Part of the wonder of the Bruen decision was the two fold win of no more “two step analysis” and a requirement that the government show that there was an analigus law in 1791 at the time of adoption of the second amendment.
Text and history of the second amendment is the controlling feature of what infringements are allowed.
We have now seen two different cases where the state is turning this upside down.
In one case the judge ruled against an injunction because “The clear reading of the second amendment does not protect the right to manufacture firearms”. In this case the Judge and the state are arguing that the plaintiffs must provide some sort of historical reference showing that the text and traditions of the second amendment support the manufacture of firearms.
The actual opinion says that the government must show that there is a gun control law that banned or limited the manufacturing of firearms by individuals in 1791. Thus the Judge has turned the argument upside down. They have again made it so the plaintiff must prove that the constitution covers their claim via text and tradition.
In California they are doing the same thing. The state has stated that since the second amendment doesn’t mention magazines and because magazines are not required for a firearm to function that they are ok to ban magazines.
When the Bruen opinion came out we identified the weaknesses in the opinion. Those came down to “sensitive places” and “uncommon firearms”. We knew they would look for other methods, and it is clear that they are following cases as much as we are.
In each of the suits brought under Bruen they have watched to see what stuck and what didn’t.
We had one judge state that it wasn’t his job to be a historian, even though that is exactly his job under the American “common law” ideals. Research is a huge part of dealing the law. We had another judge decide that “manufacturing” isn’t part of “keep and bear”. Now the state is arguing again that the plain reading of the constitution doesn’t include magazines.
Keep an eye on how they manipulate the language of the decision. This is how they have been doing this for the last 70 years.
5 thoughts on “California’s standard capacity magazine ban shows their (evil) path forward”
“We will not comply”…. Chest thumpers not included, fudds not included….we all know they will. Time to quietly live our life and speak none of politics…
I suspect these judges know full well and good what they’re doing: that they are issuing bad (illegal?) rulings, that are in direct conflict with the directions and opinions of Bruen and its precursors (Heller, etc.)
Seems to me, in states like New York and California the progressives are taking a two-part strategy. On the one hand the legislature is throwing as many laws at the law-abiding as they can, as even a nonsense law takes time to get struck down (maybe by a lower court if they’re simply too egregious); and the judiciary is making what they know are bad rulings on existing laws, pushing them up the chain and delaying yet more. For states under the 9th circuit, a given gun control law will likely need to be appealed all the way to the top before it has a high probability of getting removed permanently.
Frankly, I expect this kind of BS from the legislature; in some senses it is what they’re in office to do. The biggest problem here, as I see it, is the politicization of the judiciary, especially at the state level. They’ve clearly, as a body, “chosen sides” and it’s not that of the citizenry.
“In California they are doing the same thing. The state has stated that since the second amendment doesn’t mention magazines and because magazines are not required for a firearm to function that they are ok to ban magazines.”
The 2nd Amendment does not mention guns either. The word used is “arms.” Per Webster:
1.a: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense
Not the first definition, the 3rd or 4th, but per one of the oldest dictionaries out there, arms does not mean guns, it means “a means…of offense or defense.” How can you defend with an empty gun? How do you commit an offensive act with an empty gun?
Arms is the firearm itself, and all the supplies, equipment, and tools necessary to operate it. Does not matter if it is a fist (train, strength, etc..) a sword (sharpening stone, sheath, training), or a gun (ammo, lubrication, cleaners, and magazines.)
Magazines are part of a gun, and have been for at least two hundred years. Can’t ban them without banning guns.
Clearly, you are unqualified to be a judge; to start with, you are actually willing to look at history.
Fascist, statist bastards.
Login or register to comment.