California gets a constitutional SLAPDOWN in federal court over 10-round magazine ban!!

A federal court just slapped down the state government of California for trying to abridge the Second Amendment by banning magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Legal person Gabriel Malor has a good series of tweets summing up the decision, though it’s a little long:



Click on the tweet to read the rest of his summary. A good day for gun rights in California, however, especially since it’s on the basis of the Heller decision.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

55 thoughts on “California gets a constitutional SLAPDOWN in federal court over 10-round magazine ban!!

  1. Hopefully California will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court so they have to rule on this (in the positive!) so NYers can benefit from it. We have an over 10 round magazine ban. I guess that’s better then the over 7 round magazine ban these idiots started with – they changed it because that would mean all cops would be breaking the law lol

    1. Same with Colorado our government is a adding the red flag confiscation bill. Most of the counties in Colorado have already declared they will not follow the state laws. Even my front range sheriffs are not enforcing the magazine limits.

      Denver controls the state and needs to become a separate state so the rest of us can have some representation in DC and over our own lives. Wyoming has the proper representation with 2 Senators and 1 House member for 510,000 people.

  2. This is a very common sense, sane and rational argument. Given that, we already know that the left will scream at the top of their lungs because it makes too much sense.

  3. This is good, but SCOTUS declined to hear GOA’s suit against the bump stock ban. This is far more important IMO, because it could affect semi autos of all kinds. Also, the ‘red flag’ law is coming up for vote. Flimsy Graham is pushing S. 7 and S. 506, “Extreme Risk Protection Order”(s), which basically gives the government the right to have a hearing, without your presence, based upon a neighbor, doctor, family member, etc., who says that you are a danger to yourself or others. Here is the text of S. 7, scroll down to SEC. 3042 (B).
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/7/text
    Also, I’d like to add that President Tromp said, “You can do what you’re saying but take the guns first, then due process.” so if this passes both house, he will sign it.
    https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/trump-take-guns-first-then-due-process
    Don’t be deceived by this small victory into thinking that your rights are not under attack.

    1. Arrrgh! This so annoys me! It seems like everyone has forgotten the intent of the 2nd Amendment, even the judge in this case who kept citing how if the gun is already in use by reasonable citizens. That’s bunk. The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow the citizens to be armed against a tyrannical Government. That means there is no weapon that should be unconstitutional for a citizen to own. That includes nukes, which of course I wouldn’t want a citizen to have, but… that was the intent of 2A. If people forget the main intent of 2A, which apparently they have, we will continue to see an erosion of our rights and our security as a FREE PEOPLE.

      1. @paladin People seem to have forgotten that Cornwallis attacked Lexington and Concord to seize privately owned muskets, rifles and cannon.

        1. @dr-strangelove Name the tyrannical Government that didn’t first confiscate the guns of the citizenry. I was listening to the radio Friday where a Venezuelan stated Hugo Chavez did that in Venezuala. Unbelievable how people forget history.

          1. @paladin Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chaves, and that’s just a small sample. Here, they are seizing our rights incrementally, with ‘common sense’ laws which make no sense at all, except to a dictatorial mindset.

            1. @dr-strangelove As a visionary in Georgia back in the 90’s stated Jesus told her; for the false lure of safety and security, the Americans will give up their Freedoms.

              1. @paladin The way things have been going, I don’t expect too many people to fight for their rights. Especially the whiny millenials, who are living in the most prosperous age ever.

                1. @dr-strangelove Sadly history has shown that people rarely do. Law abiding citizens continue to be law abiding citizens until well after the laws are life threatening. Most people just want to live their lives and be left alone. People don’t usually stand up and fight until it’s too late.

                2. @paladin You’ve provided a truth that so many people are afraid to admit to. People are not to be blamed for wanting to be left alone to live their lives because that’s what we all want. However, people won’t get out of their comfort zones to deal with fighting the leftists until they are backed into a corner. Thanks to Obama, the conservatives have been backed into a corner and are fighting back.

                3. Yep, to boil it down to the most basic ingredient,
                  it is COMPLACENCY which is why we are here today. Too many complacent voters leading up to this.
                  EDIT: I will admit, I’ve been guilty of this as well but no more.

                4. @dr-strangelove We can blame ourselves for being bad stewards of our society and thus for why the millennials are being indoctrinated by leftists via our education system. The leftists have rewritten our history. We stood by and did nothing to stop them because we were too naive, gullible and trusting to comprehend what was happening.

                5. Well Doc, you know the saying:
                  Strong men breed good times.
                  Good times breed weak men,
                  weak men breed hard times,
                  hard times breeds strong men.
                  See number one.
                  It’s a viscous circle for sure.

                6. @the-sane-silence-dogood “I see them ol’ hard times to come.” – Gangsta Grass

            2. @dr-strangelove Absolutely spot on.

              In 1956 Russian leader, Nikkita Khrushchev said, “We will take America without firing a shot. We do not have to invade the U.S. We will destroy you from within.” The slow walking of leftist ideology began in earnest in the sixties with the rise in “communes” and the talk of having a cultural revolution. Remember the saying, “No one over thirty can be trusted”? The leftists used the entertainment industry to begin their leftist indoctrination.

              1. @conserve-58 Absolutely. I remember him saying, “We will destroy you.” Many people took it as an immediate threat, when he was actually referring to a long range plan.

          2. @paladin According to the Communist Manifesto the confiscation of the citizenry’s guns is the first step in assuming control over the masses.

      2. @paladin @dr-strangelove It is important that SCOTUS’ ruling on Heller be understood. From Justice Scalia’s majority opinion on Heller, in his own words:

        2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    2. @dr-strangelove @paladin

      Amendment II

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      1. In discussing the bump stock ban, we must remind others how that ban came to be. Bump stock ban wasn’t a congressionally passed law. It was an EO that ordered DoJ to issue a regulation, which makes SCOTUS’ refusal to hear the regulatory decision even more of a threat to 2A. It broadened DoJ’s autonomous authority as a regulatory agency on 2A. That’s dangerous to any right and in this case, a serious threat to 2A. The sooner we scale back regulatory agency authority, the better off we’ll be on all fronts. Kavanaugh is supposedly big on that idea. We’ll see.

      2. I agree Graham’s bill is an attack on 2A. Odds are that if McConnell brings this bill to the floor, it would pass because of “do something”. It’s worrisome whether SCOTUS would refuse to hear challenges to this. SCOTUS appears to be in the frame of mind to strike at 2A. In a court rebuke, Justice Gorsuch called the 2A “a less favored right” but a right that deserves to be heard nonetheless. From Obamacare to refusal to hear 2A challenges, Chief Judas Roberts’ refusal to uphold the Constitution on all matters is quite telling of his inner fascist.

      Trump’s post Parkland response attacking due process was emotional and completely uninformed. He’s since been educated on due process through Kavanaugh hearings. Trump didn’t understand the 2A. He believed it was for hunting. He had no understanding of its true intent. He’s since publicly mentioned several times the proper intent of the 2A, which is his way of saying “I was wrong”. I don’t believe Trump would sign Graham’s bill because Trump’s base would turn on him like rabid dogs. Frankly, we need to re-elect Trump.

      FYI, Texas already has extreme risk protection law of sorts. (I won’t get into the details of it here though.) The majority of Texans still believe in the 2A for its primary purpose of protecting one from a government run amuck plus self-defense.

      The Constitution lays forth the method for repealing an Amendment. It’s not legal for Congress to unilaterally decide to end run Amendment II.

      Shall not be infringed… 3%

      1. @golfcartone I agree, but what if there’s another Parkland or Sandy Hook when this bill comes up? Who’s to say that Tromp (and congress) won’t have another overemotional, knee-jerk reaction?

        1. @dr-strangelove Tell me, who else is talking about protecting the 2A? Even Cruz dropped his 2A ads for his re-election bid. Cruz did talk about the 2A on the trail and emphasized he’d protect it but no ads. Even Gov Abbott led a panel on solutions for mass shootings. He’s implemented some new programs that seek to identify emotionally disturbed TX students. There’s more he did, as well. Abbott (Mr. NRA)! Trump’s it. We need to re-elect him.

          1. @GolfCartOne I’d have more confidence in him if he reversed his position on the bump stock ban.

  4. How come NY’s ban on large clips was upheld in Federal court? They lost the right to own clips over 7 I think it was?

  5. Oregon is being attacked with a new law that restricts where you can CC. I’m just now researching it. Stand strong and ammo up!!!

  6. California citizens continue to lose parts of the Second Amendment. When a full proof decision comes down and slaps our law makers in the jaw as this one has done, maybe they will cease their attacks and leave our Second Amendment alone.

  7. Alright California. Stock up while you can. Time to make Magpul a billion dollar company.

    1. @golfcartone I posted the text of S. 7 above, one of the ‘red flag’ laws coming up in the Senate.

  8. The Left is so ignorant about guns. They think every gun is a machine gun. Some of them even go so far as to think your trigger finger can replicate a machine gun. I just can’t take them seriously on the topic but, unfortunately, for us we have to take their damn threats to the 2A seriously.

  9. I d/l’d the ruling to review later (when I’m not enjoying a cigar by the fire pit).

    But hard to say this won’t reach into other state rulings, like New Jersey.

    Gabe is a basic, “good guy” conservative, who happens to be openly gay, and who was a major co-blogger at AoSHQ until the big rift over Trump sundered connections there.

    I followed Gabe for years on the tweet thingy, until he started in on gay marriage and being NeverTrump. Obama and Obergefell pulled a lot of gay conservatives over to the Dim Side of the force.

    But clearly Gabe is following this ruling closely, so good on ‘im.

    1. @k-bob This is good, but S. 7 and S. 506, the ‘red flag’ laws are coming up in the Senate. If they pass, they will be able to seize firearms without due process.

    1. @slantry Have you taken a look at S. 7 and S. 506? I posted the text of S. 7 above. It appears that these ‘red flag’ laws being proposed will give the courts the power to seize firearms and ammunition in violation of due process.

  10. Plus, let’s be real, the Courts could say anything they want. There’s zero tracking on the sale of magazines. There is no way they could possibly enforce this. What, are they going to go door-to-door of the registered gun owners and check?

    Here’s what I’d do: “Why sure Officer Blue Lives Whatever, feel free to check each of my guns. So glad you’re on the side of the Constitution btw. Anyway, they all have a 10-round magazine. That’s the only magazine I have for it wink wink.”

    What I won’t show them is what’s in my gun safe. And without a warrant, they ain’t getting in. And I’m armed in the event that they try.

    So stupid.

    Gun control is retarded. There’s more guns than people, and the people aren’t going to give them up. Why do they even posture with this nonsense.

    1. Actually, if S. 7 or S. 506 pass, they will be able to take every gun and bit of ammunition you have without due process. I posted the text of S. 7 above.

        1. This is federal, sponsored by none other than Flimsy Graham. Some states already have ‘red flag’ laws, though.

      1. I think you confuse “will be allowed” with “will be able.”

        Because I f-ing dare them to try.

  11. So this is in California, but this won’t have an affect on NY until it reaches SCOTUS?

Comments are closed.