A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

Benitez added that “a final decision will take too long to offer relief, and because the statute will soon visit irrevocable harm on Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo.”

The judge granted the request of attorneys from the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association to temporarily block the law.

In the days leading up to the ban, some California gun owners, pro-gun sheriffs and sellers have been reluctant to give up their magazines. Some gun owners have previously said that they were hoping pending court challenges would block the ban.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” said Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko in an earlier interview with The Bee. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

The ban is part of Proposition 63, approved with 63 percent of votes in November, that required background checks for people buying ammunition and instituted other firearms restrictions.

In a statement, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said that the proposition aims to prevent further mass shootings by those who own high-capacity magazines.

“Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way,” Becerra said in the statement. “Restricting large capacity magazines and preventing them from ending up in the wrong hands is critical for the well-being of our communities.”

To get rid of magazines in compliance with the approved law, California gun owners would have been allowed to move them out of state, sell them to a licensed dealer, destroy them or hand them over to law enforcement.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/sta...4.html#storylink=cpy

Encouraging news here.

More feel good BS by a majority of idiots in California. Virtually no one was going to simply hand over these mags, and from the article, police chiefs aren't going to go looking for them. Game, set and match on this ridiculous legislation.

More importantly, thank goodness there appears to be 'one' reasonable, intelligent, judge in the state who knows something about the Constitution and feels a need respect it in his rulings.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
More feel good BS by a majority of idiots in California. Virtually no one was going to simply hand over these mags, and from the article, police chiefs aren't going to go looking for them. Game, set and match on this ridiculous legislation.

This gem was part of proposition 63, an initiative approved by 63% of CA voters. Not quite a supermajority, but way the heck too many libtards.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
More feel good BS by a majority of idiots in California. Virtually no one was going to simply hand over these mags, and from the article, police chiefs aren't going to go looking for them. Game, set and match on this ridiculous legislation.

More importantly, thank goodness there appears to be 'one' reasonable, intelligent, judge in the state who knows something about the Constitution and feels a need respect it in his rulings.

Pretty cavalier attitude, BD. One Sheriff in a cow county in the mountains.

Meanwhile in the rest of the state, if you were caught with one, a felony and no more guns forever.

Judge Benitez has the 9th Circuit to deal with, too.

The AG doesn't seem to be aware that judges strike down initiatives approved by voters all the time, even Constitutional Amendments!

Well, good.

It's about time the pendulum swung back towards sanity

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:...One Sheriff in a cow county in the mountains. ...

Do not despise small beginnings.

Good. Very good. Hope it holds.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
More feel good BS by a majority of idiots in California. Virtually no one was going to simply hand over these mags, and from the article, police chiefs aren't going to go looking for them. Game, set and match on this ridiculous legislation.

More importantly, thank goodness there appears to be 'one' reasonable, intelligent, judge in the state who knows something about the Constitution and feels a need respect it in his rulings.

Pretty cavalier attitude, BD. One Sheriff in a cow county in the mountains.

Meanwhile in the rest of the state, if you were caught with one, a felony and no more guns forever.

Judge Benitez has the 9th Circuit to deal with, too.

The AG doesn't seem to be aware that judges strike down initiatives approved by voters all the time, even Constitutional Amendments!

Are you sure about it being a felony JALLEN?
I thought it was just a silly little fine per magazine. Then again, they passed so much shit last year between the legislature and this stupid initiative that I can't keep it all straight anyway. I'd have sworn the deadline was January 1, so maybe I am confusing what the legislature passed with the initiative. I'm not worrying about it anyway since I sent those mags to a friend in Coeur d'Alene for storage until I can escape this communist paradise...

From California Penal Code §32310 (c) - the statute in question:

. . . any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:...One Sheriff in a cow county in the mountains. ...

Do not despise small beginnings.

And there are MANY "cow county" sheriff's who feel the same way. Most of California apart from the large metro areas do not fall into line with this garbage, but there is enough of the lunacy in those metro areas to control the vote. This is why things like the State of Jefferson are gaining so much momentum.

I hope this sticks - it will set precedent to help those of us that live in other Communist States.

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:...One Sheriff in a cow county in the mountains. ...

Do not despise small beginnings.

And there are MANY "cow county" sheriff's who feel the same way. Most of California apart from the large metro areas do not fall into line with this garbage, but there is enough of the lunacy in those metro areas to control the vote. This is why things like the State of Jefferson are gaining so much momentum.

This is exactly right. What I was saying to Big Deal, perhaps inartfully, is that out in the east, in the mountains, they may not be looking for you, but in the urban areas, they will enforce this as much as they can, maybe not house to house searches.

For some reason, I had the idea that possession was a felony. I'm relieved to see it apparently is not. Sorry for the misstatement.

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
I hope this sticks - it will set precedent to help those of us that live in other Communist States.

fight it up through 9th circuit, and then to Supreme Court - hopefully, right after 1-2 new Trump appointments. and overturn the NY, CT and NJ limits.

that would be MAGA

So who can overturn the block? And when that happens, what are the next steps? I don’t remember a Federal judge stepping in at the last minute for a Second Amendment case.

Will this get fast tracked to the Supreme Court like the travel ban?

(Feersum addresed some of my question while I posted)

$100 or a year in jail is pretty lopsided. Apparently the law makers don't realize or care that it costs 75k in California.

Congrats and good luck with it Californians! And THIS is why you want President Trump naming federal judges and not some anti-gunner.

I'll let this link lead your thoughts on that subject: http://www.americanthinker.com...judges_as_obama.html

"President Trump will be appointing twice as many judges as Obama. He may have the opportunity to appoint half of the federal judiciary. This is huge. "

I hope more federal judges feel confident to make decisions similar to this, knowing we now have a Supreme Court likely to back them.

Think how depressing it would be right now if Clinton had been elected and put another liberal like Kagan or Sotomayor on the court.

Good start.