Connect with us

2nd Amendment

Judge Shoots Down California’s Detachable Magazine Ban as Unconstitutional

30 round bullet magazine for an AR-15 semi-auto assault rifle guns

(GunCountry.net) – A Southern California judge says the new law is another “Extreme Ban” case that violates Californians 2nd Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Benitez called the law an “extreme ban” that violated Californians’ Second Amendment rights.

KCRA 3 – Federal judge again strikes down California law banning high-capacity gun magazines

Per Courthouse News, California will stop enforcing the ban on gun owners having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds after a San Diego federal judge ruled it is an unconstitutional law.

In his 71-page order, Judge Benitez viewed the law as an “Extreme Ban” that halts Californians’ Second Amendment rights to buy and own weapons for self-defense. 

VNSH Holster offer

This is the same type of weaponry that residents of other states can own. 

“In so doing, the state denies a citizen the federal constitutional right to use common weapons of their own choosing for self-defense. There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers, yet under this statute, the state says ‘too bad,'” – Judge Benitez. 

He continued, “On the other hand, you can become a criminal, too. So, the previously law-abiding California citizen who buys and keeps at her bedside a nationally popular Glock 17 (with its standard 17-round magazine) becomes the criminal, because the state dictates that a gun with a 17-round magazine is not well suited for home defense.”

@LibertyLee33 via Twitter

Benitez ruled California found no similar laws regulating guns based on ammunition capacity or firing in previous laws passed. 

“So, the state must demonstrate that its extreme ban is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. As explained below, there is no national tradition of prohibiting or regulating firearms based on firing capacity or ammunition capacity,” – Judge Benitez. 

California cited multiple historical laws that Benitez dismissed. CA even argued that high-capacity magazines are “dangerous and unusual” and these guns are not used for self-defense. 

VNSH Holster offer

It’s interesting to see the complete anarchy happening. Lawmakers are worried about how people protect themselves when they do nothing. 

“Numbers vary, but some estimate that 81 million Americans own between 415 and 456 million firearms. Further, millions of Americans across the country own large capacity magazines.” -Judge Benitez. 

“Why are larger magazines chosen for self-defense? Crime happens a lot. One recent estimate holds that guns are needed defensively approximately 1,670,000 times a year,” he added. 

“Woe to the victim who runs out of ammunition before armed attackers do. The police will mark the ground with chalk, count the number of shell casings, and file the report.”

Judge Benitez then puts the camera on their failed state by detailing the dozens of crimes happening where victims fend off their attackers by firing off cases of bullets. 

“The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still,” – Judge Benitez.

Of course, just hours after the order, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an appeal.

“In the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths,” Bonta said in a press release on Friday. 

“We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties. The Supreme Court was clear that Bruen did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states — and we believe that the district court got this wrong,” he added. 

He continued, “We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake. We will not stop in our efforts to protect the safety of communities and Californians’ rights to go about their business without fear of becoming victims of gun violence, while at the same time respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

VNSH Holster offer

A temporary stay on Judge Benitez’s ruling was placed for 10 days. 

“Today’s rulings represent continued affirmation that the Bruen decision, and Heller before that, represent a sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws,” wrote Chuck Michel, the president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, in an email. 
“Sure, the state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution like this one,” added Michel.

In true California fashion, the Department of Justice did not return requests for comment. 

Do you believe California has a strategy on how to reduce crime?

Let us know below.

Copyright 2023. GunCountry.net

(Read the original story at Courthousenews.com.)

*This article contains 3rd party affiliate offers*

(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)

2nd Amendment

Forces of Freedom Push Back Against National Red Flag Laws

hand-gun-on-red-background-man

The upcoming visit of Vice President Kamala Harris to Florida isn’t just a routine affair; it’s a strategic move to promote yet another assault on our constitutional rights by the Biden administration. The so-called National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, presented as a tool to prevent violence, is actually a thinly veiled attack on the Second Amendment. Let’s delve into why conservative voices and Republicans are vehemently opposing this Orwellian initiative.

A Closer Look at ERPOs: A Conservative Stand for Freedom

Under the guise of preventing harm, ERPOs grant authorities the power to strip individuals of their firearms based on vague and subjective criteria. Modeled after domestic violence protection orders, these laws trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens, eroding the very foundation of our freedoms.

Erosion of Due Process: A Fundamental Concern for Conservatives

At the heart of conservative values lies a steadfast commitment to due process and the rule of law. ERPOs flagrantly disregard these principles, allowing for the seizure of firearms based on mere allegations, often without the opportunity for the accused to defend themselves in court. This erosion of due process sets a dangerous precedent that conservatives cannot abide by.

Targeting Law-Abiding Citizens: Conservative Opposition

Despite claims of targeting individuals deemed a threat, ERPOs have the potential to be weaponized against law-abiding citizens. By exploiting vague criteria and subjective judgments, authorities can effectively disarm individuals without just cause, infringing upon their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Conservatives recognize this blatant overreach and refuse to stand idly by as their rights are trampled upon.

A Federal Overreach: Conservative Concerns

Conservatives staunchly oppose the creation of the National ERPO Resource Center as a blatant overreach of federal authority. This centralized bureaucracy threatens to undermine the sovereignty of states and the rights of their citizens. Conservatives believe in the principles of limited government and federalism, and they refuse to allow the federal government to dictate firearm policies that should be left to the states and local communities.

