A California judge has sided with the people, the actual citizens of the People’s Republic of CA, at least for now. As you know, the ruling class in CA is attempting to further disarms the tax slaves with a new bill that allow confiscation of previously lawful property. Pay attention to this one.
Our SWAT Fuel Warrior of the Week has a question about what to do as an armed citizen in you need emergency medical attention. What can and should you expect to happen to your gun if you must go for an ambulance ride?
Today’s Homework: Text TRAIN to 844-207-7684
Topics Covered During This Episode:
- Get training notifications – Text TRAIN to 844-207-7684
- Warrior of the Week: Armed Citizen and First Responders
- Surprisingly good news, for now, from CA – Federal court had to halt state gun law: www.ocregister.com
FEATURING: madisonrising, ptjarrad, SOTGUniversity,
PARTNERS: BrownellsInc, froglube, crossbreedholsters, centuryarms, SWATfuel, DuraCoatFirearmFinishes, SilencerShop
FIND US ON: GunDistrict, iTunesUS, Stitcherradio, AppleTV, Roku, Amazon, GooglePlay, YouTube, Full30TV, InstagramEnglish, Facebook, twitterinc, tumblr
July 1 was the day that law-abiding Californians almost became criminals without leaving their homes or lifting a finger.
That’s when Proposition 63’s ban on the possession of high-capacity magazines, those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, was scheduled to go into effect.
To be clear, this law did not ban the sale or purchase of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, which has been illegal in California since 2000. Proposition 63 made it a crime simply to possess the magazines, which were legal when they were purchased and “grandfathered” as legal under the 2000 law.
Effective July 1, Proposition 63 required the owner of high-capacity magazines in California to sell them to a licensed dealer, move them out of state, turn them over to law enforcement, or become a criminal. The penalty? Up to $100 per magazine and a year in the county jail.
That was too much for a U.S. District Court in San Diego. Judge Roger Benitez agreed with the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the magazine ban that they would suffer irrevocable harm unless the enforcement of the law was halted while the lawsuit went forward. He issued a preliminary injunction just days before the law was to take effect.
Judge Benitez said the law was likely unconstitutional because the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms encompasses the right of an individual to use “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The court also agreed with the plaintiffs that confiscation of the magazines violated the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on the taking of property for public use without just compensation.
California gun owners have little choice but to rely on the federal courts to restore their rights when state or local authorities erase them. Nearly all states have a version of the Second Amendment in their state constitutions, but California does not.
That makes it easier for a local government, the state Legislature, or even the voters to pass an unconstitutional law that infringes the rights of gun owners, knowing that it will take years for a challenge to the law to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Latest posts by Jarrad Markel (see all)
- Behind the Scenes Development of Accur8 Night Sights - July 17th, 2018
- SOTG 706 – H.R. 38 National Carry Reciprocity Passes the House - December 11th, 2017
- SOTG 699 – Church Security: More than Guns - November 28th, 2017
- SOTG 697- Proof: Gun Control is Mind Control - November 23rd, 2017
- SOTG 696 – Banning Muzzleloaders: We’re not Kidding & Gains on the Go Follow Up - November 22nd, 2017