A federal judge in California on Friday declared that state's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition unconstitutional, saying it violated the Second Amendment rights of firearms owners.

Update it has been appealed by AG Bonta to an enbanc panel. It doesn’t appear that there will be another freedom week scenario.

  • oDDmON@lemmy.world
    283·
    9 months ago

    A “US Judge”, Roger “The Man" Benitez, 72, born in Havana, appointed by George W. Bush and noted for several rulings negating CA gun laws; strikes again.

  • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
    181·
    9 months ago

    Of note, the same judge is expected to issue rulings on the constitutionality of CA’s handgun roster and their ban on firearms they recognize as assault weapons.

    • dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world
      323·
      9 months ago

      And to be a bit of a devil’s advocate here, the handgun roster really is bullshit. One modern handgun is really much the same as any other, so if we’re going to allow handguns at all it’s just looney tunes to arbitrarily make some legal and others illegal.

      • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
        141·
        9 months ago

        I agree, especially since it was based on a SKU system where something as simple a different finish on a pistol could make it no longer eligible to be sold as it would have a different SKU. Whether a firearm is nitride coated or blued isn’t making a difference in much besides corrosion resistant.

    • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
      111·
      9 months ago

      The CA AG has announced intent to appeal this case to the 9th Circuit. If the court takes up the case that ruling could be appealed to the US Supreme Court. If either of those were too happen it’d have regional or national impacts so they might decide to not appeal as to not impact other states with similar laws.

      But currently the highest and most recent ruling (the one in the article) states that magazine bans are not lawful.

        • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
          71·
          9 months ago

          There’s a ten day stay in effect, for a CA resident they must wait until 10 days after the ruling to purchase a magazine.

          But in any time between then and any potential stay issued by the 9th Circuit Court, if the AG pursues the case further and is granted one, they could purchase one and maintain possession even if the law is later upheld. To the best of my knowledge that’s how CA handled the prior two ‘Freedom Weeks’ (When lower court rulings had been overturned upholding the law).

  • tal@kbin.social
    2·
    9 months ago

    I wonder if this will also affect California’s ban on removable shotgun magazines.

    • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      9 months ago

      NAL but it looks like that restriction is specifically semiautomatic shotguns and CA believes them to be assault weapons. This particular case wouldn’t impact that, but Miller v. Bonta a case before the same judge would likely have potential to change that.