US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Reuters

September 22, 2023 5:48 PM EDT


Sept 22 (Reuters) - A federal judge in California on Friday declared that state's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition unconstitutional, saying it violated the Second Amendment rights of firearms owners. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego said California's "sweeping ban" went too far by preventing people from using magazines for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

"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," Benitez wrote in a 71-page decision. Benitez cited a June 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, requiring that firearms restrictions be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" to pass muster.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who enforces the state's laws, plans to seek a stay while he appeals the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He said Californians need to be kept safe from weapons enhancements that are "designed" to cause mass casualties.

"The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states--and we believe that the district court got this wrong," Bonta said. "We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake." Benitez delayed enforcing his injunction against the law for 10 days to give Bonta time to seek a stay.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-high-capacity-gun-magazines-2023-09-22/

[TheRickles]

1. He's just looking out for our 2nd Amendment-protected right to own machine guns and howitzers.

Just like the Founding Fathers intended.

[GreenWave]

2. fing fascist .

[sakabatou]

3. I'm sorry, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution about magazine sizes

Benitez is wrong here, IMO.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. He was a Shrub appointee rated as "unqualified" by the ABA.

[Calista241]

9. Yet somehow he was confirmed by a 98-1 vote. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

10. I read that

Boxer and Feinstein lobbied to push him through (blue slip).

[Polybius]

12. Different times

RBG was confirmed by something similar, and Scalia 98-0.

[Backseat Driver]

13. I know, right - it's not like the 10 rounds allowed can't kill when used by an experienced shooter

and his weapon at a range, for instance; just a bit less convenient. Without the weapon, ammunition is near harmless - this judge's ruling doesn't preclude a shooter's ability to bear a loaded weapon nor use it with responsible intent, but that shooter surely doesn't require a high-volume magazine - that speaks more to the willfull shooter's intent to kill and injure as many as the shooter can deliver to many more targets, er...I mean persons (or some huge sci-fi fantasy beast). THIS IS ABOUT CONTROL of a weapon's use to a maximum of 10 convenient shots, NOT THE FUNCTIONAL INTENT of a shooter bearing a maximally functional death weapon on a single or multiple targets.

Benitez is just wrong! It's a worthwhile restrictive law of functional weapon control!

[Woodwizard]

39. When it was written they had muzzel loaders

A really good musket loader could get off a shot every 17 seconds. A really good one.

[erronis]

4. There are a lot more weapons coming down the pike. Able to kill 100's at a time.

When will the country understand that the 2A is a trap to allow some of us to kill the rest of us?

[Evolve Dammit]

38. well said

[Seeking Serenity]

6. Bush judge. Ignore the ruling.

Simple

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

7. Part 1 of 2.

His ruling on California's assault weapons ban is probably dropping soon as well.

[Jack-o-Lantern]

8. This country has gone off the rails.

[Initech]

11. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[James48]

14. Does that mean I can order a Howitzer now?

They never banned Howitzers from home ownership until the 20th century.

?s=1500x700&q=85

[speak easy]

19. Fck howzers, u have a second amend-mint right to

HIMARS

[ManiacJoe]

23. It does not.

You can still have black powder cannons. They have always been legal for civilians to own.

Bombs, warheads, grenades, and other explosive-type weapons are prohibited because they serve no legitimate purposes for civilians due to their indiscriminate effects.

Small arms and their accessories do serve multiple legitimate purposes for civilians.

[Shermann]

26. One big difference is that there are presently a lot of legally owned hi-cap magazines out there

It is far more difficult to take something away than it is to restrict ownership right from the start. One involves a "round up" and one does not.

[mountain grammy]

15. We have a similar law in Colorado

of course the gunners sued and high capacity magazines are still sold but the law is still on the books.

