Federal Lawsuit Filed to Challenge California’s Ban on “Large-Capacity” Firearm Magazines

[livingston]

Federal Lawsuit Filed to Challenge California’s Ban on “Large-Capacity” Firearm Magazines
FRESNO, CA (April 28, 2017) — Today, attorneys for 7 individual gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds “on their own behalves, and as representatives on behalf of the class of individuals who are or would be affected by the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban.”

The civil rights case, captioned as William Wiese, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, and is supported by civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF).

A copy of the lawsuit’s complaint and its exhibits can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/wiese-becerra-complaint.

Federal Lawsuit Filed to Challenge California’s Ban on “Large-Capacity” Firearm Magazines - Gunmart Blog

 

[livingston]

SAF, Calguns Foundation, FPC file suit over magazine ban - Calguns.net
https://www.saf.org/saf-other-groups...-magazine-ban/

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by several other groups and individuals, today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California, challenging that state’s law prohibiting the possession, use or acquisition of so-called “large capacity magazines,” calling the ban “hopelessly vague and ambiguous.”

Joining SAF are the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation and six individuals including one retired California peace officer. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The complaint is a constitutional challenge to California Penal Code § 32310, as recently amended by Senate Bill 1446 and Proposition 63, and Penal Code § 32390 (the “Large-Capacity Magazine Ban”). The lawsuit alleges that if these measures are enforced as applied, they would “individually and collectively prohibit law-abiding citizens from continuing to possess, use, or acquire lawfully-owned firearms, in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense (inside and outside the home), competition, sport, and hunting.”

Read the comments section folks

 

[camper4lyfe]

I would love to know where these politicos keep coming up with 7 rounds as the "magic" number.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

This is good. Time to start getting our rights back. Time to fight in court.

Speaking of, rumors today justice Kennedy will be retiring. Sounds like trump is about to get SCOTUS pick number 2!!!

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I would love to know where these politicos keep coming up with 7 rounds as the "magic" number.

Because they know they can't openly ask for 0 or 1. They made 7 an arbitrary low capacity number.

 

[Phazer]

Because they know they can't openly ask for 0 or 1. They made 7 an arbitrary low capacity number.

Bingo!

If their goal is to eliminate guns, then zero is the only capacity that makes sense. That remains their goal. But, first they want to eliminate all magazine-fed firearms. California is the model for that approach since they have an "approved pistol list" for which no new semiautomatic pistols qualify.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

10 is just as arbitrary as 7.....the guns come from the factory with factory magazines and no matter how many rounds/capacity....until their is a federal law mandating maximum capacity on all manufactured guns...then all numbers are arbitrary

 

[Defilade]

Oh they filed a lawsuit? Check back in 5 years.

 

[JosERW]

Why did they file separately from the "aw" ban lawsuit? Now this is TWO cases that need cert in order for us to get our rights back.

 

[C3D]

I'm not impressed by lawyers who don't know that the word "behalf" has no plural form in the modern English language and use the obsolete term "behalves".

 

[RDN]

Original standard cap. for AR-15 was 20rds.
Some of these gun-grabbing / anti 2nd Amend. state limit their citizens to 15 or 10rds. These are arbitrary and whimsical limits.
And shouldn't pass simple rational bases in court, let alone Strict Scrutiny

 

[redtail]

SAF Doing a great job once again.

GIVE EM A BUCK OR TWO BOYS !!

 

[Vinson57]

I would love to know where these politicos keep coming up with 7 rounds as the "magic" number.

So far no one said something on 7, so why did you mention?

This is about 10 for all guns.

FUAC was the only person in the US that tried 7. It was already ended.

But it is a specific attack on gun laws that no one can justify, so money well spent and will easily be won.

 

[JosERW]

I still would like to know why they filed two lawsuits. Most likely both will not be granted cert.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

So far no one said something on 7, so why did you mention?

This is about 10 for all guns.

FUAC was the only person in the US that tried 7. It was already ended.

But it is a specific attack on gun laws that no one can justify, so money well spent and will easily be won.

It's not me but reports are going back to "10 round mags are legal with only 7 rounds" Anyone else here this ? I was sure the 7 round crap was shot down a couple years ago

 

[redtail]

It's not me but reports are going back to "10 round mags are legal with only 7 rounds" Anyone else here this ? I was sure the 7 round crap was shot down a couple years ago

Grey area by design.

 

[1911guy]

Keep in mind that California lies in the 9th circuit.

 

[camper4lyfe]

So far no one said something on 7, so why did you mention?

This is about 10 for all guns.

FUAC was the only person in the US that tried 7. It was already ended.

But it is a specific attack on gun laws that no one can justify, so money well spent and will easily be won.

I read it wrong