Judge temporarily stops California from confiscating high-capacity magazines

July 3, 2017

Thousands of Californians who own large-capacity magazines were due to turn them in on Saturday in accordance with a new state law. However, shortly before the deadline, a federal judge issued an injunction temporarily putting a halt to the California gun control measure. [LA Times]

In 2000, the state of California banned the sale of large-capacity magazines, but the ban allowed people who owned them at the time to keep them. Last Novembers, 63 percent of voters approved Prop. 63, which banned the possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Under Prop. 63, owners of the magazines can transfer them to federally licensed gun dealers, destroy them or turn them over to law enforcement. Had the law taken effect, anyone in possession of high-capacity magazines would have faced infractions punishable by a fine of up to $100 per magazine or a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $100 and up to a year in jail.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez put the enforcement process on hold by issuing a preliminary injunction in response to a challenge to the law.

“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,” Benitez wrote. “That is a choice they should not have to make.”

The National Rifle Association, its California affiliate and gun owners from the San Diego area are challenging Prop. 63 in court. They argue the law is a violation of the Second Amendment and amounts to confiscation of property without due process.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has vowed to defend Prop. 63. Becerra says possession of large-capacity magazines is not protected by the Second Amendment.

Prop. 63 was spearheaded by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is currently a candidate for governor. Newsom has said large-capacity magazines only serve the purpose of “efficient and effective mass murder.”







Loading...

16 Comments

  1. Rambunctious says:

    The five previously posted stories makes this story a win for common sense…

    (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
  2. 1965buick says:

    2nd Amendment! Raaar!

    (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
  3. Aragon says:

    At least this article didn’t incorrectly refer to them as “clips.”

    (10) 10 Total Votes - 10 up - 0 down
    • mcrcr says:

      Very true, although the picture accompanying the article did incorrectly show an SKS “stripper clip”, which holds only 10 rounds, thus implying it to be “high capacity”.

      (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
  4. kayaknut says:

    Our politicians should go ahead and succeed from the union, since they feel the US Constitution isn’t something they worry about. Once the federal money is stopped, we will see just how fast things change in Sacramento. With many more takers, those on some form of assistance and those in the government(another form of assistance), than us, it won’t be long before those of us in the middle run out of money, we are almost there now.

    (24) 26 Total Votes - 25 up - 1 down
    • MrYan says:

      FYI–

      California sends more dollars to the Feds than it gets in return. So we’d be fine if they “stopped” the Federal money.

      Can’t say that about Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee, South Carolina,,,,,they are the most dependent on Federal dollars….they take back way more money than they give in tax dollars.

      California is the 4th least dependent state in the Union.

      (-4) 8 Total Votes - 2 up - 6 down
      • kayaknut says:

        I noticed you gave no proof of your claims. Please provide and we will see if your so called state money isn’t really federal money channeled into state coffers and then you see it as state money.

        (5) 5 Total Votes - 5 up - 0 down
  5. jarhead says:

    guess what , i be willing to bet that NO ONE will turn any mags in what a stupid move by newsom, he needs to crawl back into his hole and stay there, KUDOS to the AG

    (17) 21 Total Votes - 19 up - 2 down
    • panflash says:

      Wait, jarhead- “Kudos to the AG”?

      You might want to read the article again: “California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has vowed to defend Prop. 63. Becerra says possession of large-capacity magazines is not protected by the Second Amendment.”

      Your kudos should be extended to the judge, NOT the AG: “On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez put the enforcement process on hold by issuing a preliminary injunction in response to a challenge to the law.”

      (18) 18 Total Votes - 18 up - 0 down
      • Rambunctious says:

        “California sends more dollars to the Feds than it gets in return. So we’d be fine if they “stopped” the Federal money”

        Okay then…..

        (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
  6. r0y says:

    “Becerra says possession of large-capacity magazines is not protected by the Second Amendment.”

    Our State AG leaves a lot to be desired. I’m so glad it is not up to him (or whoever is controlling him) to determine what is or is not protected under the US Constitution. Thankfully for him and his ilk, very few (if any) voters in this state have ever cracked a history book or spoken to people who have had their property (of any kind) outlawed and confiscated by their government. It never ends well.

    (51) 57 Total Votes - 54 up - 3 down
    • ffarmchicken says:

      He needs to read the Fifth Amendment.

      (17) 17 Total Votes - 17 up - 0 down
      • panflash says:

        “He needs to read the Fifth Amendment.”

        Well, with any luck, not too far down the road he may find himself compelled to plead the Fifth Amendment before a court.

        (18) 18 Total Votes - 18 up - 0 down
      • MrYan says:

        I wish the 5th applied in this case but it doesn’t.

        The 5th is an individual right in its’ application. The state cannot come in and seize property and jail you without due process, or compel you to testify against yourself.

        The state can choose to most anything illegal–and they have the sovereign right to do so.
        The process of making it illegal is part of the due process of law.–so the state clears the burden of the 5th amendment at this point.

        The due process part of the 5th has already taken place by the time they go to apply the new law individually to the magazine possessor.

        Replace high powered magazines with “moonshine”. Do you still have a problem with the law? Couldn’t the state decide that Moonshine is bad and makes you blind and in turn make it illegal to possess? Leaving all kinds of legal flavors of alcohol, but outlawing this particular one. Yes it could.

        You have a legal bottle of it one day, and the next it is not legal. The due process that the 5th refers to in this instance would be the legislative act itself, would it not?

        (-4) 4 Total Votes - 0 up - 4 down
    • Ralph Snart says:

      And I thought Kamala Harris was a bad state AG…

      (8) 10 Total Votes - 9 up - 1 down
  7. Rich in MB says:

    Is High Capacity Speech Banned in California?
    How about High Capacity Religion or Freedom of the Press?

    (16) 18 Total Votes - 17 up - 1 down

Leave a Comment