9th Circus Court Rejects Magazine Limits!

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you President Trump!

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.

www.courthousenews.com

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.​

​

In a 66-page order, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, found California’s voter-approved Proposition 63 — enacted in 2016 to ban the high-capacity gun magazines frequently used in mass shootings — violates the Second Amendment.​

​

Lee found Proposition 63 burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as firearm magazines are protected under the Constitution, not “unusual” and are commonly owned for lawful purposes.​

​

He further found Proposition 63 “struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home,” using the acronym for “large-capacity magazine.”​

​

The state’s “compelling interest” in mitigating gun violence was not narrowly tailored by “a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone.” As such, Proposition 63 was not the “least restrictive means” of preventing mass casualties, Lee wrote.​

​

Lee affirmed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision last year granting summary judgment in favor of gun owner Virginia Duncan and the California Pistol & Rifle Association. Benitez found gun magazines over 10 rounds are commonly owned “by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.”​

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Thank you President Trump!

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.

www.courthousenews.com

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.​

​

In a 66-page order, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, found California’s voter-approved Proposition 63 — enacted in 2016 to ban the high-capacity gun magazines frequently used in mass shootings — violates the Second Amendment.​

​

Lee found Proposition 63 burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as firearm magazines are protected under the Constitution, not “unusual” and are commonly owned for lawful purposes.​

​

He further found Proposition 63 “struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home,” using the acronym for “large-capacity magazine.”​

​

The state’s “compelling interest” in mitigating gun violence was not narrowly tailored by “a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone.” As such, Proposition 63 was not the “least restrictive means” of preventing mass casualties, Lee wrote.​

​

Lee affirmed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision last year granting summary judgment in favor of gun owner Virginia Duncan and the California Pistol & Rifle Association. Benitez found gun magazines over 10 rounds are commonly owned “by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.”​

What a hairbrained post. "Reasonable" means that 10 is too low but 15is the min that is "Reasonable". In 2013, Colorado already found that out. We had a 10 round limit, that 10 round limit was found to be too little. Before the Court was ended, we changed it to 15 and it stands even today. The NRA dumped about 3 million bucks to have their hocks handed to them.

 

[JoeMoma]

I thought this thread would be about the number of Playboys I can have.

 

[Mac-7]

Thank you President Trump!

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.

www.courthousenews.com

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.​

​

In a 66-page order, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, found California’s voter-approved Proposition 63 — enacted in 2016 to ban the high-capacity gun magazines frequently used in mass shootings — violates the Second Amendment.​

​

Lee found Proposition 63 burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as firearm magazines are protected under the Constitution, not “unusual” and are commonly owned for lawful purposes.​

​

He further found Proposition 63 “struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home,” using the acronym for “large-capacity magazine.”​

​

The state’s “compelling interest” in mitigating gun violence was not narrowly tailored by “a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone.” As such, Proposition 63 was not the “least restrictive means” of preventing mass casualties, Lee wrote.​

​

Lee affirmed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision last year granting summary judgment in favor of gun owner Virginia Duncan and the California Pistol & Rifle Association. Benitez found gun magazines over 10 rounds are commonly owned “by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.”​

What a hairbrained post. "Reasonable" means that 10 is too low but 15is the min that is "Reasonable". In 2013, Colorado already found that out. We had a 10 round limit, that 10 round limit was found to be too little. Before the Court was ended, we changed it to 15 and it stands even today. The NRA dumped about 3 million bucks to have their hocks handed to them.

Thats five more biden voting looters that can be shot before having to reload

 

[2aguy]

Thank you President Trump!

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.

www.courthousenews.com

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.​

​

In a 66-page order, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, found California’s voter-approved Proposition 63 — enacted in 2016 to ban the high-capacity gun magazines frequently used in mass shootings — violates the Second Amendment.​

​

Lee found Proposition 63 burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as firearm magazines are protected under the Constitution, not “unusual” and are commonly owned for lawful purposes.​

​

He further found Proposition 63 “struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home,” using the acronym for “large-capacity magazine.”​

​

The state’s “compelling interest” in mitigating gun violence was not narrowly tailored by “a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone.” As such, Proposition 63 was not the “least restrictive means” of preventing mass casualties, Lee wrote.​

​

Lee affirmed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision last year granting summary judgment in favor of gun owner Virginia Duncan and the California Pistol & Rifle Association. Benitez found gun magazines over 10 rounds are commonly owned “by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.”​

What a hairbrained post. "Reasonable" means that 10 is too low but 15is the min that is "Reasonable". In 2013, Colorado already found that out. We had a 10 round limit, that 10 round limit was found to be too little. Before the Court was ended, we changed it to 15 and it stands even today. The NRA dumped about 3 million bucks to have their hocks handed to them.

You are an idiot.

 

[2aguy]

Thank you President Trump!

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.

www.courthousenews.com

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.​

​

In a 66-page order, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, found California’s voter-approved Proposition 63 — enacted in 2016 to ban the high-capacity gun magazines frequently used in mass shootings — violates the Second Amendment.​

​

Lee found Proposition 63 burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as firearm magazines are protected under the Constitution, not “unusual” and are commonly owned for lawful purposes.​

​

He further found Proposition 63 “struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home,” using the acronym for “large-capacity magazine.”​

​

The state’s “compelling interest” in mitigating gun violence was not narrowly tailored by “a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone.” As such, Proposition 63 was not the “least restrictive means” of preventing mass casualties, Lee wrote.​

​

Lee affirmed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision last year granting summary judgment in favor of gun owner Virginia Duncan and the California Pistol & Rifle Association. Benitez found gun magazines over 10 rounds are commonly owned “by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.”​

What a hairbrained post. "Reasonable" means that 10 is too low but 15is the min that is "Reasonable". In 2013, Colorado already found that out. We had a 10 round limit, that 10 round limit was found to be too little. Before the Court was ended, we changed it to 15 and it stands even today. The NRA dumped about 3 million bucks to have their hocks handed to them.

Here......learn something about the topic...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Thank you President Trump!

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.

www.courthousenews.com

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.​

​

In a 66-page order, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, found California’s voter-approved Proposition 63 — enacted in 2016 to ban the high-capacity gun magazines frequently used in mass shootings — violates the Second Amendment.​

​

Lee found Proposition 63 burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as firearm magazines are protected under the Constitution, not “unusual” and are commonly owned for lawful purposes.​

​

He further found Proposition 63 “struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home,” using the acronym for “large-capacity magazine.”​

​

The state’s “compelling interest” in mitigating gun violence was not narrowly tailored by “a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone.” As such, Proposition 63 was not the “least restrictive means” of preventing mass casualties, Lee wrote.​

​

Lee affirmed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision last year granting summary judgment in favor of gun owner Virginia Duncan and the California Pistol & Rifle Association. Benitez found gun magazines over 10 rounds are commonly owned “by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.”​

What a hairbrained post. "Reasonable" means that 10 is too low but 15is the min that is "Reasonable". In 2013, Colorado already found that out. We had a 10 round limit, that 10 round limit was found to be too little. Before the Court was ended, we changed it to 15 and it stands even today. The NRA dumped about 3 million bucks to have their hocks handed to them.

I am sure Colorado's law will be overturned, libtard!

 

[ColonelAngus]

I am amazed the 9th court actually upheld the constitution instead fo wiping their asses with it.

Trump has appointed so many judges. So awesome.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Lol, that pesky 2nd....a thorn in gun grabber's asses

 

[2aguy]

Thank you President Trump!

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.

www.courthousenews.com

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.​

​

In a 66-page order, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, found California’s voter-approved Proposition 63 — enacted in 2016 to ban the high-capacity gun magazines frequently used in mass shootings — violates the Second Amendment.​

​

Lee found Proposition 63 burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as firearm magazines are protected under the Constitution, not “unusual” and are commonly owned for lawful purposes.​

​

He further found Proposition 63 “struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home,” using the acronym for “large-capacity magazine.”​

​

The state’s “compelling interest” in mitigating gun violence was not narrowly tailored by “a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone.” As such, Proposition 63 was not the “least restrictive means” of preventing mass casualties, Lee wrote.​

​

Lee affirmed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision last year granting summary judgment in favor of gun owner Virginia Duncan and the California Pistol & Rifle Association. Benitez found gun magazines over 10 rounds are commonly owned “by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.”​

What a hairbrained post. "Reasonable" means that 10 is too low but 15is the min that is "Reasonable". In 2013, Colorado already found that out. We had a 10 round limit, that 10 round limit was found to be too little. Before the Court was ended, we changed it to 15 and it stands even today. The NRA dumped about 3 million bucks to have their hocks handed to them.

From the judges...

The nub of the state’s position is that even though it bars Californians from owning one of every two magazines in the United States, that restriction is not substantially burdensome because Californians can still possess other magazines. But no court would hold that the First Amendment allows the government to ban “extreme” artwork from Mapplethorpe just because the people can still enjoy Monet or Matisse. Nor would a court ever allow the government to outlaw so-called “dangerous” music by, say, Dr. Dre, merely because the state has chosen not to outlaw Debussy. And we would never sanction governmental banning of allegedly “inflammatory” views expressed in Daily Kos or Breitbart on the grounds that the people can still read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal…

Law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas where the law enforcement is overtaxed may defend themselves in their homes with a handgun outfitted with LCMs. And in incidents of mass chaos and unrest, law enforcement simply may be unable to protect the people, leaving them solely responsible for their own safety in a seemingly Hobbesian world.

