High Hi Capacity Magazines
Dan Z. for TTAG
Previous Post
Next Post

If you’ll remember, back in 2017, Judge Roger Benitez struck down California’s ban on standard capacity magazines the state had arbitrarily ruled to be “high capacity.” That ruling was, of course, overturned by an en banc Ninth Circuit ruling. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court where it sat until Bruen was decided.

After Bruen, the Supreme Court granted cert, vacated the ruling, and remanded it for reconsideration. Today, Judge Benitez has, as expected, struck down the ban as clearly unconstitutional.

As he wrote . . .

Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Therefore, magazines come within the text of the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because millions of removable firearm magazines able to hold between 10 and 30 rounds are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and because they are reasonably related to service in the militia, the magazines are presumptively within the protection of the Second Amendment. There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried. The best analogue that can be drawn from historical gun laws are the early militia equipment regulations that required all able-bodied citizens to equip themselves with a gun and a minimum amount of ammunition in excess of 10 rounds.

Oh, and this . . .

One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen. That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

high capacity ar-15 magazines ammunition

Benitez has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law, but stayed his order for 10 days to give Attorney General Rob Bonta time to cry in his beer, inform all of California’s relevant law enforcement authorities, and almost surely seek a stay of the order. Even in the Ninth Circuit, that’s less likely to happen now that Bruen is the law of the land.

As California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel tells TTAG . . .

Today’s rulings represent continued affirmation that the Bruen decision, and Heller before that, represent a sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws. Sure, the state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution

Judge Benitez used a thoughtful and in-depth approach to this ruling and we are pleased that he came to the conclusion, once again, that California’s magazine ban is not constitutional. CRPA was been fighting this magazine ban from day one and we are one step closer to a final victory for gun owners.

This is a very big win and will likely be the basis for many more to come, including the Golden State’s “assault weapons” ban.

Clarence Thomas
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. My only question is, how did Benitez manage to stay sane, in the madhouse 9th circuit? He had to have spent years, decades even, being quiet, watching and waiting, anticipating the day he could open up, and start gutting the senseless legal system in Cal.

    • Trump reshaped that court. I don’t know how many Biden judges have been appointed but it hasn’t been enough to overturn what Trump did. For the time being, it is no longer the 9th Circus.

      • Long ago then senator Jim Crow Gun Control democRat joe and his Rat Pack tried to cancel Clarence Thomas in the same underhanded despicable manner they later tried against Gorsuch. The continuation of such witch hunts are a product of gutless wonders like mitch mcconnell et al and their failures to hold the Rat Party accountable. Sorta reminds me of Gun Owners who hold the door open for Gun Control by failing to Define Gun Control Control its History.

      • Regardless, isn’t it true that a 3-judge panel or the full 9th could reverse the Benitez ruling? Or does the fact that the SCOTUS saw and sent it back change things? Bruen would give them less wiggle room, but if they are playing for time does that matter?

    • As Palo said, the Ninth is not what it used to be. Very unfortunately for me, Obama wrecked the Fourth, which is just about as bad now as the Ninth used to be.

    • “mecgar just shivered.”

      And Magpul.

      It wouldn’t bother me one whit if mags dried up on the shelves down here for a few months if it meant giant boxes of magazines start showing up out there… 🙂

      • Looks like a few employees will be working some overtime this fall punching out steel and plastic rectangles, baseplates, followers, and springs.

        The invisible hand waves…

  2. I’ve just skimmed it, but it’s one for the ages.

    Benitez hold that there are NO historical analogues for a categorical ban on ownership / possession particular types of arms, and goes through it in detail.

    Ergo, expect to see the CA AWB go down very shortly (he has that one as well).

      • Most definitely looking forward to that! In Washington, we’ll get no relief from the libs in the State supreme court. I wonder now what it will take to roll out Benitez’ ruling through the rest of the district?

        • By having it confirmed by a panel of the Ninth Circuit, which decision would be binding on all of the district courts in the Ninth. AG Bonta is certain to appeal (and has said as much when he castigated the decision) just as soon as he files for a stay on the issuance of the writ of mandate in the court of appeals (Judge Benitez’s stay is only good for ten days). The Benitez decision will remain in effect until the Ninth Circuit panel issues its decision on the appeal. As exciting as this decision (and the ones soon to follow) is, there will be another two years delay, perhaps longer, before we get the decision of the Court of Appeals.

