Judge blocks California’s high-capacity magazine ban – ‘Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts’

In this June 27, 2017 photo, a semi-automatic rifle is displayed with a 25 shot magazine, left, and a 10 shot magazine, right, at a gun store in Elk Grove, Calif. San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez declared, Friday March 29, 2019, unconstitutional the law banning possession of magazines containing more than 10 bullets. California law has prohibited buying or selling the magazines since 2000, but has allowed those who had them to keep them. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

By DON THOMPSON,  Associated Press  SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) 03/30 — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets.

“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.

California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.

In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group’s argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.

Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge’s latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades.

“We’re still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one,” Michel said.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is “committed to defending California’s common sense gun laws” and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.

The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.

Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings “exceedingly rare” while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.

But Freilich predicted the “extreme outlier decision” will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge “so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a ‘very small’ problem in this country.”

Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms” under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law “burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.”

Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.

In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone.

“She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911,” the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.

The magazine ban was included in 2016 legislation that voters strengthened with their approval of Proposition 63, which was championed by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.

In a statement, Newsom criticized the judge’s ruling.

“This District Court Judge’s failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law,” the governor said. “I strongly disagree with the court’s assessment that ‘the problem of mass shootings is very small.’ Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast.”

https://www.apnews.com/6303907dea1844bb83259924bee877ac

Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted in: Court Rulings, Firearms, Gun Control, Legislation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight − 3 =

Terms of Use for Posting Comments

Terms of Use

This site (the “Site”) is operated and maintained by Law Enforcement Education Foundation, Corporation (“Company”). Throughout the Site, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Company.  The words “user,” “you” and “your” as used herein refer to you.

Please read these terms and conditions of use (“Terms of Use”) carefully before contributing content. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, please do not contribute content. Your use of the Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions found here .

By contributing content to the Site, you represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years old and that you have read and understand these Terms of Use and any amendments thereto and agree to be bound by them. If you are not at least eighteen (18) years old or you do not agree and accept these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from contributing content.

From time to time, we may permit users to submit content to the Site.  You hereby acknowledge and agree that by submitting remarks, comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, feedback, edits, concepts, comments, photographs, illustrations and other materials (other than personal information and/or registration information) through the Site (individually and collectively, “Submissions”), you (i) grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter created, without attribution to you; (ii) grant us the right to pursue at law any person or entity that violates your and/or our rights in your Submissions; and (iii) forever waive any and all of your rights, including but not limited to moral rights, if any, in and to your Submissions, including, without limitation, any all rights or requirements of attribution or identification of you as the author of the Submission or any derivative thereof.  We reserve the right to remove any of your Submissions from the Site, in whole or in part, without notice to you, for any reason or no reason.

Submissions are made voluntarily. Any submissions which include personally identifiable information are subject to our Privacy Policy found here .  You may not upload or otherwise publish content on the Site that (i) is confidential to you or any third party; (ii) is untrue, inaccurate, false or other than an original work of your authorship; (iii) that relates to or impersonates any other person; (iv) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (v) contains any content, personally identifiable information or other information, or materials of any kind that relate or refer to any other person or entity other than the provider of the products, goods or services to which the Submission relates; or (vi) violates any law, or in any manner infringes or interferes with the rights of others, including but not limited to the use of names, information, or materials that (A) libel, defame, or invade the privacy of any third party, (B) are obscene or pornographic, (C) are harmful, threatening, offensive, abusive, harassing, vulgar, false or inaccurate, racially, sexually, ethnically or are otherwise objectionable or otherwise contrary to the laws of any place where such Submissions may be accessed; (D) constitute personal attacks on other individuals; (E) promote criminal, immoral or illegal activity; (F) promote or advertise any person, product or service or solicit funds; or (G) are deemed confidential by any contract or policy.

You are solely responsible for any Submissions you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any Submissions posted by you or any third party.

Unless approved by us in writing in advance, you agree not to: (i) provide or create a link to the Site; or (ii) create any frames at any other sites pertaining to any of the content located on the Site.

We reserve the right, in our discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use for Posting Comments by posting updates and/or changes to our Site.  It is your responsibility to check this page periodically for changes.  Your continued use of, and/or access to the Site, following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use for Posting Comments, constitutes your acceptance of those changes.