California's 10-rd magazine limit declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by fed judge

[GrinderCB]

Well California goes both ways, either screwing you or getting screwed, but imagine 10-17 rds in your G-17, I would get a few 50 RD drums too if it was me.

During the window of 3/27 to 4/5 when people were allowed to get them I sent messages to a few friends living in the occupied territory and recommended getting as many 30-rounders (classic size for AR's and AK's) as they could lay their hands on but also recommended getting Magpul D60's, in my opinion the most reliable drum-style magazine available. Anything larger and the weight of all that ammo starts to be a hindrance. There are some larger drums available but their reliability has never been as great as Magpul.

 

[GrinderCB]

Good stuff there, but to think real data has anything to do with any law is mistaken.

When Indiana was working on the drunk driving alcohol levels, I called my state senator, I asked a simple question that should have been the ONLY data considered, how many DD accidents and fatalities were there involving DD that were under the former .1 level and above the .08 level that was proposed at the time. From that data a rational discussion could begin as to the level society wanted. Tha data was not even available nor created for the discussion.

Not that scientific research or statistical data actually has anything to do with a law's passage, but lack thereof does play into the constitutionality argument. In the case of the California 10+ round magazine ban, the anti-gunners plucked the number '10' out of thin air because it was a nice round number, easy for people to remember, easy to build support for, etc. In the case leading to Benitez's ruling, a few actual examples were cited where a person in a self-defense situation ran out of ammo because of the law. The anti-gunners admit, reluctantly, that citizens have the right to self-defense, and the ban fell into a position where the person's right to self defense had been infringed.

I suspect this one will go SCOTUS. Benitez ruled that magazines are themselves firearms and are therefore subject to the 2nd amendment. That might be the focal point of a Supreme Court battle.

 

[GrinderCB]

So after that mags over 10 rounds will be illegal again but the ones people bought while it was legal for a short period of time will remain legal?
How do you even prove that bought your magazine in that time frame?
Do you have to walk around carrying a proof of purchase in case a cop stops you with a 15rds mag in your pistol?

Anyone could say they bought all their magazine during that time.

This is like the gay marriage battle in California a few years back. The voters statewide passed a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, Proposition 8. Once the election was certified the gay lobby was in court that night getting an injunction against it. Gay couples started getting married like crazy because they knew that the window would close, and it did. A stay of the injunction was obtained about a week later. So there was a time when California had some gay married couples but others couldn't get married after the window closed until after it played out in the courts. Of course all that was later rendered moot after the Supremes made their ruling.

 

[easy]

Benitez ruled that magazines are themselves firearms and are therefore subject to the 2nd amendment..

This is incorrect - he stated that they were arms - just like a knife or club would be.

IF they were 'firearms' they would require a 4473 to purchase when new. We can't be having any of that baloney.

 

[proud american]

Oh my Oh My, Our rights prevail. Must have been a law abiding judge.

 

[Phase2]

More than a million high-capacity ammunition magazines flooded into California during a week long window created when federal judge temporarily threw out the state's ban

 

[rugertoter]

More than a million high-capacity ammunition magazines flooded into California during a week long window created when federal judge temporarily threw out the state's ban

LMAO! That's funny right there!

 

[femurphy77]

More than a million high-capacity ammunition magazines flooded into California during a week long window created when federal judge temporarily threw out the state's ban

LMAO! That's funny right there!

No way that's true. If it were why haven't we been hearing about all of the carnage that would have ensued? Isn't that what this is all about? Oh and trampling the rights of the sane that are trapped behind the iron curtain on the western border of Arizona.

 

[CPT Nervous]

…those who bought bullets can keep them

I see your article was written by someone with zero knowledge on the subject.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I see your article was written by someone with zero knowledge on the subject.

Maybe they were talking about reloaders.

 

[Phase2]

I see your article was written by someone with zero knowledge on the subject.

Aren't they usually?

 

[2A-Hoosier23]

I see your article was written by someone with zero knowledge on the subject.

But they have just enough knowledge to know that 99% of their website's viewers (obviously not INGO types) aren't even going to read the article, just share the headline with their friends and comment lots of angry emojis, so why waste any time on editing and proofreading... seriously, The DailyMail and the Associated Press still haven't even corrected it.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Aren't they usually?

But they have just enough knowledge to know that 99% of their website's viewers (obviously not INGO types) aren't even going to read the article, just share the headline with their friends and comment lots of angry emojis, so why waste any time on editing and proofreading... seriously, The DailyMail and the Associated Press still haven't even corrected it.

Oh, yes. That is definitely true.