The Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s Ban On High-Capacity Magazines

ninth-circuit-logoThree years ago, I wrote a column questioning the constitutional and practical effect of gun control reforms pushed through after the Las Vegas massacre, including limits on the capacity of magazines. The moves were being oversold in the media as reforms that would make such attacks less likely or deadly while also ignoring the constitutional standard for the review of such measures.  Now, one of those reforms, California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines, has been struck down by a panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Notably, the magazine laws were one of the most promising areas of gun control laws after the Court’s 2008 decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller. Indeed, while I doubted its efficacy, I thought that limits on magazines could potentially pass constitutional muster under Heller with a properly crafted and supported law.

At issue was Proposition 63, a resolution enacted in 2016, making magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds unlawful.

The decision affirmed U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s decision last year granting summary judgment in favor of Virginia Duncan and the California Pistol & Rifle Association.  Lee was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan but a dissent was written by U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn, sitting by designation from the Northern District of Texas.

In a 66-page order, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee found Proposition 63 “struck at the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM [large-capacity magazine] possession within the home.”

As discussed in the earlier column, the problem was satisfying a strict scrutiny test with a rational basis.  Once the Supreme Court found gun ownership to be an individual constitutional right, it triggered a strict scrutiny test and the “most rigorous and exacting standard of constitutional review.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 920 (1995). As such, it requires that a state law be “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.”

The two-judge majority found that the law missed that constitutional mark. Notably, the panel held that the law does not even meet the lower intermediate standard of review.  I agree with the panel in rejecting a type of agency deference under cases like Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622 (1994) that would effectively gut the protections of the right itself:

“The state cannot infringe on the people’s Second Amendment right, and then ask the courts to defer to its alleged “expertise” once its laws are challenged. Put another way, intermediate scrutiny cannot mean Chevron-like deference. Indeed, this very argument advanced by the state was roundly rejected by the majority in Heller. Despite Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion explicitly advancing Turner deference, see 554 U.S. at 690–91, 704–05, the majority in Heller did not once mention Turner and its progeny. To apply Turner today would amount to an abdication of our judicial independence and we refuse to do so.”

While I agree that many of these laws appear based on the lower rational basis test, the opinion in my view sweeps too broadly. For example, I do not agree that there was a need to make exception for high crimes areas in limiting magazine capacity:

As discussed above, section 32310 provides few meaningful exceptions for the class of persons whose fundamental rights to self-defense are burdened. The scope of section 32310 likewise dooms its validity. Section 32310 applies statewide. It necessarily covers areas from the most affluent to the least. It prohibits possession by citizens who may be in the greatest need of self-defense like those in rural areas or places with high crime rates and limited police resources. It applies to nearly everyone. It is indiscriminating in its prohibition. Nor is the law limited to firearms that are not commonly used for self-defense. These are not features of a statute upheld by courts under the least restrictive means standard.

My problem with capacity limits is that they are effectively meaningless to anyone who spends a little time practicing with their weapon. I previously noted that limiting magazine capacity would likely have a marginal impact at best on such mass shootings since most gun owners can swap out magazines within a few seconds. However, I do not see how the burden of limiting shots to ten rounds in a magazine changes significantly between neighborhoods. The vast majority of shootings involve only a couple rounds.

I am not convinced the majority on the Supreme Court would find that such LCM limits cannot be sustained under the higher standard of review.  Indeed, a property tailored and supported law could in my view still pass constitutional muster. I do not however see how it would have the substantial impact that politicians have suggested on gun fatalities, as discussed below.

The majority expressly limited the impact of this ruling and indicated that other gun control measures might still satisfy the constitutional test:

“We also want to make clear that our decision today does not address issues not before us. We do not opine on bans on so-called “assault weapons,” nor do we speculate about the legitimacy of bans on magazines holding far larger quantities of ammunition. Instead, we only address California’s ban on LCMs as it appears before us. We understand the purpose in passing this law. But even the laudable goal of reducing gun violence must comply with the Constitution. California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today. It makes unlawful magazines that are commonly used in handguns by lawabiding citizens for self-defense. And it substantially burdens the core right of self-defense guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment. It cannot stand.”

