You need the Homeboy Nyte Sytes for your Glock. 
Posted on 06/25/2019 2:45:19 AM PDT by LibWhacker
The Second Amendment covers magazines holding more than 10 rounds, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez says, because they are commonly used for lawful purposes.
On Friday evening, a federal judge in San Diego blocked enforcement of California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, deeming it inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to keep arms for self-defense. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez concluded that "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." Benitez, who in 2017 issued a stay that prevented the law from taking effect, also agreed with the plaintiffs that the ban amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation.
In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to arms in common use for lawful purposes. Benitez notes that highly popular firearms owned by millions of Americans, such as the Glock 17 pistol, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle, come equipped with magazines that exceed California's arbitrary limit, which was originally imposed in 2000 and extended to pre-existing hardware by a 2016 ballot initiative. "Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense," Benitez writes. "This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment."
While Benitez thinks that is the appropriate test, he also concludes that California's ban on "large capacity magazines" (LCMs) fails "strict scrutiny," which requires the government to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, and even "intermediate scrutiny," which requires that the law be substantially related to an important state interest. The LCM ban "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state," he writes. "It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored—it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit."
Benitez emphasizes that the avowed aim of the LCM ban—reducing the lethality of mass shootings—is related to a small subset of "extremely rare" crimes: cases where the need to switch magazines creates a "critical pause" during which the perpetrator might be overpowered or his victims might escape. Defensive uses of guns are far more common, and at the beginning of his ruling Benitez describes several cases in which having more than 10 rounds could have made a critical difference. "From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family," he says, "the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine."
California reasoned that 10 rounds are plenty for someone firing a gun in self-defense (except, somehow, for active and retired police officers), since the average number of rounds used in such cases is just 2.2. But by the same logic, the state might argue that gun owners do not really need ammunition at all, since firearms are merely brandished in the vast majority of defensive uses. If there are situations where an LCM makes a significant difference in the hands of a mass shooter, there will also be situations where it makes a significant difference in the hands of someone defending himself or others. Benitez suggests a few:
When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today's litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California's ban covers the entire state at all times.
Proposition 63, which required heretofore legal owners of pre-2000 LCMs to surrender them, remove them from the state, or sell them to licensed gun dealers, passed in 2016 with support from 63 percent of voters. But constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval. "Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy," Benitez writes. "Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet this is the effect of California's large-capacity magazine law."
I remember when Benitez issued his stay back in 2017. But this is no mere stay... So when are we going to be able to buy large cap magazines out here? I saw a great sale on 30-round mags for AR-15s recently, but didn't even bother ordering any because I was pretty sure the company offering them would refuse to ship them to California. So when is it actually going to happen?
The news article was from April 1, 2019.
They really did a good job hiding this.
Sound legal reasoning.
My thought about the utter stupidity of the large capacity magazine ban was home invasion.
There was a video floating around awhile back depicting a courages homeowner being forced to confront a bunch of thugs who barged their way in.
Things were looking good; the homeowner knew how to handle a weapon. Bangers are terrible with guns (insufficient range time).
Unfortunately, that six round magazine proved to be the valiant homeowner’s undoing.
Very powerful video.
BENITEZ FOR THE SUPREME COURT!!!
thanks for the post. Fascinating reading.
Does this apply to the inane and dangerous SAFE act in NYS?
Thank you for posting this. Better late than never.
I like this guy - not his use of words to gain sympathy for the ruling”
“From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family....”
And his following examples are great - and well worded:
“When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden.
When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe.....
When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.
Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.
“not” = note his use of words
Heck. NY mags have be 10 or less for 5 or so years. Unless it is covered by the Supremes specifically I fear it won’t happen
Are you serious? You never heard about this before now?
Here's a brief synopsis of what happened.
The Judge issued his permanent injunction. The injunction included ordering the California Attorney General to inform all law enforcement agencies in California of this injunction. Companies started shipping standard capacity magazines to California.
The California Attorney General requested a stay of the judge's ruling until an appeal to the 9th Circuit could be made. The Judge agreed and stayed his ruling, so for one week it was legal to purchase standard capacity magazines in California, and it is still legal to possess grandfathered magazines and these "freedom magazines" until the appeals process runs its course.
Here is a list of articles posted on Free Republic. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but just ones that were flagged with the keyword "banglist."
Breaking! Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment
District Court permanently enjoins California magazine confiscation law
California Mag Rush On As Ban Set To Be Restored
For one week, high-capacity magazines were legal in CA. Hundreds of thousands may have been sold
LOL: California AG Becerra: We Could Become 'The Wild, Wild West For High-Capacity Magazines'
Jewels of Wisdom from Court Finding California Magazine Ban Unconstitutional
And of course, your post today:
Here Is Why a Federal Judge Nixed California's Ban on 'Large Capacity Magazines'
Now, if this ruling could only be made nation-wide.
According to the link, the same judge issued a stay on enforcing the Confiscation back in July, 2017.
First time I have heard about all of this.
The Judge was appointed by George W. Bush.
The Judge was born in Cuba in 1950, which means he was probably in the First Wave of Conservative Cubans who came to south Florida in the early 1960s.
“Things were looking good; the homeowner knew how to handle a weapon. Bangers are terrible with guns (insufficient range time).”
Have you ever fired your weapon “banger style” to see what the accuracy looks like? I tried it once from 9 feet and barely hit the standard range target.
Maryland? Hello! Maryland?
“Passes the Heller test”?? Hell, the decision could have have been written on a post-card: “...shall NOT be infringed.”
DONE.
THEN, if he wanted to go meandering into the B.S. “legalize”, waste the paper.
Correct conclusion, wrong path to get there.
You need the Homeboy Nyte Sytes for your Glock.
In Colorado, thanks to former governor Chickenlooper, we have a similar ban. Fortunately all my standard mags were grandfathered in. You can still purchase standard 30 round AR mags. Apparently it is sufficient for the local gun shops to drill a hole in the side and insert a single aluminum pop rivet. This prevents the follower from full travel, limiting capacity to the state mandated nonsense. Now, I’m not saying it would be legal, but a fellow could take a pair of pliers and a 1/8” bit in a common drill-driver and in a couple of minutes restore normal operation to the mag. Actually, again I’m speaking hypothetically here, it might take a guy longer to disassemble, blow out, and reassemble the mag than to remove a part interfering with normal operation. You just need to be a little careful who might see your mags with these suspiciously placed holes in them. Of course, if you were to drill a few extra holes yourself, “to let water out if they accidentally get submerged” then who could convincingly say different?
Several states have laws in conflict with this - California, Colorado, NY, etc. So when does this get resolved at the federal level?
This particular case is currently under review by a three judge panel of the 9th Circus. After they rule, whichever way they go, the other party can appeal to an en banc 9th Circuit panel for a second review. After the outcome of that review, whichever way it falls, the other party can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
if SCOTUS takes the case, and if they rule that the magazine capacity limits are unconstitutional, then this ruling will apply nationwide, toppling the magazine limit bans of NY, NJ, etc.
Wouldn’t a ruling by the 9th supporting this decision create a situation where different Circuit courts rulings are in place? Wouldn’t that almost require SCOTUS to step in?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.