HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Federal judge blocks Cali...

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 08:00 AM

Federal judge blocks California ban on high-capacity magazines

Source: The Sacramento Bee

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“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.

Benitez added that “a final decision will take too long to offer relief, and because the statute will soon visit irrevocable harm on Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo.”

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/article158965184.html

29 replies, 2930 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Federal judge blocks California ban on high-capacity magazines (Original post)
Calista241 Jun 2017 OP
RKP5637 Jun 2017 #1
marylandblue Jun 2017 #2
RKP5637 Jun 2017 #3
Calista241 Jun 2017 #6
IronLionZion Jun 2017 #8
hack89 Jun 2017 #24
atreides1 Jul 2017 #27
hack89 Jul 2017 #28
cstanleytech Jun 2017 #4
RKP5637 Jun 2017 #5
BigmanPigman Jun 2017 #16
RKP5637 Jun 2017 #17
cstanleytech Jun 2017 #22
AJT Jul 2017 #26
moonseller66 Jun 2017 #7
IronLionZion Jun 2017 #10
Hortensis Jun 2017 #9
SpankMe Jun 2017 #11
Igel Jun 2017 #12
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2017 #19
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2017 #18
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2017 #25
jmowreader Jun 2017 #13
Aristus Jun 2017 #14
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2017 #21
petronius Jun 2017 #15
NickB79 Jun 2017 #20
petronius Jun 2017 #23
ansible Jul 2017 #29

Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 08:06 AM

1. whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.

FFS! What is best, I guess, for mass shootings!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 08:20 AM

2. Yup, the only use for a 30 bullet clip is mass murder

There is no record of someone needing that many bullets to defend themselves.

I don't think this injunction will stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 08:24 AM

3. The Gun Lust in the US is out of control. I understand people wanting their guns and all, I have

no problem with that, but there needs to be bounds. Allowing weapons for mass murder is incredible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 09:39 AM

6. I suspect it's not going to matter

Next year the Repubs will pass all kinds of feel good, motivate their voters legislation.

High on their list will be a gun legalization and reciprocity bill that will supersede state restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 10:06 AM

8. The zombie apocalypse could be any day now

be wary of bath salts...

But seriously, they claim the reason for it is self-defense during a riot. Republicans fantasize about committing mass murder legally.

Kind of like the reason for flame throwers is for controlled burns on sugarcane plantations and to kill massive swarms of killer bees. Very few of us will ever need it, but someone really does need it which makes it legal for all of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 08:01 PM

24. I have 25 of them

didn't realize I was misusing them. Guess I will have to go shoot someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 05:59 PM

27. Question?

Why do you need more then a 10 round magazine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #27)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 07:28 PM

28. Some of the competition stages require more than 10 rounds.

More to the point, they are not a public safety issue so I don't give it much thought. They are what I have so they are what I use. See no reason to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 08:43 AM

4. I honestly dont know what else the judge could have done though RK as if he hadnt

stopped it I suspect some other court would have since it does tread into the 2nd amendment area.
What we need is for the 2nd to amended to give the government a tiny bit more leeway in making reasonable firearms laws but that is probably not going to happen in our lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 08:57 AM

5. Yes, very true. Yep, the problem is the founders had far different firearms, not the kill machines

we have today. It does need to be amended, but with the gun lust in the US, I too doubt we will see much change in our lifetimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 03:46 PM

16. Even after Cheney shot a hunting buddy the NRA got stronger!

Unbelievable! If I hear 2nd Ammend BS anymore I am going to explode. Do they realize how long it took to load a gun with a single bullet at a time in 1776?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 04:20 PM

17. The stupidity in the US today runs far and wide. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 05:14 PM

22. I agree with you but until the constitution is amended to specifically say that

the legal options open to our government as far as firearms regulations go are limited, it sucks but it is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 05:42 PM

26. Reasonable restrictions apply to many rights guaranteed by the constitution.

If your religion believes in human sacrifice you still can't kill someone even though the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of religion. You can't yell bomb in an airport or insite violence even though the constitution guarantees freedom of speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 09:45 AM

7. Amending the Amendments?

If "not being able to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" is somehow a legitimate deviation of the First Amendment, why can't "you can't use too many bullets to kill people" isn't a good enough similar example?

Cue the gun defenders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moonseller66 (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 10:09 AM

10. In case they miss the first 29 times

lucky number 30 will get them.

There are news reports of even local sheriff's deputies emptying a clip at someone and missing every single shot.

I'm not a gun defender, I'm just being snarky

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 10:07 AM

9. No need to look up to see where this judge is coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 10:15 AM

11. The ballot proposition passed by a large margin.

So much for the vaunted "states rights". I don't know anything about the judge, but San Diego county is a bit of a red bastion. It wouldn't surprise me if some gun-nutters cherry picked a court to bring their case in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpankMe (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 11:04 AM

12. People die from all sorts of things.

I'd be completely against suddenly making mere possession of any of them, even the worst, criminal. Problem is that grandfathering in what's already owned and banning purchase is problematic: They can still be used and how do you tell one purchased after the ban from one purchased before the ban? And what about people who move into your state?

It means that overnight hundreds of thousands of people are suddenly criminals. Why? Because last week they bought something legal and this week the state has decided that it was wrong.

You have a box of old stuff packed away, your house is searched, and suddenly it's prosecutorial discretion whether to prosecute you for having a banned magazine even if you had no memory of packing it away. (But for some, $20 could help ensure the right decision is made as to discretion, and if that doesn't work maybe $50 or $100. Or maybe only those that the police don't particularly like for some reason get reported--neighbor, an ex, wrong skin color, wrong language. Lots of prosecutorial decisions are made by police.)

Then there's the question as to transportation. If I ship something (say, I'm moving from Arizona to Oregon) would I be a criminal as I pass through the state? It's already an issue ... And only the Federal government has control over interstate commerce, and things like UPS and commercial movers are, well, commerce.

(As for "states rights," both sides hypocritically invoke them only when they personally hate the government. It's as true for decrimininalization of marijuana as it is for things like trying to penalize illegal immigration or for scores of other things. What I like I should be allowed to implement locally; what I don't like, if most of those around me approve of it, well, the feds should impose the right way of thinking and proper morality, my way, on them.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 04:40 PM

19. It's hard for some to grasp that those they don't like also have rights

Sadly, that applies across the political spectrum...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpankMe (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 04:34 PM

18. Did you support "states' rights" when Proposition 8 passed?

My guess is 'no'.

If I'm wrong about that, please feel free to correct me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 05:26 PM

25. I figured that awkward question would go unanswered, and I was right...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 01:11 PM

13. Yooge problem number 1: 30 rounds is not a high capacity mag

On any of the black guns, 30 rounds is the standard mag. Which is very useful for varmint hunting, target shooting or military-style games.

Reality time: a little hot melt glue turns two 10 round mags into a 20 round mag. A little practice will let a mass shooter flip a homemade 20 over quicker than pulling out a fresh 30.

I'll tell you a high cap mag ban that would work and enjoy significant support with gun owners: "the standard magazine capacity for a semiautomatic weapon based on a military rifle is the standard magazine capacity for the military rifle, as published in the most recent edition of Jane's Infantry Weapons in which the weapon appears." This retains the 30 round mags everyone has and gets rid of the useless 200-rounders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 01:35 PM

14. The high-capacity magazine ban would infringe on a gun-owners right to kill as many people

as possible in the shortest amount of time. America is all about freedom, so we can't have that, now can we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 04:51 PM

21. Magazine bans are security theater designed to impress the uninformed and credulous:

https://www.google.com/search?q=rapid+magazine+change&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22rapid+magazine+change%22&tbm=vid


They're the left's version of "Muslim bans"- gotta gin up the moral panic to motivate the base...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 01:39 PM

15. California already bans (since 2000) the sale, purchase, manufacture, or import

of magazines with >10 round capacity. However, magazines owned before 2000 were grandfathered in. IIRC, that law (and similar, at local levels) has stood up in courts.

This new law only takes away the grandfathering, which I thought might have been problematic just from a 'taking away property' standpoint, but from the quote it sounds like the judge took a much broader view that calls into question the existing ban as well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 04:44 PM

20. Were the owners given compensation for the magazines via a buyback program?

Because that seems to be another issue here, that there was no financial compensation for the state taking private property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 30, 2017, 07:13 PM

23. No, current owners would/will be required to transfer magazines out of state, hand them

in to law enforcement, destroy them, or sell them to a dealer. There's no compensation provided in the law, and--given that it's been generally illegal since 2000 to buy, sell, import, or manufacture such magazines--I doubt there's a great desire by dealers to pay decent money for them (seems like they'd be old and a bit of a white elephant, by now)...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Original post)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 03:07 AM

29. Good, criminalizing possession of magazines is bullshit

Shame so many people here have no problems with how fucked up this law was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread