Magazine Ban Injunction

PUBLISHED: 3:59 PM 21 Jul 2018
UPDATED: 5:26 PM 22 Jul 2018

California Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban

This is a shocking move for a California court, indicative of the severe second amendment infringement.

Even in California, a liberal judge could not deny the second amendment infringement regarding grandfathered in magazines capable of receiving 10 or more rounds of ammunition.

While highly unconstitutional and traitorous, democrats continually fight against the American freedom to bear arms. California is often the leading state in trying to infringe upon the second amendment; however, one of its own judges could not deny the extent to which such has been attempted in recent legislation upon issuing a preliminary injunction against a magazine ban technicality.

It was a shocking ruling originating from the liberal state, yet the California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rightfully defended exemptions as a state judge finally upheld its citizens’ right to possess previously grandfathered in magazines capable of receiving ten or more rounds.

In the state of California, the possession of a firearm magazine with such capabilities are otherwise banned, as has been the case since 2000. However, “residents who already possessed such magazines were ‘grandfathered’ in.

Or at least that was the promise,” claimed the National Review in July 2017.

Unfortunately, increasingly restrictive gun control laws have been implemented throughout the nation as a result of recent gun violence.

In California, this manifested in the form of “Proposition 63 which required all grandfathered gun owners to surrender subjected magazines by July 1, 2017, or face up to a year in prison.”

Firearm owners with previously legal magazines were given the options of retiring such devices to another state, “to law enforcement,” or “to a licensed dealer.”

Naturally, pro-second amendment advocates were diligent in legal opposition, as the California Rifle and Pistol Association, “an affiliate of the [NRA],” filed a lawsuit “on behalf of gun owners who either want the magazines for self-defense or already own them and don’t want to be forced to give them up.”

The suit was filed in May 2017 yet has been pending, thankfully challenging the unconstitutional restriction.

Upon reviewing Duncan v. Becerra, Judge Roger Benitez from San Diego, California shockingly defended the second amendment in issuing a temporary injunction against the Prop 63 clause which no longer defended previously grandfathered in magazines.

“The court granted the preliminary injunction” to which it was later appealed.

Unoriginally, local democrats nosed their way into to constitutional infringement as Attorney General Xavier Becerra claimed that the reasonable judge had “abused his discretion in granting the injunction.”

Yet Judge Benitez was unapologetically upholding the law in issuing it last month.

Such is said to “be perceived as a win for California gun owners,” however, is, nonetheless still a preliminary ruling.

However, this has resulted in rightful speculation that California may begin to recognize its own law-abiding citizens and their right to bear arms.

Even more shocking considers the fact that the court in question is said to be “notoriously anti-gun.”

Yet Judge Benitez further defended associated rights in recognizing that the law-abiding citizens’ right to be armed should not be limited “simply because they possess ‘unpopular’ magazines holding more than 10 rounds.”

U.S. Circuit Judge John Wallace somewhat acknowledged this in seeking to determine “a ‘reasonable fit’ between gun owners’ rights and Proposition 63.”

Yet he inappropriately considered ‘California’s evidence’ regarding gun violence, despite the judge ruling it as “inconclusive and irrelevant.”

The debate continued as gun control advocates pushed liberally falsified statistics regarding gun violence and mass shootings.

Judge Wallace further continued that under his discretion, the injunction would have failed given that the pending case “did not stall awaiting disposition of the appeal.”

Thankfully, such was not the case, and firearm attorney Chuck Michel on behalf of Michel Associates claimed that second amendment supporters have been “‘thrilled’ with the court’s ruling.”

Such is not only a second amendment victory, but also a protection guarantee for those in California who choose to remain armed to protect their self, loved ones, and property.

This remains an important discussion in all 50 states but especially in California where Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom is reportedly pushing an ‘anti-gun agenda’ in future campaigns.

Should the outcome favor the gun control agenda, the defense has indicated that it will certainly appeal in the state’s Supreme Court.

The California Department of Justice has also indicated that it “will continue to vigorously defend the challenged law.”

However, the clear disregard for constitutional rights is apparent as the proposed law essentially turns otherwise law-abiding citizens “into criminals” over a state law which formerly permitted what liberals call ‘high-capacity’ magazines.’

Even worse is that should the law be implemented despite the injunction, those in the state will be less capable to legally defend themselves; however, legislators from liberal states have made it clear that they prioritize supposed ‘gun control’ efforts over safety in demanding that citizens disarm.

While such has occurred far too often regarding California’s gun laws, thankfully, a judge with an apparent concern for the people’s protection has at least halted these efforts for now.