        • Mark:

          The one thing that might monkey wrench the usual “sit on 2A cases for years” strategy of the Ninth Circuit is that if they stay the injunction pending appeal, SOP is to order the appeal be handled on an expedited basis.

          And any stay of the injunction pending appeal will be immediately appealed to SCOTUS. Given CTA9’s track record of delay, and its post-Bruen practices of remanding cases that did not need to be remanded and should have been decided (e.g., Miller v. Bonta, which had been fully tried and had an alternative set of findings on “text, history, and tradition”), I suspect SCOTUS has gotten wise to their game.

          SCOTUS will likely either vacate any stay, or will say “we’ll let it stand on the assumption that CTA9 will decide the case on an expedited basis, but will entertain a renewed motion to vacate if they do not.”

      • Once that’s official, I think I will celebrate by ordering a 50-round drum for my Scorpion.

        KMA, Ferguson.

        • For anyone living in WA, you should have paid zero attention to the magazine law from day one. Get them from other states or have friends from out of state ship them to you. Ferguson can fuck off and die. We don’t obey unconstitutional bullshit.

    • “Benitez hold that there are NO historical analogues for a categorical ban on ownership / possession particular types of arms, and goes through it in detail.”

      Good, about time.

      Any speculation as to why it took so damn long to rule as he did?

      • Given the length and detail (and wordsmithing) of the opinion, he is clearly writing these knowing that they are going to be appealed and widely read, and so he’s being careful. And good writing takes time.

      • If you read his earlier 2A opinions, Benitez (and his clerks; they get credit, too!) are impeccable researchers, careful wordsmiths, and relentless logicians. That’s why I was praying for SCOTUS to base a Bruen-like decision on one of those. But I’ll take what we got, and this opinion will SURELY be affirmed, if not by the nitwits on the 9th Circus, then certainly by SCOTUS.

        Well done, St. Roger, well done, indeed.

      • I usually just lurk, but I know part of the answer to this so I’ll pass it on. Besides being insanely thorough and wanting to make sure that his decision would be hard to overturn, Judge Benitez recently had cataract surgery. So that surgery probably delayed everything by at least a month.

        • “So that surgery probably delayed everything by at least a month.”

          Thanks, good things are worth the wait.

          I had both of mine replaced 2 years back, and recovery is *not* instantaneous. To this day, I don’t tear (sounds like ‘beer’) the way I used to before the diamond scalpel touched my eyeball… 🙁

        • Thanks for the intel. That does explain some of it — remember that he has *hundreds* of other active cases that he has to deal with (including presiding over trials, which totally consumes your day), and being out of commission for a couple of weeks can put you way behind schedule.

        • Geoff, have your doc check you for “dry eye syndrome,” a common malady among us seasoned citizens. I was working through it before my cat surgeries.

          I had the laser knife and had bionic (adaptive) lenses installed — my vision has returned to its former eagle-eyed status. (I had Lasik by laser in 2002 and haven’t needed corrective lenses since, after having to live with poor vision since 3rd grade.)

        • “I had the laser knife and had bionic (adaptive) lenses installed —…”

          I was in error, my dad had the diamond, I ponied up the extra cash from my accident payout and got the nano-second laser and 3-focal range lenses installed. *Very* happy with my dominate eye, I’ve never seen this good. I can easily discern colors in the night sky, before they were just points of light. Mars is vivid orange, and the massive young stars are brilliant blue. Betelgeuse is a deep orange. I don’t regret spending the 10 K at all.

          Weird thing is, I never had dry eyes before, and the laser created a bunch of ‘floaters’, quite annoying…

        • Dry eyes after cataract surgery is common, for some reason; read about it in the preparations. The “pieces of cellophane” floaters are most annoying, and I’ve still got ’em. Glad to hear (not really, you know what I mean) that someone else has a similar experience.

          Lucky me, I had the rapidly-advancing cataracts so had both eyes done within six months. Seeing true colors again was most surprising — when I had the first eye done, I could see bright blues and whites, while the old eye was still seeing a brown cast to everything.

  3. And on the same day Bidum announces his “White House Office of Anti-Civil Rights and Preservation of Violence Against Gun Owners”.

    Couldn’t be more appropriate, could it? Oh, how sweet it is!

