Federal Judge rules CA magazine restrictions unconstitutional

[thughes]

Still room for .gov to appeal, but Federal judge rules magazine limits are unconstitutional.

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.

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.


https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019...cond-amendment

[WARFAB]

Is it just that the spring weather is putting me in a better mood these days, or do we actually seem to be on a bit of a winning streak?

[camper4lyfe]

This gives me a semi.

[thughes]

I wouldn't get too much of a chub. While this judge applied strict scrutiny, it will be struck on on appeal as soon as the state shops a judge who will apply intermediate scrutiny.....because....you know....."the good of public safety" trumps your constitutional rights.

That said, hopefully the NYSRPA case slated for SCOTUS decision this Fall will settle this strict scrutiny thing once-and-for-all (in our favor).

[camper4lyfe]

I wouldn't get too much of a chub. While this judge applied strict scrutiny, it will be struck on on appeal as soon as the state shops a judge who will apply intermediate scrutiny.....because....you know....."the good of public safety" trumps your constitutional rights.

That said, hopefully the NYSRPA case slated for SCOTUS decision this Fall will settle this strict scrutiny thing once-and-for-all (in our favor).

Oh I agree, but I’ll enjoy it while I can.

[WARFAB]

I wouldn't get too much of a chub. While this judge applied strict scrutiny, it will be struck on on appeal as soon as the state shops a judge who will apply intermediate scrutiny.....because....you know....."the good of public safety" trumps your constitutional rights.

Adam Kraut wrote up a nice summary for Recoil. Looks like Judge Benitez wrote an awesome decision that not only explained why the mag capacity law should be judged under strict scrutiny, but also why the law fails under intermediate scrutiny as well.

Strict scrutiny smackdown:

“[a] law like [section] 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 self-defense.”

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.” According to the Court, “the State has not offered a compelling interest for the ban, arguing that intermediate scrutiny should be the test,” and “Section 32310 is not narrowly tailored; it is not tailored at all. It fits like a burlap bag. It is a single-dimensional, prophylactic, blanket thrown across the population of the state.” Judge Benitez found that Section 32310 did not pass constitutional muster under a strict scrutiny analysis.

Intermediate scrutiny smackdown:

As the Court stated “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. The only effect of § 32310 is to make criminals of California’s 39 million law-abiding citizens who want to have ready for their self-defense a firearm with more than 10 rounds.”

But wait, there's more! Judge Benitez also chastised the state for citing biased sources in support of the law..... (Paging Judge Skretny)

This is federal court. The Attorney General has submitted two unofficial surveys to prove mass shootings are a problem made worse by firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Do the surveys pass the Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 403 test for relevance? Yes. Are the surveys admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 802? No. They are double or triple hearsay. No foundation has been laid. No authentication attempted. Are they reliable? No. Are they anything more than a selected compilation of news articles – articles which are themselves inadmissible? No. Are the compilers likely to be biased? Yes.

Where are the actual police investigation reports? The Attorney General, California’s top law enforcement officer, has not submitted a single official police report of a shooting.

...AND said the law violates The Takings Clause!

“Thus, whatever might be the State’s authority to ban the sale or use of magazines over 10 rounds, the Takings Clause prevents it from compelling the physical dispossession of such lawfully-acquired private property without just compensation.”

http://www.recoilweb.com/federal-jud...al-148707.html

[thughes]

Fukk yeah!

[camper4lyfe]

Adam Kraut wrote up a nice summary for Recoil. Looks like Judge Benitez wrote an awesome decision that not only explained why the mag capacity law should be judged under strict scrutiny, but also why the law fails under intermediate scrutiny as well.

Strict scrutiny smackdown:



Intermediate scrutiny smackdown:




But wait, there's more! Judge Benitez also chastised the state for citing biased sources in support of the law..... (Paging Judge Skretny)



...AND said the law violates The Takings Clause!



http://www.recoilweb.com/federal-jud...al-148707.html

Someone buy that man a drink!

[Pissed Off Patriot]

Someone buy that man a drink!

And put him on "suicide" watch.

[WARFAB]

In somewhat related news:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/feinstein-fumes-as-trump-administration-pushes-forward-with-9th-circuit-nominees-without-consulting-her

The Senate is poised this week to consider two more conservative nominees selected by President Trump to sit on the left-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- and the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee isn't happy about it.

That's because the nominees, Ken Lee and Dan Collins, were picked without any input from either Dianne Feinstein or Kamala Harris, California's two Democrat senators. Traditionally, the White House seeks to obtain a so-called "blue slip," or approval, from a judicial nominee's two home-state senators before pressing on with their nominations.

But the Trump administration, which has successfully nominated several conservative judges to the 9th Circuit already, has pointedly disregarded that process as it continues its push to transform the appellate court that the president repeatedly has derided as hopelessly biased and "disgraceful."

Love Trump or hate him, we can definitely be happy that it's not Hillary appointing all these judges.

[WARFAB]

California DOJ filed a motion to stay the ruling. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I've heard people theorize that because this is a slam dunk 2A SCOTUS case, the 9th circuit may not be interested in upholding the magazine ban. If the 9th circuit does uphold the magazine ban and this case goes to SCOTUS, our fellow patriots in California will likely have done us New Yorkers a huge favor. But, there is also the NYSRPA vs. City of NY case that could determine 2A cases require strict scrutiny. If SCOTUS says 2A cases get strict scrutiny, then this Cali magazine ban is over for the reasons Judge Benitez already outlined in his ruling. If that's how it plays out then we'll have helped out our friends in California.

I'm trying hard not to get my hopes up too much.

Link to the CA DOJ's motion to stay the ruling:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ing-Appeal.pdf

They're petitioning the same judge who just struck down their law for a stay on his ruling. Maybe Norm DeGuerre could tell us if that's typical or not. Why would Benitez grant a stay unless he wants to send the case up the ladder to get SCOTUS to rule on it? His ruling seemed pretty explicit.

[WARFAB]

From the request for a stay:

If Section 32310 is ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove these new LCMs.

If it will be difficult for the state to remove "new" LCMs, how are they going to remove the "old" LCMs? This is lunacy.

[thughes]

Man....it REALLY sucks seeing all these on-line vendors promoting: "We're now shipping high cap mags to California!".

[WARFAB]

Man....it REALLY sucks seeing all these on-line vendors promoting: "We're now shipping high cap mags to California!".

Trying to see it in a positive light. Perhaps it means that our relief is within sight.

[WARFAB]

Judge Benitez issues a stay of his ruling starting at 5:00pm tonight. The window for Californians to buy standard cap magazines ends at 5:00, but possession of them will remain legal until the appeal to the 9th circuit is complete. No idea if it possession would then remain legal until a SCOTUS ruling is complete if there is another appeal. This will be very interesting to watch. I have no idea how Trump's appointments to the 9th circuit might impact this case. I think I just read something about another rule change allowing his appointments to proceed to a vote? Lots of different moving parts right now.