from
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-high-capacity-gun-magazines-2023-09-22/

US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines
By Jonathan Stempel
September 22, 20232:48 PM PDTUpdated a day ago

Long Beach Police Department photo of illegal high-capacity magazines
and an assault rifle
Illegal high-capacity magazines and an assault rifle along with multiple
guns, ammunition are seen in this Long Beach Police Department (LBPD)
photo in Long Beach, California, U.S., released on August 21, 2019/ File
Photo Acquire Licensing Rights

Sept 22 (Reuters) - A federal judge in California on Friday declared
that state's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of
ammunition unconstitutional, saying it violated the Second Amendment
rights of firearms owners.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego said California's
"sweeping ban" went too far by preventing people from using magazines
for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

"The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports
state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent,
but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen," Benitez wrote in a
71-page decision.

00:18

02:19
Benitez cited a June 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, New York
State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, requiring that firearms
restrictions be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of
firearm regulation" to pass muster.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who enforces the state's laws,
plans to seek a stay while he appeals the decision to the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

He said Californians need to be kept safe from weapons enhancements that
are "designed" to cause mass casualties.

"The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen did not create a regulatory
straitjacket for states--and we believe that the district court got this
wrong," Bonta said. "We will move quickly to correct this incredibly
dangerous mistake."

Benitez delayed enforcing his injunction against the law for 10 days to
give Bonta time to seek a stay.

The judge had struck down the magazines ban in March 2019, but the 9th
Circuit overturned him in Nov. 2021. The Supreme Court vacated the
appeals court ruling and ordered new proceedings consistent with the
Bruen decision.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, in
a statement, said Friday's decision reflects the "sea change in the way
courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws."

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has criticized Benitez for
multiple decisions favoring firearms owners, had praised the appeals
court ruling as a "huge victory for the health and safety of all
Californians."

The case is Duncan et al v. Bonta, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of California, No. 17-01017.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

[Default] a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> typed:

>from
>https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-high-capacity-gun-magazines-2023-09-22/
>
>US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines
>By Jonathan Stempel
>September 22, 20232:48 PM PDTUpdated a day ago

Once again, Rudy is wrong.

Now, on to guaranteeing the right to have an AR-15 in California
again.

LOL

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:c7j3hihiahhsf9c1gctbfus2il97skkd0m@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> [Default] a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>>from
>>https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-high-capacity-gun-magazines-2023-09-22/
>>
>>US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines
>>By Jonathan Stempel
>>September 22, 20232:48 PM PDTUpdated a day ago
>
>
> Once again, Rudy is wrong.

You will never go wrong betting against Rudy...

In news:CLjQM.200040$GHI6.83613@fx17.iad, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
typed:

> from
> https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-high-capacity-gun-magazines-2023-09-22/

> US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines
> By Jonathan Stempel
> September 22, 20232:48 PM PDTUpdated a day ago

Oregon Litigants Take Note of California Ruling on Magazine Ban

With Oregon at the forefront of litigation over the constitutionality of
magazine bans, plaintiffs in that state are closely watching the California
decision.

A California ruling that the state cannot bar gun owners from having detachable
magazines that hold more than 10 rounds has given Oregon litigants optimism
about overruling a similar ban in that state.

The California case closely mirrors litigation over Oregon's voter-approved
Ballot Measure 114.

In addition to requiring buyers to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm, the
measure also bans magazines that are capable of holding, or being modified to
hold, more than 10 rounds.

Measure 114 has been in litigation in both federal and state court since
November 2022.

Plaintiffs in both the California and Oregon cases are relying on the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs.
Bruen.

The Impact of Bruen

The landmark Brien decision requires that firearm regulations don't impede on
the language of the Second Amendment and be "consistent with this Nation's
historical tradition."

"Previously, [the courts] had employed a balancing test basically asking whether
the state's interest in regulating firearms outweighed the burden on gun owners'
rights," explained Willamette University constitutional law professor Norman
Williams in a recorded interview published on Oregon Public Broadcasting.

"But in the Bruen case, the court announced a historical approach that, going
forward, burdens on gun owners' rights were not justified unless the government
could point to a law in 1791-the time the Second Amendment was ratified-that was
comparable to the law under review," he continued.

In his Sept 22 decision, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that
California's ban on such magazines fails to meet that standard and that "there
is no national tradition of prohibiting or regulating firearms based on firing
capacity or ammunition capacity."