  4. I wonder if they are still saying, “As California goes, so goes the nation.”

    Even so, don’t trust the bastids one particle.

  5. This is good news but it is not over yet Judge Roger T. Benitez still has not ruled on Miller v. Bonta the assault weapon case which we expect a favorable ruling as well

    • As I read the opinion, just about all of its analysis also applies to Miller.

      CA AWB is a dead law walking . . . my over/under for Miller coming out is next Friday . . . .

      • Unfortunately, Seventh Circuit decision probably comes down to Judge Easterbrook, who is a wild card. Methinks you have to have SCOTUS intervene.

        • “Methinks you have to have SCOTUS intervene.”

          As much as I want it *now*, waiting and having Justice Thomas craft something like ‘Bruen’, but applied to semi-autos will be worth the wait (and the gnashing of teeth, and lamentations of their perpetually-frigid Leftist women)… 🙂

  6. Dear Tyrant,
    Your law is “clearly unconstitutional,” but “subservient security [and] the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers” are inexplicably somehow OK for the next ten days.

  7. who needs a high capacity magazine when you can have atomic hand grenades?
    Contact me if you want one – $1 each- $7 for 10, $300 for 1000.
    1Km blast radius.
    No ATF, FBI, off shore terrorists – I will card you
    All sales final.
    FYI – we will exchange at the local police station under survellance.

    • I’d buy some but I can’t run fast enough to clear the 1 Km blast radius. Getting caught in my own explosion just isn’t my idea of a good time! 😂

      • It’s technically-possible to scale a nuclear detonation a lot smaller than a 1Km blast radius if you wanted, but it might not be hand-held.

        One description I read described the high explosive charge as looking like a squashed shot glass…

        • When can we get our Atomic Napalm Neutralizers?

          Settings include “Deep Fat Fry,” “Shake-n-Bake,” “Liquify,” etc. Maybe add a new one: “St. Benitez’s Fire.”

  8. Marjorie Taylor Greene Outraged Over Spending Priorities. (money for Ukraine was included in defense appropriations bill…should not be there)

    • That dum margarine chik who turned collaborator and helped saddle us with that Redcoat RINO McCarthy? He’s all for Ukraine spending with the left war party. We had a tiny chance last year to get a decent GOP conservative Speaker of the House had she not stabbed us all in the back and got on her knees for the swampmasters.

      • I tend toward non-intervention by nature. On the other hand, some people I respect argue well that intervention can be effective at keeping our enemies at arm’s length. I guess I’d keep that 10% doubt open, if Congress and the White House did not block the reasonable measure of some kind of independent inspector to verify how the money is actually being spent. If they are fighting basic transparency with no reasonable explanation, you have to assume they know some portion of that cash is ending up in personal or party coffers and/or supporting things of which the public would disapprove.

  9. I wish he hadn’t correlated the historical right to keep magazines to service in the militia. That connection should have died with Heller. Why resurrect it now?

    • because in that time and place the militia WERE simply THE PEOPLE armed with their own personal weapons, and training together Thus what was useful for militia service was first useful for the individual citizen, He could have made sucn concepts more clear rather than just mentioning them, but that should not be necessary…. except that we have fallen so far down the rabbit hole most folks think the militia are the National guard or something. Maybe wannabe sodjerboys skylarking in the deep woods or something…

    • “I wish he hadn’t correlated the historical right to keep magazines to service in the militia. That connection should have died with Heller. Why resurrect it now?”

      He wasn’t correlating “magazines to service in the militia” per se’. He was giving more of an analogous thing. You need to read the whole thing (70’ish pages’) to follow from beginning to end to see the context of his reasoning. But basically it comes down to that at the time of the second amendment ratification, and in context with the history-text test of Bruen, the ‘militia’ simply meant ‘the people’ and ‘well-regulated’ simply basically meant when called upon or ‘self-mobilized’ to fight against invasion or tyranny ‘the people’ would ‘supply’ (e.g. bring with them) their own arms, ammunition, and supplies and were expected to have those available to them in their every day lives as well for their own defense of self and home and life uses (e.g. hunting, defense, even sporting and practice uses). The arguments and ‘definitions’ contrary to that did not arise until some time after the ratification of the second amendment.

