Scoop
.30-06
San Diego Union-Tribune
San Diego judge halts high-capacity gun magazine law from taking effect
by Kristina Davis Contact Reporter
6/30/2017
A law set to go into effect Saturday that would make it illegal for Californians to possess a gun magazine holding more than 10 rounds has been blocked for now by a San Diego federal judge.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, in a strongly worded 66-page ruling Thursday, said the law would violate the Second Amendment right for gun owners to defend his home, unfairly take people’s property without compensation and make otherwise law-abiding citizens criminals if they merely possessed such high-capacity magazines.
The judge acknowledged the tragic toll gun violence has taken on this country, but stressed that “public safety interests may not eviscerate the Second Amendment.”
“Gun violence to carry out crime is horrendous and should be condemned by all,” wrote Benitez, nominated to the federal bench in 2003 by President George W. Bush. “Defensive gun violence may be the only way a law-abiding citizen can avoid becoming a victim.”
Such magazines have been illegal to sell, manufacture, import or transfer since 2000 in the state. Last July, the Legislature passed a bill that would make ownership of the gun parts an infraction, and in November voters passed a similar, clarified measure, Proposition 63. Current owners were told they had to get rid of the offending pieces by either taking them to one of dozens of states where ownership is legal, selling the magazines to a licensed firearms dealer, or turning them in to law enforcement for destruction.
Last month, the California Rifle and Pistol Association — the state arm of the National Rifle Association — and five county residents filed a lawsuit claiming the law was infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms and other rights.
Three of the plaintiffs argued they want the magazines for self defense in the home, while two others are military veterans who say they already own the parts and should not have to give them up.
The judge ruled that a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect was appropriate until the merits of the case can be more fully explored. He ordered state Attorney General Xavier Becerra to provide notice to all law enforcement that the law shall not be enforced. Authorities will still be able to investigate and prosecute the illegal importation, purchase, sale and manufacturing of such large-capacity magazines.
“Ultimately, this case asks two questions. ‘Does a law-abiding responsible citizen have a right to defend his home from criminals using whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation? Does that same citizen have a right to keep and bear a common magazine that is useful for service in a militia?’” Benitez said in his analysis. “Because a final decision on the merits is likely to answer both questions ‘yes,’ but a final decision will take too long to offer relief, and because the statute will soon visit irrevocable harm on Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated, a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo.”
Becerra said in a statement Thursday that the law was overwhelmingly approved by voters “to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way.
“Restricting large capacity magazines and preventing them from ending up in the wrong hands is critical for the well-being of our communities. I will defend the will of California voters because we cannot continue to lose innocent lives due to gun violence,” he said.
In arguing against an injunction, the Attorney General’s Office pointed to notorious recent mass shootings involving large-capacity magazines, including the Orlando, Fla., nightclub massacre; the San Bernardino terror attack and the Newtown, Conn., shooting at an elementary school.
“When (large-capacity magazines) are used to commit crime, more shots are fired, more victims are wounded, and there are more wounds per victim,” Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Robert Gordon wrote in a motion. “This in turn leads to more injuries, more lethal injuries, and higher rates of death than crimes involving firearms with conventional magazines.”
She pointed to a report by the NRA that showed in half of all cases studied, two or fewer shots were fired when it came to self-defense incidents.
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller confirms an individual right to bear arms in the home, it also found that right is limited in scope and subject to regulation, Gordon said. Possessing a high-capacity magazine is not protected under that right, she argued.
The judge eviscerated the attorney general’s arguments and said while the lawyer was well-prepared in her presentation, she was not able to describe certain intricacies of the law.
“Who could blame her? The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law,” Benitez said. “Statutes must be sufficiently well-defined so that reasonably intelligent citizens can know what conduct is against the law.”
He also dismissed much of the evidence — including 3,100 pages of exhibits — submitted by the attorney general, noting much it was dated and included recent surveys of shooting incidents and news articles.
“In the end, it is a false dichotomy upon which the Attorney General rests his evidentiary case,” the judge wrote.
The lawsuit, filed May 17, is part of “a series of long and carefully planned lawsuits challenging the package of gun bans passed last year” in the wake of the San Bernardino mass shooting, lawyers for the organization said. Another lawsuit filed by the NRA affiliate in Orange County challenges the prohibition on the sale of semiautomatic rifles with “bullet buttons” that make it easier to replace magazines.
The case was filed by Michel & Associates, the Long Beach-based law firm that also challenged San Diego County’s limits on concealed-carry permits. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the case, Peruta v. California. That means the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling will stand, leaving the limits in place that require law-abiding permits holders have “good cause” to carry a concealed gun.
