Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Did California's Standard Capacity Magazine Ban Just End?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Co. Springs

    Did California's Standard Capacity Magazine Ban Just End?

    Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, 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. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that law- abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits law- abiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.68
    Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted.69 California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.

    Just read this. MrGunsNGear has a video on his YT about it. Here is a link to the ruling
    It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    ^Link doesn't work, 404 error.

    Oh, the ruling by the Judge that the +10rd ban was unconstitutional was returned to the judge, who then temporarily withdrew his injunction. He laid it on pretty thick, naming names and all their subjugate personnel, enjoining them from enforcing the law.

    But it's California.

    It's starting to remind me of the Bonidy case in Avon Colorado.

    Judge rules, case appealed, we're still screwed.

    Terry, 230RN
    "Gun control is not about public safety, crime reduction, or 'the children.' Gun control is about power. The people have it, and the government would rather they didn't." (An internet poster, not myself.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts