Good news for California on magazine capacity

[LiveLife]

New development on magazine capacity battle for California.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nt-decision-blocking-california-ammo-ban.html

"Liberal 9th Circuit surprises with pro-2nd Amendment decision blocking California ammo ban (magazine capacity).

Second Amendment activists were given a surprise boost this week when the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals backed a lower court’s decision to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines."

 

[Tommygunn]

I think this is only a temporary reprieve until the law case goes through the court and a ruling is published.

At that point, Californian gun owners lose.

 

[danez71]

The 9th upheld the injunction against the ban while the actual case make it through the courts.

I'm sure I'm not using the right legal words...

A law passed that did away with the grandfathering of standard cap mags.

A suit was filed to challenge that but of course it takes a loooong time. So long, in fact, that people would have been required to get rid of the std cap mags before the case is settled.

A temporary injunction was put in place to stop the start date of the ban until the case was settled.

The injunction was challenged.

The 9th upheld the temporary injunction against the ban and the original case about doing away with the grandfathering in the lower court will proceed.

 

[LiveLife]

There may be more to this - https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/ninth-circuit-protects-gun-rights-california/

"The district court’s 66-page opinion was a legal tour-de-force that not only dismantled California’s justifications for the ban, but also reiterated and reinforced the constitutional and historical basis for the right to keep and bear arms.

Violent gun use is a constitutionally-protected means for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals ... the appeals court held that the lower court 'did not exceed its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon ‘that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’ . . . and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the magazine for a weapon.'

Much of the modern argument over gun control revolves around the effort to label certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles (and magazines over ten rounds) as “military style” weapons that are effectively unprotected by the Second Amendment. Yet the Ninth Circuit’s language — rooted in the history of the amendment — links constitutional protection to a weapon’s potential militia use. In other words, the “military style” moniker actually connects the guns in question to the historic purpose of the right to bear arms.

... If the [SCOTUS] takes the case ... it will have an opportunity to reset the gun-control debate. If it rules that weapons in common use for lawful purposes enjoy categorical constitutional protection, then most assault-weapons bans and large-capacity-magazine bans would fall.

... Gun-owners choose large-capacity magazines for good reasons, the same reasons why police carry large-capacity magazines in their service weapons. When a deadly encounter occurs, the amount of ammunition can make the difference between life and death. The state cannot be permitted to take a common means of self-defense from its citizens.

Thankfully, even in the Ninth Circuit, confiscation has been held at bay."

 

[GEM]

I have deleted a swarm of post that were nonsensical and unrelated to the OP report. Your personal one-liners, leave California, repeated stories of your life experiences are and were not relevant to the issue. This is a big hint to think about what you post and stay on topic in the future. I note this is tendency of several of you, that's another hint.

Let's return to the actual case and reasonable interpretations of it.

 

[tipoc]

This was a victory for democratic rights in the state of California. It has potential ramifications elsewhere as well. Now it's not over yet by a long shot. This ruling simply blocks any implementation of the reactionary law until the next legal fight.

As the NRA reported:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...s-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-ban

 

[bbqreloader]

Hope the fight to over turn magazine ban continues so we in Colorado can dismantle our ban.

 

[Ignition Override]

Was that decision the first of its kind regarding magazine capacity in a US court?

Even though it is a temporary injunction, if it IS the first such ruling in a US court, could it be considered to be "precedent-setting" by any higher court?