On Friday, September 22, 2023, U.S District Judge Roger Benitez again ruled California’s ban on so-called “large capacity magazines” unconstitutional. The law, California Penal Code 32310, was brought in by Proposition 63. The ruling was stayed for 10 days to allow the State of California to appeal. As expected, the State immediately appealed… almost like it was already sitting on a desk waiting to go.
You may recall Judge Benitez made the same ruling in 2017. It was affirmed on appeal by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2019, Summary Judgement was granted to the plaintiffs. This led to California’s famous “Freedom Week” before the judgement was stayed, and the 9th Circuit re-heard the case en banc and reversed the decision. In 2022, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the appellate en banc decision, and remanded the case. The appeals court sent it back to Judge Benitez for rehearing in light of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen case.
In response, the California’s governor/still-unannounced-2024-Democrat-presidential-nominee-wannabe’s reaction was as swift as it was predictable. Using as many insults, lies, exaggerations and rhetoric as he could squeeze into a single tweet, he also managed to cram in a plug for his absurd 28th Amendment gun-control proposal.
“BREAKING: California’s high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life.
Wake up, America.
Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America.”
A couple of highlights from the ruling itself.
Among the arguments the State made are that ammunition feeding devices, magazines, are not an integral part of the firearm and therefore, not covered by the Second Amendment. However, this is inconsistent as 10 round and less magazines are legal in the state, but not legal over 10 rounds. California’s Unsafe Handgun Act also requires new semiautomatic pistols to have an integrated magazine-disconnect mechanism, therefore rending the pistol unable to fire even a single shot without a magazine.
The State contends that large capacity magazines are not typically used in self-defense and are therefore not suitable for self-defense. The State’s expert concluded, without evidence or investigation using only anecdotal statements, that it was statistically rare for a person to fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense and that only 2.2 shots are fired on average.
Yet these were some of the compelling facts the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals en banc panel used to overturn the ruling.
The ruling itself (linked below) is 71 pages and is an excellent read. All the previous findings of fact and conclusions from the original 2017 ruling are included, now updated with Bruen’s text, history, tradition test applied. It also thoroughly examines the State’s arguments and details their flaws in law and logic. If you are interested in countering the gun-control rhetoric and nonsense, I strongly urge you read it for yourself.
Here is one line which encapsulates the sum of the ruling.
“There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious.”
What happens now?
As expected, the State appealed this ruling, and the process begins anew. If this case follows the same path as it did before, it will first be heard by a three-judge panel, appealed by losing side, then reheard en banc. Keep in mind the previous initial ruling in the case was in 2017 and only granted certiorari in 2022.
We can also expect the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to slow walk this case through the process, dragging it out as long as possible. After all, the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court is the same as when it ruled in Bruen. If (and ONLY IF) it is granted certiorari again, it would likely rule in favor of the plaintiffs. That means there is NO WAY IN HELL the gun-control community, which includes the majority of the judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is going to let this case anywhere near the Supreme Court until the Court has a majority of liberal leaning Justices to support their decision.
With this I’m going to point out the obvious again. Fighting to get your rights back after they have been taken away is a fool’s errand. At BEST you have a very long and extremely expensive legal battle with little chance of succeeding, no matter how egregious the constitutional or legal issues are. The only people winning are the lawyers. Meanwhile, regular law-abiding citizens have lost their rights and ability to properly defend themselves and their families.
The ONLY way to keep this from happening again is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.
Bob
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-22-Decision-Signed-by-Judge-R.-Benitez2263869.1.pdf
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #StandardCapacityMagazine, #EditorOnHoliday, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com
California Magazine Ban Unconstitutional, Part Deux
