California Target of Federal Lawsuit Against Magazine Ban

By Dave Dolbee published on in Legal

While certain threats to the Second Amendment have been lessened, we still need to remain vigilant and attack the previous egregious assaults to our rights. In furtherance of that effort, the Second Amendment Foundation and others have joined forces in a federal lawsuit challenging California’s law prohibiting the possession, use or acquisition of so-called “large capacity magazines,” by calling the ban “hopelessly vague and ambiguous.”

Second Amendment Foundation

National Organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation are the great defenders of our rights.

Joining SAF are the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation and six individuals including one retired California peace officer. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint is a constitutional challenge to California Penal Code § 32310, as recently amended by Senate Bill 1446 and Proposition 63, and Penal Code § 32390 (the “Large-Capacity Magazine Ban”). The lawsuit alleges that if these measures are enforced as applied, they would “individually and collectively prohibit law-abiding citizens from continuing to possess, use, or acquire lawfully-owned firearms, in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense (inside and outside the home), competition, sport, and hunting.”

“What we see in the enactment of such laws,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “is continued erosion by the state of its citizens’ constitutional rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. When the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment under the 2010 McDonald ruling, it automatically should have stopped this kind of prohibition.

“As we state in our lawsuit,” he continued, “this magazine ban fails to provide fair or even adequate notice to law-abiding gun owners of what they may do with their personal property without being subject to criminal sanctions. In effect, this ban amounts to a backdoor form of confiscation, in part, of bearable arms that are protected by the Constitution.

“Enforcement of this ban would immediately place thousands of law-abiding California gun owners in jeopardy of criminal liability and subjects their personal property to forfeiture, seizure and permanent confiscation, which is government taking, without due process or compensation. We cannot allow that to go unchallenged.”

Will the Second Amendment Foundation’s efforts be successful? What other laws would you like to see challenged in California or your state? Share your answers in the comment section.

Tags: , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (5)

  • G-Man

    |

    Ah yes – “Incorporation”. Does anyone actually believe that prior to the relatively recent 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which “Incorporated” the application of the Second Amendment to all States, that it supposedly previously did not apply to any State?

    The ridiculous yet never ending legal arguments as to whether the Bill of Rights (Amendments) was meant to apply to all States was supposed to have already been resolved with the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment back in 1868. But despite that very profound and ratified amendment, we had a period where Justices whimsically rejected the 14th Amendment as a mere notion they didn’t have to uphold.

    And so whenever one of the Amendments does eventually suit a particular Justice’s narrative to enforce upon the States, they instead invented an unofficial process known as “Incorporation”. Such “Incorporation” would allow a judge to abruptly enforce any single Amendment of their own choosing to suddenly apply to the States, and all without actually having to enforce the remainder of the other Amendments.

    Simply put, “Incorporation” became the Supreme Court’s means for selective enforcement of Amendments upon the States without having to admit they were failing to comply with the Fourteenth Amendment – which as everyone knows, was written to force the States to comply with all Amendments as of 1868.

    I support Trump in his push to break up the Ninth Circuit… and more. There is an abundance of overt evidence such as this which proves the Supreme Court needs a top-down overhaul or outright gutting.

    When the highest Court in the land ignores Congressional Amendments which are the LAW of the LAND, and instead invents unofficial procedures such as “Incorporation” just to circumvent the law, then they are no longer doing their jobs as interpreters of the law and instead have become overriding legislators themselves.

    One may ask how our Courts became so corrupt to begin with. While they all share egos, it is unlike the lobbying and money that corrupts Congress; instead the Judiciary is more of a battle and match-up of wits and intellect as they play before a host of judges.

    The members of our judicial system over the decades has made such a sport of their institution that it’s become entirely convoluted and cluttered as to insure nothing is ever truly resolved. Proof there should be no confidence in the judicial system can be observed by the extremely inconsistent rulings the courts continually produce across this nation.

    Even when cases are virtually identical, so moot has their own sense of practical justice become – with their increasingly complex terminology and varied legal definitions – that it is no wonder we see extremely mixed legal outcomes and conflicting Justice’s opinions throughout every level of our judicial system and across the Country.

    While so-called legal scholars choose sides to battle it out in court using their wit and learned legalese accumulated as lifelong practitioners of their professional sport, the general public has to sit back in bewilderment as they helplessly witness such a never-ending judicial spectacle that could have been resolved with a bit of common sense by simple people outside the courts.

    Instead our Judiciary has become so self-absorbed in their petty battles of legal-speak and diction they’ve forgotten what their original purpose is or the actual ramifications their actions will cause for the rest of the nation.

    Reply

  • Jason

    |

    I agree with all of you. I have turned down some really good job offers in Cali. I refuse to live there under their current regulations.

    Reply

  • Alan

    |

    I would like to see the CA priority of “may ” issue be changed to “shall” issue.

    The differing state jurisdictions create confusion not to mention the imposition that deny law abiding citizens the ability to arm themselves while the bad” guys get to do what they want with little fear of legal reoucussions.

    Reply

  • Bob Velon

    |

    I would like to see a Federal Lawsuit regarding the ban on the AR-15 and what they call an assualt weapon. They are infringing on our rights to own certain weapons… I would like to see all of their bans tossed out..

    Reply

  • Doug

    |

    Thank goodness somebody is challenging this crap bill and all like it around the country. Who decided 10 rounds? Why not 12 or 8? How can the be high capacity when the gun was designed to hold 17? Wouldn’t that be standard capacity? There are extended magazines- maybe the law should cover only them? Better yet, no law on any of them. SCOTUS is going to be busy now that they have a full bench.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: