Thursday, June 29, 2017

Judge blocks California’s high-capacity magazine ban

Via Billy

FILE - This Oct. 3, 2013 file photo shows a custom-made semi-automatic hunting rifle with a high-capacity detachable magazine is displayed at a gun store in Rockin, Calif. California voters are considering expanding some of the nation's toughest gun control measures nearly a year after the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino. Proposition 63 on the November ballot would outlaw possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, require permits to buy ammunition and extend California's unique program that allows authorities to seize firearms from owners who bought guns legally but are no longer allowed to own them. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

A federal judge is blocking a California law set to go into effect Saturday that would have barred gun owners from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines.

San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez said in ruling Thursday that the law banning possession of magazines containing more than 10 bullets would have made criminals of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who now own the magazines.

He issued a preliminary injunction backing the legal challenge by the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (HAH-vee-air Bah-sehr’-ah), who is defending the state law, did not immediately comment.

The judge says the law approved by voters in November takes away gun owners’ Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.

20 comments:

  1. Finally a federal judge who respects the 2nd Amendment as one of the declared rights of the People. And is this not an "ex post facto law" forbidden to the government by by the Constitution? Yes, the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, protects from such legislative tyranny. -Ron W

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good deal.
    But you just know they're gonna try something else.
    Do-gooders just gotta force people to see the error in their ways.
    Of course I'm completely against it, but I could at least see the legality in preventing future sales, but not current possession.

    - Charlie
    Glad I don't live there, but Washington state is trying hard to be California II.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad I don't live there, but Washington state is trying hard to be California II.

      How about Oregon?

      Delete
  3. Sales of "full" capacity magazines have been banned in California since January of 2000 except for LEO's. If you owned any full capacity mags before January 2000 you could keep them. This new law banned the possession of all full capacity magazines no matter when you bought them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. banned the possession of all full capacity magazines no matter when you bought them.

      Useful Idiots.

      Delete
  4. Washington is trying via the social route, while Oregon seems to be trying via the environmental route.
    Of course, I could be wrong about Oregon, because we in Washington tend to not think of Oregon much, or to think much of Oregon. Kind of like how it was (still is?) with Charleston and Savannah...

    - Charlie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was too harsh on Oregon.
      It's only died-in-the-wool Seattle True Believers who think this way. To them, Heaven would be a step down.

      However, everybody knows that Savannah really does want to be Charleston when it grows up :)

      - Charlie

      Delete
    2. :) My fiend Michel has traveled all over the world and says Savannah is the most beautiful city in the world.

      Delete
    3. Poor Michel, never been to Charleston...

      - Charlie

      Delete
    4. Actually he lived in Hilton Head for a number of years.

      Delete
  5. Slave states!

    "The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh, 18th Century British politician, before England devolved into disarmed barbarism

    --Ron W

    ReplyDelete
  6. This "distinction between a freeman and a slave, was the reason cited in the majority opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court 1857 Dred Scott decision keeping black people as non persons and slaves lest "they have full Liberty of public speech" and be able to "keep and carry arms everywhere they went". This chief aspect of slavery is still with us among the elite ruling class, as they see themselves, in Washington D.C., some slave states and especially slave cities. --Ron W

    ReplyDelete
  7. Judge Benitez is Cuban....he understands what freedom is, what rights are and what they Constitution means. Unfortunately this reprieve is temporary.....very. The state will appeal and eventually those appeals if not successful at a lower level will reach the Ninth Circus Court...and this "august body" (ha ha ha) WILL overturn this judge and allow the state to proceed with imposing this blatantly unconstitutional law. It will join countless other laws in Kali that directly, blatantly and proveably violate the Constitution. Those in power seeking to rule us no longer even care to pretend they believe everything in the Constitution. They do as they wish openly. There is no justice from the kangaroo courts in America. Citizens who wish to be treated justly must force those in power to do so.....and if they don't NOBODY is going to do this for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if they don't NOBODY is going to do this for them.

      Well said.

      Delete