"The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws
against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the
disarmament of the law-abiding citizen," he continued.

"That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of
citizens to keep and bear arms."

The Oregon Connection

Judge Benitez's reasoning is the opposite of that applied by Federal Judge Karin
Immergut following a June trial on the Oregon measure.

She ruled that it was constitutional to ban Oregon gun owners from possessing
"large capacity" magazines.

Most of the focus in that trial was on whether the ban on firearm magazines was
analogous to gun regulations in the past.

In her 122-page opinion, Judge Immergut concluded that the Second Amendment
doesn't bar the government from adopting new regulations that respond to new
technologies like "assault weapons" or large-capacity magazines.

"She very much limited her consideration to whether-on its face-it was a
violation of the Second Amendment," Mr. Williams explained.

Plaintiffs in the Measure 114 federal case have appealed Judge Immergut's
decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

That court could take about a year to issue its decision, Mr. Williams said.

"This is an issue that I think the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be
interested in and take up. That could be several years away," he concluded.

Mr. Williams thinks it's likely that the ban on high-capacity magazines will be
found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

"The current six-justice conservative majority, which struck down New York's
concealed carry permit requirement in the Bruen case, very much announced its
intention to be very protective of gun owners' rights and to be very rigorous in
how it looks at the history of firearms regulation."

He went on to forecast the Supreme Court's decision.

"The U.S. Supreme Court typically takes cases with an eye to reversing them."

That proves true in about 70 percent of cases, he said.

The court "doesn't see the point in kind of applauding a lower court that got it
right. It sees its role as reversing lower courts that get it wrong."

Measure 114 plaintiffs are optimistic.

"This is very positive news for our ongoing efforts to reverse this dangerous
and malicious law that barely passed with the help of out-of-state
millionaires," wrote plaintiff Kevin Starrett of the Oregon Firearms Federation.

Meanwhile, a second trial on Measure 114 is expected to wrap up this week.

The trial in Harney County Circuit Court challenges the measure on the grounds
that it violates the state's constitution.

"The trial judge in Harney County concluded last December that he thinks it more
likely than not that Measure 114 violates the Oregon Constitution's protection
of the right to bear arms," Mr. Williams explained. "It's highly unlikely that
he's going to reverse himself."

For Measure 114 to survive, the state must win in both the federal and the state
courts. Gun rights advocates only have to prevail in one of these cases for the
measure to be struck down.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/federal-judge-overturns-california-magazine-ban-for-second-time-5497610

[Default] "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> typed:

