2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,976
- 52,248
- 2,290
Yep......this judge placed an injunction on a law that would turn millions of law abiding Americans into criminals...for having a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets.....something they currently have in their possession, which they have never used to commit a crime...
The NRA was working on this ..........
BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks California's Magazine Ban - The Truth About Guns
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez granted a preliminary injuction on Thursday against California’s ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
In the matter of Duncan v. Becerra, the San Diego-based judge said the law banning possession of the magazines would mean “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.” He further held that the law “amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.”
Attorney Chuck Michel, who argued in court that the law violated both the Second Amendment and the Constitutional ban on taking property without due process or compensation, called the order “a glorious opinion,” praising the judge for his clear understanding of the Heller gunrights decision and its progeny.
“My clients are pleased the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, and that law abiding gun owners have a right to choose to have these magazines to help them defend themselves and their families,” Michel said.
The effort to stop the magazine ban was supported by the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.
California has banned purchases of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds since 2000, but those who already possessed the magazines could legally keep them.
The NRA was working on this ..........
BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks California's Magazine Ban - The Truth About Guns
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez granted a preliminary injuction on Thursday against California’s ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
In the matter of Duncan v. Becerra, the San Diego-based judge said the law banning possession of the magazines would mean “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.” He further held that the law “amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.”
Attorney Chuck Michel, who argued in court that the law violated both the Second Amendment and the Constitutional ban on taking property without due process or compensation, called the order “a glorious opinion,” praising the judge for his clear understanding of the Heller gunrights decision and its progeny.
“My clients are pleased the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, and that law abiding gun owners have a right to choose to have these magazines to help them defend themselves and their families,” Michel said.
The effort to stop the magazine ban was supported by the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.
California has banned purchases of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds since 2000, but those who already possessed the magazines could legally keep them.
