Sunday, March 31, 2019

JUSTICE!

h/t Daily Timewaster

















The U.S. District court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California's ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.

On June 29, 2017, it was reported that U.S. District judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California's "high-capacity" magazine ban just two days before it was to go into effect. He noted the ban could not survive the test of Heller v. D.C. (2008), noting: "When the simple test of Heller is applied...the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgement."

On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circus Court upheld Benitez' ruling, voting 2-1 against the ban, and sending the ruling back to Benitez.

On March 29, 2019, Benitez again ruled against the ban, issuing an order barring CA AG Xavier Becerra from enforcing the ban.

Benitez again relied on Heller, noting that "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."

The case is Duncan v. Becerra, No 2:17-cv-56-81 in the US District Court for Southern California.

Hoist a tankard with me, folks.

Best served fresh and hot. Vintage 2019.
























Let me know if you're getting tired of winning yet.
And now, more music apropos for the day:

19 comments:

Harry Flashman said...

Hard to believe that news came out of California. I heard President Trump is appointing new judges to the ninth circuit court without Diane Feinstein having blessed the nominations and she is stroking out.๐Ÿ˜

Bear Claw Chris Lapp said...

The Deer Hunter - Effin "A"

Eskyman said...

What a wonderful victory! May many more such victories come our way, and it's likely to happen since President Trump has been putting HONEST judges on the bench, evening up the playing field that has been so tilted against us for so long!

District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez has rendered a judgement that is sweeping, bold and well-researched; it will be very hard for the opposition forces to overturn it, as it's extremely well-reasoned & grounded in firm caselaw as well as Constitutional law.

He shows the lack of reasoning and poor research done by the defendants and destroys their arguments, if you can even call their jumble of pleadings arguments at all. He further demonstrates the irrationality of California's gun laws & demonstrates how contradictory & hard to understand they are; they aren't well tailored but only serve to make it difficult for gun-owners to enjoy their RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

It's 86 pages of delightful reading, and I've only read it once, but I was chortling all the way through it and will now read it again, slower, savoring each word!

Here it is in pdf, read it and you'll see what I mean. Even the title is beautiful: "ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DECLARING CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 32310 UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT" That's music to my eyes!

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf

Crew said...

It seems likely that Becerra will appeal to the 9th and if it goes against him to the SC.

The problem for the gun grabbers is that this is such a strong precedent and can be used to argue to overturn CAs other stupid laws and restricted magazine laws in other states.

Anonymous said...

"Legal" victories are nice.
Good that 9th cited Heller.
We still live among enemies who want us disarmed and destroyed.
Boat Guy

Anonymous said...

Every now and then, even God gets fed up with the bullshit getting thrown around by Leftists, Statists, and every combination therein. ๐Ÿ˜›๐Ÿ˜๐ŸŽ
-Stealth Spaniel

Anonymous said...

Eskyman - Thanks for the download link!

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf

Scanning the document, I am looking forward to reading it in entirety; not difficult to read at all (i.e., not too 'legalese') and actually really good.

The court seems to cover many of the concerns I had, for example, one concern was that if a state had banned 10+ round mags for a while (e.g., CA, NY) that these mags would obviously be less in 'common use' based on laws themselves, setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The opinion addresses this and many many other great points...

[pg 20] "To the extent that magazines holding more than 10 rounds may be less common
within California, it would likely be the result of the State long criminalizing the buying, selling, importing, and manufacturing of these magazines. Saying that large capacity magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning. See Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly used. A law’s existence can’t be the source of its own constitutional validity.”)."

Lethality is not the test...

[pg 21] "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.”"

[pg 23] "As policy, the State says a law-abiding, responsible person needs only 10 rounds. If you judge for yourself that you will need more than 10 rounds, however, the crime is yours. And, too bad if you complied with the law but needed 11 rounds to stop an attacker, or a group of attackers, or a mob. Now, you are dead. By living a law-abiding, responsible life, you have just become another “gun violence” statistic. And your statistic may be used to justify further restrictions on gun lethality for future law-abiding citizens."

Enjoy.

And never cede an inch to authoritarian Marxists.

Jim Scrummy said...

I saw this on Friday, and just did a first read of the ruling(thanks Eskyman!). About 98% good, a couple troubling passages where the judge gets a few things wrong (e.g. saying a ban on incendiary ammo is good, not sure if he also mean "armor piercing" too?? Plus the owning of greater than 30 round magazine...such as 50 or 100 rounders, is not common??-and can be potentially regulated???). But he does take the AG to task and blows away all of the "Subject Matter Experts" arguments (personal opinions) and the crappy research the AG did on other state's laws concerning the magazine ban. Nice use of the Heller ruling as the simple test to pass (and the real purpose of the 2A). Like I said I like 98% of the ruling because if the AG goes to the 9th Circuit, either way it will be appealed to the Supreme Court (SC). Since Heller was used in much of the reasoning, the SC may give it the "CERT.", which may be good? I would be shocked if the AG doesn't appeal, but it may not be a win in the 9th these days for the AG? Maybe with the En Banc? The takings argument I found interesting, because I believe the some of the bump stock ban cases are making that argument? I like this ruling because it now gives more "ammo" for people to file suit against state's that have enacted these bans (looking at NY,NJ,MD,CO,VT,and HI to name a few).

