NEWS ALERT: Federal Judge Rejects California Mag Ban


I am going to keep this short and sweet – a federal judge has rejected a California law that was set to take effect to ban the ownership and possession of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez said that people should be able to use firearms with “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation”. A testimony to individual liberty I personally find refreshing.

Before you wield your pitch forks and torches, this is news regarding law and policy – not politics. Additional information can be found below.

Federal judge blocks California ban on high-capacity magazines


A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injuction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

Benitez added that “a final decision will take too long to offer relief, and because the statute will soon visit irrevocable harm on Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated a state-wide preliminary injunction is necessary and justified to maintain the status quo.”

The judge granted the request of attorneys from the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association to temporarily block the law.

In the days leading up to the ban, some California gun owners, pro-gun sheriffs and sellers have been reluctant to give up their magazines. Some gun owners have previously said that they were hoping pending court challenges would block the ban.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” said Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko in an earlier interview with The Bee. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”

The ban is part of Proposition 63, approved with 63 percent of votes in November, that required background checks for people buying ammunition and instituted other firearms restrictions. To get rid of magazines in compliance with the approved law, California gun owners would have been allowed move them out of state, sell them to a licensed dealer, destroy them or hand them over to law enforcement.

Read more here:


LE – Science – OSINT.
On a mission to make all of my guns as quiet as possible.
Twitter: @gunboxready
Instagram: @tfb_pete


  • PK

    Wait… seriously? That’s unexpectedly great news!

    CA, you’re coming with the rest of the nation toward properly unrestrictive firearms laws, whether your government likes it or not.

    • gunsandrockets

      Yep. Seriously.

      But one should reasonably expect the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the injunction. Then it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide.

      But judging from the silence of the Supreme Court on 2nd Amendment related cases since their last ruling in 2010, I’m not expecting SCOTUS to hear the case.

      • PK

        Well, yes, the 9th is certainly notorious. However, in the meantime, the injunction is nice. Who knows what the newest SCOTUS makeup will do to granting cert…

        In any case, I remain delighted at even temporary reprieve for California’s gun owners.

        • gunsandrockets

          Yep. So far so good.

          Reminds me of this fable…

          • supergun

            One half year under President TRUMP. Great things are happening. We would not see this under a hillary presidency.

          • Nicks87

            I think things are just going to keep getting better. Nobody is watching the fake news anymore and Hollywood lefties and college kids are becoming the laughing stock of the nation.

          • supergun

            Good positive comment.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Yea, but those brain dirtied kids grow up to be lawyers and poltickshuns.

        • the ninth circuit judges should be ashamed to claim to be impartial judges

          • Tp

            Ah come on man, they are impartial judges, they make their decisions totally impartial to what their residents want, or what the Constitution says, all that matters is what they want. Now if that isn’t text book impartial, I don’t know what is, geez give them a break man.

      • arpad1000

        No way to tell for sure what the Supreme Court will do in this case but Heller v DC does give a pretty strong indication that the Supreme Court’s none too fond of state-level efforts to put a state-level end to the Second Amendment. Judge Benitez certainly seems to taking that position.

        • Marcus D.

          This case has not been decided on the merits. The only ruling so far is that an injunction should issue because of the irreparable injury to owners of 10+ mags if they turn in or destroy their mags (which cannot be replaced because it is illegal to import them into the State), or risk a criminal prosecution if they are found to be in possession of such items, plus the probability of success on the merits.Without a fully developed record, the odds of the Supreme Court weighing in on the propriety of the issuance of a temporary injunction that preserves the status quo is nil.

        • Ben Rogers

          Um, no. The Supreme Court has refused to overturn anything state-level except bans on handguns in the home. They recently rejected an appeal from CA gun owners over CA “may issue” CC licensing. They have refused to take any AW ban cases either.

      • RyeOnHam

        You forget that Ruth Master-Bader Ginsberg is trending in the dead pool lately. SCOTUS might be turning more to the right than you think. This was a MAJOR reason why Trump’s election was so impactful.

        • supergun

          Be nice to get some of the “living dead” off the court.

          • Tp

            Yes, except those living dead are trying to impeach him, because he is taking away their rights to run the country as whom ever pays them the most wants.