  10. Benitez HAD to Do his Ps and Qs, MADE Sure EVERY Little thing was taken care of To Make sure that there would be no Excuse about his Decision being questioned and give little to the Gun grabbers to get to argue about it, Yes it took time but best to get it right.

  11. All the homies who missed out on Freedom Week a few years ago are going to suck up all the good mags once they start shipping to CA, lol.

    (I already got a bunch during FW, but hey…now my next trip to NV or AZ will inevitably include a few more)

    • Happy for you guys, make good use of it and hopefully you don’t get some nonsense stay like we did over our way for the CCIA.

    • None of them ever needed to be hidden. Mere possession is legal, and not grounds for arrest, charge, or even questioning. It’s only the “purchase/sale/transfer” portion of the P.C. that’s remained intact all this time.

      • If you paid in greenbacks and never got the receipt, no issue. Se have tried to make the makers put dates on them but that one died on the vine.

        • Oregon’s crazy 114, which I think will soon be gutted, actually outlaws the mere possession of any magazine based on the wording that any ten-round magazine that can be modified to hold a larger amount is prohibited. How crazy is that?!!

  12. These rulings need to move quicker what with an aging SCOTUS and an increasingly aggressive and deranged democrat party.

    The AWBs need to fall and real teeth need to exist to prevent the constant barrage of “we know this is unconstitutional but we’ll enforce it until you defeat it” nonsense.

  13. “Benitez hold that there are NO historical analogues for a categorical ban on ownership / possession particular types of arms, and goes through it in detail.”

    How would this play vis a vis fully automatic firearms?

      • “How would this play vis a vis fully automatic firearms?”

        “That crossed my mind . . . .”

        Didn’t Scalia’s ‘Heller’ decision mention that especially dangerous weapons could be banned?

        Not trying to be a complete PITA here, I’ll happily settle for the re-opening of the registry and the slave states being able to enjoy such ‘toys’.

        And seriously, would you want Antifa and their ilk being able to just waltz into a gunshop and buy one without the extensive background check?

        • Yes. Anybody should be able to buy any conventional small arm including full auto.

          It is only criminal if you use it as a criminal. The antifa types are. like the cartels, going to be armed no matter what the law says.

        • “And seriously, would you want Antifa and their ilk being able to just waltz into a gunshop and buy one without the extensive background check?” All or nothing Geoff. I agree with jwm. Freedom is dangerous.

        • “And seriously, would you want Antifa and their ilk being able to just waltz into a gunshop and buy one without the extensive background check?”

          Hell YES!

          Shall not be Infringed means exactly what it says. Anybody not in jail can purchase, own and carry anything they wish. In the USA we aren’t criminals untill we are found guilty in court after due process has been served. Anything less is Fudd. Don’t be Fudd.

  14. California is no different than any State in the South after the brown versus board of education decision. California is resisting the Supreme Court. Just as those states resisted the Supreme Court decision back in the 1950s.

    California has always been an intolerant and an anti civil rights state.
    Will it change for the better? Like the southern states and the rest of the country did. Only God knows that. The culture in California needs to change.

  15. What are the chances of any sort of successful challenge/overturning of this ruling? It seems nil, but the courts do court things.

    • That really depends on the panel that hears the appeal. A recent panel recently reversed the denial of a TRO in a case challenging the open carry ban, holding that tghe trial court erred in failing to apply the correct rules, including the proper application of Bruen. The trial court had decided that the public welfare outweighed the right to openly bear firearms. The Ninth was at one point so blatantly liberal that, after deciding in the Peruta case that there was no right to a CCW, when everyone believed it had painted itself into a corner and would have to hold that open carry was the right guaranteed by the 2A, concluded that there was no right to bear off of one’s own property! Yes, the analysis was incredibly tortured, and was contradicted by the later Bruen analysis of the same laws. In any event, some of those anti-gun judges are still on the bench, so a lot depends on which three are on the panel, or in the alternative, the breakdown of the court if and when it grants en banc review. (As one dissenting judge wrote, the en banc panel has an unblemished history of upholding every single gun control law it has considered, and he accused the Court of using the en banc process to assure uniformity of rejection of challenges to those laws.

      • A lot will depend on how the stay pending appeal motion turns out. Any grant of a stay of the injunction pending appeal (panel or en banc) *will* be immediately appealed to SCOTUS, and I can see SCOTUS vacating any stay to send them a message.

