NRA-ILA’s Statement on Duncan v. Becerra

large capacity AR-15 magazines

Bigstock

By NRA-ILA

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.

 

This article originally appeared at nraila.com and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar TommyG says:

    A victory, even if temporary.

    1. avatar VAPaul says:

      Does this mean that my family members in California can legally buy standard capacity mags TODAY? For the time being anyway until there is another ruling?

  2. avatar Helms Deep says:

    Happy for California , however ….

    NRA wanted bumpstocks looked at again….the NRA did NOTHING as they were being banned…..the have done nothing to help the lawsuits to stop the ban….. over 500,000 Americans are felons over a hunk of plastic and the NRA sits on their ass.

    Any wonder people stop sending them money ?

    1. avatar Scott Winebrenner says:

      I didn’t, even though I disagree

    2. avatar TX223 says:

      I don’t agree with the NRA on bumpstocks. What happened set a dangerous precedent.
      However, the reason the NRA didn’t support bumpstocks is because they felt a novelty item that didn’t effectively increase the application of force of the second amendment, was actually endangering items that do have effective application of force of the second amendment. So, the BATF took a look at bumpstocks, and reclasified then as if they were a DIAS.
      Per the letter of the law, the BATF was initially correct – but also initially they made the manufacturer remove the spring in the stock – considering it similar to a DIAS with the spring, but not one without – single function of the trigger not withstanding.

      Has anyone considered that maybe this item was approved by the BATF under the Obama Admin in hopes that they will be used in a shooting so that it will endanger the second amendment?
      What happens when there’s a shooting with a pistol equipped with a brace?

      We should however have SBRs and Suppressors.

      Red flag laws are the WORST and most DANGEROUS precedent.
      1. NATIONAL CONFISCATION through ATTRITION!
      2. EFFECTIVE MUZZLE ORDER ON GUN OWNERS – don’t talk about guns for fear of some libtard saying their afraid of you because you own guns are are scary.
      3. VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST, SECOND, FORTH, & EIGHT AMMEMDMENTS! Extremely Unconstitutional.

      RECALL LINDSEY GRAHAM!

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        “However, the reason the NRA didn’t support bumpstocks is because they felt a novelty item that didn’t effectively increase the application of force of the second amendment, was actually endangering items that do have effective application of force of the second amendment”

        Items like the most common firearms in the world that they openly say they support the ban on?
        https://youtu.be/2pk2LqqqtDs?t=4m9s (go to 4:09)

        1. avatar TX223 says:

          True!
          It’s unfortunate the NRA supports the ban on full autos. The second amendment does guarantee the right to:
          1. Full autos.
          2. Tanks.
          3. “Insert weapon of choice here”.

          The government should not have a monopoly on force over the people.

          Trumps BumpStock order was an unconstitutional “by order of the king” tyrannical over-reach.

          Basically the the right to “keep and bear arms – unrestricted”

          So, join the NRA so you have a vote and can elect people who will support the restoration of those rights.

          However, is Wayne LaPierre correct in his statement that the existence of these items like “bump fire” stocks that “blur the line” cause all semi autos to be in danger of being banned?

          In the current political environment I believe he is correct. I’m not agreeing with him about the 2A saying we should have full autos, But we have to be pragmatic about where we are and start taking back our rights one step at a time.

          So, how can we redirect our society towards being pro-gun, Pro-Constitution, Pro-2A?

          We must first stop the flood on undocumented immigrants. Second, deport all undocumented immigrants here. Three, get rid of all the H1B visa holders. Fourth, restore the legitimacy of our elections by guaranteeing that only citizens vote and people only have one vote. Fifth, we must pass a law so that corporations are no longer considered persons. Sixth, we must take back our schools. Seventh, take back the media centers.

          When my KLBJ 820 radio host is saying “no one needs a bump stock”, I’m screaming at the radio, “it’s not about need you #u(khead! It’s about #u(king FREEDOM!”

          We have to restore freedom.

          The dang Communitss are at the gates, and they are foaming at the mouth mad, and preparing to take ‘MURICA and make it Amerika.

          Where do you stand?

          Yeah… they want us fighting each other about bumpstocks…. how about getting a quality AR like a BCM, get professionally equipped and trained, and be ready to lay it out when they get ready to COME AND TAKE IT!