>In news:CLjQM.200040$GHI6.83613@fx17.iad, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
>typed:
>
>> from
>> https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-high-capacity-gun-magazines-2023-09-22/
>
>> US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines
>> By Jonathan Stempel
>> September 22, 20232:48 PM PDTUpdated a day ago
>
>
>Oregon Litigants Take Note of California Ruling on Magazine Ban
>
>With Oregon at the forefront of litigation over the constitutionality of
>magazine bans, plaintiffs in that state are closely watching the California
>decision.
>
>A California ruling that the state cannot bar gun owners from having detachable
>magazines that hold more than 10 rounds has given Oregon litigants optimism
>about overruling a similar ban in that state.
>
>The California case closely mirrors litigation over Oregon's voter-approved
>Ballot Measure 114.
>
>In addition to requiring buyers to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm, the
>measure also bans magazines that are capable of holding, or being modified to
>hold, more than 10 rounds.
>
>Measure 114 has been in litigation in both federal and state court since
>November 2022.
>
>Plaintiffs in both the California and Oregon cases are relying on the U.S.
>Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs.
>Bruen.
>
>The Impact of Bruen
>
>The landmark Brien decision requires that firearm regulations don't impede on
>the language of the Second Amendment and be "consistent with this Nation's
>historical tradition."
>
>"Previously, [the courts] had employed a balancing test basically asking whether
>the state's interest in regulating firearms outweighed the burden on gun owners'
>rights," explained Willamette University constitutional law professor Norman
>Williams in a recorded interview published on Oregon Public Broadcasting.
>
>"But in the Bruen case, the court announced a historical approach that, going
>forward, burdens on gun owners' rights were not justified unless the government
>could point to a law in 1791-the time the Second Amendment was ratified-that was
>comparable to the law under review," he continued.
>
>In his Sept 22 decision, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that
>California's ban on such magazines fails to meet that standard and that "there
>is no national tradition of prohibiting or regulating firearms based on firing
>capacity or ammunition capacity."
>
>"The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws
>against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the
>disarmament of the law-abiding citizen," he continued.
>
>"That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of
>citizens to keep and bear arms."
>
>The Oregon Connection
>
>Judge Benitez's reasoning is the opposite of that applied by Federal Judge Karin
>Immergut following a June trial on the Oregon measure.
>
>She ruled that it was constitutional to ban Oregon gun owners from possessing
>"large capacity" magazines.
>
>Most of the focus in that trial was on whether the ban on firearm magazines was
>analogous to gun regulations in the past.
>
>In her 122-page opinion, Judge Immergut concluded that the Second Amendment
>doesn't bar the government from adopting new regulations that respond to new
>technologies like "assault weapons" or large-capacity magazines.
>
>"She very much limited her consideration to whether-on its face-it was a
>violation of the Second Amendment," Mr. Williams explained.
>
>Plaintiffs in the Measure 114 federal case have appealed Judge Immergut's
>decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
>
>That court could take about a year to issue its decision, Mr. Williams said.
>
>"This is an issue that I think the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be
>interested in and take up. That could be several years away," he concluded.
>
>Mr. Williams thinks it's likely that the ban on high-capacity magazines will be
>found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.
>
>"The current six-justice conservative majority, which struck down New York's
>concealed carry permit requirement in the Bruen case, very much announced its
>intention to be very protective of gun owners' rights and to be very rigorous in
>how it looks at the history of firearms regulation."
>
>He went on to forecast the Supreme Court's decision.
>
>"The U.S. Supreme Court typically takes cases with an eye to reversing them."
>
>That proves true in about 70 percent of cases, he said.
>
>The court "doesn't see the point in kind of applauding a lower court that got it
>right. It sees its role as reversing lower courts that get it wrong."
>
>Measure 114 plaintiffs are optimistic.
>
>"This is very positive news for our ongoing efforts to reverse this dangerous
>and malicious law that barely passed with the help of out-of-state
>millionaires," wrote plaintiff Kevin Starrett of the Oregon Firearms Federation.
>
>Meanwhile, a second trial on Measure 114 is expected to wrap up this week.
>
>The trial in Harney County Circuit Court challenges the measure on the grounds
>that it violates the state's constitution.
>
>"The trial judge in Harney County concluded last December that he thinks it more
>likely than not that Measure 114 violates the Oregon Constitution's protection
>of the right to bear arms," Mr. Williams explained. "It's highly unlikely that
>he's going to reverse himself."
>
>For Measure 114 to survive, the state must win in both the federal and the state
>courts. Gun rights advocates only have to prevail in one of these cases for the
>measure to be struck down.
>
>https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/federal-judge-overturns-california-magazine-ban-for-second-time-5497610
>

Love seeing these statist mo'fos take it in the shorts.