        But the likelihood is that CTA9 will sit on this pending the Rahimi decision, and if the injunction is stayed will try and drag it out as long as possible. Look at how many years they sat on the Young v. Hawaii case!

  16. Yeah but WA. AG Bob Ferguson said the magazine capacity ban law will withstand legal challenges because “we have better lawyers”

    I can’t wait for that wig wearing punk to be crying in his Bud Light.

    • “I’ll take the win but keep my eyes on the larger war.”


      I was surprised that folks like Hogg very recently called out NM’s gov. carry ban was unconstitutional.

      Could that mean there has been a sea-change by the Leftists concerning 2A rights? I just don’t know… 🙁

      • It’s a tactical disagreement.

        She’s angling for future jobs at higher levels by “going big”. (She’ll probably be successful at that too, there’s no way she wasn’t put up to this.)

        The other people (Hogg etc) want to boil the frogs in the pot and believe she turned up the heat too far, too fast. The fear hopping from the pot and riotous ribbiting. That’s it. They sure as shit don’t respect your “rights”.

        Most serious anti-gunners would love to see most of us against the wall or on our knees in front of a mass grave. Keep that in mind at all times.

        • well, everytown was involved with the NM tyrant. Now fast forward a week of so to Biden’s new office of civilian disarmament, i’ll bet the very first thing on the agenda for them was a ‘public health emergency’ order from Biden. Everytown didn’t expect the NM tyrant order to be defeated, and if challenged they expected a left wing judge to say “yep, the governor can do that”, but it did not work out that way and its probably why they have remained silent on it – test balloon precedent setting for a Biden ‘public health emergency’ order basically suspending the constitution.

          Biden tried this once before but indirectly. In Caniglia vs Strom biden had the DOJ intervene attempting to get the unlawful and unconstitutional seizure of the mans firearms ruled ‘constitutional’ under the fourth amendment ‘community care taking exception’,. Had Biden been able to do that he would have been able to issue a ‘public health emergency’ order and start confiscating firearms and ‘suspend’ the second amendment (remember, at the time of that case Biden was saying that firearms ownership constituted a public health danger)

        • “Most serious anti-gunners would love to see most of us against the wall or on our knees in front of a mass grave.”

          100% true. I’ve had then tell me to my face that I should be executed for owning a gun. Our own local now-ex-anti-gun person who worked with Everytown and Watts at times, told of us of how in meetings some expressed they wished gun owners would be rounded up and executed and how the high priestess of the anti-gun cult herself expressed that at times. I’ve had one of them actually try to attack me with a knife because I carried a gun (lucky for them in that case store security tackled and disarmed them just as I was going for my gun). Overall; These are not mentally stable people, they are emotionally biased and unbalanced, they thrive on confirmation bias, they imagine a threat where none exist, they crave power over others, they seek to have what they want at the expense of others, and once they get spun up they will for a fact desire to harm you in some way up to and including killing you either directly or indirectly in some manner.

          The common variety moron anti-gun, not much of a problem, from them its stupid confirmation biased no real factual context grounded arguments (like the light weights dacian and miner49er and that idiot Albert LJ Hall), and some stupid arguments or baiting or badgering or harassment or even yelling if you encounter them face to face —— but the actual true serious anti-gun people, they might do some of that if you encounter them face to face but really in their minds someplace they are thinking about the best way to kill you right there and if they can and some of them might even try it one on one but overall they would prefer to have the government do it in some way, for example, directly (e.g. as in resisting mass confiscation by law enforcement or military) or indirectly (e.g. having a valid self defense situation adjudged as murder and you sent to be executed like they tried to do to Rittenhouse).

          Remember, serious anti-gun is all about making people bleed, they are about people being murdered and injured as long as they get what they want – they want ‘gun free zones’ that do nothing but attract violent mentally ill killers and they basically by law guarantee these killers defenseless prey in these zones — they don’t want there to be stand-your-ground and castle doctrine because they know if you are required to flee that your chances of being killed actually increase in most situations because you can be shot in the back as you run or trapped by a gang —- they want there to be ‘justice reform’ and ‘police defunding’ so more violent criminals are out on the streets which increases the chances of encountering one, they want people unable to defend them selves when that violent threat shows up —- these are only a few examples, there are many more —- serious anti-gun is all about making people bleed, they are about people being murdered and injured as long as they get what they want, they need that blood to dance in for without it they are irrelevant and don’t get their way and to get their way they are more than willing to kill you either directly or indirectly.

