A California landmark decision legalized magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and gun buyers are responding with record purchases.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego overruled California’s ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds that went into effect on December 31, 2018. The judge concluded:
“California’s law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.”
Benitez has been a sane voice amidst the den of progressive gun-control radicals who dominate California politics. It was Benitez, who in 2017 prevented the same law from taking effect by issuing a stay.
The judge agreed with plaintiffs the ban was unconstitutional because it allowed the state to confiscate property without compensation. Gun owners responded by driving up sales of AR-15s and other semi-automatics before the state once again denied its citizens their 2nd Amendment rights.
Since the judge’s ruling this past Friday, many online retailers have resumed their sale of magazines of all sizes to gun owners of the Golden State.
Rainier Arms has seen a significant rise in sale, predominantly of the Magpul Gen2 30-round magazine. Rainer’s flood of sales was so great it crashed their payment processing server.
Aristotle Bartolome of Rainier Arms told reporters, “We closed out a very strong weekend, and even with the chaos, we’re currently 48 hours behind on getting all the weekend orders caught up and adjusting staffing to better support our customers getting their orders quicker.”
The reason Californians rush gun sales after a positive ruling, like that of Judge Benitez, is because they know from experience California’s Ninth Circuit will most likely take its usual extreme progressive stand and overrule him.
The scope of Judge Benitez’ decision stunned California’s Attorney General and other lawmakers’ decision who are sure to act quickly to shut down this flood of new sales.
One of the state’s residents, Adelaide Golden, said all of her fellow California gun owners should grab the opportunity to purchase standard capacity magazines while shipping to the state is still legal.
Golden warned both the state and national environment has become “increasingly hostile to responsible gun owners” and we should take “advantage of opportunities that present [themselves].”
Some gun owners worried that a run on high capacity magazines could also be accompanied by a significant increase in price. In fact, many gun websites are offering discounts for California residents.
Brownells, for example, is selling ten packs of 30 round Magpul GEN2 magazines for $90, saving residents $30.
Elite Tactical Components has responded by selling 30 round XTech MAG47 magazines for only $10. The deal is exclusive for residents of California. Elite Tactical released a statement to AmmoLand Elite Tactical Components which read:
“Elite Tactical Components is excited to do our part in getting standard capacity freedom into the hands of Californians!”
Several online sites sold out of their stock of gun magazines within days of the ruling. Natchez Shooters Supplies had to redesign its scheduled email for their customers because sales were so brisk their magazine products sold out.
The state’s gun owners can find hope in the reasoned rulings of a judge like Benitez. In his ruling, he notes that the stated aim of the ban was to reduce the lethality of mass shootings. The problem with the logic of the law, he said, is that mass shootings are:
“A small subset of ‘extremely rare’ crimes: cases where the need to switch magazines creates a “critical pause” during which the perpetrator might be overpowered or his victims might escape.”
In an earlier statment, the justice ruled the logic for banning high capacity magazines was fundamentally flawed as well as unconstitutional. He wisely said at that time, we could easily employ the reasoning employed to ban magazines to ban private gun ownership all together.
California’s Proposition 63 passed in 2016 but constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval and at least one judge recognizes that. He observes, “Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech … Government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition by a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals.”
It can’t be stated better!
Now we need the Peoples Republic of NJ to do the same.
The behavior of the LEFT shows repeatedly that the term “Progressive” was chosen for its irony.
Maybe this will spill over into New York as well . We have a DICTATOR running this state.
SO, there really IS a 2nd Amendment!!! AND a JUDGE that recognizes that fact, HURRAY!!
I got mine! I’m going to frame and hang my sales receipt on my wall for posterity. A small but significant victory for freedom and our constitution.
We’ll see how this works out,,, I read yesterday that the same judge just reversed his decision,,, after the states attorney general & governor got involved.
Not exactly reversed himself. He did issue a Stay of his ruling pending the appeal by the state.
What people who jump on the anti-gun bandwagon fail to realize is that the SCOTUS has made known that the police are NOT responsible for protecting citizens, they are only responsible for upholding the law. YOU are responsible for protecting yourself, your family, your home and your property. Just a little something to think about…
Warren v. District of Columbia
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
Davidson v. City of Westminster , 32 Cal.3d 197
Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) , 46 Cal.App.3d 6
Linda Riss v. City of New York
DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Susman v. City of Los Angeles269 Cal. App. 2d 803
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
In addition to these case laws that address the question on whether “law enforcement” have the duty to protect individuals, which they do not. Just as it states, they enforce laws in general, not a private security force for individuals; we have completely forgot what this nation was set up from the beginning.
I am sure Ben Franklin is rolling in his grave to have predicted what he said after the September 17, 1787 Constitutional Convention. As he answered Elizabeth Powel’s question of what they have given to the citizens of this nation, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” We have forgotten it, the Constitutional Republic, and gave up pretty much all of the rights the Constitution gave us. We have lost it. We are not a democratic nation. We are a republic dictated by the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The move to allow popular votes in place of the Electoral College is just small moves over time to destroy it. Our children are taught otherwise. They can’t defend what they don’t know exists.
I have a better idea: just move to a Southern State like mine (Georgia) who, so far, still upholds the Constitution. That may change with all the damn yankees fleeing those high State taxes. They’ll get down here and want to change things. In fact, we all should get ready for the coming civil war. Come on down brothers. We can start our own Union.