GUNS/RLTD Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment

kittyluvr

Veteran Member
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.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ia-magazine-ban-violates-the-second-amendment
 

twobarkingdogs

Veteran Member
So this might mean that there can't be another Assault Weapons Ban like we had from 1994 that expired in 2004. In that ban there was a limit to magazine size so it looks like Heller may protect us from that. I think there are a few other states which have mag size limits so hopefully similar decisions will be reached there.

For me 2 good things came out of the ban. First was I learned to maintain and repair the magazines I had . Second was I learned the importance of buying them cheap and stacking them deep to protect myself better when the next ban comes. On my way to PSA and picking up some more D&H aluminum body magazines for $6.99 each as they are part of this weeks daily deals

tbd
 

Illini Warrior

Illini Warrior
you need to have action like this from the lower courts - the magazine limits is already headed to SCOTUS >>> the obvious rejection coming from the 9th District just adds more positive ammo when it hits SCOTUS ...
 

ShadowMan

Designated Grumpy Old Fart
I'm just waiting for a SCOTUS to finally END ALL anti- Second Amendment laws.....or start the second Civil War.. ALL restrictions, registrations, limitations, etc., etc., etc., are Unconstitutional period!! As our Forefathers intended.
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
While this is a welcome decision on gun rights, California will appeal to the 9th CIRCUS COURT and likely win there. The 9th is full of Obamabot judges, Radical, extreme and who totally despise the 2nd Amendment.

Ergo, this case will work its way up the Federal court food chain and arrive at SCOTUS. SCOTUS has already ruled, despite the Heller decision that the State of Maryland can ban both "assault rifles," and large mags. the link is below

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...to-maryland-assault-weapons-ban-idUSKBN1DR1SE

Supreme Court
November 27, 2017 / 6:50 AM / a year ago
U.S. top court spurns challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban
Andrew Chung

4 Min Read

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback on Monday to gun rights proponents including the National Rifle Association, refusing to hear a challenge to Maryland’s 2013 state ban on assault weapons enacted after a Connecticut school massacre.
 

Sentinel

Veteran Member
While this is a welcome decision on gun rights, California will appeal to the 9th CIRCUS COURT and likely win there. The 9th is full of Obamabot judges, Radical, extreme and who totally despise the 2nd Amendment.

Ergo, this case will work its way up the Federal court food chain and arrive at SCOTUS. SCOTUS has already ruled, despite the Heller decision that the State of Maryland can ban both "assault rifles," and large mags. the link is below

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...to-maryland-assault-weapons-ban-idUSKBN1DR1SE

Supreme Court
November 27, 2017 / 6:50 AM / a year ago
U.S. top court spurns challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban
Andrew Chung

4 Min Read

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback on Monday to gun rights proponents including the National Rifle Association, refusing to hear a challenge to Maryland’s 2013 state ban on assault weapons enacted after a Connecticut school massacre.

Refusing to hear a case and ruling a certain way aren't the same thing. Few cases sent up results in certiorari being granted. They simply might have been waiting for more Trump justices.
 

biere

Veteran Member
Lot of cali folks ordering magazines. Some places holding and/or canceling orders til they get a lawyers opinion on monday. Some places not even taking orders til monday after lawyer gives opinion.

The stuff the judge wrote sounds excellent and could be used to uphold all sorts of other stuff anti gunners pick on, bump stocks being one that is popular to discuss right now.
 

biere

Veteran Member
A california judge is the one who said the california law was wrong to have in place.

Each state would need to get a judge to say something similar, identical would be nice if you read what the cali judge wrote.
 

biere

Veteran Member
ar15.com has some thread on this if you need links. Some stuff is going out of stock but at some places it comes back in stock, and not always just so they can raise prices.

On a message board I am on someone said their cali gun store put up a page showing a whole lot of the magpul 60rd drum mags, place said they got in 100k order.

I know one thread on arfcom said some of the glock mags at target sports were out of stock.

If you need mags for a glock 22 in 40s&w search for used police trade in mags. I was getting them for $11 each, and cheaper if I ordered 10 at a time.
 

kittyluvr

Veteran Member
NRA and CRPA Oppose California’s Request to Immediately Halt “Large-Capacity” Magazine Ruling

Wednesday, April 3, 2019



On Tuesday, April 2, NRA and CRPA filed an opposition to California’s request seeking an immediate stay of enforcement of Friday’s decision in the case of Duncan v. Becerra, which found California’s restrictions against so-called “large-capacity” magazines unconstitutional and unenforceable. The decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is a tremendous victory for gun owners in California, striking down California’s restrictions against the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, receipt, and possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, most of which have been in place for nearly two-decades.
View Related Articles

Unsurprisingly, DOJ filed a request for a stay of judgment Monday afternoon. As noted in DOJ’s motion:

To effectively preserve the status quo, and to prevent a sudden influx of large capacity magazines (LCMs) into the State of California (the “State”), Defendant respectfully requests that the Court issue an immediate, temporary stay pending its ruling on the application for a stay pending appeal. Even if this Court, or the Ninth Circuit, ultimately issues a stay pending appeal, the State will suffer irreparable injury if LCMs are permitted to flow into the State in the interim. Defendant respectfully requests that such a temporary stay be issued by no later than April 2, 2019.

