98Z5V Posted June 30, 2017 Report Share Posted June 30, 2017 'Bout time someone stands up to these Kevin DeLeon-lookalike fukwads. Federal judge blocks new California high-capacity magazine ban, but fight looms Published June 30, 2017 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/30/federal-judge-blocks-new-california-high-capacity-magazine-ban-but-fight-looms.html A federal judge in California on Thursday blocked a state law that would have barred gun owners from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines. San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the ban approved by the Legislature and voters last year takes away gun owners' Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people's private property without compensation. "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," Benitez wrote. California law has prohibited buying or selling the magazines since 2000, but until now allowed those who had them to keep them. He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while he considers the underlying lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association. “The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read. Meanwhile, a Sacramento-based judge on Thursday rejected a similar challenge by several other gun owners' rights organizations, creating what Ari Freilich, staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, called "dueling opinions" that may be sorted out on appeal. "Unfortunately this law will be delayed but we are confident it will go into effect, and soon," he said. He called the San Diego lawsuit and ruling part of an effort by the NRA "to delay and dismantle California's law brick by brick." Had the ban taken effect, owners would have been required to get rid of their magazines by sending them out of state, altering them to hold no more than 10 bullets, destroying them or turning them into law enforcement agencies. Possession could have been punished by $100 fines or up to a year in jail. Owners can now keep the magazines until a final ruling by Benitez or if an appeals court overturns his injunction, said Chuck Michel, attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. "This court recognized that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and that law-abiding gun owners have the right to own these magazines to defend themselves and their families," Michel said. State lawmakers approved the ban last year as part of a package of bills adding to what already were some of the nation's strictest gun laws. Voters agreed in November when they approved Proposition 63, a measure that toughened the penalties by allowing violators to be fined or jailed. Benitez said he was mindful of voters' approval and government's legitimate interest in protecting the public but added that the "Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." Gun owner's constitutional rights "are not eliminated simply because they possess `unpopular' magazines holding more than 10 rounds," he wrote in a 66-page decision. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra criticized the decision but did not say what he will do next. "Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way," Becerra said in a statement. "I will defend the will of California voters because we cannot continue to lose innocent lives due to gun violence." Supporters say that magazines often holding 30 or 100 bullets are typically used in mass shootings and aren't needed by hunters or civilian owners. "Clearly it escalates the lethality in any mass shooting when high-capacity magazines are involved," said Amanda Wilcox, a spokeswoman for the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence whose daughter was fatally shot. Forcing assailants to change magazines more frequently gives victims time to flee or subdue the shooter, Becerra argued in court filings. Moreover, the government wouldn't own the magazines in the way it would property seized for a new highway or public building, he argued, since the magazines would be destroyed by law enforcement agencies. Becerra said opponents' Second Amendment challenge has repeatedly been rejected by other courts, allowing at least seven other states and 11 local governments to already restrict the possession or sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
survivalshop Posted June 30, 2017 Report Share Posted June 30, 2017 5 hours ago, 98Z5V said: San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the ban approved by the Legislature and voters last year takes away gun owners' Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people's private property without compensation. "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," Benitez wrote. So they will compensate owners with a penny a Mag, that should compensate them & satisfy the Court ! I'm taking bets it will turn out to something like that , look at the courts it will go to ! This Judge has a set & good for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EngrBob Posted June 30, 2017 Report Share Posted June 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, survivalshop said: So they will compensate owners with a penny a Mag, that should compensate them & satisfy the Court ! I'm taking bets it will turn out to something like that , look at the courts it will go to ! This Judge has a set & good for him. We know what will happen at the 9th circuit, but then will this go to SCOTUS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
survivalshop Posted June 30, 2017 Report Share Posted June 30, 2017 Just now, EngrBob said: We know what will happen at the 9th circuit, but then will this go to SCOTUS? They just passed a case up , didn't they ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EngrBob Posted June 30, 2017 Report Share Posted June 30, 2017 Just now, survivalshop said: They just passed a case up , didn't they ? Yes, but this one has a bit of a different slant and you saw the Thomas and Gorsuch dissent on the last one. This one could be construed as being the first step in taking guns away or outlawing the ownership of guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magwa Posted June 30, 2017 Report Share Posted June 30, 2017 awesome , someone to stand up for what is right . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guruofhotrod Posted June 30, 2017 Report Share Posted June 30, 2017 Nice, A judge that actually sees through the smoke cloud for what this $hit really is: "The evidentiary record is a potpourri of news pieces, State-generated documents, conflicting definitions of “mass shooting,” amorphous harms to be avoided, and a homogenous mass of horrible crimes in jurisdictions near and far for which large capacity magazines were not the cause." About F/(%#ing time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted July 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2017 14 hours ago, Magwa said: awesome , someone to stand up for what is right . ESPECIALLY for those poor Californians! Seriously! Cali gun owners have been getting fucked over for decades... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mineralman55 Posted July 1, 2017 Report Share Posted July 1, 2017 7 hours ago, 98Z5V said: ESPECIALLY for those poor Californians! Seriously! Cali gun owners have been getting fucked over for decades... Not just the gun owners, every decent American gets f*&ked over by Kalifornia. I lived there in the mid-90s. Beautiful scenery but like living in an ant hill. After I got transferred out, I received a letter from the bastards in Sacramento telling me they were entitled to a percentage of my retirement pay because I had worked in their miserable state for four years. I wrote them back and said come and get it. In the neck for all of Kalifornia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guruofhotrod Posted July 1, 2017 Report Share Posted July 1, 2017 On top of the situation with the state law, the city of Los Angeles "jumped the gun" (pun intended!) on this deal: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=20309804&postcount=418 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magwa Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 That state is so Fuked up I refuse to even go through it a perfect example of what happens when liberal people get a hold on the top spots in the states politics and yes it has been going on since the 60's reality is NOT their mindset... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubbas4570 Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 Either let that state fall into the ocean, or get rid of the libtards that infest it.......no other way out of this mess they have created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubbas4570 Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 .....and no passing them to ND.....we have room, but NOT for them; enough is here already.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guruofhotrod Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Not related to the mag restriction but, another screwup by the Cali DOJ, seems they missed the deadline to publish regulations to setup the new ammo vendor licensing program: http://mailchi.mp/53e3e03976ba/doj-misses-ammo-regulation-deadline?e=7f0381ea75 Will require background checks for each ammo purchase, state will keep a database of who has what, ammo bought at ranges must be used at the range, etc - Totally Absurd!! Apparently the state was expecting the FBI to allow the use of their background check system ((NICS?) and the feds told them to pound sand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNP Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 I get the state's rights idea, but a state should NOT be able to further restrict rights granted federally. They SHOULD have the right to loosen them if they choose, but any tax burden created by that loosening should be carried by that state and that state only....say for immigration laws. If your state wishes to allow illegal immigrants to settle, fine. However any program they become a part of that involves federal dollars is now forfeited. If your state wants to free up machine guns, fine...just don't let Eric Holder purchase any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.