Advertisements

Federal judge shoots down California firearms magazine ban: ‘Liberty not an outmoded concept’

By Jon Dougherty

A federal judge fired back against anti-Second Amendment tyranny this week after striking down a California ban on firearms magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California struck down the ban in its entirety after ruling it an unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” said Judge Benitez in the ruling.

“Plaintiffs contend that the state’s magazine ban thus cannot survive constitutionally-required heightened scrutiny and they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as a matter of law,” he explained. “Plaintiffs are correct.”

Benitez also noted that the California law was “turning the Constitution upside down.”

The National Rifle Association hailed the ruling as a step in the right direction in strengthening a key protection in the Bill of Rights.

“Judge Benitez took the Second Amendment seriously and came to the conclusion required by the Constitution,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox.

“The same should be true of any court analyzing a ban on a class of arms law-abiding Americans commonly possess for self-defense or other lawful purposes,” he concluded.

Never miss a story! Sign up for our daily email newsletter — Click here!


 

2 Comments on "Federal judge shoots down California firearms magazine ban: ‘Liberty not an outmoded concept’"

  1. Dr. Mark Lane | March 30, 2021 at 10:25 am | Reply

    Hopefully, this turns out to be as important — in fact, Landmark — as it has the pot -ential to be. Specifically: now that this Federal-Level Ruling has set a Precedent, we can finally go after New York State ( & it’s tyrannical SAFE ACT Ban on Magazines Holding > 10 rds ). The EXACT SAME ISSUE that was just struck down ( & quite definitively, at that ) here ! Now THAT is what’s called “Tailor-Made” ! LOL I just hope that SOMEONE who’s in a position to, starts the ball rolling SOON ( NRA-ILA, are you listening ? ? ? This action against NYS, in re the Unconstitutionality of the SAFE ACT, should have been done YEARS ago — now, there is NO excuse for inaction — or “vacancy of action” on Your Part ! )

  2. william chandler | March 30, 2021 at 2:47 pm | Reply

    We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment.
    Find one government in all of history that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
    Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
    Oppressive Governments are ALWAYS banning the People’S RIGHTS to arms.
    The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
    The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
    The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
    Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
    Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
    Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
    There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
    The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
    The 2nd Amendment clearly codifies the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
    Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
    Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”? Of course not. …………. That is assumed.

    the 2nd amendment,, specifies that the RIGHT to bear arms is the right of the people,, NOT the militia,,,, it is the people who will make up the militia,, but the right is not the right of a “well regulated militia” it is the right of the people, We the people were BORN WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS, meaning they come from GOD.

    Your Rights do not come from the Constitution. Your Rights come from Our Creator, and the Constitution was written to SUPERVISE, REGULATE, and CONTROL government actors. As it relates to firearms, the Heller “decision” was completely unnecessary, and likely a smokescreen to make it APPEAR that the USG retained some rights to regulate some firearms. Check out the relevant part of US v. Cruikshank:
    “[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;… This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
    than to restrict the powers of the national government,…”.
    U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
    Res adjudicata - “the thing has already been decided.”
    The 9th and 10th Amendments help make it ABUNDANTLY clear to even the DENSEST of intellects that we truly have NO “Constitutional rights.” What we have(at the risk of being redundant) is Constitutionally-SECURED rights, but these rights are ONLY as secure as:
    a) the honor and integrity of those taking the oath, and
    b) the ability of the People to COMPEL obedience on pain of perjury charges and removal from office.

    https://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/our-preexisting-irrevolkable-right-of-self-defense/

    The intention of the Founders and Framers was to keep our God-given rights secure by REQUIRING those who seek office to take the oath as an immutable predicate to taking office, meaning it is binding on THEM - not on US.

    Of course, most of the power brokers wish to keep us ignorant of our Rights and our Power. If possible, i highly recommend Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man,” which should help to educate Americans and illustrate to them the difference between Natural Rights, and what the 14th (never properly ratified, btw) wishes to change that to: “privileges and immunities.”

    It is implicit in the nature of all kinds of armies —- be they militia or regulars, volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary — to be armed.
    They are all “armed forces”.
    They all “bear arms”.
    They all carry guns.
    That is what they do.
    It certainly no more requires an amendment to the Constitution to state that “the Militia” has the RKBA , than a specific statement that the army Congress is empowered to raise may be manned by armed troops.

    Governments don’t have to document their “right” to bear arms, that is what governments ARE, they are naked force, George Washington said as much. Saying governments have a right to guns is like saying cars have a right to have wheels…

    “The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals … it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government … it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.” Ayn Rand

Have something to say?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: