I'm hopeful, but it'll most likely go the way of the Peruta case.  Hopefully the supreme court picks this one up.

I'm hopeful, but it'll most likely go the way of the Peruta case.  Hopefully the supreme court picks this one up.

There is nothing to be hopeful about...the issue is not capacity, but deprivation of property. CA lawmakers will most likely amend the law to give the option of modification/neutering standard capacity magazines.

According to the article it's a two pronged approach, 2nd amendment violations and no compensation/due process.

The restraining order was sought by the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., which argued that the ban on large-capacity magazines violates both the 2nd Amendment rights of Californians to bear arms as well as protections against taking property without due process or compensation.

According to the article it's a two pronged approach, 2nd amendment violations and no compensation/due process.

The restraining order was sought by the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., which argued that the ban on large-capacity magazines violates both the 2nd Amendment rights of Californians to bear arms as well as protections against taking property without due process or compensation.

Yes, I read the entire article too.  Requiring the disposal of lawfully acquired property is what merited the granting of injunctive relief. It's just a temporary reprieve for CA residents and a chance for their legislature to "fix" it.

At the request of attorneys for the National Rifle Assn., U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez issued a preliminary injunction blocking a law that requires Californians to dispose of large-capacity ammunition magazines by Saturday or face fines and possible jail time.

Understand that I'm not agreeing with or supportive of this poorly thought out law.  Just being realistic...After almost 23 years of magazine capacity restrictions, a person stands a better chance of hitting the next 3 Megabucks Lottery jackpots than having a mag capacity case reaching SCOTUS.

I read somewhere that if this would pertain to mags purchased before the 10rd limit.  So more of a grandfathered in clause.  With the new bill, even grandfathered in mags would have to be turned in.

Just emailed every Hawaii state legislator:

Your Duty to Repeal Unconstitutional Hawaii Law in Accord with Federal District Court Ruling

Yesterday a ruling was issued in Federal District Court for a preliminary injunction against California's ban on possession of firearm magazines of greater than 10 round capacity which was scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2017. The arguments by Judge Benitez in issuing that preliminary injunction are extensive and diverse, all of which conclude that such a ban on such magazines is unconstitutional.

You, as a Hawaii legislator, have taken an oath to support and uphold both the U.S. Constitution and the Hawaii State Constitution, both of which read identically that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Hawaii's law banning possession of handgun magazines of greater than 10 rounds is identical to the California law stayed by Judge Benitez, and is unconstitutional for precisely the same legal and factual reasons. Therefore it is your duty, as it always has been, to restore the Constitutionally-protected pre-existing right of Hawaii residents to possess such magazines by abolishing the Hawaii statutes that unconstitutionally ban them and make criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens who possess them.

I urge to you fulfill your oath of office and restore the rights of Hawaii citizens by introducing, supporting, and voting for a law that will abolish the existing unconstitutional ban on handgun magazines of greater than 10 rounds (Senator Gabbard's SB213 would increase the limit to 17 rather than 10, but NO LIMIT would really be the only Constitutionally-valid solution).

Links to both the actual injunction issued by Judge Benitez, and a Washington Post article summarizing are included below, as is the text for the entire Washington Post article.

Thank you,
[punaperson]

Ruling for injunction by Judge Benitez: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Calif.Guns_.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/30/federal-court-enjoins-california-large-capacity-magazine-confiscation/

[Full text of Washington Post article followed.]

I read somewhere that if this would pertain to mags purchased before the 10rd limit.  So more of a grandfathered in clause.  With the new bill, even grandfathered in mags would have to be turned in.

California banned acquisition of any magazine over 10 round capacity in 2000, but grandfathered those possessed prior to that date (no "transfer" of any kind was allowed, including bequest upon death of a legal owner, etc.). As Judge Benitez so eloquently put it in the first sentence of his 66 page smackdown: "On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime."

This has nothing to do with the ban being unconscionable, but only to do with the seizure of property, it's a 5th amendment case not a second .

This has nothing to do with the ban being unconscionable, but only to do with the seizure of property, it's a 5th amendment case not a second .

"Unconscionable"? That may be, but perhaps you had another word in mind ("unconstitutional"?)?

Actually, only 5 pages of the 66 page decision is related to "seizure of property", aka "takings": B. The Government Takings Claim pp. 59-64

Virtually the entire rest of the 66 pages is regarding whether the Second Amendment is violated by the statute. It's a good read. Here are just a few of the quotes that demonstrate it's clearly all about the Second Amendment:

E. Two Questions

Ultimately, this case asks two questions. “Does a law-abiding responsible citizen have a right to defend his home from criminals using whatever common magazine size he
or she judges best suits the situation? Does that same citizen have a right to keep and bear a common magazine that is useful for service in a militia?

A. The Second Amendment – Certain Policy Choices Are off the Table

Thus, that which the State defines as a “large capacity magazine” will be analyzed according to Second Amendment principles. This is the theater of operations in which the constitutional battle will be fought.

2. Second Amendment Tests

This affects a Constitutionally protected right.

It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the constitutional rights of other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

[Section on “slippery slope”:]

What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition. They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use. Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope. A downhill slide
is not hard to foresee.

Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17-round magazines. If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines. If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use shotguns and revolvers. All of these scenarios already occur. Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.13 Criminals intent on violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons. The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law. Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement
officers from gun violence.

The Second Amendment takes the policy choice away from state government. To give full life to the core right of self-defense of the home, every law-abiding responsible United States citizen has a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear a handgun (a handgun being the quintessential weapon of choice). Pistols are handguns. Pistols are designed to use magazines of various capacities and some of the most popular come standard with 15 or 17 round magazines.

Here, there are no legislative findings as the statutory provisions in effect are the product of a voter initiative. The initiative contains findings. But to the extent the findings are relevant, they expresses a purpose that affronts the over-arching ideal of the Second Amendment.

The rationale [for the ban on possession of magazines of greater than 10 round capacity] is anathema to the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. It is a right naturally possessed by regular, law-abiding responsible citizens, whom are neither reliant upon, nor subservient to, a privileged, powerful, professional police state.

To borrow a phrase, it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of public safety and reducing gun violence, statutes were permitted to subvert the public’s Second Amendment rights – which may repel criminal gun violence and which ultimately ensure the safety of the Republic.

The same is true for Second Amendment rights. Their loss constitutes irreparable injury. Perhaps even more so in this context, where additional rounds may save lives, and where Plaintiffs and those like them will irrevocably lose possession and use of their magazines upon delivery to the police to be destroyed, or upon sale to a firearms dealer who will have little market for resale, or upon shipment somewhere out of state. The right to keep and bear arms protects tangible and intangible interests which cannot be compensated by damages.

The public interest favors the exercise of Second Amendment rights by lawabiding responsible citizens. And it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a person’s constitutional rights.

[From “Conclusion”:]

The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits close to the core of the Second Amendment and is more than a slight burden.

"Unconscionable"? That may be, but perhaps you had another word in mind ("unconstitutional"?)?

Actually, only 5 pages of the 66 page decision is related to "seizure of property", aka "takings": B. The Government Takings Claim pp. 59-64

Virtually the entire rest of the 66 pages is regarding whether the Second Amendment is violated by the statute. It's a good read. Here are just a few of the quotes that demonstrate it's clearly all about the Second Amendment:

E. Two Questions

Ultimately, this case asks two questions. “Does a law-abiding responsible citizen have a right to defend his home from criminals using whatever common magazine size he
or she judges best suits the situation? Does that same citizen have a right to keep and bear a common magazine that is useful for service in a militia?

A. The Second Amendment – Certain Policy Choices Are off the Table

Thus, that which the State defines as a “large capacity magazine” will be analyzed according to Second Amendment principles. This is the theater of operations in which the constitutional battle will be fought.

2. Second Amendment Tests

This affects a Constitutionally protected right.

It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the constitutional rights of other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

[Section on “slippery slope”:]

What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition. They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use. Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope. A downhill slide
is not hard to foresee.

Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17-round magazines. If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines. If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use shotguns and revolvers. All of these scenarios already occur. Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.13 Criminals intent on violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons. The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law. Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement
officers from gun violence.

The Second Amendment takes the policy choice away from state government. To give full life to the core right of self-defense of the home, every law-abiding responsible United States citizen has a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear a handgun (a handgun being the quintessential weapon of choice). Pistols are handguns. Pistols are designed to use magazines of various capacities and some of the most popular come standard with 15 or 17 round magazines.

Here, there are no legislative findings as the statutory provisions in effect are the product of a voter initiative. The initiative contains findings. But to the extent the findings are relevant, they expresses a purpose that affronts the over-arching ideal of the Second Amendment.

The rationale [for the ban on possession of magazines of greater than 10 round capacity] is anathema to the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. It is a right naturally possessed by regular, law-abiding responsible citizens, whom are neither reliant upon, nor subservient to, a privileged, powerful, professional police state.

To borrow a phrase, it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of public safety and reducing gun violence, statutes were permitted to subvert the public’s Second Amendment rights – which may repel criminal gun violence and which ultimately ensure the safety of the Republic.

The same is true for Second Amendment rights. Their loss constitutes irreparable injury. Perhaps even more so in this context, where additional rounds may save lives, and where Plaintiffs and those like them will irrevocably lose possession and use of their magazines upon delivery to the police to be destroyed, or upon sale to a firearms dealer who will have little market for resale, or upon shipment somewhere out of state. The right to keep and bear arms protects tangible and intangible interests which cannot be compensated by damages.

The public interest favors the exercise of Second Amendment rights by lawabiding responsible citizens. And it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a person’s constitutional rights.

[From “Conclusion”:]

The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits close to the core of the Second Amendment and is more than a slight burden.

While I'm no fan of the weird dude that talks funny...I believe unconscionable is what he meant and is correct, when it comes to depriving people of property without due process.

Paraphrasing my least favorite law professor: Reading without truly understanding, then (wrongly) interpreting and quoting (from) to support that is ignorant and dangerous. None of it changes the what's and why's of a court order.  Make sure you understand.

Don't take it as a personal slight of your thoughts/beliefs in your post. It's just a simple reminder that court documents are written in such a way that can often obscure the point being made. Basically there is a lot of blah, blah, blah in the body to show the thought and reasoning for the argument/decision. It doesn't matter if that take up 2 or 200 pages, the true "meat" of the order and only thing of merit is always found near the end, usually before a judgment is declaration.

And for the purposes of what is being discussed:

If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property. That is a choice they should not have to make. Not on this record.

So again, while a small victory, it's not a declaration against magazine capacity. If it were, the injunction would cover all of CA PC 32310.

I'm not saying their supposition is accurate, but my understanding with their philosophy is that the mass shooter in a public location will have to reload three times with 10-round mags compared with one 30-round mag. While reloading, the public could rush and tackle the perp before he can place another mag in the rifle. Theoretically, this is also the idea behind the bullet button, AFAIK. Of course, this also assumes that the mass shooter isn't wearing a pocket vest and instead has the mags in a duffel bag that he has to open and pull out the fresh mag which seems to be the case with most mass shooters.

I'm not saying their supposition is accurate, but my understanding with their philosophy is that the mass shooter in a public location will have to reload three times with 10-round mags compared with one 30-round mag. While reloading, the public could rush and tackle the perp before he can place another mag in the rifle. Theoretically, this is also the idea behind the bullet button, AFAIK. Of course, this also assumes that the mass shooter isn't wearing a pocket vest and instead has the mags in a duffel bag that he has to open and pull out the fresh mag which seems to be the case with most mass shooters.

Most mass shooters had more than one weapon.  One runs out, they can switch weapons and find cover to reload.  They also have the ability to do tactical reloads when there is an opportunity.

Most "public" are running for the exits and sheltering in place.  It's rare that anyone tries to rush a man shooting people randomly in the head.

And if one thinks an empty mag is an invitation to rush the shooter, one should watch this:

Agreed. There were a few times where the public was able to tackle the mass shooter while reloading so they assume this can happen every time. About ten years ago, a shooter on a LA train was tackled while reloading which started all this I believe.

Most mass shooters had more than one weapon.  One runs out, they can switch weapons and find cover to reload.  They also have the ability to do tactical reloads when there is an opportunity.

Most "public" are running for the exits and sheltering in place.  It's rare that anyone tries to rush a man shooting people randomly in the head.

And if one thinks an empty mag is an invitation to rush the shooter, one should watch this:

[video]

I'm not saying their supposition is accurate, but my understanding with their philosophy is that the mass shooter in a public location will have to reload three times with 10-round mags compared with one 30-round mag. While reloading, the public could rush and tackle the perp before he can place another mag in the rifle. Theoretically, this is also the idea behind the bullet button, AFAIK. Of course, this also assumes that the mass shooter isn't wearing a pocket vest and instead has the mags in a duffel bag that he has to open and pull out the fresh mag which seems to be the case with most mass shooters.

Agreed. There were a few times where the public was able to tackle the mass shooter while reloading so they assume this can happen every time. About ten years ago, a shooter on a LA train was tackled while reloading which started all this I believe.

We all know the "high capacity magazine" ban is just another in the never-ending steps to eventually get to the only "solution" that will truly "end gun violence", and that, or course, is to confiscate every possible firearm (from law-abiding citizens where there is some record somewhere of their possession, as opposed to criminals who have black market or stolen firearms)  in an attempt to establish complete and total civilian disarmament. We all know that none of these "half measures" can possibly work to "end gun violence", and the  advocates know full well they can't work, and thus are back at the trough the very next day asserting that "more needs to be done" because "we need more laws to stem the tide of gun violence". It's all a charade. It all has one goal in mind. These minor steps along the way are merely "political theater", in this case making some bogus argument that even though there are almost no instances of what they say may happen if this law is enforced, it could happen anyway... and if it doesn't they'll just have take "the next step". Just wait.

Agreed.

I wonder if any Cops have ever been trained to rush an active shooter during a reload?

I'm sure if a Cop, or anyone else, sees the shooter fumbling with his magazine or attempting to clear a malfunction they can decide for themselves if they want to risk getting shot, but most realistic training frowns on heroics.

Maybe our resident HPD rep here can add some facts to the discussion?   

Cops have guns and look for (love) the opportunity to use them. I doubt they would rush an active shooter when they could just shoot them.

While I'm no fan of the weird dude that talks funny...I believe unconscionable is what he meant and is correct, when it comes to depriving people of property without due process.

Paraphrasing my least favorite law professor: Reading without truly understanding, then (wrongly) interpreting and quoting (from) to support that is ignorant and dangerous. None of it changes the what's and why's of a court order.  Make sure you understand.

Don't take it as a personal slight of your thoughts/beliefs in your post. It's just a simple reminder that court documents are written in such a way that can often obscure the point being made. Basically there is a lot of blah, blah, blah in the body to show the thought and reasoning for the argument/decision. It doesn't matter if that take up 2 or 200 pages, the true "meat" of the order and only thing of merit is always found near the end, usually before a judgment is declaration.

And for the purposes of what is being discussed:
So again, while a small victory, it's not a declaration against magazine capacity. If it were, the injunction would cover all of CA PC 32310.

I believe that any "infringement" (and please, it's a relatively simple word and concept) is "unconscionable" as they are always undertaken by politicians, judges (but I repeat myself) and law enforcement who have sworn an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The poster of that word has in the past written "several" words that appeared to be put in place by "auto correct" or "auto spell check" or "auto word select" software. "Unconscionable" works for me.

What would your least favorite law professor's comments be re "wrongly interpreting and quoting" as "ignorant and dangerous" as applied to SCOTUS justices who are on the losing side of a decision and then write and/or sign on to dissenting opinions where they essentially accuse the other side of wrongly interpreting precedent and/or inappropriately (selectively, out of context, partially, etc.) quoting precedent cases to bolster their arguments? A number of "high profile" cases (Roe v Wade, Obergefell, Heller, etc.) have been 5-4 decisions. Does the winning side get to claim "correct" "interpretation and quoting", while the four on the losing side are relegated to "ignorant and dangerous"? Or how does it work exactly? They can't both be "interpreting" correctly, since they come to opposite conclusions while looking at the exact same precedents.

