On March 29, 2019 the Honorable Roger Benitz of the United Stated District Court – Southern District of California, has ruled that California’s law regarding magazine capacity is unconstitutional and has ordered summary judgement against the ban and instructed Attorny General Xavier Becerra to inform all law enforcement agencies statewide of the adjournment of California code 32310 is not longer enforceable.
In his 85 page ruling, the Judge found the law did not come close to constitutional. In his conclusion he wrote:
“Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, 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. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that lawabiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits lawabiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.
Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.
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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1) Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
2) Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
This ruling obviously is applicable to California only, however if the state elects to appeal this ruling, it will then be sent to a higher court which has wider jurisdiction in its rulings. If it makes it way to the SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, the outcome would be enforceable upon the entire country as was District of Columbia (DC) vs Heller, in which the SCOTUS ruled that the second amendment is not narrowly tailored to authorize the state to have a well armed militia but the second amendment also guarantees and individual the same right to bear arms.
The full court fulling can be found her but the conclusion can be found on page 85, line 24.