California Magazine Ban ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit

[DanClrk51]

The Second Amendment scored a victory in court on Friday. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a California ban on so-called large-capacity magazines (LCM) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-gun-control-law-banning-high-capacity-magazines-struck-down-by-9th-circuit/ar-BB17YsN6

[Jito463]

Now it's a matter of waiting to see how Commiefornia will respond.  They could request a panel of 11 judges to reconsider the case, and if that gets rejected, even take it to the SCOTUS.  However, I have a feeling that they might just take the loss, rather than risk the ruling going against them at the SCOTUS level.

[m morton]

September 2, 2020 story https://gatdaily.com/the-state-of-magazine-bans/

Yesterday, New Jersey’s ban on High Capacity Magazines was upheld by a 3-1 vote in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In contrast to the recent fall of the California ban, the New Jersey one has currently been upheld. The California AG has filed a petition for review to try and keep the ban in place, they are not going quietly back to liberty and giving up their control over their citizen’s second amendment rights.

The state, NJ, defended the law, which exempted active military and police officers as well as retired police officers, by arguing that it could save lives by forcing a mass shooter to pause to reload.

https://nj1015.com/nj-gun-control-measure-upheld-again-by-federal-judges/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

[Jito463]

by arguing that it could save lives by forcing a mass shooter to pause to reload.

I've heard that fallacy before, and while it's certainly possible, I wouldn't want to risk my life on that chance.  On the flip side, it also means that if you're attacked by multiple opponents (such as Rittenhouse recently, in Wisconsin), you may not have enough rounds to defend yourself from a full blown mob.