Did pro Second Amendment forces really score a victory when a federal judge ruled California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban unconstitutional? Like most rulings, the answer is both yes and no.
The Good News
Last week, District judge Roger Benitez struck down the California ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds when he ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees access to such magazines for “self-defense at home.”
The National Rifle Association (NRA) was quick to herald judge Beneitez’s opinion as a “huge win for gun owners.” Judge Beneitz lacked no color in delivering the 86-page decision—starting off with three true stories of home invasions that each resulted in a hail of bullets. In 2017, California’s “population of 39 million people endured 56,609 robberies, 105,391 aggravated assaults and 95,942 residential burglaries. There were also 423 homicides in victims’ residences,” Beneitez noted. “As evidenced by California’s own crime statistics, the need to protect one’s self and family from criminals in one’s home has not abated…. Law enforcement cannot protect everyone… Fortunately, the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to keep and bear firearms.”
Beneitez relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which clarified the right to keep a handgun in the home. Beneitez took issue with the state’s arbitrary number of 10 rounds of ammunition in a single magazine as somehow being “sufficient.” He noted that guns such as the popular Glock 17 pistol was designed and is regularly sold with a 17-round magazine. The Ruger 10/22, which shows success and common usage in the millions, is most often sold with 15- or 25-round magazines.
The Test
Judge Beneitez puts forth the simple test—established by the Supreme Court in Heller—that should be used widely in Second Amendment cases. “It is a hardware test,” he writes.
- Is the firearm hardware commonly owned?
- Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens?
- Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes?
If the answers are ‘yes,’ the test is over. The hardware is protected.”
However, Benitez did not stop there. He also added that the California law is also improper because it creates “substantial criminal penalties [for a] law-abiding, responsible, citizen who desires such magazines to protect hearth and home,” and “imposes a burden on the constitutional right that this Court judges as severe.”
The good judge also address the anti gunners cries that they see a need to restrict the magazines due to the threat, and cost, of mass shootings.
“This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual 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,” Beneitez noted.
Not a Victory Yet
This particular section of the California law has never actually been implemented or enforced. It does not apply to all magazines, but rather those “high-capacity” magazines that were owned prior to the 2016 law, which was suspended due to legal challenges—much the same as this decision is sure to be.
This decision will also be challenged by or be a challenge to laws in other states that such as New York and Connecticut, which also have magazine capacity restrictions that local judiciaries have ruled to be constitutional.)
While the NRA is cheering the decision, it is also cognizant of the realities of the likely challenges that will be heard by the liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Unfortunately, Friday’s opinion is not likely to be the last word on the case,” the NRA-ILA wrote after the decision was handed down on Friday. “The state will likely appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has proven notably hostile to the Second Amendment in past decisions.”
No doubt, this is a victory today, but will it be a victory in the end or overturned by a biased liberal court with a record of not being friendly to the Second Amendment? Share your answer in the comment section.
Sign up for K-Var’s weekly newsletter and discounts here.
This will all go before the 9th circuit court of appeals , and the liberal commie democratic morons for judges that we have will rule in favor of Mexifornia, where as it will wind up before the Supreme Court of the U.S. Everyone of these judges on the 9th circuit court of Appeals, should be impeached and kicked off the bench, or disband the 9th circuit court of appeals all together. If they are not going to interpret the Law, and legislate from the bench, they all need to go, up to and including the Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.
AMEN
Wait, just a minute. There are a couple of judges on the 9th who have supported gun owners. After their rulings, the state demands an en banc judgement by the full court and we lose.
As I understand it, although Pelosi and her criminal crew keep trying to obstruct Trump, he has already identified what needs to be done to break up the 9th’s strangle hold by replacing progressive judges with constitutionalists. He is also looking at a replacement for SCOTUS’s Ginsberg should she retire or take a nap and not wake back up.
The 9th should also be broken up into separate courts as it covers too much territory (District of Alaska, District of Arizona, Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Northern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Hawaii, District of Idaho, District of Montana, District of Nevada, District of Oregon, Eastern District of Washington, Western District of Washington, and the territorial courts of District of Guam
District of the Northern Mariana Islands).
