Federal judge overturns Cali's high capacity magazine ban.

Link

-

A federal judge in California on Friday ruled against the Golden State’s ban on gun magazines that are able to hold more than 10 rounds.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez said the rule violates the Second Amendment and infringes upon citizens’ rights to defend themselves.

“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 such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny,” he wrote in an 86-page decision.

“California’s ban is far-reaching, absolute, and permanent. The ban on acquisition and possession on magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds, together with the substantial criminal penalties threatening a law-abiding, responsible, citizen who desires such magazines to protect hearth and home, imposes a burden on the constitutional right that this Court judges as severe,” he wrote.

Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee who serves on the bench for the Southern District of California, also wrote that California’s ban unfairly impacts a wide swath of the state’s gun owners, as many choose to use magazines containing over 10 rounds for their defense.

-

CA attorney general will appeal to the 9th circuit where it will likely get reinstated, then the Supreme Court will likely say no-no to the 9th circuit. It will be an interesting turn of events in California.

Don't really care either way to be honest.

'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 such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny,” he wrote in an 86-page decision.'

But seriously, this is hilarious. I can't properly defend my home since my magazine can only hold 10 rounds! lol

Of course he will as the AG doesn't give a hoot in hell about the 2A and neither does KA for that matter.

Could have more than one invader or you could just have really poor aim.

If you need more than 10x 5.56mm rounds to defend your home, you might be living in a warzone.

Plus, a short barrel 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00-buck shot and slugs will do a better job than any handgun or assault rifle.

Yeah, shotguns have always been best for home defense. SImply the cocking sound of a shotgun will be enough to deter almost any home invader.

Then again, there will be a much bigger mess to clean up.

You make it sound as if the ban was only on a "high" capacity magazine for any semi-auto 5.56 firearm.

You read it wrong then, I just chose a random caliber of bullet.

I own 3 guns. What do conservatives usually say? Survival of the fittest? Maybe next time this woman could lay some claymores in her yard.

When the bad guy kicks in my door...

That's terrible reasoning.

Which part on this federal court judge's 86 page decision was terrible reasoning?

Referring to the bullet count.

@Chutebox: what do you mean?

"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 such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny,"

Don't agree with that.

@HoolaHoopMan:

I don't know what conservatives say because I'm not a conservative.

AnComs have guns too, ya know?

I've always known guns as a privilege, so I've never been against more gun control, but I think removing guns has major implications that will cause more problems than solve.

Let's say every avid gun collector met half way in a peace treaty, and removed all assault rifle-like weapons from their collections, like my vintage Russian SKS that I got for my Birthday from my Dad, but kept the shotguns and muzzle loaders. I'd honestly accept this deal if government payed me for it and the ammo.

However, what happens if mass murders still continue to happen, what will they do next if removing some guns didn't work? Hell, even if all mass murders stop, do you think these people will stop at assault rifles or high capacity clips? If crime lowers cause of removed guns, they'll want to remove more.

Whether violence goes up or down, they're gonna come after the rest the guns, and once they take that inch it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. It's why I think each state should handle their own gun law, cause you're not gonna need same kind of laws for Texas, Utah or Montana, as you would Maryland, Massachusetts, or Flordia.

In our country the anti 2a's seem to think firearm ownership is indeed a privilege rather than a right.

@Solaryellow: I probably own more guns than most on this forum. Semi autos are for bitches. Men use revolvers and bolt action rifles.

That's good. Seriously. "High-capacity" magazine bans are kind of silly, seeing as how someone can reload a handgun in about one second. All laws like this do are A.) alienate voters, B.) give people false sense of security, and C.) accomplish not a whole lot. Political theatre "blah blah blah we will ban high cap magazines blah blah weapons of criminals blah blah who needs it blah blah".

Maybe we can get some legitimately intelligent and effective gun laws in its place now.

But how will you kill a room full of deer if you have to stop and reload every six shots!?!?!

I'm honestly surprised the gun industry doesn't quietly support lower capacity magazines. If people want to buy a certain amount of bullets they would have to actively buy more magazines to get that amount with lower capacities. If the people ask why they can't just add more bullets per mag they can just say it's out of their hands.

That would be quite humorous if it was not so damned facetious.

@Stevo_the_gamer:

The second amendment wasn't in the original constitution, it was only included 70 years later, ie after the founding fathers kicked the bucket. The gun nuts who think the 2a is a holy law passed by God are the real idiots.

I don't mind the 2a but I believe that if you shoot or injure someone who is innocent or hasn't harmed you, then you pay out of your wages for the rest of the innocent mans life to make the person comfortable. This would make people think twice before using a gun.

If you can't pay the fine, then the innocent man gets to shoot you back in the same spot to suffer the same.injury. I believe in eye for an eye.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Weren't the first ten amendments, including the 2nd amendment, added to the Constitution in 1791, a mere 3 years after the Constitution was officially established??

@mattbbpl:

My mistake, it was added a whole 4 years after the constitution was written. Also, the law was made when the most powerful gun had a capacity of one bullet, and it could be fired 3 times per minute by the most skilled soldier.

If the founders ever even dreamed of a world where a machine gun could fire 500 rounds per minute, I'm pretty sure the second ammendment would not have been added to the constitution. A dumb law without any real thought behind it.

Again, the guns of those times were super weak and hard to use. If they had foresight to imagine what modern weapons could do, don't even think for a second the founding fathers would have added the 2nd ammendment.

The founding fathers knew guns were going to evolve to become more efficient, it is why they worded the 2A in that manner. If they wanted limitations on what type of weapons the citizens can own, they would have mentioned it specifically. But they did not. This is because they realized a citizen must be armed to their best capabilities in order to fight a tyranny. It is highly unlikely citizens with severely limited weapons such as muskets, would be capable of fighting off tyrannies equipped with M-16's/M4's. They would not have changed anything about the 2A. If anything, they would have equipped themselves with military style weapons.

Everything else is pure speculation, you have no evidence backing up your claim they would not have supported the 2A if they knew of today's style of weapons.

@nattydaddy604:

The fact it took them 4 years to add it after the original constitution was made just proves the point.

Besides that, it's funny how the 2a defenders are okay with people not being allowed to buy fully automatic guns, or tanks, or even nukes. That's infringement of the 2a, so why are people okay with it?

It's definitely not speculation, just common sense. If the founders ever imagined nukes would be possible, or tanks, or fully automatic weapons, would they still support a citizens right to bear arms? Hell no, the 2a would never been so general if they could have even imagined the world 300 years into the future. A lot of weapons and tech we have now a days would be considered horrendous magic to the people living in the 1700s. We would probably be thought of as gods to them.

And this is the problem with following old text as law. If you take everything literally in a 300 year old book known as the constitution, then what's different between that and a religious nut job following a 2000 year old book. Not much in the end.

The constitution isn't holy, its not sacred. It's just a set of rules that doesn't make sense in the modern age.