Federal judge overturns California ban on high-capacity gun magazines

[dead0man]

CNN

A federal judge struck down California’s ban on firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds Friday as unconstitutional, “arbitrary and capricious.”

The ban, which was adopted through a 2016 proposition, had gone through various appeals until the US Supreme Court sent the case back to lower courts following its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen. The landmark decision requires that firearm regulations don’t impede on the language of the Second Amendment and be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition.”

US District Judge Roger T. Benitez in Friday’s decision said the ban on high-capacity magazines fails to meet that standard and that “there is no national tradition of prohibiting or regulating firearms based on firing capacity or ammunition capacity.”

Benitez wrote that one “government solution to a few mad men with guns … makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves.”

good news

[Benjamin Frank]

There were no high capacity gun magazines until the 1920s (except for stationary machine guns like the Maxim gun) and sub machine guns were regulated at the state level shortly after that.

Even the Winchester Repeating Rifles could fire only 9-12 rounds by the end of the 1800s. I can't find any evidence if it was regulated or not.

This is one reason why the Bruen ruling is illogical nonsense, but that's what the gun nuts on the Supreme Court intended.

There was the Puckle machine gun invented in 1718 and Girandoni repeating shot air rifle invented in 1779 but neither were mass manufactured or in common usage (they were both very difficult to use and very expensive.) It's also unlikely the Framers were aware of the Puckle machine gun and it's very unlikely when writing the Bill of Rights 8-10 years later that they ever expected anything like a common usage Girandoni rifle.

Alexander Hamilton might well have expected it since he recognized the need for the U.S to industrialize, but he seems to be one of the few. Hamilton also opposed the Bill of Rights in principle.

The Girandoni repeating shot air rifle may have been mass manufactured in some places in Europe for military purposes, but it was never mass manufactured in the U.S, although Lewis and Clark carried one.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Pure insanity from the gun nuts and just another reason why 'Blue state gun control doesn't work!' is a lie.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Pure insanity from the gun nuts and just another reason why 'Blue state gun control doesn't work!' is a lie.

Not really given that gun control laws did stand for many decades and that even with these overturnings states like CA still have tons of gun control.

[politicallefty]

This is yet another shoddy decision derived from the fundamentally shoddy decision that came from the Supreme Court in Bruen. No one should be surprised. I don't see how the state's interest in slowing down mass shooters is arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the decision seems to ignore the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I'll ask this question against to those that oppose such restrictions, what are the limiting principles of the Second Amendment?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

This is yet another shoddy decision derived from the fundamentally shoddy decision that came from the Supreme Court in Bruen. No one should be surprised. I don't see how the state's interest in slowing down mass shooters is arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the decision seems to ignore the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I'll ask this question against to those that oppose such restrictions, what are the limiting principles of the Second Amendment?

It doesn't cover things that are not arms, and like other rights can be forfeited by someone who violates the rights of others. Within that space it is unrestricted, which is why we still have a lot of work to do to ensure it is properly upheld.

[politicallefty]

This is yet another shoddy decision derived from the fundamentally shoddy decision that came from the Supreme Court in Bruen. No one should be surprised. I don't see how the state's interest in slowing down mass shooters is arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the decision seems to ignore the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I'll ask this question against to those that oppose such restrictions, what are the limiting principles of the Second Amendment?

It doesn't cover things that are not arms, and like other rights can be forfeited by someone who violates the rights of others. Within that space it is unrestricted, which is why we still have a lot of work to do to ensure it is properly upheld.

Are machine gun bans unconstitutional then? The way I understand what some of you guys are saying is that any regulation with respect to arms is unconstitutional. (I would also question what the definition of "arms" is, at least with respect to the Constitution.) Not even the most absolutist understanding of the First Amendment treated speech in such a manner and that amendment is far more clear with respect to its text.

[dead0man]

Are machine gun bans unconstitutional then?

probably, but no one who could would be willing to die on that hill.  Do you think machine guns should be banned nationally even though legal ones are never used in crime?  If yes, why?  For the yuk yuks?

The way I understand what some of you guys are saying is that any regulation with respect to arms is unconstitutional.

a non-criminal American should be able to own and be able to take to most public places* any normal gun.  I don't like open carry and don't think people should do it generally, but it should be legal to do.  Non-criminal Americans that legally carry are statistically the least likely people to commit a violent crime (far lower than say, cops or politicians).  Taking their guns away will not lower gun crime and will in fact increase negative outcomes.