Old NFO said...

Good news!

Anonymous said...

So, does this mean it is now legal to own an AR-15 or AK-47 in Kalifrutopia with a detachable magazine?

As much as I am 108.3% in support of 2A, i have to wonder if this nation will ever fix the problems from which mass shootings result from? (and just this moment, my next thought is "don't hold your breath/not anytime soon")

Many of you probably read on another blog - 4 green berets imagining how they could bring Chaos to Chicongo, toward which i think: i wish they would hurry up...despite the tremendous loss of innocent life that would result. One of the alternatives would be to let that festering situation continue... Where the dimocrats continue to expand their voting base full of zero sum drains on federal revenues who happily vote away other peoples rights to increase their welfare disbursements.

I think Chicago is an *easier* target... compared to coastal locations like NYC or Baltimore. I think back to Wilder's musings on Dystopia... here's the link if you missed it:
https://wilderwealthywise.com/?s=rat+experiments

I compare how the big cities are similar to Calhoun's experiment. Unfortunately, cleaning up after Calhoun's experiment was a lot easier!

Anonymous said...

It may not stand for long, but so far sales of standard capacity mags have been so brisk that many places have run out, at least temporarily.
For you left coasters, get'em while the gettin's good.
.
NSF

Lord of the Fleas said...

"Many of you probably read on another blog - 4 green berets imagining how they could bring Chaos to Chicongo,..."

Actually, no. What blog would that be? (Please and thanks...)

John Wilder said...

Wondering if your governor (etc.) is going to come out and say, "If the judge rules that way, let him enforce it."

I wouldn't put it past them . . .

Dan said...

Benitez is a rarity..... a judge who read, understands and BELIEVES in the Constitution. His ruling WILL be appealed...again, by the state. They will
seek an En Banc hearing from the Ninth Circus Court. And with the history of
said court odds are good the state will see the law reinstated. On the tiny
chance the Appeals court upholds Benitez the demonrats in Sacramento will not
give up...they will write ANOTHER bill with the wording slightly altered but
with the same agenda and pass it. Then the entire roller coaster starts over.
And they will KEEP doing this till they get the result they seek. The problem
is you cannot rely on finding an honest judge to hear a challenge to unconstitutional laws because honest judges are exceedingly rare. The solution is
to nip the problem at the source.....the communists in control of the state
legislature. As long as they control the process the process becomes just another
tool to grind away at freedom.

Reltney McFee said...

Anon 3:51: I dunno. I've never been in the Professional Mayhem Business, but, as an ex Big City Street Medic, let's say I have been an interested observer on the sidelines (would that make me a fan?)

With that disclaimer, it seems to me that the District of Corruption or NYFC, or Baltimore (although I am less familiar with Baltimore's geography) are, if not more vulnerable targets, at least of the same order of difficulty as Shitcago. Central (and external) sources of electricity? (Check!) Centralized water supply? (Check!) Just in time food delivery? Check! No intrinsic food production capacity, relative to requirements? Check! In a couple of these cases, a few bridges control ALL entry and exit from the municipalities under consideration.

No, dear Anon 3:51, rather, it is my unschooled surmise that ANY city is a hotbed of vulnerabilities, and pretty much poster children for Ol' Remus' advice to STAY AWAY FROM CROWDS!.

A Texan said...

The court seems to cover many of the concerns I had, for example, one concern was that if a state had banned 10+ round mags for a while (e.g., CA, NY) that these mags would obviously be less in 'common use' based on laws themselves, setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The opinion addresses this and many many other great points...

[pg 20] "To the extent that magazines holding more than 10 rounds may be less common
within California, it would likely be the result of the State long criminalizing the buying, selling, importing, and manufacturing of these magazines. Saying that large capacity magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning. See Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly used. A law’s existence can’t be the source of its own constitutional validity.”)."
-------------------------
@Anonymous 7:11...This exact same analysis, of a law's existence not being able to be the source of its own constitutional validity, can easily apply to the sections of the 1934 NFA dealing with restricting full auto firearms. They are now in very short supply because of severe supply limitations created by the law from 1934 through 1986, and a virtual ban from 1986 - present. I hope and pray that CA appeals this, and that it winds up in the USSC, where (especially if Ruthie goes away) it should be upheld...at which point, this exact language can be applied to any case involving a civilian trying to get a tax stamp for a full auto gun, who is denied such by the BATFE.

Anonymous said...

Where the Special Forces guys talk about Chicago

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/11/19/the-2nd-amendment-is-obsolete-says-congressman-who-wants-to-nuke-omaha/

Anonymous said...

Reltney McFee:

Shall we begin a gentlemanly discussion on the vulnerabilities of big cities? (i am "anon 3:51 btw...) Although i *DO* think most of the conversation might have already happened! So i am curious what attributes you think make coastal cities MORE vulnerable? My thought was that by being on the ocean, makes it easier for any seaborne assistance to arrive (but makes drinkable/non-salt water harder to secure)

With that being said, Chicago *IS* situated on lake Mich, so perhaps it will have freshwater for *a little while* (until made undrinkable from untreated sewage?) perhaps we are getting down to splitting hairs of "which will be worse..." any big city would be a shit-show within hours!
regards,
anon351

Angantyr said...

@Reltney McFee

I rather suspect Lake Mich. water is already undrinkable without treatment...