FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT UPHOLDS DECISION TO BLOCK CALIFORNIA’S MAGAZINE SURRENDER REQUIREMENT

dailycaller.com | 7/1/2017 | Staff
AnnieFoxxAnnieFoxx (Posted by) Level 3
Click For Photo: http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-07-06T183629Z_1_LYNXNPEC651DQ_RTROPTP_4_USA-GUNS-CALIFORNIA-e1495287530124.jpg

Last summer, we reported on the welcome news that a federal court had blocked California’s plan to require owners of “large capacity” magazines to surrender or otherwise rid themselves of their formerly-lawful property. As the judge in that case had put it: “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.” That was a bridge too far, he decided, and blocked enforcement of the law’s dispossession requirement. California appealed that ruling, and now over a year later a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling. The case, Duncan v. Becerra, is supported by both the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are challenging a 2016 ban on so-called “large capacity magazines” (i.e., most ammunition feeding devices “with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds”). California’s law went beyond similar laws in other anti-gun states by prohibiting not only the manufacturing, sale, or importation of such magazines but also their possession, including by those who had lawfully obtained them before the ban’s effective date of July 1, 2017. The only way for such people to comply with the law’s new requirements would be to surrender their magazines to the police, move them out of the state, or sell the magazines to a licensed firearms dealer.

June - Judge - Roger - T - Benitez

On June 29, 2017, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the requirement for current owners to dispossess themselves of lawfully-acquired magazines likely violated the Second Amendment and the Constitution’s Taking Clause. “If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens...
(Excerpt) Read more at: dailycaller.com
Wake Up To Breaking News!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Welcome to Long Room!

Where The World Finds Its News!