*private property owners should be able to tell them to get the hell out if they want to, just like they can with anyone else.  If govt wants to carve out some "special" places they can, but it has to be reasonable and not like what was it? NJ?  That tried to trick Federal law by saying "guns are fine, but you can't carry one within 20 miles of any govt building, bank, airport, train station, bus stop or tree" (the hyperbole was free).

[Aurelius2]

Good news, but as always it'll probably only last a week or two. Enjoy your latest Freedom Week, Californians.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

This is yet another shoddy decision derived from the fundamentally shoddy decision that came from the Supreme Court in Bruen. No one should be surprised. I don't see how the state's interest in slowing down mass shooters is arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the decision seems to ignore the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I'll ask this question against to those that oppose such restrictions, what are the limiting principles of the Second Amendment?

It doesn't cover things that are not arms, and like other rights can be forfeited by someone who violates the rights of others. Within that space it is unrestricted, which is why we still have a lot of work to do to ensure it is properly upheld.

Are machine gun bans unconstitutional then? The way I understand what some of you guys are saying is that any regulation with respect to arms is unconstitutional. (I would also question what the definition of "arms" is, at least with respect to the Constitution.) Not even the most absolutist understanding of the First Amendment treated speech in such a manner and that amendment is far more clear with respect to its text.

Yes.

The comparable analogy to the First Amendment is banning gun violence, not banning gun ownership. The First Amendment recognizes our right to free speech, and laws ban us from using it to libel or defame others. The Second Amendment recognizes our right to keep and bear arms, and laws ban us from using it to attack others. For both, the common thread of what is permitted to be banned is that it is a usage of the right to directly attack others. The equivalent of banning machine guns because they could be used to attack others would be to ban social media because it could be used to libel or defame others. Applying an equivalently absolutist stance to the Second Amendment as the First would result in a near total dismantlement of gun control.

[Benjamin Frank]

Are machine gun bans unconstitutional then?

probably, but no one who could would be willing to die on that hill.  Do you think machine guns should be banned nationally even though legal ones are never used in crime?  If yes, why?  For the yuk yuks?

The way I understand what some of you guys are saying is that any regulation with respect to arms is unconstitutional.

a non-criminal American should be able to own and be able to take to most public places* any normal gun.  I don't like open carry and don't think people should do it generally, but it should be legal to do.  Non-criminal Americans that legally carry are statistically the least likely people to commit a violent crime (far lower than say, cops or politicians).  Taking their guns away will not lower gun crime and will in fact increase negative outcomes.


*private property owners should be able to tell them to get the hell out if they want to, just like they can with anyone else.  If govt wants to carve out some "special" places they can, but it has to be reasonable and not like what was it? NJ?  That tried to trick Federal law by saying "guns are fine, but you can't carry one within 20 miles of any govt building, bank, airport, train station, bus stop or tree" (the hyperbole was free).

There may be some truth to that given the reality of the United States with its proliferation of guns, but the general argument of 'more guns = less crime' is an outright lie using manipulated or outright made up statistics.

I don't think I'm an idiot, but I also really need somebody to explain to me the difference between a 'whataboutism' vs. legal precedents and analogies.

Maybe there is a subtle difference I don't understand, but it seems to me all legal precedents are essentially based on 'whataboutisms.'

This is what a poster on a reddit thread on this topic says: Referring to precedent seeks to clarify the nature of the thing you're discussing. Whataboutism seeks to derail discussion about that thing and focus it on another.

That sounds like a distinction within the eye of the beholder to me.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This is yet another shoddy decision derived from the fundamentally shoddy decision that came from the Supreme Court in Bruen. No one should be surprised. I don't see how the state's interest in slowing down mass shooters is arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the decision seems to ignore the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I'll ask this question against to those that oppose such restrictions, what are the limiting principles of the Second Amendment?

It doesn't cover things that are not arms, and like other rights can be forfeited by someone who violates the rights of others. Within that space it is unrestricted, which is why we still have a lot of work to do to ensure it is properly upheld.

"We should uphold the Second Amendment because it's in the Constitution" is a nonsense tautology, and I say this as someone who leans skeptical of major gun control (in the sense that, while mass gun ownership and the violent psychosis surrounding it is obviously a net negative to societal health, it's also spread too far that an Australia-like solution would be viable).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

This is yet another shoddy decision derived from the fundamentally shoddy decision that came from the Supreme Court in Bruen. No one should be surprised. I don't see how the state's interest in slowing down mass shooters is arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the decision seems to ignore the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I'll ask this question against to those that oppose such restrictions, what are the limiting principles of the Second Amendment?