          • supergun

            You are exactly right. The people elected President Trump to clean up the garbage. It will take time to get rid of the zombies. Nice picture.

        • Nicks87

          If that old wench drops dead during Trump’s presidency it could be the greatest thing to happen to America in the last 30 years.

          • irish7_1sg

            I am hoping for a 6-3 Supreme Court during the FIRST Trump term as well. I can wait until his SECOND term to have a 7-2 majority…….

      • Cory C

        No offense, but in 240 years they only ever had a handful of cases that specifically dealt with the 2nd Amendment. If we cast a really wide net, there was still not quite 100 cases that even mentioned the 2nd Amendment indirectly. In short, it’s normal that 2A cases are few and far between.

        • gunsandrockets

          There’s nothing normal about the silence of the court since 2010. The DC v Heller ruling was very narrow and left numerous important issues unaddressed about 2nd Amendment Rights.

          Yet the Court has turned down hearing appeals of important 2nd Amendment related cases, even cases which have a record of split rulings from different Circuits such as the Peruta case, even cases which arguably violate the direct ruling of DC v Heller.

          • Cory C

            There are a multitude of examples of unanswered questions and seeming violations of constitutional law that SCOTUS has yet to address. The 2nd Amendment is not alone in that regard.

          • SharpStick

            Actually the is a massive amount of federal case law on firearms going back a very long time. The fact that a large number of cases did not make it to supreme court does not make it any less valid as case law.

            And the less cases make it to SCOTUS unit we replace either Ginsberg or Kennedy the better.

            W do NOT want a definitive case on may issue before the court until we have 5 justices

          • Cory C

            No actually necessary. We’re in agreement about the wide array of case law. But my comments were specifically made in reference to someone who was discussing SCOTUS.

          • irish7_1sg

            I actually distrust both Kennedy and Roberts to the point where I’d rather postpone such a case until the Supreme Court is 6-3 or better.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            2nd Amendment rights? My “rights” are predicated on what a piece of paper says? NOT!

        • supergun

          Sounds like they are afraid of guns.

        • Marcus D.

          Miller was pretty much the first 2A case to come up–because, as you probably know, there were few restrictions on gun ownership prior to the civil War, and the blacks were in no position to challenge any of them until the 1960s. What is more striking, as Justice Thomas noted in his dissent in the denial of cert for Peruta, is that the court has granted cert in a fairly significant number of first and fourth amendment cases, but not one since McDonald, except for the Caetano case, which was summarily adjudicated. It is beyond time for the court to engage these issues.

          What I think has happened is that the deciding vote in Heller and McDonald has waffled, and the four Heller dissenters have been joined in allowing the liberal circuits to go their own way, and deny the exercise the right in the manner those circuits deem best. there should have been four votes for cert in Peruta, which suggests that the two who did not join Thomas’ dissent were uncertain of a victory on the merits and thus exercised a pocket veto.

        • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

          Because the people who violate the laws that violate the 2nd amendment never take the case to the supreme court. You have to be DAMAGED before they will even listen to a case.

      • supergun

        Perhaps maybe the SC will start doing their job that they were appointed to do.

        • gunsandrockets

          I’ve stopped hoping for the Federal Courts to save us. The only real solution is Federal legislation, some kind of gun-rights equivalent to the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            The only thing that will save us is when enough people with enough gonads are willing to stand up to these usurping laws. And be willing to shoot anyone who tries to enforce them. But wait, we can’t do that! Those guys in blue are all our friends. Yeah right…

          • gunsandrockets

            Considering how the anti-gun side is slowly getting pushed back through ordinary political processes, calls to vigilante violence are premature and counter-productive.

          • Endlesspath

            I agree with you 100% the only real solution is a Gun rights act (reaffirmation/clarification of 2nd amendment, repeal of 1934 NFA, 1968 Omnibus GC and Safe Streets A., and 1986 FOPA). Unfortunate fact is – even with both Houses and the Presidency held by Republicans; most of the Republicans are actually only R.I.N.O.’s. This is easily proven by the Republican inability to repeal Obamacare! The best these “Republicans” can come up with is “Amend and Rename to RINOcare”.

          • gunsandrockets

            Don’t give up hope yet. Elected politicians are more accountable than life-termed Federal judges.

      • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

        If the 9th overturns it, someone will have to be arrested for violating the law before SCOTUS will hear the case. One common denominator in all of the cases they hear is that there HAS to be a damaged party. The law itself doesn’t damage anyone. Once someone is arrested, they have been damaged. Now SCOTUS will hear a case.

      • Bill

        Reasonable and the Notorious Ninth do not belong in the same sentence.

      • Steve T

        I welcome a Supreme Court decision. It’s about time states were held in check. Massachusetts for example needs to be brought back in line to the Constitution as it was written.

    • Anti-Federalist

      The Supreme Court would not be able to strike down a ban such as this within California so simply. it depends on how they interpret the incorporation doctrine, which justices tend to utilize or ignore based on their stance on an issue. The argument could and has been utilized succesfully that the Bill of Rights only protects from Federal overreach. Heller vs DC does not apply as D.C is under federal, not state law. This issue is tough, as to believe the Supreme Court can strike something like this down takes powers away from the states, which the Founders would have most likely not supported.

      • gunsandrockets

        Hold on now.

        You didn’t hear about the McDonald v Chicago ruling of 2010?

        Where the Supreme Court via the incorporation doctrine, incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the protection of the 14th Amendment, and struck down the Chicago ban on handgun possession?

        • Anti-Federalist

          I did, however, like I said, it depends on the case. Example: Justice Scalia agreed with the use of the incorporation doctrine in that case, but dissented in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, based on what he considered an overeach of federal power, dissenting on the use of incorporation doctrine aside. Multiple other examples could be made for separate cases that used or ignored the incorporation doctrine. The fact is, the use of incorporation doctrine in ANY regard does take power from states and give it over to the federal government, and essentially gives the power to a non elected body (SCOTUS) to dictate laws to the states. Whether or not this is bad thing is beside the point, the issue is the inconsistency/hypocrisy that our SCOTUS can often show in their rulings.

          • SharpStick

            >The Supreme Court would not be able to strike down a ban such as this within California so simply. it depends on how they interpret the incorporation doctrine, which justices tend to utilize or ignore based on their stance on an issue.

            No. the second amendment has definitively ben incorporated AGAINST the states in McDonald.
            The claim that the second is not incorporated is a pre 2010 argument by gun control lobby that was made moot in 2010 with McDonald.

            No one claims it is not anymore.

            The fact is, the use of incorporation doctrine in ANY regard does take power from states and give it over to the federal government, and essentially gives the power to a non elected body (SCOTUS) to dictate laws to the states.

            States don’t have a right it deprive you of speech or Miranda either., tis is all long established constitutional LAW

      • Jim_Macklin

        McDonald made HELLER and the Scalia interpretation of teh Second Amendment apply to the states.

        In HELLER, SCOTUS DID NOT say that other gun laws were constitutional. What they said was that they had not heard any evidence on other laws and therefore until a later court ruled specifically on a law, consider it enforcible if you want to stay out of prison.

        But the lie the media tells is that all tyhe other gun laws are constitutional.

        Rememner that the GFSZ law was ruled unconstitutional until Congress came back with a simple claim that it was necessary to promote safe education. Of course GFSZ do no such thing, it was just a fiction Congress wrote.

        GFSZ are going away every day. But they will be repealed or over-turned soon.

        • Anti-Federalist

          Again, not my point. My point was strictly about the application of incorporation doctrine, which, as I stated, is often inconsistent among SCOTUS rulings, and is often utilized or ignored based on that judges bias of the issue. Also, my point was that no matter the good intention of the use of incorporation doctrine, every single application of DOES take powers away from the state, and put them at the ruling of an unelected, life appointed judiciary, which tips the balance of “checks and balances” in favor of the judiciary.

      • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

        Maybe you need to read the Constitution. It states that all Judges of All states are bound thereby. It was put together for the United States, not just the federal jurisdiction.

    • Mark

      now get rid of licensed card to buy ammo and how much

    • Cal.Bar

      LOL, PK you’re either blindly optimistic or have no idea how bad CA gun laws are (and are getting worse EVERY year)

    • CavScout

      Nope. It was ONE SINGLE FED JUDGE that decided it. Pretty sure. The state and enough of its people would have opted for forced confiscation.

  • Countdown to the issuing judge being burned in effigy by shrieking mobs at Berkely without a single shred of irony or self-awarenes in 3… 2… 1…

  • Icon

    People have forgotten why we have guns in the first place… People say they need guns to protect their rights, then willingly give up both when the government tells them to.

    • Dan

      At the time the constitution was writren, we had the same guns the people who would come to take ours had, so fighting back would have been possible. Good luck with that now with our militarized police forces and national guard showing up to you’re little rebellion. The only real inconveniences you’ll be is the time it takes to repaint the bullet strikes on the surplus Armored truck the SWAT team showed up in.
      Let’s be honest not many of us gun owners are going to choose to point our rifles at “the man” when a law is made we don’t like. Do you try and die very violently or stay inside come to TFB and type “What part of Shall not be infringed do they not understand!” Im betting 99.9% the latter.

      • Spencer

        If you go off Iraq as an example. It took 180 thousand troops to quell an insurrection in a country with less than 30 million people. There are that many people in Texas alone so it’s pretty obvious the DoD doesn’t have the capacity to put down a full scale populist civil war. But I do agree that any individual or small group of morons who tries to start a war with the feds are certain to meet a bad end while the rest of us sit around shaking our heads at their stupidity.

        • datimes

          The intelligence services that monitor the publics phone calls, email, text messages, and the like wil have all the plans and names before the first shot is fired.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Really? How’d that work for the latest shooters?

          • n0truscotsman

            Thats a good point, but an important thing to remember is that *so much* information is collected, it takes an army of analysts to go through it, which is why ultimately, such a wide net becomes meaningless to prevent things from happening.

          • SharpStick

            datimes, that is absurd. 99% of the people who resist tyranny would not be part of some conspiracy before hand, they would be reacting to government use of violence.

            Not to mention 905 of the US military would nor be on the side of the government if it used military force to suppress constitutional rights.

      • Paul Rain

        Dan- you may be right about the percentage of gun owners who will resist the illegal seizure of arms.

        But it already is about more than just the violation of the second Amendment, and the rights of Englishmen. That is just a part of the wider problem of government-enforced anarchotyranny- freedom for the worst, and tyranny against the best.

      • Carlos Velazquez

        I don’t see a lot of people willing to point guns at the man either, but there will be a lot of people who will engage in civil disobedience. A law is only as effective as it’s enforcement.

      • Major Tom

        I guess you’ve never heard of the snowball effect. It only takes one proper show of abuse to start a revolution. One by one individual rebellions, revolts and shows of defiance get easily crushed but in not very long you start having organized and effective resistances, then you have the military questioning whether it’s right and next thing you know, the rest of the world decides to intervene while the government loses more and more territory and face.

        That’s the reason why they didn’t storm the nature reserve standoff like Waco in Oregon last year. It very much had the potential to prove anti-government types right and the State of Oregon knew it. The last thing Oregon needed in an election year was a liberal government stomping on non-liberals like a tyrannical Third World dictatorship, especially since Hillary’s win was not guaranteed and ultimately didn’t happen. Could you imagine the laundry list of problems they’d be suffering under Trump if they did?

      • Phillip Cooper

        Well, 12th-century tribesman armed with 100+ year old rifles seem to be giving us a little trouble in Southwest Asia…

      • Bill

        Really? citizens back then just happened to have cannons and grapeshot lying around? Even if fighting would be futile today, the 2nd amendment is ambivalent about whether the people would actually win. It gives the people the RIGHT to protect themselves against government tyranny. The second amendment is a deterrence mechanism.

        • JP

          Go ahead and Google “privateer”

          • Bill

            Yeah I guess all those boats would really help the farmers in rural Massachusetts… Clearly the point I was trying to make was that even when the 2A was enacted there was a disparity in military power between the people and the state, and there is nothing in ANY historical materials suggesting that the validity of the 2nd amendment was ONLY contingent upon, in the mind of the framers, people being able to overthrow a tyrannical government with 100% certainty. How about you “go ahead” and be disingenuous somewhere else.

          • SharpStick

            The argument that armed citizens can’t defeat a tyrannical government because the government has more powerful weapons is one of the most specious agreements advocates of gun control make.

            1) it is likely virtually none of the US armed forces would comply with violent suppression of the constitutional in the US.
            2) even if that were not he case the fact is widespread civilian gun ownership is a deterrent to unconistutional tyranny.

          • SharpStick

            The birthish had 100 ships of the line massively more powerful than the most powerful privateer.

      • SharpStick

        Absurd. The colonists did not have anywhere ear the forces or weapons the British had.

  • Samuel “I hate Horses” Walker

    Here comes ANTIFA to issue death threats and then try to follow up with them like we saw at that Baseball field.


  • USMC03Vet

    California trying to create millions of new criminals while they can’t house the real criminals they’ve already convicted. God bless this judge he seems to get the big picture here.

    • RSG

      That’s their new program. Let out all the currently incarcerated and replace with the real criminals, gun owners. Smh.

      • Cymond

        They don’t need to incarcerate gun owners, just convict them off felonies. Poof, a bunch of pro-2A people barred from firearms for life.

  • gunsandrockets

    Is there some irony intended by illustrating the story with an image of a 10 round magazine?


    • JSmath

      Step 16 is to ban 10-round magazines. They just aren’t American.

      • Paul Rain

        They seem hard to justify for militia purposes, apart from perhaps in M-14’s and SKS’s for parade use.

      • gunsandrockets

        Well they certainly tried that in New York with the 7 round limit.

      • .45

        But I like ten round mags in my bolt actions. It’s a nice round number. Hahah, see what I did there?

        • JSmath

          Sorry buddy, we’re just going to have to have those replaced with 11 or 12 rounders. 🙂

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      Boom. Thank you.

  • Ark

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hates firearms and the Supreme Court refuses to rule on the vast majority of restrictive laws. Don’t get your hopes up.

  • Lee M Attinger

    As ridiculous as I think this law is what this judge is doing is wrong. Voters in California, regardless of how misguided they may be, voted overwhelmingly in favor of this law. The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms but there’s nothing in it pertaining to mag capacity meaning there’s nothing unconstitutional about this law. Like it or not this is a clear cut case of judicial activism and its wrong no matter what your political views may be.

    • BattleshipGrey

      This is only a temporary stay though. He’s leaving room for the higher court to decide. Whereas the Supreme Court in my state issued a ruling (first of its kind according to the liberal Des Moines Register) that even though our legislature just passed a law allowing carrying firearms into courthouses, the SC ruled that people may NOT carry in courthouses. They completely legislated from the bench and that’s it. In that case, someone will have to sue the state or county but prove that they were adversely affected for the ruling to change. A state firearm rights lobby group said that they really only have control over the courtROOMs, not the rest of the offices inside the courtHOUSE.

      In CA’s case, where does the nitpicking stop? When does the 2A get stripped to cover only the receiver and barrel and a 1 round magazine? Leaving the stock, grips, sights, muzzle devices and other accessories on the chopping block by a fickle and scared population. Were our rights granted by God, or the weak residents of 2017?

      • K-Gunner

        California’s gun and Constitution hating Democratic Super Majority like to enact illegal laws and put the onus on people to challenge them. Witness the recent (nearly successful) single payer health care bill they were pushing through. With an estimated cost of $400,000,000,000 per year (no, all those zeroes are not typos) while the entire state budget for a year is half that.They pushed it through without any funding provisions or regard for violating federal law. But I digress a bit….

        The Democrats will ban firearms one way or the other. The sneaky existence of the “safe handgun roster” has eliminated any new guns from being available to California’s residents and as guns drop off the roster, increasingly stringent “safety” requirements makes it cost prohibitive for manufacturers to comply. S&W has all but abandoned the CA market and Gen4 Glocks are not on the roster. The DOJ deemed them a new firearm from the on-roster Gen3.

        The CA DOJ has also been trying to overreach and make their own laws by way of their administration of the actual laws. Its recent proposed regulations on the registration of so-called “assault weapons” expanded the definition and classifications spelled out in the Penal Code (aka The Law), all despite the DOJ not having any legislative authority.

        These CA legislators are at the same time dumb as rocks and cunning as foxes. It’s a weird paradox but somehow these buffoons do have a plan and they are being successful at slowly taking our rights away, mortgaging our children’s children’s economic future, and giving our sovereignty away. Thank goodness one judge in CA has the stones to call it as it is!

      • RSG

        As to your last point, it will stop in California when all semi auto firearms are banned. Until then, I have no doubt that they will try to legislate that gun parts sold in California must be serialized and controlled.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          It won’t stop there, either. “Sniper rifles” will be next. Then “Ultra powerful rifles” above .22 LR

    • ClintTorres

      There is something unconstitutional about this law. There are 2nd and 4th amendment issues associated with the magazine ban. Specifically, the govt. is not allowed to “take” property without compensation. Although, the govt. is not literally taking the magazines from the owners, the state would be depriving, previously, lawful owners of something without compensation. That is why the 10+ magazines were grandfathered when the first ban wan enacted…to avoid “taking”.

    • JSmath

      Federal law supersedes State law, always, so no, if Californians vote to make sexual assault legal, it doesn’t just get melded into the fold because feelings. Just like when certain States insisted they could have slaves or that certain people weren’t equal human beings, the Fed doesn’t suggest but dictates the law of the land as far as how obviously interpretable from a handful of simple statements.

      The right to bear arms, in the exact context of the 2nd Amendment’s wording, is specifically infringed by limiting the capacity of magazines. It is not reasonable to expect someone to secure a free state/State by means of a severely limited weapon. Differently, the 2A didn’t go into any detail regarding concealed weaponry for the purpose of self-defense, but it is frequently referenced as the strong obvious conclusion of the 2A … Differently, again, magazine capacity limits are directly in conflict with the 2A.

      • Squirreltakular

        Best comment. You win a crate of internets.

      • Pete – TFB Writer

        I think we can be friends.

      • RSG

        And to bring it to a finer point, we created our government, including our judicial system, to avoid the possibility of a “tyranny of the majority”. So beyond what a “state” legislates, our courts are supposed to uphold what is Constitutional, regardless of how the majority votes/feels. I’m sure there’s a 51% majority in California that would ban all handguns and semi auto rifles. God bless our Founders.

    • K-Gunner

      Aside from totally disagreeing with you, what you miss is that the magazine ban is an unlawful taking and violates not only the Second Amendment but the Eighth as well. Read the motion filed by NRA and CRPA. It’s extremely well reasoned. Then re-read the small amount published so far from the judge’s decision. You might just understand why you are wrong, at least as to the judge’s ultimate conclusion.

      Also, you obviously don’t live in California so you don’t truly understand the lunatic circus that is that state and state of politics.

    • Paul Rain

      It’s a violation of the common law. It’s a violation of the rights of Englishmen, as handed down to those who built the country.

    • Jeffrey Dees

      Except you just made the exact point that the Constitution, and by extension the Bill of Rights was meant to protect; the minority when they are in the right against a majority that is in the wrong.

      Yes, over half of the California voters agreed to banning possession of high-capacity magazines; however, they are still in the wrong, which is not surprising since the majority of the public are not terribly politically inclined and think it’s legal and constitutional to force individuals to give up their property without just compensation in the name of “public safety”.

      The injunction is in the right because it keeps a large number of gun owners who’s only crime is to keep a hunk of metal with a spring in it within the confines of the anti-liberty minded state of California from being thrown in jail for two years and possibly permanently losing their right to own a gun over keeping said hunk of steel on their property.

      On a final note, magazines are protected by the Second Amendment. They hold ammunition, and if you can’t hold ammunition in your gun, what’s the point of having the gun? I doubt the Second Amendment is interpreted to mean we can own a handgun in our home but we should just fork the magazine for it over and shove a cartridge into the chamber one at a time.

    • Joe

      My state adopted a marriage law that remained in effect until the SC ruled such laws were unconstitutional. Voters and legislators opinions do not supercede the Constitution.

    • Klaus Von Schmitto

      I’m sure that Orville Fabuss would have agreed that the courts were overstepping their bounds by forcing the voters of Arkansas to send their kids to school with those “coloreds”.

    • mosinman

      your argument would hold water if we were a pure democracy

    • Bill

      Ummm… this ruling was for a preliminary injunction, basically meaning that the case will still be tried on the merits and not decided by a judge as a matter of law. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to buy some time so the court can make a ruling on whether or not the law (in this case, the constitution) has been violated. Next time, if you are going to make an argument about “legality,” maybe lookup how the law actually works???

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        He’s a liberal. The law means what he wants it to mean on any given day.

