https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190329...-amendment

Quote: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.”

The 9th District you say?

When I saw the thread title I thought California had banned magazines, the kind you read, and you had mistakenly put 2nd instead of 1st amendment. Given that it's California, I feel justified in that mistake.

(03-29-2019 08:58 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  The 9th District you say?

Judge Benitez is an immigrant from Cuba and was appointed by W. He's likely an outlier in the 9th because I'd imagine he's opposed to socialism considering what it has done to his place of birth.

I read about 3/4 of his opinion before my head started to swim, good stuff! He guts every argument they used to rationalize passage of that legislation, most of them as completely irrelevant to the rights guaranteed by 2A and the BOR.

(03-29-2019 09:03 PM)banker Wrote:  When I saw the thread title I thought California had banned magazines, the kind you read, and you had mistakenly put 2nd instead of 1st amendment. Given that it's California, I feel justified in that mistake.

Haha!!!

That was my exact first thought as well......was thinking, “Now those idiots are trying to ban people from reading gun magazines??”

(03-29-2019 08:58 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  The 9th District you say?

Cali Southern district. 9th sent the case back to the district.

(03-30-2019 01:26 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I read about 3/4 of his opinion before my head started to swim, good stuff! He guts every argument they used to rationalize passage of that legislation, most of them as completely irrelevant to the rights guaranteed by 2A and the BOR.

Yeah, his opinion was very well written.

Here's a link to it if anyone is interested.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uplo...fs-MSJ.pdf