        • I’ll break with my common tradition here and tell you a little story, .40.

          When I was in high school in Santa Fe I got upgraded from fast food to no-shit fine dining by a recommendation from a friend of mine. Great job, stupid easy money by the ton. I never walked out with less than $250 in cash six days a week.

          This was like a license to print cash. The kind of place where, in the off season you and your significant other could go have an appetizer each and a couple of cocktails for $125 and that’s the floor for pricing. Keep in mind, this is 20 years ago, so that price was eye-watering at the time. Can’t afford that? There’s a roof-top restaurant (same owner) through this door over here, just for you poors.

          During certain high seasons we’d get a lot of LA/Hollywood types. Occasionally big name actors but mostly the real monied folks from behind the scenes. CEO’s, producers, agents etc. People like Sherry Lansing.

          So, one day we have this 18-top that the owner is hanging out with. He’s comping them $1000 bottles of wine left and right, they’re all having a grand old time and they are getting the service because the owner of the joint is at the table. We’re actually all sorta ticked because we don’t know any of these people and we get 3% on alcohol sales (split) guaranteed, so long as the owner’s not giving it away.

          I didn’t know who these people were but I knew they were fuckin-A important to the owner (who was a bit of a dick and I didn’t need to be on his bad side). Later, I would come to realize that this is the exact time in which I met someone who will later become world famous due to criminality, Harvey Weinstein is at this table. This is when he’s at the peak of his power too. Disney has purchased Miramax about a decade earlier and Weinstein is a major player in Hollywood at this point. Miramax is stupid big and Weinstein is worth $40M+. Kinda seemed like a slob to me, but whatever, he was nicer than most of these dbags. The table, even after all the comps, dropped nearly $40K before taxes and tip so I wasn’t about to complain. .

          Anyhow, I have long found that rich, powerful and wealthy people don’t care if they talk in front of the help and this table was no exception. Down at one end several people who’s identities are unknown to me, several men and women were discussing guns and politics.

          While we’re dropping appetizers at the table they’re talking and a man says to the group at this end of the table that gun owners are despicable creatures not just for their gun ownership but because of what it says about their outlook on and station in life. One of the women replies that she doesn’t have a problem with sportsmen but those who own “assault weapons” should be rounded up and executed, trials for such a crime would be… unnecessary.

          The group agrees that this would be ideal but one of the men suggests that the police might not have the stomach for mass executions. To which one of the women replies that most of the cops will be on the receiving end of this as well since they’re the same sort of people, and therefore the police can’t be trusted overall. No, a special force of people will have to be created to deal with these undesirables.

          The thing they can all agree on though in terms of details, and all find rather amusing it would seem since they laugh about it, is that it would be deliciously ironic if gun owners were to be executed by machinegun fire at the edge of a pit or other large hole in the ground.

          Walking away from the table to go check on other “less important” tables, I thought about how I’d just heard some very, very, very rich and entitled people, the sort of people for whom nothing should ever be a real concern, discussing quite openly and earnestly how wonderful it would be to form a group like the Schutzstaffel and turn it against other people for the basic purpose.

          The totally crazy part being that a goodly number of the people at this table pretty much had to be Jewish (though probably not practicing) themselves (I pieced this together from other comments I picked up that they didn’t work at all on Shabbat or even answer the phone, not really because they seemed to believe in it but because it was an image thing within their social circle(s).)

          Since then I have ceased to wonder about the genesis of history’s various atrocities and have chosen to turn my attention to preventing them in this country.

  17. In a statement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the ruling an “incredibly dangerous mistake” that his office would appeal.

    “In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100% of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths,” Bonta said. “We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties.”


    • so in short Bonta is admitting he has been lying and can’t do his job so needs something else to blame it on.

    • California has over 100 gun laws, including the strictest in the nation.

      CA also leads the US in the number of mass shootings since 1984.

    • I hope he does appeal it. I hope it goes all the way to scotus.

      dacian. How many more times will you insist on proving you are a fucking moron?

      • “dacian. How many more times will you insist on proving you are a fucking moron?”

        Every time it opens its mouth.

