Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....

[2aguy]

If this is true and accurate, the Bill of Rights lives in the worst state for Civil Rights........apparently, a permanent injunction was handed down against the 10 round magazine ban in California.......if this is true and accurate, sanity has ruled the day.....

BREAKING: NRA Legal Team Wins Permanent Injunction Against California's Mag Ban - The Truth About Guns

the actual decision......happy dance....

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.

2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.

DATED: March 29, 2019

They cite Caetano and Heller.......

3. Lethality is Not the Test Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence.

They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano).

“[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality
====

If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.33

 

[Darkwind]

If this is true and accurate, the Bill of Rights lives in the worst state for Civil Rights........apparently, a permanent injunction was handed down against the 10 round magazine ban in California.......if this is true and accurate, sanity has ruled the day.....

BREAKING: NRA Legal Team Wins Permanent Injunction Against California's Mag Ban - The Truth About Guns

the actual decision......happy dance....

They cite Caetano and Heller.......

3. Lethality is Not the Test Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence.

They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano).

“[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality
====

If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.33

Sweet.

 

[2aguy]

And they cite Miller......protecting arms for military purposes...

Consequently, possession of a larger capacity magazine is also categorically protected by the Second Amendment under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). “Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying ‘the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,’ and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.’” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1032 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring) (citations omitted).

 

[2aguy]

Love this.....anti-gunners....stomp your feet and cry....

Miller...again...requiring more than 10 rounds...not limiting....

To sum up, then, while detachable firearm magazines have been common for a century, government regulation of the size of a magazine is a recent phenomenon and still unregulated in four-fifths of the states. The record is empty of the persuasive historical evidence needed to place a magazine ban outside the ambit of the Second Amendment. Thus, it can be seen that California’s prohibition on detachable ammunition magazines larger than 10 rounds is a type of prohibition that has not been historically accommodated by the Second Amendment.
===

It is interesting to note that during the Nation’s founding era, states enacted regulations for the formation and maintenance of citizen militias. Three such statutes are described in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Rather than restricting firing capacity, they required firing capacity. These statutes required citizens to equip themselves with arms and a minimum quantity of ammunition for those arms. None placed an upper limit of 10-rounds, as § 32310 does. Far from it. Each imposed a floor of at least 20- rounds. Id. at 180-83 (Massachusetts law of 1649 required carrying “twenty bullets,” while New York 1786 law required “a Box therein to contain no less than Twenty-four Cartridges,” and Virginia law of 1785 required a cartridge box and “four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges”). In 1776, Paul Revere’s Minutemen (a special group of the Massachusetts militia) were required to have ready 30 bullets and gunpowder. These early American citizen militia laws suggest that, contrary to the idea of a firing-capacity


and Heller...

C. The Heightened Scrutiny Test 1.

Failing the Simple Heller Test Section 32310 runs afoul of the Second Amendment under the simple Heller test. It fails the Heller test because it criminalizes a law-abiding citizen’s possession of a common magazine that is used for lawful purposes and prohibits its use for self-defense in and around the home. It strikes at the core of the inalienable Constitutional right and disenfranchises approximately 39 million state residents.
-------------

Strict Scrutiny when it comes to the 2nd Amendment...just like the other Rights....

d. the sliding scale of scrutiny

– strict scrutiny Further down the scale, a law that implicates the core of the Second Amendment right and severely burdens that right warrants strict scrutiny. Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We strictly scrutinize a ‘law that implicates the core of the Second Amendment right and severely burdens that right.’”) (citation omitted). Even if § 32310’s complete ban did not amount to a destruction of Second Amendment rights, it would still merit the application of strict scrutiny. A law like § 32310 that prevents a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a firearm with enough rounds to defend self, family, and property in and around the home certainly implicates the core of the Second Amendment. When a person has fired the permitted 10 rounds and the danger persists, a statute limiting magazine size to only 10 rounds severely burdens that core right to selfdefense.

--------

Strict scrutiny requires the Government to prove that the restriction on a constitutional right furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Mance v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 699, 705-06 (5th Cir. 2018), pet’n for cert. filed (Nov. 19, 2018) (applying strict scrutiny in Second Amendment case). California’s ban on magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds fails strict scrutiny. The State has not offered a compelling interest for the ban, arguing that intermediate scrutiny should be the test. If preventing mass shootings is the state’s interest, it is not at all clear that it would be compelling since such events are exceedingly rare. If the state’s interest is in forcing a “pause” during a mass shooting for a shooter to be apprehended, those events are even more rare.

 

[2aguy]

And the judge understands....who needs a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

 

[Darkwind]

I like the conclusion.

This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.

2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice. DATED: March 29, 2019

 

[2aguy]

And the mass public shooting excuse to ban these magazines.......

To summarize, the 36-year survey of mass shootings by Mother Jones magazine put forth by the AG as evidence of the State’s need for § 32310, undercuts its own argument. The AG’s evidence demonstrates that mass shootings in California are rare, and its criminalization of large capacity magazine acquisition and possession has had no effect on reducing the number of shots a perpetrator can fire.

-------------------

Mass shootings are tragic. But they are rare events. And of these rare events, many are committed without large capacity magazines.

For example, in the two high school incidents in 2018 one assailant used a shotgun and a .38 revolver (at Santa Fe High School, Santa Fe, Texas) while the other used an AR-15-style rifle but with 10- round magazines (at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida). In the attack at the Capital Gazette newspaper (Annapolis, Maryland), 5 people were killed and 2 injured by an assailant with a shotgun and smoke grenades. The Attorney General has not supplemented the record with a police report of the single mass shooting in California last year (at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California). However, press reports indicate the shooter used a legally purchased pistol with an “extended” magazine.44 Another report said seven 30-round magazines were found at the scene.45 Eighteen years of a state ban on acquiring large-capacity magazines did not prevent the assailant from obtaining and using the banned devices. The news pieces do not report witnesses describing a “critical pause” when the shooter re-loaded. And the stories do not say where or how the 30-round magazines were acquired
-----

Mother Jones Magazine lists 98 mass shooting events in the last 36 years. This is an average of 2.72 events per year in the entire United States. Of the 98 events over the last 36 years, 17 took place in California. This is an average of one event every two years in the most populous state in the nation. According to data from this 36-year survey of mass shootings, California’s prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds would have done nothing to keep a shooter from shooting more than 10 rounds. That is because normally the perpetrator brings multiple weapons.47
----

In 14 of the 17 California mass shooting events, multiple weapons were brought. For example, in the 1988 mass shooting event in Sunnyvale, the shooter brought two pistols, two revolvers, two shotguns, and a bolt action rifle (all obtained legally). No large capacity magazines were used. See AG Exh.16, at 73648 ; DX-10 at 517 (Appendix B, Case No.91).

 

[2aguy]

The false argument made about the State's need to protect people so they can impose this ban on magazine capacity...

iv. the important interests of the State The state has important interests. Public safety.

Preventing gun violence. Keeping our police safe. At this level of generality, these interests can justify any law and virtually any restriction. Imagine the crimes that could be solved without the Fourth Amendment. The state could search for evidence of a crime anywhere on a whim. Without the First Amendment, the state could better police the internet. The state could protect its citizens from child pornography, sex trafficking, and radical terrorists. The state could limit internet use by its law-abiding citizens to, say, 10 hours a day or 10 websites a day. Perhaps it could put an end to Facebook cyberbullying.

-----

The Attorney General articulates four important objectives to justify this new statutory bludgeon.

They all swing at reducing “gun violence.” The bludgeon swings to knock large capacity magazines out of the hands of criminals. If the bludgeon does not work, then the criminals still clinging to their large capacity magazines will be thrown in jail while the magazines are destroyed as a public nuisance.

The problem is the bludgeon indiscriminately hammers all that is in its path. Here, it also hammers magazines out of the hands of long time law-abiding citizens. It hammers the 15–round magazine as well as the 100–round drum.

And it throws the law-abiding, self-defending citizen who continues to possess a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds into the same jail cell as the criminal. Gun violence to carry out crime is horrendous and should be condemned by all and punished harshly. Defensive gun violence may be the only way a law-abiding citizen can avoid becoming a victim. 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 v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 783 (2010).