The panel also noted that the law might have satisfied its review with a few basic accommodations like a grandfather clause for those who already owned high-capacity magazines or carve-outs for certain areas.

The loser in these fights remains the voters who were sold a bill of goods by politicians who proclaimed that they were going to “stop the carnage” by passing a series of gun control measures that offered more political than practical benefits. As noted in the earlier columns, politicians were fast to ride the wave of anger and frustration but were not willing to admit that the range of permissible limits is quite limited after Heller. Instead, they oversold laws banning things like “bump stocks” as major new reforms.  The media played into this false narrative in unquestionably covering the campaign for gun control with little acknowledgement of the marginal impact of such measures even if they could pass the high standard of review.

Indeed, one of the more interesting aspects of the opinion is found in a footnote. Footnote 8 states that the new law is based on a false factual narrative that these magazines are the cause or substantial contributor to gun deaths:

8 Dangerousness is a more difficult question because weapons are necessarily dangerous. The “very attributes that make handguns particularly useful for self-defense are also what make them particularly dangerous.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 711 (Breyer, J., dissenting). While we do not opine on the dangerousness of LCMs, we note that statistics in the record show that criminal use of LCMs is relatively low compared to their market saturation. Despite nearly 115 million LCMs in circulation in America today, between 1982 and 2012 LCMs were used 31 times in an incident where four or more people were killed. Let us be perfectly clear: We do not cite these statistics to downplay the gravity of these tragic and heartbreaking events. Rather, they are necessary to discern the “broad patterns of use and subjective motives of gun owners” when assessing whether “typical possession” is for lawful purposes. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 256 (2d Cir. 2015). Based on the statistics in the record, we conclude that LCMs are in fact both commonly owned and typically possessed for lawful purposes.

The point is that the vast majority of owners of LCMs are clearly using them for lawful purposes and it is not demonstrated that the magazines are a meaningful contributor to deaths from violent crime. This is an example of the unsatisfied burden for gun control advocates. They cannot pass these laws on soundbites and assumptions. They have to create a factual foundation for particular limits and why they are needed to achieve the reduction of criminality or fatalities. Instead, leading politicians just treated such reforms as self-evident and substantial limitations on gun violence. Now years later, as the outrage has subsided, the law has collapsed by its own weight.

For all of the passions expressed after the horrific shootings, little effort was made to properly craft or support this new law. Even if it were sustained it would not likely have made a material difference in the actual fatalities from these crimes. Yet, politicians effectively cashed out on the wave of public emotion by citing these marginal measures as bold and impactful forms of gun control.  That may be the real crime.

87 thoughts on “The Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s Ban On High-Capacity Magazines”

  1. Important issue and ruling of course. But, and with all due respect, one may disagree here. As noted in the dissenting, the LCM has deadly impact on the level of casualties in mass shootings. I quote:

    California “presented evidence that the use of large-capacity magazines results in more gunshots fired, results in more gunshot wounds per victim, and increases the lethality of gunshot injuries.” 779 F.3d at 1000; Excerpts of Record (“ER”) 357 (“[T]he use of LCMs in massacres resulted in a 59 percent increase in fatalities per incident.”);

    End of quotation:

    So, this is not about banning weapons, but, particular magazine, as asserted by the dissenting, I quote:

    For this reason, the prohibition on LCMs is more analogous to a restriction on how someone exercises their Second Amendment rights, by restricting the number of bullets a person may shoot from one firearm without reloading.
    “[L]aws which regulate only the ‘manner in which persons may exercise their Second Amendment rights’ are less burdensome than those which bar firearm possession completely.”

    End of quotation:

    Yet, this is not yet the issue, or, not yet over. For the issue is not the weapon only, but, at the very core of self defense one may argue. For, reloading or shifting to new magazine, can take time, and, under stress, when you are not covered or behind shield, even if you are that much skillful, you may get killed just because of theoretical several critical seconds.

