Breaking! Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment

[danb]

That maybe true, but the panel of the 9th is changing if I remember correctly. Didn't the president just appoint a new judge to that court?

See #19. If this goes back to the same 3-judge panel that upheld the injunction last year, they are likely to uphold this well written opinion too. Hard to say about a full en banc panel though. Depends what we get from the Supreme Court next year.

 

[Sirex]

So, I read on some FB pages, some companies are now selling +10rd mags to CA now. I assume this is temporary until the state appeals, then it's back up in the air. Now if this could set a precedent I would be happy. Maybe there would be hope for MD, but I know that Frosh hole in Annapolis would fight it with heavy backing from mom and school kids demanding stuff. I mean, it would be nice to have mags shipped right to my house rather than making trips to PA to buy them.

 

[GoldGunsGirls]

Anyone here read the ruling? It is absolutely devastating. It is the single strongest pro-gun rights argument I have ever, ever seen in a judicial opinion.

Full opinion: https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.n...2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf

 

[Bob A]

Anyone here read the ruling? It is absolutely devastating. It is the single strongest pro-gun rights argument I have ever, ever seen in a judicial opinion.

Full opinion: https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.n...2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf

Obviously the judge understands "incrementalism". Good for him, good for us, good for USA.

 

[babalou]

Damn, epic winning and slap down

 

[mcleftnut]

I'm not a genius, so I'll just ask... would/could this ruling affect MD's magazine laws for the better?

 

[GolfR]

I'm a little confused on this. Is it overturning the recent "ban" which eliminates the grandfathering clause or is it overturning max limit restrictions as a whole? If it only overturns the recent grandfather change, then sales of standard capacity mags still wouldn't be legal but folks would be able to keep their mags.

 

[Allen65]

I'm not a genius, so I'll just ask... would/could this ruling affect MD's magazine laws for the better?

No, except that it makes a clear circuit split with 4CA, which we're stuck in, and which upheld MD's restrictions on standard capacity mags. That opens up an avenue for a new SCOTUS challenge.

 

[Allen65]

I'm a little confused on this. Is it overturning the recent "ban" which eliminates the grandfathering clause or is it overturning max limit restrictions as a whole? If it only overturns the recent grandfather change, then sales of standard capacity mags still wouldn't be legal but folks would be able to keep their mags.

The decision throws out the entire section of CA Penal Code that restricts possession, transfer, and purchase of mags > 10 rounds.

 

[Invicta]

This is another example of the NRA ignoring Maryland. How many times has the NRA pushed one of our unlawful laws to any court, much less the SCOTUS. I don't understand why the NRA won't help us out in Maryland.

Maybe too many of us didn't renew our membership after their Vegas response and they are unhappy with us.

 

[teratos]

Follow the money. The NRA has a larger field in California than in Maryland to harvest donations.

NRA is not awash in money. They have to pick and choose cases and spend money wisely. They financed the bulk of Kolbe.

 

[ShafTed]

OK, how do I delete this damned dual post?

 

[ShafTed]

NRA-ILA is also joining in with MSRPA in Malpasso v. Pallozzi

 

[MigraineMan]

Anyone here read the ruling? It is absolutely devastating. It is the single strongest pro-gun rights argument I have ever, ever seen in a judicial opinion.

Full opinion: https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.n...2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf

It's a great read. My favorite part -

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.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

It made for wonderful reading and i do totally agree with you about the part you liked.....::It's a great read. My favorite part -(according to MigraineMan)

Quote:
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.

Now that is a slap in the face to the commie Cali AG and the dimwitted Gov as well.

 

[RepublicOfFranklin]

That opinion is a masterpiece thank you for sharing the link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teratos]

This may be my favorite decision ever, it makes the anti’s look so dumb.

 

[xKtF]

NRA-ILA is also joining in with MSRPA in Malpasso v. Pallozzi

Didn't that case get dismissed or am I missing something?

 

[ShafTed]

It was dismissed at the districct level, due to 4th CA precedent in Wollard. The plan is "lose local quickly" to get it up the chain to SCOTUS.

 

[Blacksmith101]

My favorite section is the smack down of the 36-year survey of mass shootings by Mother Jones magazine on page 52/53.

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.