From Roof Koreans to the masked idiots in Berkeley.
In a peaceful society, a 10-round limit may not be severe. When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe.
It continues with examples and ends the paragraph like this:
Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times.
I have the feeling that trying to shock the judge with the issue of Mass Shootings backfired in a grandiose manner:
The State has not offered a compelling interest for the ban, arguing that intermediate scrutiny should be the test. If preventing mass shootings is the state’s interest, it is not at all clear that it would be compelling since such events are exceedingly rare. If the state’s interest is in forcing a “pause” during a mass shooting for a shooter to be apprehended, those events are even more rare.
And no mincing words:
Section 32310 is not narrowly tailored; it is not tailored at all. It fits like a burlap bag. It is a single-dimensional, prophylactic, blanket thrown across the population of the state.
Definition of Insanity
No case has held that intermediate scrutiny would permit a state to impinge even slightly on the Second Amendment right by employing a known failed experiment. Congress tried for a decade the nationwide experiment of prohibiting large capacity magazines. It failed. California has continued the failed experiment for another decade and now suggests that it may continue to do so ad infinitum without demonstrating success. That makes no sense.
I was unaware the Hollywood was exempt from the LCM ban. And why?
Another example is the exception for movie props. Why in the interest of public safety does the movie industry need to use a genuine large capacity magazine for a prop? Is it too far-fetched to require the Hollywood creators of Mickey Mouse, Jaws, and Star Wars, to use a non-working magazine in place of a genuine large capacity magazine?
And once again, not a good idea to lie to a judge:
The State relies on the report of a commission reviewing the Sandy Hook shooting. DX-28. However, it misquotes the commission’s findings, saying “[d]ue to their lethality, LCMs ‘pose a distinct threat to safety in private settings as well as places of assembly.” Def. Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 11. What was reported is, “[t]he Commission found that certain types of ammunition and magazines that were readily available at the time it issued its Interim Report posed a distinct threat to safety in private settings as well as in places of assembly.
Seriously, don’t lie to the judge:
(8.) large magazines not characteristically used for home?
The State asserts that large capacity magazines are not “weapons of the type characteristically used to protect the home,” citing Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F.3d 61, 71 (1st Cir. 2012). Hightower was unconcerned with magazine size. Instead, it was a regulatory challenge brought by a former law enforcement officer whose permit to carry a revolver was revoked. Any inference to be drawn about magazines from the one-half sentence quoted is dicta.
The AG actuall used work from our friends of the Violence Policy Center who we all know love to fudge stats. That was not smart.
(11.) disproportionately used against police?
The State argues that large-capacity magazines are disproportionately used against police, citing an undated, unsigned, document created by an organization named the Violence Policy Center (DX-20 at 799-807). Def. Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, at 18. The document says nothing about violence against police.
And then, the finale:
When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that lawabiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits lawabiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.68 Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted.69 California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.
I left out a lot of stuff. Again, you need to sit down with your favorite adult beverage and read the whole thing.