It doesn't cover things that are not arms, and like other rights can be forfeited by someone who violates the rights of others. Within that space it is unrestricted, which is why we still have a lot of work to do to ensure it is properly upheld.

"We should uphold the Second Amendment because it's in the Constitution" is a nonsense tautology, and I say this as someone who leans skeptical of major gun control (in the sense that, while mass gun ownership and the violent psychosis surrounding it is obviously a net negative to societal health, it's also spread too far that an Australia-like solution would be viable).

1. I didn't say that. Please don't put my words in quotes when they're not actually my words.

2. You do realize this is the Constitution and Law subforum, right? We are here to discuss legal matters, which is why my response was focused on what I believe the Second Amendment legally requires. Did you follow me here from somewhere else without realizing that?

This board exists primarily for the discussion of what constitutions and laws are, and how they are interpreted. Discussion about how the law should be interpreted is welcome here, but discussion of what the law should be as opposed to what the law is generally belongs on another board.  

Keep discussion of political implications to USGD and moral discussion to Individual Politics, Political Debate, and R&P. Those are legitimate and important topics, but this board is for discussion of the constitutional and legal merits of concepts and events in our justice system and legal/judicial profession

3. Actually, it is a perfectly legitimate argument even in the context of policy discussions: upholding something because it is in the Constitution is very important because the alternative is giving free license to anyone to pick and choose what is in the Constitution. "We should uphold the Second Amendment because it's in the Constitution" would not be a good argument for not repealing the Second Amendment, but it would be a great argument for upholding the Second Amendment.

[politicallefty]

probably, but no one who could would be willing to die on that hill.  Do you think machine guns should be banned nationally even though legal ones are never used in crime?  If yes, why?  For the yuk yuks?

I don't think mere possession of old machines guns is an issue. There isn't a market for machine guns on account of the current laws in place. If those laws are repealed or struck down, there will be a market for such guns that will be followed by a mass-manufacturing of such guns. They would certainly replace the AR-15 as the weapon of choice for mass-murderers.

a non-criminal American should be able to own and be able to take to most public places* any normal gun.  I don't like open carry and don't think people should do it generally, but it should be legal to do.  Non-criminal Americans that legally carry are statistically the least likely people to commit a violent crime (far lower than say, cops or politicians).  Taking their guns away will not lower gun crime and will in fact increase negative outcomes.

*private property owners should be able to tell them to get the hell out if they want to, just like they can with anyone else.  If govt wants to carve out some "special" places they can, but it has to be reasonable and not like what was it? NJ?  That tried to trick Federal law by saying "guns are fine, but you can't carry one within 20 miles of any govt building, bank, airport, train station, bus stop or tree" (the hyperbole was free).

I can fully respect an individual right to own a gun. I'm not arguing against Heller or McDonald (the latter basically rehashes the former). I accept those rulings as part of the Constitution. There are a multitude of reasons as to why I don't like Bruen, even beyond the substance. Scalia was just a damn good writer. I'm not arguing for taking guns away though. I am arguing for some restrictions in order minimize the risk of mass casualty events as a result of those taking advantage of our lax gun laws.

There are certainly places where we are better off without guns entirely. Commercial airliners come to mind at first. A flat-out ban on guns on planes can be enforced with current security measures. It's not the same situation as carrying a gun on the street or in your vehicle.

The comparable analogy to the First Amendment is banning gun violence, not banning gun ownership. The First Amendment recognizes our right to free speech, and laws ban us from using it to libel or defame others. The Second Amendment recognizes our right to keep and bear arms, and laws ban us from using it to attack others. For both, the common thread of what is permitted to be banned is that it is a usage of the right to directly attack others. The equivalent of banning machine guns because they could be used to attack others would be to ban social media because it could be used to libel or defame others. Applying an equivalently absolutist stance to the Second Amendment as the First would result in a near total dismantlement of gun control.

The problem is that you read the Second Amendment without the prefatory clause, which is the problem with all Second Amendment absolutists. That is an argument that essentially leads to the proposition that a man should be his own army. I don't argue against the idea that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that is a new argument in our constitutional jurisprudence. My argument is that the militia as described with respect to the Second Amendment is coterminous with the people. Originally, that would have been certain men over the age of 21. In our current paradigm, it would include everyone over the age of 18.

My point here is that the Second Amendment is unique in its construction. Other amendments could have been written in a similar manner, but they were not.