San Diego judge halts high-capacity gun magazine law from taking effect
by Kristina Davis Contact Reporter
6/30/2017
A law set to go into effect Saturday that would make it illegal for Californians to possess a gun magazine holding more than 10 rounds has been blocked for now by a San Diego federal judge.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, in a strongly worded 66-page ruling Thursday, said the law would violate the Second Amendment right for gun owners to defend his home, unfairly take people’s property without compensation and make otherwise law-abiding citizens criminals if they merely possessed such high-capacity magazines.
The judge acknowledged the tragic toll gun violence has taken on this country, but stressed that “public safety interests may not eviscerate the Second Amendment.”
“Gun violence to carry out crime is horrendous and should be condemned by all,” wrote Benitez, nominated to the federal bench in 2003 by President George W. Bush. “Defensive gun violence may be the only way a law-abiding citizen can avoid becoming a victim.”
Such magazines have been illegal to sell, manufacture, import or transfer since 2000 in the state. Last July, the Legislature passed a bill that would make ownership of the gun parts an infraction, and in November voters passed a similar, clarified measure, Proposition 63. Current owners were told they had to get rid of the offending pieces by either taking them to one of dozens of states where ownership is legal, selling the magazines to a licensed firearms dealer, or turning them in to law enforcement for destruction.
Last month, the California Rifle and Pistol Association — the state arm of the National Rifle Association — and five county residents filed a lawsuit claiming the law was infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms and other rights.
Three of the plaintiffs argued they want the magazines for self defense in the home, while two others are military veterans who say they already own the parts and should not have to give them up.
The judge ruled that a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect was appropriate until the merits of the case can be more fully explored. He ordered state Attorney General Xavier Becerra to provide notice to all law enforcement that the law shall not be enforced. Authorities will still be able to investigate and prosecute the illegal importation, purchase, sale and manufacturing of such large-capacity magazines.
“Ultimately, this case asks two questions. ‘Does a law-abiding responsible citizen have a right to defend his home from criminals using whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation? Does that same citizen have a right to keep and bear a common magazine that is useful for service in a militia?’” Benitez said in his analysis. “Because a final decision on the merits is likely to answer both questions ‘yes,’ but a final decision will take too long to offer relief, and because the statute will soon visit irrevocable harm on Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated, a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo.”
Becerra said in a statement Thursday that the law was overwhelmingly approved by voters “to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way.
“Restricting large capacity magazines and preventing them from ending up in the wrong hands is critical for the well-being of our communities. I will defend the will of California voters because we cannot continue to lose innocent lives due to gun violence,” he said.
In arguing against an injunction, the Attorney General’s Office pointed to notorious recent mass shootings involving large-capacity magazines, including the Orlando, Fla., nightclub massacre; the San Bernardino terror attack and the Newtown, Conn., shooting at an elementary school.
“When (large-capacity magazines) are used to commit crime, more shots are fired, more victims are wounded, and there are more wounds per victim,” Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Robert Gordon wrote in a motion. “This in turn leads to more injuries, more lethal injuries, and higher rates of death than crimes involving firearms with conventional magazines.”
She pointed to a report by the NRA that showed in half of all cases studied, two or fewer shots were fired when it came to self-defense incidents.
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller confirms an individual right to bear arms in the home, it also found that right is limited in scope and subject to regulation, Gordon said. Possessing a high-capacity magazine is not protected under that right, she argued.
The judge eviscerated the attorney general’s arguments and said while the lawyer was well-prepared in her presentation, she was not able to describe certain intricacies of the law.
“Who could blame her? The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law,” Benitez said. “Statutes must be sufficiently well-defined so that reasonably intelligent citizens can know what conduct is against the law.”
He also dismissed much of the evidence — including 3,100 pages of exhibits — submitted by the attorney general, noting much it was dated and included recent surveys of shooting incidents and news articles.
“In the end, it is a false dichotomy upon which the Attorney General rests his evidentiary case,” the judge wrote.
The lawsuit, filed May 17, is part of “a series of long and carefully planned lawsuits challenging the package of gun bans passed last year” in the wake of the San Bernardino mass shooting, lawyers for the organization said. Another lawsuit filed by the NRA affiliate in Orange County challenges the prohibition on the sale of semiautomatic rifles with “bullet buttons” that make it easier to replace magazines.
The case was filed by Michel & Associates, the Long Beach-based law firm that also challenged San Diego County’s limits on concealed-carry permits. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the case, Peruta v. California. That means the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling will stand, leaving the limits in place that require law-abiding permits holders have “good cause” to carry a concealed gun.