Finally, many citizens will not take any chances or compromise their ability to defend themselves and their families, and they may place their trust in guns equipped with LCMs as a last resort. Simply put, the guardrails found in our precedent that limit the government’s intrusion on the Second Amendment right do not exist in California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs. It imposes a substantial burden on the people’s Second Amendment rights. Strict scrutiny applies

9th Circuit Declares CA Magazine Ban Violates 2nd Amendment

bearingarms.com

 

[2aguy]

Here is the actual opinion....the really important part is they state the 2nd Amendment cases must be judged with Strict Scrutiny.......very important...

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Proceeding to prong two of the inquiry, the panel held that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply.

First, the panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home.

Second, the panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights.

Third, the panel held that decisions in other circuits were distinguishable.

Fourth, the panel held that this circuit’s decision in Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015), did not obligate the panel to apply intermediate scrutiny.

 

[2aguy]

In the opinion...they detail the slippery slope....the actual slippery slope the democrats in california used to get rid of magazines that held more than 10 bullets...

So when anti-gun morons here on U.S.messageboard lie, and say the slippery slope argument is just paranoia........show them how California went about banning magazines....

But section 32310 has not always been so broad.

As originally enacted in 2000, it prohibited the manufacture, importation, and sale of LCMs. --------other words, California at first did not regulate the possession of LCMs.

Ten years later, California declared unlawfully possessed LCMs to be a nuisance subject to confiscation and destruction. See Cal. Penal Code § 18010(b); see also Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010, ch. 711, 2010 Cal. Stat. § 6 (codified at Cal. Penal Code § 32390).

And in 2013, California further extended the law to prohibit the purchase and receipt of LCMs. See 2013 Cal. Stat. 5299, § 1 (amending Cal. Penal Code § 32310(a)).

It may seem that after the 2013 amendments, California had completed the circle in regulating LCMs. By then, the state had long since foreclosed the transfer and sale of LCMs. As of 2013, it prohibited their purchase and receipt. But the law still allowed Californians who lawfully bought LCMs well before section 32310’s enactment to keep them.


So, in 2016, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 1446 that prohibited possession of LCMs outright after July 1, 2017.

See 2016 Cal. Stat. 1549, § 1. A few months later, California voters approved Proposition 63, which subsumed S.B. 1446 and strengthened its prohibitions by providing that possession may constitute a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to a year’s worth of jail time. See Cal. Penal Code § 32310(c). The law as amended also requires citizens who own LCMs to remove the magazines from the state, sell them to a firearms dealer, or surrender them to law enforcement for destruction.2 Under Penal Code section 16740(a), LCM owners may permanently modify nonconforming magazines to accept ten rounds or fewer, thus removing those magazines from the definition of what constitutes an LCM.

 

[2aguy]

Magazines and bullets are protected arms under the 2nd Amendment......I know, only democrat party members are stupid enough to think this isn't true, and/or dishonest enough to know it is true but to lie and say it isn't....

1. Firearm magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment.

Firearm magazines are “arms” under the Second Amendment. Magazines enjoy Second Amendment protection for a simple reason: Without a magazine, many weapons would be useless, including “quintessential” selfdefense weapons like the handgun. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 629. We have opined that where firearms “are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” then “there must be some corollary, albeit not unfettered, right to possess the magazines necessary to render those firearms operable.” Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2015). In Jackson, we held that ammunition is a protected arm because “without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless.” 746 F.3d at 967.

They are not unusual or dangerous...

2. LCMs are not unusual arms.

We next determine whether LCMs are arms that fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Heller provides that some arms are so dangerous and unusual that they are not afforded Second Amendment protection. See 554 U.S. at 627. But not so for LCMs. The record before us amply shows that LCMs are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes, i.e., not unusual.
-----
As discussed earlier, nearly half of all magazines in the United States today hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. And the record shows that such magazines are overwhelmingly owned and used for lawful purposes. This is the antithesis of unusual.
-----
Firearms or magazines holding more than ten rounds have been in existence — and owned by American citizens — for centuries. Firearms with greater than ten round capacities existed even before our nation’s founding, and the common use of LCMs for self-defense is apparent in our shared national history.
-----
The point of our long march through the history of firearms is this: The record shows that firearms capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition have been available in the United States for well over two centuries.7 While the Supreme Court has ruled that arms need not have been common during the founding era to receive protection under the Second Amendment, the historical prevalence of firearms capable of holding more than ten bullets underscores the heritage of LCMs in our country’s history.

not “unusual” arms. And because LCMs are not “unusual,” we need not opine on their dangerousness under our court’s test.8

 

[2aguy]

But....but.........guns are really dangerous so the 2nd Amendment can be infringed cause.....danger!!!