Resistance from the Right: Conservative Leaders Speak Out

Republican leaders have been at the forefront of the opposition to this Orwellian initiative. Voices like Reps. Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene have sounded the alarm, urging Americans to resist this assault on their freedoms. Conservatives across the country are uniting to defend the Second Amendment and push back against the Biden administration’s agenda.

Conservatives understand that the true path to safety lies not in surrendering our rights but in upholding the principles of liberty and justice for all. The Biden administration’s relentless pursuit of gun control measures is an affront to these principles, and conservatives will continue to stand united against any encroachment on our freedoms. It’s time to reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and reject any attempts to erode our Second Amendment rights.

What do you think of the push for national red flag laws? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

Federal Judge Rules Second Amendment Protects Gun Rights of Illegals

court-law-trial-session-honorable-female

In a groundbreaking decision, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of Illinois has ruled that the Constitution extends Second Amendment protections to illegal aliens who enter the United States illegally. The ruling comes in response to a case involving defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, challenging a federal prohibition on illegal aliens owning firearms.

Constitutional Protection for Second Amendment Rights

Judge Coleman’s ruling, delivered on Friday, asserts that while there exists a federal ban on illegal immigrants possessing firearms, this prohibition is unconstitutional as applied to Carbajal-Flores. Despite the federal law being deemed “facially constitutional,” the court found that there is no historical basis for firearm regulation that justifies denying Second Amendment rights to noncitizens who have not been convicted of violent crimes.

Judge Coleman stated that the statute violates the Second Amendment. Consequently, the court granted Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss the charges against him.

Legal Precedent and Constitutional Interpretation

In reaching her decision, Judge Coleman referenced the landmark Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment rights, emphasizing the absence of a historical tradition allowing the government to deprive noncitizens of their constitutional right to bear arms. This interpretation underscores the fundamental principle that the Second Amendment applies not only to citizens but also to noncitizens residing within the United States.

Implications and Future Proceedings

The ruling by Judge Coleman carries significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding gun rights and immigration. By affirming that the Second Amendment protects the rights of non-citizens, the decision challenges existing federal laws and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Moving forward, the decision is likely to spark debates and legal challenges regarding the intersection of immigration status and constitutional rights. As the case progresses, it will be closely monitored by legal experts, advocacy groups, and policymakers alike, shaping the ongoing discourse on gun rights and immigration policies in the United States.

Conclusion

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman’s ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing debate over Second Amendment rights and immigration laws. By affirming that noncitizens, including those who enter the country illegally, are entitled to constitutional protections, the decision highlights the importance of upholding fundamental rights regardless of citizenship status. As the legal proceedings continue, the implications of this ruling will reverberate throughout the legal and political spheres, shaping future policies and interpretations concerning gun rights and immigration in the United States.

What do you think of the federal court’s ruling? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

South Carolina Embraces Permitless Carry: Strengthening Second Amendment Rights

south-carolina-flag-us-state-gun

In a resounding affirmation of Second Amendment principles, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has signed permitless carry into law, making it the second Republican-led state in as many days to adopt constitutional carry gun laws.

Governor McMaster’s Stance on Permitless Carry

Governor McMaster hailed the new legislation as a crucial step towards enhancing public safety and ensuring that law enforcement agencies possess the necessary tools to combat illegal gun use and possession by criminals. Speaking on the significance of the law, Governor McMaster emphasized its role in enabling law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to keep career violent offenders behind bars, thereby safeguarding innocent South Carolinians from harm.

The NRA-Backed Bill: Key Provisions

winneconne-11-may-2018-nra-sticker

Backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the permitless carry bill allows eligible citizens aged 18 and older to carry a firearm in public without the need to obtain approval and a permit from the government. This legislation represents a significant departure from the previous regulatory framework, which required individuals to undergo a permitting process before carrying a firearm in public spaces.

Bolstering Public Safety

Proponents of permitless carry argue that it enhances public safety by empowering law-abiding citizens to exercise their inherent right to self-defense without bureaucratic impediments. By removing the requirement for a government-issued permit, permitless carry ensures that individuals can protect themselves and their loved ones promptly in critical situations.

Legislative Approval and Support

Ammunition-and-American-flag-on-US-Constitution-History-of-the-Second-Amendment

The bill garnered substantial support in both chambers of the South Carolina legislature, with the state Senate passing the legislation in a 28-18 vote and the state House approving it with a vote of 86-33. This bipartisan support underscores the broad consensus among lawmakers regarding the importance of upholding Second Amendment rights and promoting individual freedoms.

Addressing Concerns and Misconceptions

Critics of permitless carry have raised concerns regarding potential risks associated with expanded firearm access. However, proponents assert that responsible firearm ownership, coupled with stringent penalties for criminal misuse, mitigates these concerns and promotes a safer environment for all citizens.

South Carolina’s embrace of permitless carry represents a significant victory for proponents of Second Amendment rights and individual liberties. By enacting legislation that empowers law-abiding citizens to exercise their inherent right to bear arms, South Carolina reinforces its commitment to upholding the principles enshrined in the United States Constitution. As the national discourse on gun laws continues to evolve, the passage of permitless carry in South Carolina serves as a beacon of hope for those who champion individual freedoms and the preservation of constitutional rights.

Leave your thoughts about the victory of the Second Amendment in South Carolina in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Guncountry. All Rights Reserved