California Ban on ‘High’ Capacity Magazines Blocked by 9th Circuit Court

In a decision that was not at all surprising, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the lower court’s ruling on the constitutionality of California’s ban on magazines of “high” capacity.

Last month, a lower federal court judge declared this ban unconstitutional. On Tuesday, the larger “en-ba panel” stopped the decision from taking effect pending the state’s legal appeal.

The judges were divided along ideological lines. They concluded that California would likely prevail in its appeal, even if it were to use the more stringent gun laws test that the U.S. Supreme Court outlined last year.

Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court of Southern District of California issued a stay of ruling on March 29, 2019 Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a stay on March 29, 2019.

Californians were permitted to purchase magazines of any size. This only lasted a week. Californian gun owners called it “Freedom Week”. Californians bought 8 million magazines from March 29th to April 5th. Benitez then suspended his decision, allowing California to appeal. The Ninth Circuit reversed Benitez’s decision.

California’s law prohibiting these magazines came into effect in 2000. California’s law banning these magazines went into effect in 2000.

The SCOTUS recently ruled in the Bruen Case and ordered that this case be reheard. It was necessary for the courts to follow the guidelines set out by the majority in the Bruen Decision.

Conservatives and Second Amendment supporters remain hopeful despite the frustration they feel. They all agree that the liberal majority does not follow the standards set out in SCOTUS Bruen and that Robert Bonta’s arguments for the law are based solely on speculation and emotion, with no basis in legal theory.

In dissenting, the conservative minority in the panel called the majority’s positions “laughably absurd” and said they were part of a liberal trend by 9th Circuit judges, who “have given governments a blank cheque to restrict firearms as they please.”

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Circuit judge (a Trump appointment), accused the liberal majority of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association’s decision last year of ignoring not only the U.S. Constitution but also Supreme Court directives on how to analyze restrictions of the 2nd Amendment. Bruen.

The Supreme Court ruled that modern gun laws must be rooted in a historic law, or be analogous to one. They also have to be based on U.S. history or tradition.

Bumatay and the other conservative panel members criticized the majority’s failure to explain their belief that Bruen would be the most likely judge for the state to win the appeal.

Bumatay wrote in his opinion that the majority’s decision “didn’t engage in a serious debate about the Second Amendment text.” California shouldn’t be required to prove its constitutionality.

Bumatay wrote, “The Constitution and Californians deserve better.”

The left does not seem to realize that this magazine type is now standard for modern firearms. California governor Gavin Newsom and other Democrats gaslight gun owners by saying that they should not even own a firearm if they cannot hit their target within 10 rounds.

In my first encounter with a firefight, it was difficult to hear the weapons being fired. I was able to hear incoming shots better. In reality, they fired 12 rounds.

I’ve had guns in my life for over 18 years. I’ve shot competitively and I still do it when I can. I train regularly and still strive to be prepared with my weapon.

It is clear that the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the case. The events this week are only a bump in the road to the SCOTUS. We don’t know how long it will be, but we will get there.