The state relies on the fallback position that the Second Amendment deserves less protection because it allegedly poses an inherent danger to public safety that other rights do not.

But individual rights often impose at least some risk on public safety. “The right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 783 (internal citations omitted).

The exclusionary rule in criminal procedure is a clear example. Under that doctrine, “the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Surely, too, the government’s efforts to secure damning criminal confessions has been hobbled since Miranda v. Arizona. “The most basic function of any government is to provide for the security of the individual and of his property. . . . The rule announced today will measurably weaken the ability of the criminal law to perform these tasks.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 539–41 (1966) (White, J., dissenting). This is not hypothetical. Criminals sometimes go free because our society prioritizes individual constitutional rights over concerns that freed offenders may commit crimes again. See, e.g., Jim Haner, Kimberly A.C. Wilson, & John B. O’Donnell, Cases Crumble, Killers Go Free, Balt. Sun, Sept. 29, 2002, at 1A (discussing a group of 83 defendants who had charges for homicide dropped due to technical error and were later rearrested for new crimes, “including 24 indicted in fresh murders or attempted murders”).

 

[2aguy]

But.....But......if we let law abiding people own guns and these magazines, that would allow criminals to steal them....so, we get to ban them so criminals can't steal them.....

The state speculates that a complete prohibition is necessary to avoid legally owned LCMs from falling into the wrong hands. But the flaws of that argument are obvious. The state could ban virtually anything if the test is merely whether something causes social ills when someone other than its lawful owner misuses it. Adopting such a radical position would give the government carte blanche to restrict the people’s liberties under the guise of protecting them.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am amazed the 9th court actually upheld the constitution instead fo wiping their asses with it.

Trump has appointed so many judges. So awesome.

The Constitution had nothing to do with it. They upheld Heller V D.C.. California is just being stupid trying to stick with their 10 round limit. If they change it to 15 it will be upheld by the courts as "Reasonable".

 

[2aguy]

But....but.......mass shooters use these magazines...so we get to ban them......

One of the surveys documents that in 14 of the 17 mass shootings in California, assailants brought multiple weapons.29

This undercuts the state’s claim, as noted by the district court, that LCMs shoulder much of the blame for casualties because the more weapons brought to a shooting incident, the greater the capacity for casualties.

But more than that, the district court pointed out that only three of these incidents definitively involved LCMs. And for each, the assailant brought high capacity magazines that were illegally smuggled into California. In other words, section 32310 would have had little effect on the outcomes in these tragic events. Many incidents do not appear to have involved LCMs, and for those that did, the LCMs appear to have been smuggled into the state. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007) (“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”).

 

[2aguy]

I am amazed the 9th court actually upheld the constitution instead fo wiping their asses with it.

Trump has appointed so many judges. So awesome.

The Constitution had nothing to do with it. They upheld Heller V D.C.. California is just being stupid trying to stick with their 10 round limit. If they change it to 15 it will be upheld by the courts as "Reasonable".

Read the opinion, you twit........

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thank you President Trump!

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.

www.courthousenews.com

Siding with a lower court judge who found California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is illegal and could lead to women being “raped and dead,” a duo of GOP-appointed Ninth Circuit judges Friday ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment.​

​

In a 66-page order, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, found California’s voter-approved Proposition 63 — enacted in 2016 to ban the high-capacity gun magazines frequently used in mass shootings — violates the Second Amendment.​

​

Lee found Proposition 63 burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as firearm magazines are protected under the Constitution, not “unusual” and are commonly owned for lawful purposes.​

​

He further found Proposition 63 “struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home,” using the acronym for “large-capacity magazine.”​

​

The state’s “compelling interest” in mitigating gun violence was not narrowly tailored by “a statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone.” As such, Proposition 63 was not the “least restrictive means” of preventing mass casualties, Lee wrote.​

​

Lee affirmed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision last year granting summary judgment in favor of gun owner Virginia Duncan and the California Pistol & Rifle Association. Benitez found gun magazines over 10 rounds are commonly owned “by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.”​

What a hairbrained post. "Reasonable" means that 10 is too low but 15is the min that is "Reasonable". In 2013, Colorado already found that out. We had a 10 round limit, that 10 round limit was found to be too little. Before the Court was ended, we changed it to 15 and it stands even today. The NRA dumped about 3 million bucks to have their hocks handed to them.

What the court found is that government cannot infringe on the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. magazines are part of arms.

You lost, freedom won - at least in this round. You'll continue your war to end civil rights, but you lost this round.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am amazed the 9th court actually upheld the constitution instead fo wiping their asses with it.

Trump has appointed so many judges. So awesome.

TWO Trump appointed judges on the panel. The Constitution is coming back, thanks to the President.