Yes, I know the preliminary injunction was only for the dispossession of the magazines covered by Prop 63, but since the vast majority of the "blah, blah, blah... thought and reasoning" that forms the basis for the decision is based upon Second Amendment rights and interpretations, I believe it's "fair" to call this a Second Amendment case ("right to keep"). There may be a case to be made solely upon other legal grounds to issue a preliminary injunction in this case, but Judge Benitez clearly chose to base his arguments largely on various facets of the the Second Amendment rights as the grounds meriting the injunction. We won't know whether the attempt to invalidate other portions, or all, of CA PC 32310 will be successful until the trial. Certainly one can read the Benitez ruling as suggesting that it could be ruled invalid, again, on Second Amendment grounds.

Edited: fixed spelling and punctuation

I believe that any "infringement" (and please, it's a relatively simple word and concept) is "unconscionable" as they are always undertaken by politicians, judges (but I repeat myself) and law enforcement who have sworn an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The poster of that word has in the past written "several" words that appeared to be put in place by "auto correct" or "auto spell check" or "auto word select" software. "Unconscionable" works for me.

What would your least favorite law professor's comments be re "wrongly interpreting and quoting" as "ignorant and dangerous" as applied to SCOTUS justices who are on the losing side of a decision and then write and/or sign on to dissenting opinions where they essentially accuse the other side of wrongly interpreting precedent and/or inappropriately (selectively, out of context, partially, etc.) quoting precedent cases to bolster their arguments? A number of "high profile" cases (Roe v Wade, Obergefell, Heller, etc.) have been 5-4 decisions. Does the winning side get to claim "correct" "interpretation and quoting", while the four on the losing side are relegated to "ignorant and dangerous"? Or how does it work exactly? They can't both be "interpreting" correctly, since they come to opposite conclusions while looking at the exact same precedents.

Yes, I know the preliminary injunction was only for the dispossession of the magazines covered by Prop 63, but since the vast majority of the "blah, blah, blah... thought and reasoning" that forms the basis for the decision is based upon Second Amendment rights and interpretations, I believe it's "fair" to call this a Second Amendment case ("right to keep"). There may be a case to be made solely upon other legal grounds to issue a preliminary injunction in this case, but Judge Benitez clearly chose to base his arguments largely on various facets of the the Second Amendment rights as the grounds meriting the injunction. We won't know whether the attempt to invalidate other portions, or all, of CA PC 32310 will be successful until the trial. Certainly one can read the Benitez ruling as suggesting that it could be ruled invalid, again, on Second Amendment grounds.

Edited: fixed spelling and punctuation

I know the point you were trying to make and don't disagree. But I believe it is important that we all stop straying from so may of the topics being discussed.

As for the my professor, you're responding without context. The statement is about making assumptions after reading a court document, then failing to see what is being ordered.  Everyone should understand that one can make whatever argument they want when filing a claim, but the only thing that matters is what actually merited the decision...

However, from your response, it's clear that is not what you read. My response was about your reading and interpretation of the 66 page document (Reply #9 https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=28270.msg250390#msg250390). Where you quote pieces of the decision to support your argument that this injunction is a win for the 2nd Amendment.

Actually, only 5 pages of the 66 page decision is related to "seizure of property", aka "takings": B. The Government Takings Claim pp. 59-64

Virtually the entire rest of the 66 pages is regarding whether the Second Amendment is violated by the statute. It's a good read. Here are just a few of the quotes that demonstrate it's clearly all about the Second Amendment:

I'm just not going to get into your whole thought process your application to a SCOTUS decision, that is NOT what it's about.  So I'll just say it again differently. It does not matter if only 1 paragraph out of 1000 in a document addresses a particular matter of argued. If that 1 paragraph is the basis for judgement, that's all that is legally relevant and it's the only thing that'll be argued on appeal.  I'm trying keep things simple for a layperson to understand. If people want to jump up and cheer this as a 2nd Amendment victory (regarding of magazine capacity restrictions), by all means have at. Just know that many cases arguing the unconstitutionality of that issue have been filed...they don't get very far.