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We must first stop the flood on undocumented immigrants. Second, deport all undocumented immigrants here. Three, get rid of all the H1B visa holders. Fourth, restore the legitimacy of our elections by guaranteeing that only citizens vote and people only have one vote. Fifth, we must pass a law so that corporations are no longer considered persons. Sixth, we must take back our schools. Seventh, take back the media centers.”

          Sorry to have to do this to you, but…

          1. Undocumented immigrants do not exist; illegal aliens.
          2. Illegal aliens benefit both major political parties (one much more than the other)
          3. No one knows how many illegal aliens are resident (including those who entered on limited visas)
          4. No one knows where all the illegals reside, so a roundup would be as problematic as general gun confiscation.
          5. H1B visas are the property of the Dimwitocrats, who are happy to have their mega-corporations exploit cheap labor, and create more Americans dependent on government.
          6. The major power in this country has a lock on illegal voters, and will not give up that advantage.
          7. If corporations become non-persons, every employee and manager must sign every contract, and be personally liable. It is unlikely that a single individual (CEO/Chairman) would accept complete and sole responsibility for all contract.
          8. Taking back schools requires “taking back” the overwhelming majority of the culture.
          9. See #8

          Normal people are not rabid political activists. They have other priorities. Leftists have no goal in life that supersedes accretion of power over the masses. There is a reason for the statement, “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is the good people do nothing”.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “But we have to be pragmatic about where we are and start taking back our rights one step at a time.”

          That’s a losing game. It’s too far along for that. This has been a generational battle in which liberty has been getting its clocked cleaned. It will take an incredibly hard push in THIS generation to restore true liberty. If we all die off, there’s little hope for restoration. The odds favor the house. The long game strategy is a loser for liberty but a big winner for tyranny. Pussy-footing around at this stage is just slowly capitulating; nothing more.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It will take an incredibly hard push in THIS generation to restore true liberty.”

          “True liberty” will likely survive only the generation that restores it. Regardless of the magnitude of a “hard push”, truth is the vast majority of the populace, and the majority of voters (by at least 3 million – 2016) want “peace and safety”. P. Henry and the gang knew whereof they spoke – liberty is work, constant and determined. The founders issued plenty of warning regarding the nature of humans.

          Reality does not exist in reality, it exists in the mind of the beholder. Whatever a person thinks is reality is “reality”. Thus it is that gun control advocates believe the threat of government tyranny (as in dictatorship, authoritarianism, concentration camps, gulags, flying squads, absolute monarchy) is zero (except where Trump is concerned). This is their reality. Guns in private hands are a threat to public safety. Police provide security and safety, and when they can’t/don’t, it may result in a tragedy, but that is the price to save those who would otherwise fall dead to (white) whacko gun owners who are a danger to themselves and other people.

          Given that the anti-gun culture permeates the press, the movies, the school system, that is the reality we face. When the very small minority of the population launched the first civil war, they were not just a rag tag bunch of disassociated gun owners. The leaders of the revolution were pretty much all well-respected personages in their communities and colonies. The founders represented the facts and logic of the day. There are no analogs today either in leadership positions, or beneficiaries of the ballot box. The two major parties agree on one overriding motivator: the masses are best led by elites; they argue only over how to manage to process.

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        I wish the azz hat poster that told me I was nuts,when I laid out exactly what that rock solid conservative LINDSEY GRAHAM has done,how nuts am I now,Crickets.

      3. avatar Porky says:

        If the precedent is that accessories aren’t covered by the second amendment, then THIS is your constitutionally protected firearm; https://gastatic.com/digest/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/diy-ar-15-kits-anderson-aero-bcm.jpg

      4. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Has anyone considered that maybe this item was approved by the BATF under the Obama Admin in hopes that they will be used in a shooting so that it will endanger the second amendment?”

        Honestly, I don’t think that was the case at all. While certainly not our friends, some at the BATF do try to look at plain language sometimes and I’m sure there was no love for Obama in that agency at the time. My opinion is that they gave it an honest look and concluded that a bump stock, without the spring, did not make a firearm into a machine gun. IMHO, no fancy footwork hoping for some outcome; just plain old straight up truthful opinion at the time from BATF.

    3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Negotiating Rights Away statement on Bump Stocks.

      “In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.”

      They lead to this ban and it isn’t about Bump Stocks,they have been hemorrhaging members and is it any wonder with their “Stand and Fight Bump Stock statement.”

      Negotiating Rights Away,capitulating since 1934,join up,please send money.

      1. avatar Freebird says:

        It is increasingly clear the N.R.A. is not just ” out of touch ” , but may actually be in bed with the BATF , or otherwise compromised on the Inside.

