As nutty, liberal Californian officials continue to fight against the right to bear arms, they keep finding every little area they can to take away freedom. Last November, Proposition 63 past which required gun owners in the state to surrender magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds. They must have surrendered them by July 1.
What is the difference in holding 10 rounds or holding 11 rounds? Please let me know when you figure it out because as far as I see it, that just means you can take out 11 bad guys instead of 10.
Now there is a 2nd amendment case that was honored by a federal judge, but it still heading to the 9th circuit. This is looking like an uphill battle.
Forbes, who appears to be pro-second amendment, reports:
Fortunately, on June 29, Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California threw a monkey wrench into the plans of the gun (and magazine) grabbers.
A bit of history. Back in 2000, California made it illegal to sell magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, but citizens who already owned those now “illegal” magazines were grandfathered in. They would be permitted by the gracious state to keep and if necessary use their property.
Prop 63 changed that. Owners of large magazines would have to either surrender them or face up to a one-year prison sentence. Peaceful people who own “oversized” magazines must obey the government and give up their property. Once again, instead of protecting individual rights, the state has gone on the attack against them.
A suit was filed against the constitutionality of the magazine confiscation law, naming California attorney general Xavier Becerra as the defendant. By good fortune, the case came before Judge Benitez. (Perhaps the fact that he was born in Havana has something to do with his aversion to authoritarianism.)
In Duncan v. Becerra, Judge Benitez issued an injunction that blocks Proposition 63 from taking effect. In doing so, writes law professor Josh Blackman on National Review, he “provided a clinic on how to scrutinize laws that restrict Second Amendment rights.”
Scrutinize is the crucial word. Often when judges hear cases involving laws and regulations that whittle away at the Second Amendment, they are bombarded with studies that purport to show that the restriction involved will substantially reduce gun violence while not have any detrimental impact on gun owners. The judge then takes a deferential posture that boils down to, “Who am I to disagree with all of this?”
Judge Benitez instead did what a judge should do when faced with a law that reduces people’s freedom – he analyzed each argument advanced in favor of the law. For example, the state tried to support its position by introducing a survey on shooting published in the “progressive” magazine Mother Jones. It tells you a lot about jurisprudence in California that the attorney general felt that he could include so feeble a piece of evidence as a survey in a political magazine. Judge Benitez was not impressed, writing that “it is fair to say that the magazine survey lacks some of the earmarks of a scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.”