    • Texas Irregular

      Didn’t the voters reject gay marriage? Hmmm…picking and choosing going on based on your views.

      • gunsandrockets

        Bingo! California Proposition 8, which passed into law in 2008.

    • Sianmink

      There’s nothing unconstitutional about making law-abiding citizens into criminals for possessing personal property that was legal when they purchased it?
      There’s nothing unconstitutional about confiscating legally purchased private property without compensation?
      Ok dude.

    • gunsandrockets

      There are limits to majority rule. Especially a localized faction of majority rule such as that which passed the magazine ban of California, or the handgun ban of Chicago.

      And saying “theres nothing in it” to claim the 2nd Amendment is powerless to prevent a magazine ban, is as silly as saying there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that prevents a ban on mobile telephones.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of literacy tests for elections. Voters do not get to violate the Constitution. Apparently, you need to read it.

      • Lee M Attinger

        Show me where in the constitution there’s any wording about magazine capacity. I have read it.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      More to the point, using your “logic,” they could pass a law stating the “Arm” you are allowed to possess is a 2.5″ pocket knife. After all, nothing in the 2A pertains to firearms specifically.

  • Paul Rain

    Sic semper tyrannis.

  • Spencer

    Sounds like the NRA is working on a direct repeal of all magazine bans via court precedent.

  • Joe

    This seems pretty significant.

  • datimes

    A California Judge that has heard of an obscure thing called the Constitution?

    • Renato H M de Oliveira

      Flying pigs aren’t such a wild dream anymore, huh?

  • Gregory

    California will find a way to get the decision overturned, count on it.

  • RicoSuave

    California is a place where people without legal status can sue if they are removed and win. So I am sure in such an upside down place, CA will find a way to still ban magazines over 10 capacity.

    • Disarmed in CA

      They have been banned for years, this is only about the confiscation of existing 11+ round mags.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        Just convert them all to 10 round .458 SOCOM mags.

  • Nandor

    The irony is that there were guns that could shoot more than 10 rounds before needing to reload, at the time of the 2nd amendment’s adoption. CA has decided to rewrite history.

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      Liberals tend to re-write history in all kinds of ways.

      • Major Tom

        For example Leon Trotsky.

  • Phillip Cooper

    Holy hell. Did I wake up in Backwards World???

  • Michael Valera

    This is guaranteed to get overturned at the 9th and very likely not to even be heard by the Supreme. So don’t get your hopes up.

  • Jeff Smith

    As much as I love it, I wouldn’t get my hopes up too much for further gun legislation in CA. The foundations of liberalism are property law and, at its core, this is a matter of property – can the state make you destroy something you legally purchased? And, if you don’t destroy something you LEGALLY purchased, can they then make you a felon?

    TL;DR – it was a slippery slope to a precedent of “destroy your private property or go to jail.” That doesn’t fly in the USA.

  • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

    The really sad part is that the way the law is worded, it’s illegal for a CA resident to sell a large-capacity magazine. Period.

    You cannot offer one for sale. Period. That means even if you wanted to comply with this law so you decide to sell your large-capacity magazines to say, someone in Texas, you’re still violating the law.

    So you have to get rid of them, but you can’t even legally “offer for sale” your mags to a legal state.

  • Mystick

    …a federal judge in California made this ruling? He’ll be out of a job soon.

  • David Bickenson

    Can the rest of the US of A please start a process whereby CA is forced out of the Union?
    Is there a precedent for this? If not then create the precedent!
    Roll on the next massive earthquake.

  • Mr. Katt

    Anyone laying odds on how long it takes for the 9th Circus Court of Appeals to reverse this?

  • Jim_Macklin

    A temporary injunction meaning the State will appeal to the 9th Circuit. If the 9th Circuit over turns the injunction it will certainly go to the SCOTUS and Thomas and Gorsuch will makes it nationwide.
    It is just a skirmish in the war that we have won, the war goes on.

  • uncle bobedy

    The judges words set up a slam dunk for a Supreme court case to re-energize the meaning of the second amendment in the land of gun droughts, CA. I got the lump in my throat reading a clearly brilliant writer who understands that regardless of what some political views may be, that the people of even THIS state have a right that TRANSCENDS gun control. A glorious read, but, my joy is tempered by the pending ruling of the 9th Circus which is bound by unholy writ to find every way possible to deny and destroy the right of the people of California to arm themselves in the manner that their conscious affords them.

