Contributor James Soviero
The left-wing 9th Circuit Court, also known as the 9th Circus, surprised gun owners this week when they backed a lower court’s decision to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines, Fox News reported. Large magazines are defined under the California law as any gun capable of firing more than 10 shots.
Gun registration is a mess is California. The laws are so complicated and contradictory that no one truly understands them without an expert to advise them.
This ban would have made instant felons out of most gun owners in California. Gun owners would have been committing a felony just for owning a gun with a magazine capacity of more than 10 bullets. The California officials were looking to confiscate guns.
Second Amendment activists were shocked 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.
Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state’s ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional.
Last year, they won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court. The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit backed that injunction.
The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction or by concluding that magazines fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.
One of the three judges dissented over the alleged lethality of large-capacity magazines [11+ bullets]
The ruling is limited but it linked to constitutional protection of firearms to potential militia use. That is very encouraging. It actually tied in the 2nd Amendment.
If pro-2nd Amendment Judge Brett Kavanagh is nominated, more of these gun cases will make it to the Supreme Court.
The California Department of Justice plans to continue fighting for the law.
THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR
David French, writing for the National Review wrote this decision 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. As French wrote last year, this paragraph from the district-court opinion is nearly-perfect:
Violent gun use is a constitutionally-protected means for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. The phrase “gun violence” may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. Implicit in the concept of public safety is the right of law-abiding people to use firearms and the magazines that make them work to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and their state against all armed enemies, foreign and domestic. To borrow a phrase, it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of public safety and reducing gun violence, statutes were permitted to subvert the public’s Second Amendment rights — which may repel criminal gun violence and which ultimately ensure the safety of the Republic.
The law is clear but California officials are lawless.