        The argument Fudds + Loyalists make that — ” Well , NRA sucks lately, and they keep throwing gun owners under the bus …. but they’re all we got so we better shut up and send them more money to sit on and do nothing with .”

        Other , better people will take their place , any FEAR mongering articles about NRA disbanding is just a marketing ploy like a never ending .. ” GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE ” , hurry act now ! ( nope )

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        The American gun owner is Charlie Brown, the NRA is Lucy, and the 2nd Amendment is the football.

  3. avatar OBOB says:

    so does this

    “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. “””

    mean not only the last ‘over’ 10rd mag ban is gone…but ALL mag limits are gone too??

    1. avatar TFred says:

      That seems to be a common question, does this ruling extend to strike down the law from 2000, banning the new acquisition of 10+ round magazines?

      The ruling is 80 pages, not a 5 minute read… and I’m SURE the gun-grabbers will tell you what they want the answer to be without regard to any facts.

      1. avatar OBOB says:

        Whhhew just read it all and it seems that…………………………………………drama pause………….that all high cap mags in cali are legal again…for use, for sale, to loan, to buy. to import!

        he states basically Heller, if its part of the gun..= its a gun or part and since the gun can not work without the mag=you can’t ban it!
        or Miller on militias…common used guns that a militia person might need when called…basically 30rd is common for a AR 15, for home defense so its good!
        or that he mentions that MANY other states DON’T ban over 10rnds and they are fine
        or that crimes that happened In the state AFTER the 10rnd cali ban…STILL HAPPENED and the ban DID NOT STOP THE CRIMINAL…so why punish the legal users!

        then part of his argument or reply is…why only 10? why not 15 or 20….is the GUN uncommonly MORE dangerous with a 15 rnd mag over a 10 because of 5 more rnds??

        then he even sites 3 cases where the home owner NEEDED more than 10rnds to defend the home VS criminals! Plus examples of riots in 1992 where you might need more than 10rnds to stay alive!

        I like this guy!

        1. avatar OBOB says:

          this judge is funny….

          “””The state could protect its citizens from child pornography, sex trafficking, and radical terrorists. The state could limit internet use by its law-abiding citizens to, say, 10 hours a day or 10 websites a day. Perhaps it could put an end to Facebook cyberbullying.”””

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “The state could limit internet use by its law-abiding citizens to, say, 10 hours a day or 10 websites a day…”

          That is an important point –

          This cuts off at the knees their arguments that mag cap limits that ‘may’ ,or ‘might’ reduce mass-shooting death tolls as a reason to have those limits…

        3. avatar Dude says:

          OBOB, that’s a really smart point made by the judge.

  4. avatar Ken Gordon says:

    A great day for California gun owners.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Indeed, and it’s been a while.

  5. avatar possum says:

    Violates the Second Amendment? …- – – …Our. Second Amendment is Safe, Our president said so… – – – …

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Our president said so… – – – …”

      When did the prez say SOS?

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “The NRA-supported case….”

    Does anyone know what that sentence fragment means? Did NRA file the case? Amicus Curiae? Major funding? Press statements of support?

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      I’m a huge critic of the NRA these days, but they deserve credit where it’s due;
      https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180426/nra-and-crpa-attorneys-file-federal-lawsuit-challenging-california-s-ammunition-sale-restrictions

      We’d need CRPA (the actual plaintiff’s group) to weigh in on what exact support the NRA has provided, but it seems that the NRA has at least promoted the effort from the very beginning.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        CRPA (California Rifle and Pistol Association) is the California affiliate local branch of the NRA. Seen Juan, you’ve seen Amal.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “California affiliate local branch of the NRA”

          Could you elaborate? Not sure what “affiliate” actually means. Is it a wholly-owned subsidiary?

      2. avatar Sam I A,m says:

        “I’m a huge critic of the NRA these days, but they deserve credit where it’s due;…”

        Giving credit would be a welcomed event, however….

        “Supported”, “promoted” are not encouraging. Looked at the link to the article about the case. There is a list of activities regarding the case, but “NRA” did not appear in a word search. The NRA-ILA article did not detail NRA involvement.

  7. avatar barnbwt says:

    I seem to remember judge Benitez knowing more about firearms & their use during oral arguments than either attorney, if this is the case I think it is (he single-handedly trapped the state’s attorney into arguing a Seal Team 6 vet has less of an experience/training claim to operate an AR15 than a rookie cop, while the plaintiff’s attorney just stood there). If we had a pro-gun president, this fellow would be getting nominated to replace Ginsburg (and preemptively). It’s nice that such a voice exists in California, but between his peers & the 9th circuit intent on defying all reason, his talents and wisdom are wasted there; a single voice against a tornado of leftism.

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      I read the WHOLE thing and ‘very politely’ he calls the California AG a dumb ass!

      that is what I read between the lines…more than once…..many times in fact! LOL

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I only made it through about 40 pages before I had to go do something else and I have not yet gone back to read the rest.

        From the first 1/2 or so I’d say he does a pretty good job of destroying the State’s arguments. Even going so far as to point out that the State’s Attorney is lying about laws that he cites.

        The 9th may not like this ruling but they’re going to have a Devil of a time undoing it unless they simply choose to ignore it. Ignoring it would pretty well make this a perfect SCOTUS case because even if SCOTUS doesn’t like the case it let’s them win a territorial fight with the 9th and put that dog on a leash. Even if we assume everyone on the SCOTUS only wants personal power, we’d have to think that such would still be a good motivator to slap the 9th.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Even if we assume everyone on the SCOTUS only wants personal power, we’d have to think that such would still be a good motivator to slap the 9th.”

          SCOTUS is being ignored with impunity; there is no enforcement mechanism. 9th will have no fear of SCOTUS wrath. None of the lower courts are dependents, or descendants, of SCOTUS. After Heller, 9th declared there is no constitutional right to concealed carry because SCOTUS did not declare it so. This was a blatant denial of the authority of the ninth and tenth amendments.

          The whole idea that a right must be enumerated is absurd. The purpose of the ninth and tenth amendments was to make clear that “the people” retained an unlimited number of rights without requirement to list them. To make a point, the original intent of the BOR was to deny central commitee control over internal affairs of the States…except in those clearly delegated powers listed in the constitution. That meant if a State wanted everyone to wear the same clothing, and only the State-approved clothing, the central government had no power to prevent such a law because it was a law expressing the will of the people of such State, and there was no delegated authority to the central committee to deny “the people” of said State their un-enumerated powers.

  8. avatar barnbwt says:

    It’s interesting that the NRA believes one stupid, useless piece of plastic deserves diligent constitutional protection and legal action, while another may be acceptably banned by a Republican president whom they endorsed, without so much as a congressional debate, let alone grandfathering or compensation provisions…

    “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts” from the judge’s lips to God’s ears. And hopefully also justice Ginsburg’s, so she’ll vomit to death from anger. Ginsburg was a radical-leftist ACLU (top) lawyer when she was appointed to be an “objective, unbiased, and professional” interpreter of our core documents and law system. I say turnabout is only fair, and judge Benitez would make a fitting replacement for the old leftist “ex-” ACLU lawyer

  9. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

    Some judges understand the parameters of their positions.

  10. avatar Shawn says:

    Nothingburger. WILL go En Banc. WILL side with the government. commiefornia could of said all guns are illegal and we are going door-to-door to kill every gun owners on and they would say that is constitutional. SCOTUS of course will not hear it.

  11. avatar Jason says:

    Here is the relevant bit:

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
    1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
    2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
    DATED: March 29, 2019
    HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge

    CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

    CHAPTER 5. Large-Capacity Magazine [32310 – 32450] ( Chapter 5 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

    ARTICLE 1. Rules Governing Large-Capacity Magazines [32310 – 32390] ( Article 1 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

    32310.
    (a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
    (b) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.
    (c) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
    (d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:
    (1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;
    (2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or
    (3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.
    (Amended November 8, 2016, by initiative Proposition 63, Sec. 6.1.)

  12. avatar TomC says:

    That’s nice but the District Court decision will almost certainly be overturned by the 9th Circuit Court, setting up the case for an eventual attempt to reach the SCOTUS.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      maybe, but didn’t a circuit panel rule in favor of Benitez’ injunction against becerra enforcing the ban before the final ruling was made?

      i think that is a good sign.

  13. avatar Mark N. says:

    As I read it, this decision only overturns the 2016 law that ended the grandfathering for the pre-2000 10+ mags, but not the law that banned post-2000 magazines, since only the former, not the latter was before the court.. However, it supplies a full rationale for invalidating the post-2000 mag ban, since the logic is the same.