    • Let me put it this way, when or if I find myself in a situation where I must defend myself against a gang, I want an “enhancement that causes mass casualties” and more importantly, I have the right to have it. As Benitez put it (I’m paraphrasing), the acts of a few madmen do not justify laws affecting the rights of the entire law abiding population. To put it so even you can understand it, the many should not be made to suffer for the deeds of the few.

      • Let me put it this way, when or if I find myself in a situation where I must defend myself against a gang, I want an “enhancement that causes mass casualties”…

        Does anyone make a CCW frag pouch?

        • Pretty sure I could throw something together that would suffice. Was referring to a 17 or greater mags on the CCW and, of course, standard capacity mags on the home front. That seems to be the left’s definition of “enhancements” now.

    • “In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100% of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths,” 


    • Go fuck yourself dacian. Neither you or any politician is going to tell me the number of rounds that I am allowed to carry to protect my family or myself or fellow citizens. I won’t comply. Do the math you stupid bitch. Four criminals with ten round mags each (if they were following the law) against one person with a ten round mag. Zip tie a plastic bag over your head already.

    • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. So frickin’ what? It seems that that “mistake” happens be in accordance with the Constitution. You Lefties have been anti-Constitution for how long now? Your “article” that you are “using” as a “source” happens to be a violently anti-gun news rag.
      You see, Leftie, we have this thing called the Constitution. If you do not like what is in the Constitution, then you have the right to try to get it amended. The chances of your getting the 2nd taken out of the Constitution are SLIM and NONE. In spite of your “civilized nations” crapola, we have this 2nd Amendment in the Constitution which protects us from your criminal element as well as government overreach should it come to that.
      I suggest you and your “comrades” get involved in Grewsome Newsom’s attempt to call a Constitutional Convention. It is not going to work, but at least you can “think” you are doing something aside from vegetate like you are now, just flapping your jaws.

    • What Bonta failed to mention is that there have been 33 mass shootings in the US with 20 or more injured between January 1, 1990 and the present. That works out to one per year on average. One of those was a terrorist attack by a husband and wife team, another was Orlando where the motive is unknown, several involved multiple gun men, and more than a few involved multiple firearms (Aurora) and/or handguns. The Virginia Tech shooter used .22s with 10 round magazines.

  18. I just spent some time reading the first 10 or so pages of Heller and I understand why Scalia was murdered: he wrote Heller, and in his decision he mocked the left openly, relentlessly pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in their statements and positions, even describing one as “grotesque”. He went so far as to quote comrade Ginsburg in a ruling she had made in another case which affirms his description of the prefaratory clause. Heller set the stage for all the victories gun owners are now experiencing. Scalia could be considered a casualty of war.

    • See a psychiatrist. Scalia wa visiting friends at a ranch for a bird hunt he was going on the next day. You are hanging out on too many Right Wing Lunatic sites.

  19. Shocked Tourist Robbed In Broad Daylight In San Francisco (the result of no possible deterrence or opposition available, armed citizens or not.)

  20. The real question is why did it take him so long to basically reiterate what he ruled years ago? Same correct legal argument the first time to which Bruen gave endorsement.

    Why did it take so long, and why all of a sudden now?

    • Because the Bruen decision came out in the interim, and the court sent the previous decision back for reconsideration under the new rules?

      • On top of which, Benitez gave the State every opportunity to meet the new Bruen test through submission of briefs, massive lists of prior (supposedly analogous) gun laws in the relevant time frame, and expert witness testimony, thus guaranteeing that the State cannot complain (at least not successfully) that it did not get a fair hearing.

        • Over a year has passed since SCOTUS GVR’d this case and the Circuit then kicked it back down to Benitez. A year to rule again is ridiculous. The state had a year to search for analogs that don’t exist and never could have existed. This case has already taken more time to dispense justice than it took Washington to kick the Redcoats out of the colonies and it will likely take years more before rights delayed are no longer denied to US citizens.

          The system is truly broken.

  21. And here we go:

    “Gavin Newsom ran to Twitter and posted the following message:

    “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.”


    • “So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.

      —- Judge Roger T. Benitez, Duncan v. Becerra, United States District Court Southern District of California, March 29, 2019”

    • The NRA responded:

      “Perhaps this is a wake-up call, Governor.