    So, this is the balance one must strike:

    On one hand, less casualties in mass shootings, on the other, the right for effective self defense (or rather, effective as possible).


    1. The majority of these gun laws pushed by liberals do little to zero to deter criminals and in many occasions make criminals out of law abiding citizens. The democrats target gun owners because they tend to vote Republican. In locations where gun crime is out of control (Chicago) liberal DAs regularly don’t prosecute or hand out sweet heart deals to these criminals/gang members. The only individuals that Democrats want in prison are those that vote for Trump/Republicans. If a criminal won’t be deterred to commit homicide then surely LCM and assault weapon laws will do very little. One simple example is the entire assault weapon designation. This designation is strictly Cosmetic (collapsible stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor) and zero to do with function/capacity/rate of fire. Just compare an AR against a Ruger mini 14. Same round/caliber, rate of fire (semi auto) and capacity but because one looks like a traditional rifle it’s ok and the other has a pistol grip it is deemed an Assault weapon. It’s like outlawing all red corvettes because they are too fast but any other color corvette is “safe”. A criminal intent on killing will not care about magazine laws, bullet buttons or any other lúdricos law pushed by ignorant politicians that at the end of the day want to confiscate all guns.

      1. Anonymous , what the state of California has claimed (by showing data and expert opinions) is not that deterrence can be useful (while dealing with LCM) but rather, that as a matter of fact, at the crime scene of shooting itself, the perpetrator kills and wounds more finally, because he has more bullets in his magazine. So, it does increase fatalities, yet, they haven’t claimed nothing concerning deterrence. It is about reducing damage, not deterring or preventing it .


  2. I’m thinking about the move for an age limit and worse using a faulty age limit to get a false reading on guns used at certain ages. That state and others at the best of an Anti Constitutional Hand Guns International set the age for child killing and endangerment at 20 years 364 days to establish their puffed up amounts. They also failed to mention how many were gang and drug related .

  3. “Yet, politicians effectively cashed out on the wave of public emotion by citing these marginal measures as bold and impactful ”

    Emotion over common sense. Take away gun protection while defunding the police. Democrats can’t be accused of logical thinking.

  4. The 2nd amendment does 2 things. It allows an armed militia to exist and it allows for self defense with guns. The left ALWAYS focuses on the militia argument, which is why I have always thought 2A supporters should simply focus on the self defense issue since it’s a far more practical one.

  5. Anyone who has seen the mob activity should instantly understand why a high capacity magazine would be desirable in a self defense situation.

  6. The 9th Circuit, most liberal court and friendly court to gun control, liberals, State of California rejected California law on high capacity magazines, that is telling.

    2nd Amendment and the Constitution win again and again.

    The so called Political Class, Gun Control, and etc. have done a great job, gun sales and background checks are thru the roof, people are buying guns to protect themselves from Antifa, Crime gone wild, BLM and etc.

  7. China virus is a blessing in disguise. More public schools & colleges will be doing remote online teaching.

    Results: Reduction in mass school campus shooting massacres

  8. Some of the usual suspects need to read Federalist 46.

    Governor Cuomo is right. You don’t need a high capacity magazine to hunt deer. But you might need a high capacity magazine to protect yourself from Governor Cuomo.

      1. Alma, the constitution says the militia will be under the training and direction of Congress and the President. The 2nd amendment references the right of gun owners to the necessity of the militia. Do the math. It’s not difficult.

        1. btb – you must be joking? A militia under the training and direction of Congress – when Dem’s themselves engage in circular firing squads rather often. An now, I have to excuse myself so I can go out and buy another gun. Ha

            1. It’s stupid to be so condescending when you are ignorant.

              The Supreme Court settled the issue. One need not be connected to any Militia in order for one to possess a firearm. Heller

              How many times is it that you have called another stupid only to be corrected with the SC decision Heller. Has it been a dozen…more? You keep repeating the same things over and over again even after they are disproved.

