Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Magazine Ban

By Woody published on in General, Legal

The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by several other groups and individuals, has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California, challenging that state’s law prohibiting the possession, use, or acquisition of so-called “large-capacity magazines,” calling the ban “hopelessly vague and ambiguous.” This case could have repercussions on a similar magazine ban in Colorado.

Second Amendment Foundation logo and address

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 4th 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,” Gottlieb concluded, “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.”

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Check out these other great articles from U.S. Law Shield and click here to become a member:

The just-released video above is from the Florida State Attorney’s Office, supporting a judge’s ruling that a citizen who opened fire on a man attacking a Lee County deputy last year was justified in using deadly force.

Taking the family to a state or national park this summer? Then you need to know the rules about firearms carry at your destinations,

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 (14)

  • The Punnisher

    |

    That is why it’s called the NINTH CIRCUS COURT in other parts of our country.

    Reply

  • LongPurple

    |

    Wait. What? The law is not constitutional because “large capacity” is too vague? All those SOBs have to do is re-write the law and specify “no magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds is lawful”, or even 1 round, if they really want a problem.

    Reply

  • El Mac

    |

    @Force,. Why yes I have and I highly recommend it. It’s long overdue.

    Reply

  • Harris Skinner

    |

    I can’t belive this even happened in the USA !
    How did this slip though without giving ( Notice To The Public )
    THANM YOU ! For protecting our rights as Citizens in the USA…

    Reply

    • Scott Sommer

      |

      They did give notice in California in the form of Proposition 63 which passed 63.08% to 36.92%. It’s just unfortunate that the majority of voting Californians don’t understand or care about the original intent of the Second Amendment.

      Reply

    • Force Recon Marine

      |

      @ Harris Skinner The reason all these illegal and unconstitutional usurpations have occurred is because of APATHY !!! APATHY gives tacit approval that what government does is acceptable. No one will say anything UNLESS they are directly affected they will say nothing because whatever the usurpation is affects someone else. The “At first they came for the Jews but I am not a Jew and said nothing” syndrome

      Reply

  • Arthur Buie

    |

    Let’s keep fighting

    Reply

  • Scott Sommer

    |

    Wouldn’t it be the fourteenth amendment not the fourth.

    Reply

    • Force Recon Marine

      |

      @ Scott. The fourteenth Amendment ONLY gives power to the states for issues NOT addressed in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Since ALL weapons (not just firearms) are addressed in OUR second Amendment the individual states do not have the “legal” authority to amend our Constitution or prohibit us from exercising our God Given and Constitutionally Guaranteed right to “keep and bear arms” As I said to Mr. Skinner above APATHY and the fear of being civilly disobedient has given tacit approval that what these state governments do is acceptable

      Reply

    • Scott Sommer

      |

      @ Force Recon Marine. When I mentioned the Fourteenth Amendment I was referring to the article where the writer mentioned the court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourth Amendment with the McDonald ruling of 2010. I do agree that it shouldn’t of been necessary to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states using the Fourteenth Amendment because the Bill of Rights are individual rights that aren’t granted to us.

      Reply

  • Deplorable Robert

    |

    Hope we can turn around some of the damage that’s been done by the Liberal and RINO Government we have had in place for mellenia. Glad there are folks fighting back which have the ability and resources to do so.

    Reply

  • El Mac

    |

    Unfortunately, in Kalifornia, under the 9th Circuit Court it ain’t going to stand a chance.

    Reply

    • Jojo DFB

      |

      El Mac,

      I agree; however, if the SAF can get past them to the U.S. Supreme Court then we stand a good chance. After all, the 9th Circuit is overturned by SCOTUS somewhere in the vicinity of 70-80% of the time…

      You would think they (The 9th Circuit) would have learned and died of shame by now.

      Reply

    • Force Recon Marine

      |

      Ever hear of civil disobedience???

      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: