California Magazine ban struck down by federal court

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201..._kbfVYmWZmOUwDIIE8w30rub92t4ZJ3FntVAwkzxNLqSo

District court finds that California's idiotic ten round limit is unconstitutional. Ninth circuit is anti gun so who knows what will happen but this is a good start.

 

Wonderful news and this just adds to the mix showing the value of a Trump Presidency and a Republican Senate,
Mitch McConnell sets vote to shorten debate on judicial nominations
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-sets-vote-to-shorten-debate-on-judicial-nominations/

 

It's an outstanding decision. The judge wrote a detailed and strongly worded defense of the Second Amendment and the nonsense of magazine capacity restrictions under the law.

Good news.

 

Hard to tell, the Ninth Circus already upheld the judges suspension of the enforcement of the ban.

 

Interesting case. I personally don't think the 2dA cover magazine size, but this will work through the courts.

 

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems; muster the militia until we have no security problems.

 

So in your view-a magazine ban of anything more than one round would not violate the constitution?

Do you understand the concept of a negative "right" or, in other words-a denial of a power to the government?

 

The concept of positive rights (requiring action) and negative rights (not requiring action) does not dictate the interpretation of law.

 

of course when dems are in control the same rules will apply

I like the old way as it created moderate judges, now we will wildly swing back and forth

 

I expect the 9th Circuit will overturn this (though smarter legal minds than mine say the opinion is so well written, they might have a hard time doing so), but either way I hope it goes to the Supremes and is upheld. Should that happen it will apply nationwide overnight.

 

It is certainly an interesting predicament the state of California now finds itself it. The text of the ruling demonstrates that it is sound in its reasoning, and the judge relied heavily on the legally binding precedent set by the united state supreme court in not only the Heller ruling, but also the clarification offered in the more recent Caetano ruling. If the ninth circuit court of appeals intends to overrule in this matter, it will have to explain how the lower judge was wrong, how Heller simply does not apply to magazines due to their capacity, and how the ten round capacity is neither arbitrary nor capricious in its nature. It will not simply be able to claim the ruling is factually incorrect and leave it at that. Rather it will have to explain in detail precisely why the ruling is factually incorrect. It will have no choice to show its work, and try to explain how Heller does not apply, all the while knowing that a higher court of appeal may rip its ruling to shreds if they try to maintain a particular political agenda.

 

Yep Turtledude's never boring or nasty.

 

The text of the ruling does an excellent job of illustrating how to apply the tests of Constitutionality Steming from the Heller ruling that can be followed by anyone and bolsters the arguments using the framework provided by several other 2A case precedents integrated into the opinion logic. An excellent analysis, one of the better I have seen, providing a template not only for other courts, but constitutes an excellent analysis for SC jurists to digest. While many GCA’s may place high hope in the 9th, last year’s ruling on open carry in the Hawaii vs Young authored by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain may not bode well for them. Interesting...

 

It was the 9th Circuit that kicked it back to the lower court.

The socialist California Attorney General will challenge the lower court ruling and back to the 9th Circuit and the 9th Circuit is so senile from living on the Left Coast, its goes to the SCOTUS.

 

The Second Amendment applies first and foremost to military small arms being kept and carried by the people. The Founders were certainly not thinking about hunting and fishing.

There is nothing unusual about repeating firearms with capacities of 30 rounds.The earliest example I have found was in Denmark, where 100 Kalthoff Flintlock Repeaters were used in defense against Sweden's siege of Copenhagen.

During the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress itself sought to buy repeating arms, which had existed in Europe and used by military forces more than a century before the Revolutionary War. These early wheel lock and flintlock repeating arms held from 4 to 30 shots. They were expensive to make and difficult to maintain, but were used on battlefields and continuously made in multiple countries until around 1849. Many of them were bought by wealthy people for their personal use and by governments for their most elite military forces.

Limiting magazine capacity in any firearms is as unconstitutional an act as is limiting ownership or existence of any firearm. That is our law and our history.

Don't like it? Well, the Constitution provides a lawful process to amend itself.

 

Look what I "found" buried in my backyard!

 

and, nobody will ever bother you if you keep it there. it Only becomes a matter for State legislators when it becomes a State security problem.

 

Does the 1st Amendment cover the internet in your mind?

 

It should, dispondent, but I am not sure the courts or the leges will see it that way.

I think a person should be secure in his possessions and body, yet a man who refuses to blow into a breath analyzer can be taken in some jurisdictions to a hospital and have his blood taken.

 

The decision addresses this:

"We recognized in Jackson that, although the Second Amendment ‘does not explicitly protect ammunition, [but] without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless."

 

Like I said, this is an interesting case.

 

Just as it will be interesting to see what the ninth circuit court of appeals does in response to a ruling that relies heavily on the Heller ruling to justify itself.

 

that's because traveling on the public right of way is not an individual right.

 

That's the argument, and the counter argument the public roads are public service to all, so it is a right.