Someone needs to explain to these judges and others that the size of the mag has nothing to do with the operation of the weapon. That is still left up to the operator and the operator is still the only thing that pulls the trigger. therefor the operator should be at fault not the weapon.
The automobile kills more innocent people everyday than legally owned guns but they arent making the speed limit 30mph. The 2nd ammendment is the only restricted infringed upon ammendment there is. As a veteran of the Army, a 50 year old whos never been charged with a misdemeanor let alone a felony my understanding is the Militia is to be well regulated NOT THE PEOPLE. As a matter of fact MY 2ND AMMENDMENT RIVHTS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. PERIOD.
The National Firearms Act is one of the bivgest infringements I have ever dealt with. At the time the ammendment was drafted the people had the right to any type of weapon they felt necessary 2 possess, own or bare. I should be allowed to build anything I feel I need to do what the ammendment states. Protect the Constitution and not from paper targets or deer but tyrannical and over reaching government. No where doees it say I can have a firearm at home forself defense against a crook but instead says that I have the right to keep and bear arms to defend my Constitution against a giant tyrannical government which is exactly what we have today. The only reason these people are after our Firearms are to disarm us so they can pull us into a society of robots that do what we’re told turn the money over to them to spend is a wish and turn our backs to the crookedness and deception is rampant throughout our entire government. Every single Senator and Congressman are multi-millionaires not because they are nits and salary but because they take it for bribes to vote as other governments in other countries and liberal agendas wish them the to vote. As of the day the National Firearms Act was drafted and voted in the law the government completely overstepped their bounds and took away the one ability people have to overthrow and remove a sitting government that has become corrupt. We’ve allowed them to think they have the right to tell us what we can and can’t do with our lands but we can and can’t do with our time but we can and can’t do with our property etc etc etc. Our nation was founded to be a free land for free men it free of government interference not constantly interfered with by the government. We are supposed to be free and unafraid of the government not afraid of the government thst can take our freedom at their own will. I don’t know how to fix this government but I know a few things. This we’ll defend,don’t tread on me, molon abe and no taxation without representation. And the will of the people is no longer in thoughts of the goverments minds. They break every law like they are above it and waste more of our taxes than they spend doing our will. The typical majority of americans do not wish to bow xown before Alah and live under sharia law but it is coming as this goverment serves to appease the barbaric cult of the false prophet Mohamed. And by century’s end islam will rule america as they out breed us with their multiple wifes and 2nd century uncivilized way of life. We must act soon or all of the world will bow to this great lie of the religion of peace. We need a complete overthrow of all encumbent 20-30 year career politicians. None of them are above the law yet they never go to jail as the citizen is held unaccountable ao should they .I beg you people UNITE AS AMERICANS. AS WE THE PEOPLE, AND REMOVE ALL THESE CRIMINALS FROM OUR GOVERNMENT AND get back to being free.
Sanity and logic have prevailed in this case, but insanity will follow. The forces of evil are stepping up their game because Satan knows his time is short!
Keep your powder dry. The 2nd Amendment may still be needed!
UNCONSTITUTIONAL???
Still, 5 years later and still going strong, seems fine and dandy in NY!
No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer ya know! (As stated by NY Governor Cuomo after signing into law a SEVEN round magazine limit along with his “ASSAULT WEAPON BAN”) (Court bumped it to ten, even though NO ONE NEEDS 10 BULLETS TO KILL A DEER!!!)
Except law enforcement officials. (THEIR lives would be in danger if forced by law to comply)
The Second Amendment is still strong in NY though, it is just “INTERPRETED” from the PROGRESSIVE perspective.
2A
A militarized law enforcement capability, being necessary to the security of the Progressive State, the right of law enforcement personnel, active and retired, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed – all other citizens will comply with firearm and magazine capacity restrictions as mandated by State Law, under penalty of felony prosecution.