Posted on 10/01/2022 4:51:55 AM PDT by marktwain
Judge Benitez found California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be unconstitutional on its face. On March 29, 2017, Judge Benitez issued an injunction preventing the enforcement of the ban. In the week that followed, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of magazines were sold to California residents who had been deprived of their Second Amendment rights.
The name of the case changed as the name of the California AG changed.
Subsequent court actions reversed the injunction, upheld Judge Benitez’s opinion, reversed the three-judge panel with an en banc hearing, and appealed the en banc hearing to the Supreme Court. On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Bruen case. On June 29, the Supreme Court vacated the decision by the Ninth Circuit en banc on Duncan v. Bonta and sent it back to the Ninth Circuit to be re-decided.
The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to Judge Rodger T. Benitez. Judge Benitez is now following proper procedure. He is not allowing delays. On September 26, 2022, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order as to the timing for briefs on the now Duncan v. Bonta case.
From the District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Roger T. Benitez:
On June 29, 2017, this Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) & (d) requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed. The preliminary injunction was affirmed on appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
People should be allowed to wear their briefs as long as they want I don’t care what kind of magazine it is.
A good start let’s hope he slams the state of CA,
***In the week that followed, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of magazines were sold to California residents***
I still remember what the boxes Magpul used to ship 50 rd magazines to Cali in that time.
The printing on the box showed a magazine standing tall and looking like a folded hand giving California the “finger.”
Because California is “special”, the U.S. Constitution and even their own State Constitution does not apply there.
Good. Now how do we apply this to CO?
I contacted the Attorny General’s Office regarding the SCOTUS decision in Bruin about a week after the ruling. The response was underwhelming.
Basically they said that the decision to restrict magazines was right and that they will continue to enforce and to defend that decision.
Basically it's unconstitutional. But someone will have to take them to court I guess. Maybe RMGO, but I'm not a big fan.
Thanks, that’s true. I didn’t know that mags were part of those. I’m always leery when RMGO is involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
