Federal judge blocks California ban on high-capacity magazines
Source: The Sacramento Bee
A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation. The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.
The State of Californias desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table, the injunction read.
Benitez added that a final decision will take too long to offer relief, and because the statute will soon visit irrevocable harm on Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/article158965184.html
RKP5637
(67,086 posts)FFS! What is best, I guess, for mass shootings!
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)There is no record of someone needing that many bullets to defend themselves.
I don't think this injunction will stand.
RKP5637
(67,086 posts)no problem with that, but there needs to be bounds. Allowing weapons for mass murder is incredible.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Next year the Repubs will pass all kinds of feel good, motivate their voters legislation.
High on their list will be a gun legalization and reciprocity bill that will supersede state restrictions.
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)be wary of bath salts...
But seriously, they claim the reason for it is self-defense during a riot. Republicans fantasize about committing mass murder legally.
Kind of like the reason for flame throwers is for controlled burns on sugarcane plantations and to kill massive swarms of killer bees. Very few of us will ever need it, but someone really does need it which makes it legal for all of us.
hack89
(39,171 posts)didn't realize I was misusing them. Guess I will have to go shoot someone.
atreides1
(16,066 posts)Why do you need more then a 10 round magazine?
hack89
(39,171 posts)More to the point, they are not a public safety issue so I don't give it much thought. They are what I have so they are what I use. See no reason to change.
cstanleytech
(26,236 posts)stopped it I suspect some other court would have since it does tread into the 2nd amendment area.
What we need is for the 2nd to amended to give the government a tiny bit more leeway in making reasonable firearms laws but that is probably not going to happen in our lifetime.
RKP5637
(67,086 posts)we have today. It does need to be amended, but with the gun lust in the US, I too doubt we will see much change in our lifetimes.
BigmanPigman
(51,567 posts)Unbelievable! If I hear 2nd Ammend BS anymore I am going to explode. Do they realize how long it took to load a gun with a single bullet at a time in 1776?
RKP5637
(67,086 posts)cstanleytech
(26,236 posts)the legal options open to our government as far as firearms regulations go are limited, it sucks but it is what it is.
AJT
(5,240 posts)If your religion believes in human sacrifice you still can't kill someone even though the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of religion. You can't yell bomb in an airport or insite violence even though the constitution guarantees freedom of speech.
moonseller66
(430 posts)If "not being able to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" is somehow a legitimate deviation of the First Amendment, why can't "you can't use too many bullets to kill people" isn't a good enough similar example?
Cue the gun defenders.
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)lucky number 30 will get them.
There are news reports of even local sheriff's deputies emptying a clip at someone and missing every single shot.
I'm not a gun defender, I'm just being snarky
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)SpankMe
(2,957 posts)So much for the vaunted "states rights". I don't know anything about the judge, but San Diego county is a bit of a red bastion. It wouldn't surprise me if some gun-nutters cherry picked a court to bring their case in.
Igel
(35,274 posts)I'd be completely against suddenly making mere possession of any of them, even the worst, criminal. Problem is that grandfathering in what's already owned and banning purchase is problematic: They can still be used and how do you tell one purchased after the ban from one purchased before the ban? And what about people who move into your state?
It means that overnight hundreds of thousands of people are suddenly criminals. Why? Because last week they bought something legal and this week the state has decided that it was wrong.
You have a box of old stuff packed away, your house is searched, and suddenly it's prosecutorial discretion whether to prosecute you for having a banned magazine even if you had no memory of packing it away. (But for some, $20 could help ensure the right decision is made as to discretion, and if that doesn't work maybe $50 or $100. Or maybe only those that the police don't particularly like for some reason get reported--neighbor, an ex, wrong skin color, wrong language. Lots of prosecutorial decisions are made by police.)
Then there's the question as to transportation. If I ship something (say, I'm moving from Arizona to Oregon) would I be a criminal as I pass through the state? It's already an issue ... And only the Federal government has control over interstate commerce, and things like UPS and commercial movers are, well, commerce.
(As for "states rights," both sides hypocritically invoke them only when they personally hate the government. It's as true for decrimininalization of marijuana as it is for things like trying to penalize illegal immigration or for scores of other things. What I like I should be allowed to implement locally; what I don't like, if most of those around me approve of it, well, the feds should impose the right way of thinking and proper morality, my way, on them.)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Sadly, that applies across the political spectrum...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)My guess is 'no'.
If I'm wrong about that, please feel free to correct me
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)jmowreader
(50,528 posts)On any of the black guns, 30 rounds is the standard mag. Which is very useful for varmint hunting, target shooting or military-style games.
Reality time: a little hot melt glue turns two 10 round mags into a 20 round mag. A little practice will let a mass shooter flip a homemade 20 over quicker than pulling out a fresh 30.
I'll tell you a high cap mag ban that would work and enjoy significant support with gun owners: "the standard magazine capacity for a semiautomatic weapon based on a military rifle is the standard magazine capacity for the military rifle, as published in the most recent edition of Jane's Infantry Weapons in which the weapon appears." This retains the 30 round mags everyone has and gets rid of the useless 200-rounders
Aristus
(66,293 posts)as possible in the shortest amount of time. America is all about freedom, so we can't have that, now can we?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)They're the left's version of "Muslim bans"- gotta gin up the moral panic to motivate the base...
petronius
(26,597 posts)of magazines with >10 round capacity. However, magazines owned before 2000 were grandfathered in. IIRC, that law (and similar, at local levels) has stood up in courts.
This new law only takes away the grandfathering, which I thought might have been problematic just from a 'taking away property' standpoint, but from the quote it sounds like the judge took a much broader view that calls into question the existing ban as well...
NickB79
(19,224 posts)Because that seems to be another issue here, that there was no financial compensation for the state taking private property.
petronius
(26,597 posts)in to law enforcement, destroy them, or sell them to a dealer. There's no compensation provided in the law, and--given that it's been generally illegal since 2000 to buy, sell, import, or manufacture such magazines--I doubt there's a great desire by dealers to pay decent money for them (seems like they'd be old and a bit of a white elephant, by now)...
ansible
(1,718 posts)Shame so many people here have no problems with how fucked up this law was.