only restricts those that are law abiding.

That's the crux of it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

When I got back to California in 2008 after they had instituted the 8 round I think capacity magazine law, I went and got 3 round extenders for all my 15 round mags. Just for spite.

With they did that in New York, politicians Americas special people

At least there's a little bit of sanity to be found in the California legal system. These magazines were legally possessed and acquired under California law. Now, California wants to retroactively change the law to make it illegal. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. That's why the original federal AWB included a 'grandfather' clause that allowed people to keep the firearms and magazines they already possessed.

Watching to see what 9th circus does.

Kinda puts em on the spot IMO because they rule against injunction the case can go SCOTUS rather quickly on emergency basis.

1st amendment equivalent loosely would ban books with more pages than average Dr. Suesse book as having risk of too much knowledge at hand.

Or

Electronic media may not contain more data than a tweet as that would be risky.

Never have understood how particular segment could vigorously defend one amendment but attack another.

a reply to: Phoenix

I have little doubt that the 9th Circus will throw out this injunction and allow the ban (which is actually confiscation) to take effect. That's why they're called the 9th Circus. If they do, it might finally force the US Supreme Court to take up a case directly related to the 'assault rifle' issue. I think it'll be awfully difficult to legally justify confiscation of an item that was lawfully acquired under the applicable law at the time.

Would be nice if they just left the people to vote on the issue. And stick by the result.

In the 80s gun measures appeared on ballots and were voted down every time, by the people.

Then they just started making restrictive gun laws anyway, for our own good.

lulz

a reply to: nwtrucker

I guess they aren't going to come and take folks guns ala Alex Jones fear mongering after all! Yay checks and balances!

I'm glad really. It means the NRA has less to complain about.

a reply to: Excallibacca


Huh, I love Cali. Where else in the United States can you Ski, and Surf in the same day. I also love our nice winters here in So Cali. The people here are much nicer than in the Chicago area where I am from and lived for 38 years, I Have been in SO Cali for almost 9 years. The mind set here is better too. The one MAJOR thing I hate is TRAFFIC!
Thank God I go the opposite way on the freeways as the majority is going on my way to and from work.

a reply to: intrptr

This one actually was approved by the California voters and in most cases, I agree that should be enough....as long as the law in question doesn't encroach upon Constitutional rights. I'd argue that this one does at least twice.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: intrptr

This one actually was approved by the California voters and in most cases, I agree that should be enough....as long as the law in question doesn't encroach upon Constitutional rights. I'd argue that this one does at least twice.

Just so you know, I don't trust the actual outcome of any elections anymore.

The era I spoke of was in the past before digital voting and the halls of corruption we call our representative government today.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: nwtrucker

I guess they aren't going to come and take folks guns ala Alex Jones fear mongering after all! Yay checks and balances!

I'm glad really. It means the NRA has less to complain about.

The california gun laws are some of the most restrictive now. Its becoming worse all the time. This bone thrown in gun owners direction hardly compares to the steady infringement, is meant more for appeasement, will be rescinded anyway, eventually.

You do understand the eventual goal of encroachment by the PTB is total disarmament? That arms have always been removed from the general populace throughout history?

The bill of rights and the second amendment are but a burp in the history of tyranny. Maybe you studied that enough to know this is the same process, or are in denial or are dismissing it.

a reply to: intrptr

Neither do I, especially when certain people are so against any kind of voter ID requirement, but that's another subject entirely.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: intrptr

This one actually was approved by the California voters and in most cases, I agree that should be enough....as long as the law in question doesn't encroach upon Constitutional rights. I'd argue that this one does at least twice.

heres the thing though. if its unconstitutional their vote does not count.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: intrptr

This one actually was approved by the California voters and in most cases, I agree that should be enough....as long as the law in question doesn't encroach upon Constitutional rights. I'd argue that this one does at least twice.

heres the thing though. if its unconstitutional their vote does not count.

Thats easy... discriminate, call them 'damn constitutionalists'.

a reply to: yuppa

I absolutely agree and that's why I mentioned it. California's voters shouldn't be able to legally approve a gun confiscation law that likely violates the 2nd and 4th amendments as well as the Article 1 Section 9 prohibition on Ex post facto laws.

a reply to: kurthall

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with your terrible gun laws. See, I'm a military type born in Massachusetts and settled down in GA now. I've seen both sides of it and feel GA is much better.

a reply to: nwtrucker


I suppose one must be prepared to become 'pre-criminals'. Purchase your arms, ammo and attachments, preferable under the radar and hide them.

Pre-criminal '101' would have as it's basic tenet that if one doesn't get caught, there's no crime. Therefore it's only a crime if your caught.


Who know? You might even get grandfathered in...