U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez Upholds 2nd Amendment Striking Down The California High Capacity Magazine Ban
In an outstanding win for patriotism and freedom in the United States, Federal Judge Roger Benitez ruled Friday March 29th 2019 that the California high capacity magazine ban is unconstitutional and unenforceable. This is a monumental change considering the time frame of nearly two decades during which the purchase of high capacity magazines was deemed illegal in the state of Califormia, which held a prohibition against buying said magazines since 2000. It is abundantly clear that criminals have and will continue to have the ability to access and possess devastating weaponry regardless of any statute, ordinance or law.
Now for the specifics, in 2016 the votes showed Proposition 63 had passed outlawing the possession of magazines capable of holding in excess of ten rounds. However the enforcement of said ruling had yet to take effect do to legal process and challenges.
US District Court Judge Roger Benitez statement includes the following quote: “millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense. This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test.“ District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) As a result of “A few mad men with guns and ammunition” California’s law “turns millions of responsible law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals” and “individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts.”
Judge Benitez went on to state that magazines with greater than 10 capacities are “arms” by definition of the U.S. Constitution, and the California law “burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.”
Benitez also touched on the topic of mass-shootings emphasized by the ban’s chief proponent Gov. Gavin Newson as “exceedingly rare” especially when contrasted against the every day violent robberies, murders and rapes that firearms can and do prevent.
Examples of applicable instances cited by Judge Benitez are several home invasion cases involving women who’s lack of additional rounds made a vital difference in the outcome of the incident.
One case involving a lone women wearing only her pajamas who faced three armed attackers. Luckily in this case she had the presence of mind to call for help with one hand while firing at the intruders with the other. “She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911,” stated Benitez. The women fatally shot one attacker while the two accomplices managed to escape.
Conversely two other cases in the same vein were cited where women in similar situations ran out of ammo. I can only venture imagine that impedance of firing accuracy is a likelihood when surprised and abruptly aroused from sleep by armed men. In such instances a high capacity magazine necessarily affords the home occupant the essential ability to defend with necessary force and sustained resistance against attackers. The value of additional rounds especially for a lone woman again armed intruders is immeasurable and can absolutely mean the difference between life and death, or rape etc.
On March 29, 2019 Benitez’s ruling striking down the California high capacity magazine ban officially and lawfully precludes California Attorney General Xavier Becerra from attempting to enforce the ban.
As we may have expected The National Rifle Association cheerfully supports the ruling, and are quoted as saying Benitez “handed Second Amendment supporters a sweeping victory.” Their statement of avid advocacy for the constitutionally congruent ruling further included that the people of Californians are “safer and freer, at least for the time being.”
Public statements from NRA and California Rifle & Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel include the following: “We’re still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he stuck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one,” Michel further stated that the ruling “recognizes that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and that the state has to meet a high burden before it can pass a law that infringes on the right to keep or bear arms,”
Unhappy opposing critics who remain in support of Proposition 63 include then Lt. Gov Gavin Newsom, who naturally was a major proponent of the ban. Newsom’s statement follows “This District Court Judge’s failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law. I strongly disagree with the court’s assessment that ‘the problem of mass shootings is very small.’ Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast.” Protection of law enforcement was also mentioned.
Judge Benitez who clearly understands and upholds our Second Amendment right went on to state that this right to possess Firearms is “a check on tyranny” and “This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual Freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then and it is not free now.”
Upon researching the fine print of the proposed California high capacity magazine ban one discovers further restrictions upon the freedoms of the people afforded by the Second Amendment of the United Sates Constitution in the name of ‘protecting the people’. These additional provisions included requirement of background checks when purchasing ammunition, enforcement of lost firearm reporting procedures and, you guessed it, gun confiscations.