• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

CA: Fed Court Finds Mag Ban Violates 2A

Scoop

.30-06
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.

To stay up-to-date on the Duncan case and other important Second Amendment issues affecting California gun owners, visit https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/california/stand-and-fight-california/. And be sure to subscribe to NRA-ILA and CRPA email alerts by visiting https://www.nraila.org/sign-up and www.crpa.org
 
Well, that was a surprising read.
 
This was in the paper this AM, and I found it amazing that they didn't try to support Becerra's side against Benitez.
I think our paper is becoming more moderate.
 
"They" are trying to implement some magazine ban laws here in Sweden too... and by that making many weapons illegal / change the classification... People are very upset and for now, legal weapon owners seem to have good support from enough politicians
 
"They" are trying to implement some magazine ban laws here in Sweden too... and by that making many weapons illegal / change the classification... People are very upset and for now, legal weapon owners seem to have good support from enough politicians

The UN at work worldwide.
 
Only a matter of time before Cali legislators figure out a way to outlaw them again. Prop 65 or some BS... Buy now from out of state while you can then SFTU about it...

It didn't even take California legislators to find a way. All they needed was the right judge and they found him:
In response to a motion from the California Department of Justice, US District Court Judge Roger Benitez, who issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of California’s “high capacity” magazine ban, has just issued a stay of his own injunction. That means that the window for ordering standard capacity magazines is closing.

His order goes into effect at 5:00pm Pacific time on Friday, April 5. You can read the full order here, but this is the relevant portion:


THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310(a) and (b) is hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310 (c) and (d) shall remain in effect.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019. Dated: April 4, 2019.

The ban on possession of “high capacity” magazines will not be enforced while the case is argued and decided, but California residents will not be able to buy them after 5:00pm tomorrow.

Have you ordered your magazines yet?
 
What kind of bull is that ? His interpretation of his own ruling changed. Well, it is California. I guess one day he identifies as a 2nd A guy, then the next as a gun control freak.
 
Benitez ordered a stay of his own injunction?

WTF kind of maneuver is this?

Because in somebody's world, this actually makes sense!
 
I wonder how that works ? Issues a "permanent injunction", and then issues a "stay" against his own injunction. I wonder if that is even a legal move ? Someone should send him a dictionary.
 
Back
Top