 

[2aguy]

The "10 round magazines are more dangerous" argument....

(1). uniquely dangerous?

The State argues that magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are uniquely dangerous because they enable a shooter to fire more rounds in a given period, resulting in more shots fired, more victims wounded, more wounds per victim, and more fatalities. Actually, many larger capacity magazines are not uniquely dangerous because they are not much larger.

For example, a 12 or 15-round magazine is commonly owned and only slightly larger than the permitted 10-round magazines and enables a shooter to fire slightly more rounds, resulting only sometimes in slightly more rounds fired, or slightly more victims wounded, or slightly more wounds per victim, or slightly more fatalities. Conversely, a 12 or 15-round magazine may be the slight, but saving, difference needed for an overwhelmed homeowner trying to protect herself from a group of attacking invaders. The State may be correct that a 100-round magazine is uniquely dangerous.


The State relies on expert witness, Professor Louis Klarevas. Professor Klarevas says that banning large capacity magazines will reduce violence and force shooters to take a critical pause. See DX-3.


However, in a piece by Professor Klarevas dated 2011, he offers that the Tucson shooting would have likely still happened with a ban on high capacity magazines.

He wrote, “But, even if . . . the federal government were to ban extended clips, the sad fact is that the Tucson shooting likely still would have happened . . . . Moreover, even if Loughner showed up with a six-bullet revolver as opposed to a 30- round Glock, he likely still would have shot people. What’s more, a person set on inflicting mass casualties will get around any clip prohibitions by having additional clips on his person (as Loughner did anyway) or by carrying more than one fully loaded weapon.”58

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Brain357, and the other anti-gunners........he addresses the "Critical Pause..."

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

...and the Ninth Circus says, NAHHH! !

 

[james bond]

Finally, common sense makes a slight comeback in Cali. We continue to need good and FAIR laws.

"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), noting: “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”

On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling, voting 2-to-1 against the ban and sending the case back to Benitez."

Federal Judge: California's 'High-Capacity' Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

 

[elongobardi]

Very nice. Now that a precedence has been set let’s hit NJ and NY.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Good news

 

[Aletheia4u]

Finally, common sense makes a slight comeback in Cali. We continue to need good and FAIR laws.

"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), noting: “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”

On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling, voting 2-to-1 against the ban and sending the case back to Benitez."

Federal Judge: California's 'High-Capacity' Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

This is a joke. They are going to set up a mass shooting again. Like the way they has manufactured that staged shooting in Vegas. They said that the Vegas' shooter used a bump stock firearm. Who in the hell will use a bump stock from that distance? The bump stock makes the weapon to shoot very inaccurate. It is hard to hold the weapon with a bump stock while shooting. The Globalist banned them just to make them more desirable. They are probably the makers of the bump stock. And they can make more money from off of them in the black market. It is a useless tool.

Trump administration bans bump stocks, device used in Las Vegas shooting

Law enforcement agencies are unlikely to use bump-stock weapons, because they are difficult to fire accurately.
Gun rights groups pledge to fight bump stock ban in court

 

[james bond]

They said that the Vegas' shooter used a bump stock firearm. Who in the hell will use a bump stock from that distance? The bump stock makes the weapon to shoot very inaccurate. It is hard to hold the weapon with a bump stock while shooting.

This in about magazines, but you're referring to the ban that went into effect. Personally, I would not use a bump stock because it makes the rifle more inaccurate. Who wants to be a milk shake while firing a semi-auto rifle anyway? However, it was legal to buy before. I did not want it banned based on the 2nd amendment. It was a constitutional matter but it's been made illegal.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Finally, common sense makes a slight comeback in Cali. We continue to need good and FAIR laws.

"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), noting: “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”

On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling, voting 2-to-1 against the ban and sending the case back to Benitez."

Federal Judge: California's 'High-Capacity' Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

In 2013, Colorado passed a limit of 15 rounds. It was fought all the way in courts. It was upheld. It appears that California just has to increase the limit to 15 and it complies with the intent of Heller V where MOST semi auto handguns will have right around 10 or more capacity. 10 is not a good limit. I prefer the 20 limit myself but I can live with 15.