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:8dn3hi9mvb8ecrrk9kk4m652ucm7enjuoh@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> [Default] "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> typed:
>
>>In news:CLjQM.200040$GHI6.83613@fx17.iad, a425couple
>><a425couple@hotmail.com>
>>typed:
>>
>>> from
>>> https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-high-capacity-gun-magazines-2023-09-22/
>>
>>> US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines
>>> By Jonathan Stempel
>>> September 22, 20232:48 PM PDTUpdated a day ago
>>
>>
>>Oregon Litigants Take Note of California Ruling on Magazine Ban
>>
>>With Oregon at the forefront of litigation over the constitutionality of
>>magazine bans, plaintiffs in that state are closely watching the
>>California
>>decision.
>>
>>A California ruling that the state cannot bar gun owners from having
>>detachable
>>magazines that hold more than 10 rounds has given Oregon litigants
>>optimism
>>about overruling a similar ban in that state.
>>
>>The California case closely mirrors litigation over Oregon's
>>voter-approved
>>Ballot Measure 114.
>>
>>In addition to requiring buyers to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm,
>>the
>>measure also bans magazines that are capable of holding, or being modified
>>to
>>hold, more than 10 rounds.
>>
>>Measure 114 has been in litigation in both federal and state court since
>>November 2022.
>>
>>Plaintiffs in both the California and Oregon cases are relying on the U.S.
>>Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association
>>vs.
>>Bruen.
>>
>>The Impact of Bruen
>>
>>The landmark Brien decision requires that firearm regulations don't impede
>>on
>>the language of the Second Amendment and be "consistent with this Nation's
>>historical tradition."
>>
>>"Previously, [the courts] had employed a balancing test basically asking
>>whether
>>the state's interest in regulating firearms outweighed the burden on gun
>>owners'
>>rights," explained Willamette University constitutional law professor
>>Norman
>>Williams in a recorded interview published on Oregon Public Broadcasting.
>>
>>"But in the Bruen case, the court announced a historical approach that,
>>going
>>forward, burdens on gun owners' rights were not justified unless the
>>government
>>could point to a law in 1791-the time the Second Amendment was
>>ratified-that was
>>comparable to the law under review," he continued.
>>
>>In his Sept 22 decision, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that
>>California's ban on such magazines fails to meet that standard and that
>>"there
>>is no national tradition of prohibiting or regulating firearms based on
>>firing
>>capacity or ammunition capacity."
>>
>>"The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state
>>laws
>>against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the
>>disarmament of the law-abiding citizen," he continued.
>>
>>"That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of
>>citizens to keep and bear arms."
>>
>>The Oregon Connection
>>
>>Judge Benitez's reasoning is the opposite of that applied by Federal Judge
>>Karin
>>Immergut following a June trial on the Oregon measure.
>>
>>She ruled that it was constitutional to ban Oregon gun owners from
>>possessing
>>"large capacity" magazines.
>>
>>Most of the focus in that trial was on whether the ban on firearm
>>magazines was
>>analogous to gun regulations in the past.
>>
>>In her 122-page opinion, Judge Immergut concluded that the Second
>>Amendment
>>doesn't bar the government from adopting new regulations that respond to
>>new
>>technologies like "assault weapons" or large-capacity magazines.
>>
>>"She very much limited her consideration to whether-on its face-it was a
>>violation of the Second Amendment," Mr. Williams explained.
>>
>>Plaintiffs in the Measure 114 federal case have appealed Judge Immergut's
>>decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
>>
>>That court could take about a year to issue its decision, Mr. Williams
>>said.
>>
>>"This is an issue that I think the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be
>>interested in and take up. That could be several years away," he
>>concluded.
>>
>>Mr. Williams thinks it's likely that the ban on high-capacity magazines
>>will be
>>found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.
>>
>>"The current six-justice conservative majority, which struck down New
>>York's
>>concealed carry permit requirement in the Bruen case, very much announced
>>its
>>intention to be very protective of gun owners' rights and to be very
>>rigorous in
>>how it looks at the history of firearms regulation."
>>
>>He went on to forecast the Supreme Court's decision.
>>
>>"The U.S. Supreme Court typically takes cases with an eye to reversing
>>them."
>>
>>That proves true in about 70 percent of cases, he said.
>>
>>The court "doesn't see the point in kind of applauding a lower court that
>>got it
>>right. It sees its role as reversing lower courts that get it wrong."
>>
>>Measure 114 plaintiffs are optimistic.
>>
>>"This is very positive news for our ongoing efforts to reverse this
>>dangerous
>>and malicious law that barely passed with the help of out-of-state
>>millionaires," wrote plaintiff Kevin Starrett of the Oregon Firearms
>>Federation.
>>
>>Meanwhile, a second trial on Measure 114 is expected to wrap up this week.
>>
>>The trial in Harney County Circuit Court challenges the measure on the
>>grounds
>>that it violates the state's constitution.
>>
>>"The trial judge in Harney County concluded last December that he thinks
>>it more
>>likely than not that Measure 114 violates the Oregon Constitution's
>>protection
>>of the right to bear arms," Mr. Williams explained. "It's highly unlikely
>>that
>>he's going to reverse himself."
>>
>>For Measure 114 to survive, the state must win in both the federal and the
>>state
>>courts. Gun rights advocates only have to prevail in one of these cases
>>for the
>>measure to be struck down.
>>
>>https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/federal-judge-overturns-california-magazine-ban-for-second-time-5497610
>>
>
> Love seeing these statist mo'fos take it in the shorts.

If they would start filing 42USC1983 suits.. they would REALLY start taking
it in the shorts... and much more importantly... in their bank accounts.