In sum, DOJ is asking the court to immediately stay the injunction as early as today while the court considers arguments from all the parties and decides whether to permanently stay the injunction pending the appeal. But, as the NRA and CRPA attorneys note in their brief to the court, any stay of enforcement, if granted, would jeopardize the hundreds—if not thousands—of California gun owners who have already relied upon the Court’s ruling in good faith and have purchased magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

DOJ has also asked the court to make a decision on whether to stay the judgment until an appellate court rules—which could take well over a year—by April 5, 2019.

It is critical that California gun owners stay up-to-date on the developments in Duncan to ensure they do not inadvertently violate California law should a stay be issued. To that end, be sure to visit NRA-ILA’s website to sign up for email alerts.

In the meantime, NRA and CRPA have prepared the following list of commonly asked questions with answers to assist gun owners in understanding what the decision means and how this latest development affects them.



1. WHAT DOES THE MARCH 29, 2019, RULING DO?

It puts in place an injunction (an order to refrain from performing a certain act) prohibiting enforcement of California Penal Code section 32310, which criminalizes the manufacture, importation, transfer (including giving and loaning), acquisition, and possession of a “large capacity magazine” (“LCM”), defined as an ammunition feeding device capable of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

2. HAS THE RULING TAKEN EFFECT?

Yes
; under FRCP Rule 62(c)(1), the injunction prohibiting enforcement of the LCM restrictions ordered by the court took effect the minute it was issued on March 29, 2019.

3. DOES THE RULING MEAN I CAN NOW ACQUIRE NEW MAGAZINES CAPABLE OF HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS IN CALIFORNIA?

The short answer is yes.
However, there are potential risks to consider before attempting to make any purchase. For example, should an individual order “large capacity” magazines from an online distributor, and during the shipping process a subsequent order from a court stays the enforcement of the injunction, subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 32310 will once again be in effect—including the restriction against “receiving” any “large-capacity” magazine. Meaning the delivery of an order after the injunction has been stayed will arguably be in violation of subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 32310.

4. DOES THE RULING MEAN I CAN KEEP MY MAGAZINES CAPABLE OF HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS?

As of the date of this writing the answer is: yes. The restriction on possessing an LCM has been unenforceable since June 29, 2017, when this same court issued a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect while the parties litigated the merits of the case. And because CA DOJ is seeking a stay only as to the provisions allowing for acquisition of new LCMs, the injunction against the possession restriction should remain in effect for the time being. That said, people should stay tuned to CRPA and NRA alerts to be updated of any changes.

5. DOES THE RULING MEAN I CAN USE MY MAGAZINES CAPABLE OF HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS AT A SHOOTING RANGE?


Because of the preliminary injunction already in place prior to this ruling, there was no restriction on “possessing” a lawfully acquired LCM and thus no restriction on using one. As long as the injunction on the possession restriction remains in place, LCMS can be lawfully used.

BEWARE: The ruling does NOT mean you can use an LCM in a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a “fixed magazine,” e.g., an AR-platform rifle with a device affixed to only allow removal of the magazine when the upper is separated from the lower, or similar device, that is designed to avoid “assault weapon” designation.

6. WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING PENAL CODE SECTION 32310?

Should the injunction be stayed, any person 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 can be charged with either a misdemeanor or felony punishable with imprisonment. Should the preliminary injunction against the “possession” restriction be stayed, any person who possesses a “large-capacity” magazine

can be charged with an infraction punishable as a fine of up to $100 per magazine, or a misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $100 per magazine, imprisonment, or both.

7. WHERE CAN I VIEW A COPY OF THE COURT’S DECISION?

A copy of the order granting the permanent injunction can be viewed here.

8. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LITIGATING THE CASE?

The California Rifle & Pistol Association, with support from the National Rifle Association, filed this lawsuit after hearing the fear and outrage from its members who were being forced by the passage of Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 in 2016 to either surrender their “large-capacity” magazines to the government or become criminals.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...mediately-halt-large-capacity-magazine-ruling
 

kittyluvr

Veteran Member
California: Federal Court Stays “Large-Capacity” Magazine Ruling Effective Friday @ 5:00PM

April 4, 2019

Today, Federal District Court Roger T. Benitez issued an order staying enforcement of the judgment in the NRA and CRPA supported case of Duncan v. Becerra. Last Friday, Judge Benitez issued a tremendous victory for gun owners, striking down California’s restrictions against the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, receipt, and possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Today’s ruling stays enforcement of the injunction as applied to the restrictions against the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and receipt of so-called “large-capacity” magazines, as of 5:00PM TOMORROW, April 5, 2019. In other words, those restrictions will once again be enforceable after that time. But the ruling also clarifies that the injunction against those restrictions will remain in effect “for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.”

Additionally, the ruling also makes clear that the preliminary injunction issued in July 2017, which prohibited the enforcement of the “possession” restriction enacted by Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 will remain in effect during the appeal. In other words, California residents who lawfully possess magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds may continue to possess them while the case is appealed.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...pacity-magazine-ruling-effective-friday-500pm
 
Top