 

[2aguy]

Finally, common sense makes a slight comeback in Cali. We continue to need good and FAIR laws.

"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), noting: “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”

On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling, voting 2-to-1 against the ban and sending the case back to Benitez."

Federal Judge: California's 'High-Capacity' Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

In 2013, Colorado passed a limit of 15 rounds. It was fought all the way in courts. It was upheld. It appears that California just has to increase the limit to 15 and it complies with the intent of Heller V where MOST semi auto handguns will have right around 10 or more capacity. 10 is not a good limit. I prefer the 20 limit myself but I can live with 15.

Moron.....it doesn't comply with the intent of Heller, as this ruling shows.....read the ruling......this judge explains it in a way that even you might be able to understand it...

 

[2aguy]

Finally, common sense makes a slight comeback in Cali. We continue to need good and FAIR laws.

"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), noting: “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”

On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling, voting 2-to-1 against the ban and sending the case back to Benitez."

Federal Judge: California's 'High-Capacity' Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

In 2013, Colorado passed a limit of 15 rounds. It was fought all the way in courts. It was upheld. It appears that California just has to increase the limit to 15 and it complies with the intent of Heller V where MOST semi auto handguns will have right around 10 or more capacity. 10 is not a good limit. I prefer the 20 limit myself but I can live with 15.

Read the decision....

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

C. The Heightened Scrutiny Test 1.

Failing the Simple Heller Test Section 32310 runs afoul of the Second Amendment under the simple Heller test. It fails the Heller test because it criminalizes a law-abiding citizen’s possession of a common magazine that is used for lawful purposes and prohibits its use for self-defense in and around the home. It strikes at the core of the inalienable Constitutional right and disenfranchises approximately 39 million state residents.
----------
Consequently, possession of a larger capacity magazine is also categorically protected by the Second Amendment under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). “Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying ‘the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,’ and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.’” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1032 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring) (citations omitted).
-----

To sum up, then, while detachable firearm magazines have been common for a century, government regulation of the size of a magazine is a recent phenomenon and still unregulated in four-fifths of the states. The record is empty of the persuasive historical evidence needed to place a magazine ban outside the ambit of the Second Amendment. Thus, it can be seen that California’s prohibition on detachable ammunition magazines larger than 10 rounds is a type of prohibition that has not been historically accommodated by the Second Amendment.
===

 

[2aguy]

Finally, common sense makes a slight comeback in Cali. We continue to need good and FAIR laws.

"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), noting: “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”

On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling, voting 2-to-1 against the ban and sending the case back to Benitez."

Federal Judge: California's 'High-Capacity' Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

In 2013, Colorado passed a limit of 15 rounds. It was fought all the way in courts. It was upheld. It appears that California just has to increase the limit to 15 and it complies with the intent of Heller V where MOST semi auto handguns will have right around 10 or more capacity. 10 is not a good limit. I prefer the 20 limit myself but I can live with 15.

Here......read this and learn something....

1. The Supreme Court’s Simple Heller Test In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in crystal clear language.

It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244, 1271 (2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”). It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes?

If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected. Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.

This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment.

The simple test applies because a magazine is an essential mechanical part of a firearm. The size limit directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self.

Neither magazines, nor rounds of ammunition, nor triggers, nor barrels are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment. Neither are they mentioned in Heller. But without a right to keep and bear triggers, or barrels, or ammunition and the magazines that hold ammunition, the Second Amendment right would be meaningless.

-----

Because magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines are ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.”) (citations omitted).

Consequently, the same analytical approach ought to be applied to both firearms and the ammunition magazines designed to make firearms function. Under the simple test of Heller, California’s § 32310 directly infringes Second Amendment rights. It directly infringes by broadly prohibiting common firearms and their common magazines holding more than 10 rounds, because they are not unusual and are commonly used by responsible, law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as self defense. And “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.” Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 136 S. Ct. 447, 449 (2015) (Justices Thomas and Scalia dissenting from denial of certiorari) (commenting on what Heller’s test requires).