  • jerry young

    That’s a good first step to freedom, now get rid of the idiots that keep trying to take freedom away because they are appalled at the fact you have something they consider dangerous, start taking away their rights and see how they like it I’ll bet not

  • woah great news!

  • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

    63% of the voters want someone with a gun to come and take your gun magazines away? Gee, maybe there is no hope. What kind of insanity? Just goes to prove…it is no longer California. It’s Commiefornia.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      And are willing to have the cops kill you over it–because that’s what ANY law ultimately comes to.

  • bthomas

    Very good to see that a judge followed the COTUS!

  • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

    I like that one.

    • supergun

      Thanks. We live in scary times. Your comment above says it all about the 9 humans. Several years ago I use to get comments from hair brains saying, “Where is anyone trying to take your guns”? Well look at kalipornia, where they have threatened people with felonies if they don’t give up their magazines. If they can ban the AR, then they can ban any weapon. Next they will come for the ammo.

  • Johnboy70

    I thought it was a typo a judge in California. Holy crap what is going on out there a little flash of freedom!!!

  • Old Gringo

    In my life I have visited family or went to California as much as once per year. Because of the goofy gun laws I started boycotting them more than 10 years ago and now will never go back, except maybe for a funeral. I even try and not order things from Amazon that ship from California. If everyone would do the same, and tell them why you are boycotting them it would actually help. I do the same with New York, Mass, and a couple others.OldGringo

  • HR Pufnstuf

    I didn’t realize they had tried to ban “high capacity magazines.” I thought they only sought to ban STANDARD capacity magazines – 20 and 30 rounds, as supplied by the manufacturers.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Which is as the judge said.

      I’ve always been amused that people who know nothing about guns want to define what constitutes “large” or “Dangerous.”

  • Mark Allan Chamberlain

    This needs to happen for Colorado too, we have stupid magazine restrictions also.

  • disqus_1IXWD6GbBr

    Hand them over to law enforcement?
    What, after emptying them in the same manner?
    Oh, wait, they was inflammatory.
    Never mind.

  • carlcasino

    See my remarks above. Thomas Jefferson was adamant that it was not only a right but a DUTY to “be at all times armed”. The REVISIONIST’s are attempting to re-write history, I believe for nefarious reasons . i.e, The Holocaust NEVER HAPPENED, Twin Towers was a CIA inspired conspiracy. The America I knew is being rejected for What??

  • “The Stranger”

    Kudo’s to the Judge…must be a gun owner..

  • RyeOnHam

    Uh, the ‘nation’ did not place anything in the hands of the supreme court. The founding fathers did this as a check against tyranny. Mark, I do not understand why you think this is nuts or wrong. What is nuts is that the two-party system in America put up a wack-job of a woman and a buffoon of a man to choose from… meaning we 350 million people had no choice in THAT matter.

    • Tp

      Whats NUTS is that we vote people into offices based on their promises, and they are legally allowed to do just the opposite once they are voted in (most do), they should be bound to their word, or removed, and this goes for all elected officials

      • RyeOnHam

        I think voters are generally better at picking a candidate than you think. They tend to pick the lesser of two evils and hope that they don’t get screwed over too hard. It’s a very naive person who believes what comes out of the mouth of a politician.

  • Richard Lutz

    Surely if a majority of voters want to ban high capacity magazines, ban free speech, or murder Jewish children, their views must be respected.

  • Ku

    It’s just amazing how something UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN COMMIEFORNIA – is just FINE in NY & CT.

    I’m DONE with living with my Second Amendment rights EFFECTIVELY REPEALED!

  • RegT

    The CA Supreme Court will certainly rule in favor of the law. If they don’t, the Ninth Circuit federal court will.

    This is the problem with our judicial system – the liberal legislatures see no problem with allowing a majority (of those who bother to vote) to force _everyone_ to suffer the loss of their natural rights, and the courts – packed with liberal judges by Obama – rule in their favor (normally). Two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.

    I’d love to see a law passed (by a majority of those who voted) that would force Democrat legislators to appear in public naked from the waist down. Especially in the winter.