            2. In order that they be able to fight in a “minute,” Americans were allowed to keep [on their person] and bear arms, sufficient to effectively oppose the arms of a tyrannical and oppressive government. The 9th Amendment certainly allows the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense.

              An independent clause such as “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed…” expresses a complete thought and stands alone.

              We are dancing around the fundamental issue which is your incomprehensible rationale for hating the maximal constitutional freedom of American individuals and the severe constitutional imitations and restrictions on government, and for your “interpretation” and rewriting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why don’t you explain why you want to take guns away from Americans, why you want America invaded by foreigners and why you want to forcibly impose the principles of Marxism including, but not limited to, Central Planning, Control of the Means of Production (unconstitutional regulation), Redistribution of Wealth and Social Engineering. Based on your own defective and erroneous perception of self-worth and ego you revel in prodigious delusions of phantom grandeur as you blame all Americans and the Constitution for the acts of psychotic criminals and you believe your intellect superior and deserving of dominion and dictatorship.

              You have no concept of the scope and breadth of American freedom and the severe restriction on government and you are zealous about stopping freedom and imposing dictatorship.

              Bizarre. Egomaniacal.

              Why do you hate American freedom so?


              Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently organized to form militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies from the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. They were known for being ready at a minute’s notice, hence the name.[1]

              – Wiki

              Independent Clause

              An independent clause is a clause that can stand alone as a sentence (i.e., it expresses a complete thought). A dependent clauses (or subordinate clause) is one that cannot stand alone as a complete sentence (i.e., it does not express a complete thought). Remember that a clause has a subject and a verb.

              2nd Amendment

              A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        2. “Shall not”

          Just like the 1st Amendment.

          Except Marxist have a problem with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of RIGHTS!

        3. “Alma, the constitution says the militia will be under the training and direction of Congress and the President.”

          Alma, notice that he changed the subject.

          After the 2nd Amendment educates Americans that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…,”

          the 2nd Amendment declares in a fully stand-alone, independent clause that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          1. George, you’re quite wrong there fella. You forget that the way sentences were structured and understood back in the 1700’s. Is a lot different than today’s interpretations. The second amendment was written when England still posed a threat to this nation and right before the war of 1812. The second amendment was ratified in 1791. Militias were a large part of the country’s defense and many soldiers were regular folks who train in a version of our current national guard. The state being the government body was not allowed to take their weapons because of their role. The amendment never mentions individuals having the right and for strict constitutionalists like the late Justice Scalia betrayed his principles of strict interpretation and chose to put his personal bias in his opinion. Strict constitutionalists often fail to uphold their ideals when it affects them personally or it becomes inconvenient.

      2. It’s also the right to defend oneself from the consequences of poor government, such as defunding the police and letting violent crime skyrocket.

        1. I’m happily married mofo. How about leaving me out of your sexual fantasies.

          And oh yeah. Read the constitution.

  9. You show me gun owners who are part of a well regulated, not a rag tag right wing, militia and I think about the 2nd amendment being a grant of a right to own what ever gun you want. The founders never envisioned the kinds of weapons the new 2nd Amendment fanatics need to carry to prove their manhood. I’m sick of the rest of us being sacrificed to these “manly men”. Whatever happened to my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I know I know gun owners much have the “liberty” to kill who and when they want. Of course not all gun owners feel that way and some are very supportive of reasonable restrictions. It’s the nuts who oppose reasonable regulation. Yes, nuts.

    No constitutional right is unlimited or absolute.

    1. Perhaps you should try living in a different country since you do not understand the essence of the Bill of Rights nor the constitution.

    2. Justice:

      I didn’t see anything in the 2nd that said “ragtag” militias are excluded.

      Your comment is a reminder that people will modify any right to suit their fancy.

      Imagine if we amended the first to limit the rights of stupid people; you would be silenced.