    On the other hand, although I fully agree with the decision, I suspect that it will be appealed, and since it relies so heavily on dissents in cases that conflict with Ninth Circuit belief systems, it likely faces reversal. Hopefully, hoever, the Ninth will simply stay the case, as it has others, pending the SCOTUS decision in the NY transport case.

    1. avatar Jason says:

      Not true:

      32310 is the the 2000 era statute establishing the 10 round limit. It was amended in 2016 by prop 63.

      This ruling threw out the entire section, therefore, as it stands there are no more CA mag limits.

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    It will be appealed. The 9th will reverse. If it doesn’t on the first shot, it will reverse en banc. SCOTUS will probably ignore it from that point forward as they’re too busy making it easier for the government to force you to sell your land for private development to actually worry about individual rights.

    That said, it’s hard not to get a chubby when you see a ruling like this and you live in a state like CA, NJ, NY, HI, MD, etc.

  15. avatar GunnyGene says:

    The judges final comment in the Conclusion was very interesting. It’s the first time I’ve heard a judge make a direct link between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially in a 2A case. It was a not so subtle warning, imho.

    “This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherishedindividual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now. “

  16. avatar Burner says:

    So did calguns etc do the heavy lifting and then the Negotiating Rights Away group swoops in and takes credit as usual? The NRA supported 34, 68, 86, 94, bumpstocks and red flag laws, when are you dumb ass’s going to figure it out lol

  17. What the Attorney General did was the equivalent of citing propaganda from the Family Research Council to defend laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

    I mean, seriously?

    Here is a great quote.

    When they occur, mass shootings are tragic. Innocent lives are senselessly lost while other lives are scarred forever. Communities are left shaken, frightened, and grieving. The timeline of the tragedy, the events leading up to the shooting, and the repercussions on family and friends after the incident, fill the national media news cycle for days, weeks and years. Who has not heard about the Newtown, Connecticut, mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or the one at a high school in Parkland, Florida? But an individual victim gets little, if any, media attention, and the attention he or she gets is local and short-lived. For example, who has heard about the home invasion attack on Melinda Herman and her twin nine-year old daughters in Georgia only one month after the Sandy Hook incident?Who has heard of the attacks on Ms. Zhu Chen or Ms. Gonzalez and her husband?Are the lives of these victims worth any less than those lost in a mass shooting? Would their deaths be any less tragic? Unless there are a lot of individual victims together, the tragedy goes largely unnoticed. That is why mass shootings can seem to be a common problem, but in fact, are exceedingly rare. At the same time robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals are common, but draw little public notice. As in the year 2017, in 2016 there were numerous robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals in California and no mass shootings.Nevertheless, a gubernatorial candidate was successful in sponsoring a statewide ballot measure (Proposition 63). Californians approved the proposition and added criminalization and dispossession elements to existing law prohibiting a citizen from acquiring and keeping a firearm magazine that is able to hold more than 10 rounds. The State now defends the prohibition on magazines, asserting that mass shootings are an urgent problem and that restricting the size of magazines a citizen may possess is part of the solution. Perhaps it is part of the solution. Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized. As Watson County Sheriff Joe Chapman told CNN about Melinda Herman and her twin nine-year-old daughters in the attic (the third incident described above), “[h]ad it not turned out the way that it did, I would possibly be working a triple homicide, not having a clue as to who it is we’re looking for.”18 The Second Amendment protects the would-be American victim’s freedom and liberty to take matters into one’s own hands and protect one’s self and family until help arrives.

    Another reason the anti-gun cult so focuses on mass shootings is to create the impression of a crisis. Criminal homicide rates have dropped precipitously since 1993. We are safer than every before. for a huge chunk of the population, they are safer from criminal homicide than they were their entire lives.

  18. avatar J says:

    It is good for all of us living under states controlled by the Demmycons. Illinois has similar 10 rd magazine capacity limits circulating in about 3 different bills in the proposed by Chicago Dems in the Illinois legislature. Glad this failed in California.

    1. I wonder why these Dems expect the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples to give up their high capacity magazines.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I wonder why these Dems expect the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples to give up their high capacity magazines.”

        That’s not the calculus. The criminals do not present a threat to “good people”, but gun owners are likely to “just snap” and start shooting up the nice places where “good people” go.

  19. avatar Aaron says:

    i wish we could get some sophisticated analysis on the ramifications of this ruling in the comment section.

    surely there are some smart lawyers among us who can lay out the likely branches and sequels.

    on the surface, Benitiez provided a very interesting and excellent ruling, and although IANAL i bet it will be cited in many other rulings.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email