      You took an oath of office to defend the entire Constitution of the United States — Second Amendment included.

      Ambition can be blinding… https://t.co/AMKwHOQayG

      — NRA (@NRA) September 23, 2023″

      Others piled on as well, for example:

      “I was reliably informed that attacking judges in this manner was devastating to the rule of law and threatened our entire democracy https://t.co/qrIVuDwXEA

      — Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) September 23, 2023″

      “Don’t Democrats say that attacking Judges and immigrants is an attack on democracy Gavin? Judge Benitez is a survivor of communism in Cuba. He knows what tyrants like you do when gun rights are taken from the people. He’s an American hero for stopping Marxist tyrants like you. https://t.co/4gTaLkCeqn

      — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 23, 2023″

      “Why are you under minding the rule of law? Are you in insurrectionist? https://t.co/WqVMP42DUH

      — Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) September 23, 2023″

      “to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America.”

      (aside from the fact that there is really no ‘gun violence epidemic in America’ but rather violence by criminal elements and such false hyperbole as this, and, overall, nationwide as America is, only 2% of that criminal violence involved a firearm, and in reality ‘kids’ as in actual children, age 12 and under, and teens 13 to under age 18, are more likely to be injured/killed in things like car accidents or pool accidents or even by glass table tops and a hundred different other things than they are by firearms accident or shooting, and 18 and above in your claims of ‘kids’ are by far in the majority a result of criminal activity against them or gang affiliation. So this ‘gun violence epidemic in America’ you claim, it doesn’t exist in reality overall as a ‘gun violence epidemic in America’)

      Ronald Regan had an idea of what to do, the only one that has ever worked in all of human history for any forms of violence of others against the innocent, and that was to remove those individuals from ‘society’

      “It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience…You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time.”

      —- Ronald Reagan”

      So ya know Newsom, if you would like uphold your oath, and do something about the very criminal elements you personally and politically strive to aid, facilitate, and embolden by your, basically, ‘communisim’ leaning so you can keep getting federal funding and lying to the public hoping to dupe as many as possible to keep you in power, and if you would instead actually do your job and stop trying to turn your state into ‘Criminal Heaven’….

  22. I just wish someone could please tell me why he puts a stay on his own rulings. Why give the opposition the time. They most certainly would not return the favor on any ruling they got, to give our side a chance to file an appeal. They’d shove it down our throats and giggle.

    Why is Benitez so nice to the other side. If it’s just because he’s a “better person”, he needs to stow that. This is an ideological war. The “better people stance” is for a time when our nation basically agreed on core principles. We don’t. We don’t agree on anything anymore.

    Stop being a Nice guy Benitez. Punch them in the face with the ruling then cite the other side for contempt if they have the indecency to say otherwise.

    • He’s merely recognizing the obvious. Had he not allowed an administrative stay (which are not at all unusual), Ninth Circuit would have done it, probably for longer than 10 days.

      So instead, the Ninth Circuit has to deal not with a motion for a limited administrative stay, but instead has to grant a motion for a stay pending appeal if it wants to block the injunction — a much higher burden, and one that SCOTUS likely would vacate on the existing record.

    • Not a better person Kyle. I get what you are saying. Being more thoughtful is very important in court proceedings. Judge Benitez is as far as I can tell extremely intelligent.

      • I agree. Nicer does not equal better – quite the opposite – and mistaking the two enables most of the world’s problems.

  23. My prediction is the estate will place a huge “tax” on magazines and the whole years long ordeal repeats itself.

    • California has already passed an additional 11% tax on firearms, ammunition, and I believe firearms accessories as well effective July 1, 2024. That bill is on Gavin’s desk waiting to be signed along with a slew of other gun control “initiatives.”

    • If they do (and you’re right, they’ll try anything), it’ll be ineffective because people will just buy them out of state. California can’t stop that without running into Commerce Clause violations.

      But I suspect one of the next test cases will be challenges to these sorts of “prohibition by punitive taxation” laws. Poll taxes were ultimately declared unconstitutional because, by design, they impeded the exercise of the right to vote. Given that the stated intent of these laws is to burden the RKBA, I don’t see how they survive a Bruen challenge.

  24. “So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.

    —- Judge Roger T. Benitez, Duncan v. Becerra, United States District Court Southern District of California, March 29, 2019”

Comments are closed.