Breaking! Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment

NRA ILA

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.

Thank you!

The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Naturally, this includes all the accurterments germane to the exercise thereof. No logic can be applied to a situation where a right is so incumbered by onerous regulation that it isn't offensive to what we know as the plain and legal meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Your move liberals.

a reply to: projectvxn

saw this and it is good news but sadly i think it goes to the 9th circuit next.... and they are notoriously anti 2nd amendment but it is a small glimmer of hope for ca getting decent gun laws back assuming it isn't stopped by the evil 9th

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

This judge used a high standard of constitutional scrutiny. The 9th would have to disagree with SCOTUS and that isn't likely to happen. If it does, it will be before the SCOTUS.

a reply to: projectvxn

i did love the wording the judge used which would seem to preempt any shenanigans from the 9th but as a former California resident who escaped i guess its the jaded me that is skeptical until its all official and the dust clears .but as always the more victories for the 2nd in court the better!

edit to add from your source this is why i was some what skeptical but the wording is really key for the future of the case like you said if it goes before scotus

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.

so ill try to be optimistic about it but until the 9th rules ill be some what jaded as i dont trust them on the 2nd

a reply to: projectvxn

There will always be those who are against the US Constitution.

That used to be treasonous. Now it's a democrat party platform.

Yikes!

Bad week for the cultists. Might as well jump.

a reply to: projectvxn

this is great news! Now hopefully it sets precedent and Oregon Dims get stymied on their gun grabbiness

What?
2nd amendment?
What?


What about the one before that one? Are guns worse than boobies?
www.rollingstone.com...

Good i am glad i stored my 30 and 120 round mags on Nevada and did not destory or turn them in.

Maybe i will in the future be able to bring them back to calif.

For me the 120 round drums were a scare factor against criminal as i seldom put more then 20 rounds in them.

But the criminals would never know that and fear they were about to DIE.

I carried this weapon when mining in remote areas without Fast LEO backup.
In many areas it was 1 to 2 hours for the cops to get there.

originally posted by: Phage
What?
2nd amendment?
What?


What about the one before that one? Are guns worse than boobies?
www.rollingstone.com...

I was utterly confused at first read, too. As in, WTF do gun rags have to do with the the right to bear arms?

Then I realized it refers to the other kind of magazine.

To be fair, OP, you should have dropped a little clarification nugget in there, the vast majority of people think s# like Cosmo when they hear "magazine". I assumed this was about an NRA or other related firearms rag or something, and obviously am not the only one.

a reply to: Nyiah



(thank you for the set up, Chevy)

The group or persons responsible for banning the magazine should have to do 40 hrs of community service and probation for 1 year.

a reply to: Nyiah

Why the hell do I have to spoon feed the ignorant?

a reply to: projectvxn

I saw a guy once with a CA legal AR-15 at our range.

It was actually pretty comical, poor guy. At first I kind of felt bad snickering at his rifle, but then I remembered our stupid governor did something almost equally as stupid (mag cap limit) and then it wasn't so funny anymore.

a reply to: projectvxn

Good, it is egregious.

Looking at gun control Nazi's speak on the matter, their intentions is clear: every line they say, every talking point... is bull #! It is nothing more than an impotent attack by bitter, sour grape leftists who want to attack our culture. Watch them discuss it for 5 seconds and that much becomes clear

4 letter word - them! 4 letter word them in the worst of ways. I despise anti gun loonies

a reply to: Nyiah

Yeah, I just bet Controller

Another win for the 2A community - as usual.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Phage
What?
2nd amendment?
What?


What about the one before that one? Are guns worse than boobies?
www.rollingstone.com...

I was utterly confused at first read, too. As in, WTF do gun rags have to do with the the right to bear arms?

Then I realized it refers to the other kind of magazine.

To be fair, OP, you should have dropped a little clarification nugget in there, the vast majority of people think s# like Cosmo when they hear "magazine". I assumed this was about an NRA or other related firearms rag or something, and obviously am not the only one.

Clipazines greater than 10 rounds. Does that clear it up?

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Phage
What?
2nd amendment?
What?


What about the one before that one? Are guns worse than boobies?
www.rollingstone.com...

I was utterly confused at first read, too. As in, WTF do gun rags have to do with the the right to bear arms?

Then I realized it refers to the other kind of magazine.

To be fair, OP, you should have dropped a little clarification nugget in there, the vast majority of people think s# like Cosmo when they hear "magazine". I assumed this was about an NRA or other related firearms rag or something, and obviously am not the only one.

No, the "vast majority," when reading NRA and 2nd amendment in the same paragraph as "magazine", do NOT "confuse" the word "magazine" with a periodical. There is no need for "clarification" for anyone paying attention. Give at least some credit for the intelligence of readers here. If you were confused, then God have mercy on your soul because there's nothing that can be done to help you.

a reply to: schuyler

Bravo schuyler

When controllers intentionally muddle words that are supposed to read as some kind of insult but actually just end up backfiring (much like their gun control proposals)

Lets ban the guns "with the shoulder thing"
Lets ban the guns "that look scary"
Lets ban magazines "that hold some arbitrary number of rounds"

Yet not a one can offer a valid motive for us to give up an unalienable Constitutional right when we frankly do not have to. Meanwhile, their motives are very clear... reading the comments on their gun-control groups makes this abundantly clear. It is about attacking, insulting and depriving pro-gun folks of our unalienable right to bare firearms, nothing to do with the guns themselves.

Of course if they want to open the can of worms by calling a convention..... we can start with adding a balanced budget amendment and repeal the non-apportioned income tax (effectively defunding vast segments within the Federal government) and "clarifying" some of the confusion the supposedly-elite segment of our society apparently has when it comes to "Shall not be infringed"

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Ah yes, remember the days when cars were produced and specifically mentioned as having California Emission? Always sounded a little funny then. You don’t hear that anymore because all cars come California Compliant.

They tried the same thing with guns but gun manufacturers are not as stupid as car manufacturers. Ford, Chrysler and GM should have had the fortitude to respond with “Okay, we won’t sell cars in California and see who gives in first.”