[sl8]

25. It's being challenged again, in federal court

It was upheld by Colorado Supreme Court in 2020, now, post-Bruen (2022), it's being challenged in federal court:

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/28/colorado-large-capacity-magazine-ban-lawsuit/

[MiniMe]

16. There is only 1 reason to have a magazine with more than 10 rounds, to kill people

Either that or you are a really bad shot and shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

[Wolf Frankula]

17. If you need more than five rounds to hit the target

You need shooting lessons, not more bullets. Thank you, Leslie Fish.

Wolf

Who has a six round revolver and an ten round bolt action rifle and doesn't need more than three rounds to hit the target.

[speak easy]

20. Six rounds. Who is gonna rob you,

if you have a HIMARS nears the house?

[Wolf Frankula]

21. Putin might try

Rump won't. I don't have a HIMARS. But I understand you do.

Wolf

[speak easy]

22. No garden variety HIMARS 4 me, I go for the big guns,

ATACMS.

[C Moon]

24. I'm guessing he gets off on watching news and finding out that innocent people were mutilated.

What are these dumb-asses thinking?: History is going to be kind to them.

[Vinca]

27. Guess mass killers are entitled to more rights in this judge's eyes.

[Old Crank]

28. Need to make it manditory

to have all guns other than revolvers to have 200 rounds in ammunition attached directly to each gun in order fo fire. I guess they have 100 round clips so you just need to attach them together.

Just as stupid as the judges 2nd ammendment garbage.

[Historic NY]

29. A gun needs to kill faster....

[Bayard]

30. "Historical tradition of firearm regulation"

Tradition is not law. I've never understood how the Second Amendment is allowed to be warped into something unrecognizable. It was written with MUSKETS in mind!

[TexasDem69]

31. Good ruling

This judge got it right and the current Supreme Court will affirm of it gets there.

[Elessar Zappa]

33. Interesting that you're rooting for a fascist Supreme Court.

Are you on the right website?

[TexasDem69]

34. I don't think you understand the meaning

Of fascist or you use that term too loosely. The Supreme Court is not “fascist.” And yes, I’m confident I’m on the right website. What about the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2d Amendment do you think is fascist?

On edit, there’s nothing “fascist” about supporting the plain meaning of the 2d Amendment.

[Marthe48]

32. Arm everyone

The arms dealers benefit, who knows who they share their loot with, and the rw has their untrained, unpaid, unmanaged army all set to answer when the rw whistles go out. Win win for all the fascist shits, lose-lose for sanity.

[Novara]

35. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment about high capacity clips

And this is not taking guns away.

It always astonishes me how AFRAID the gun-humpers really are. They are nothing without their fetish sticks. And they know it. Hence, they panic at every reasonable suggestion to limit the killing.

There is no legitimate reason civilians need assault weapons or high-capacity clips. None at all.

[DallasNE]

36. The Brady Bill

Had this exact feature and the courts left it stand for the 10 years it was in effect. The only reason this feature is no longer in effect nationally is because George W. Bush allowed the Brady Bill to expire. What is the history of the challenges to the Brady Bill relative to cartridge limits?

This Judge also seemed to miss the point that Stare Decisis was eliminated by the Supreme Court in striking down Roe v Wade.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

37. Every challenge to the old Federal Assault Weapons ban failed

But that is irrelevant now. The legal landscape looked completely different. Less extreme judges, less Federalist Society influence, and the courts didn't have the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions to deal with.

[BumRushDaShow]

41. It took Brady a dozen years after being shot

to even get that enacted after his push for it all those years..., and it was actually a "handgun" bill.

H.R.1025 - Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

(note the sponsor and where he was at the time back in '93 )

Unfortunately having a 10-year sunset on it and a Shrub in office, was the death knell for any kind of meaningful reform.

[SouthernDem4ever]

40. "preventing people from using magazines for lawful purposes, including self-defense."

Yes, we need to defend ourselves by pumping 100 rounds in a split-second into that person. If still not dead, 100 more should do it. How ridiculous. Does the judge think those using these weapons in schools were defending themselves?