      1. monument, it says “well regulated militia” and in the constitution they are to be trained and under the order of the Congress. A few short years later the president was given the power to order up the militia in a law since held constitutional.

    3. JH you must be referring the the lack of a well regulated militia. I would refer you to check the number of homicides by gun in the so-called “safe cities” that have been taken by BLM. From you, I am assured that living among those beasts exists are a well regulated not a rag tag left wing militia and how many of them have passed a background check? Hmmm Oh, you did forget to mention the Chicago homicide rate. Shameful from a ‘judge’.

      As to your over-used & very tired excuse that the founders never envisioned the kinds of weapons (or: fill in the blank (such as Automobiles)) it’s just over-used & worn out.

      1. del, thanks for that well stated reason for federal laws. Given we don;t have and don’t want border checks at state lines, illegal trafficking across state lines in guns is common and the source of most guns among gangs and criminals. There is a regular pipeline from NYC from as far away as Georgia. Of course many of the guns owned now by gangs and criminals are also stolen from the homes of legal gun owners.

        1. btb. who said that we don’t want border checks a state lines? Funding those checkpoints comes from the state – now mostly unfunded by the states. But is it a bad thing to check for illegal drugs? Remember, guns are legal in all 50 states. But drugs are NOT. Catching 2 birds at the same stop is a good way to over crowd the jails and prisons again to only let the judge force reduced populations instead of building new prisons. Yet another circular firing squad for the democratically run states – solved by not prosecuting those law breakers – but if you do, let them out – to repeat their crimes, as has been vividly demonstrated in NY and other states, run by youknowho.
          BTW, how many is ‘many”? Agreed that there needs 2 be better security for legal guns in the home. But I sleep with one under my pillow. Haha

    4. You have a right and the freedom to live in a fortified bunker.

      Your irrational fear, hysteria and incoherence aside, Americans have the unqualified and absolute right to keep and bear arms which can only be modified by the amendment process.

      You also have the freedom of speech, including the freedom to engage in absolutely ridiculous speech.

      Please, speak on.

  10. JT writes:

    “The loser in these fights remains the voters who were sold a bill of goods by politicians who proclaimed that they were going to “stop the carnage” by passing a series of gun control measures that offered more political than practical benefits. As noted in the earlier columns, politicians were fast to ride the wave of anger and frustration but were not willing to admit that the range of permissible limits is quite limited after Heller. Instead, they oversold laws banning things like “bump stocks” as major new reforms. The media played into this false narrative in unquestionably covering the campaign for gun control with little acknowledgement of the marginal impact of such measures even if they could pass the high standard of review.”

    as if the outlier Heller opinion – to be overturned when the court again reflects appointments by popularly elected presidents – left any other room for “reform”. Ultimately federal laws will have to be passed correcting the word salad 2nd amendment and it’s misuse by the gun lobby and minority gun nuts, based on the idea that the militia is an imaginary club one joins in his fantasies, rather than a distinct organization to be trained and regulated by the Congress and President.

    Until then, enjoy the worst murder and mass shooting rates in the developed world.

    1. Very few guns are being employed by the hordes of thugs and left-wing socialists these past months but far more carnage and murder is occurring, blaming guns for man’s proclivity towards violence is a cowards answer. It is the culture wrought by the left these past 60 years that is the key to this murder and carnage.

      1. So then Alma, those neo socialist countries in Europe must be awash in murders and violence. Tell us about that.

        1. Apples and oranges, they have little individual freedoms, that is what socialists crave, control. ABTW, Chicago has gun control…..

          1. Alma, they live better lives than we do. They are healthier, have less debt, medical bankruptcy is nonexistent. Taxes are high, but the upside is they have better benefits because of it. More time off from work, better education, and a few other benefits that we don’t have.

            That’s not saying they have problems too, but they certainly have freedom too

    2. If you wish to try to outlaw murder then make it illegal for democrats to be mayors of large cities. That would be a big step forward.

  11. These assaults on the 2nd Amendment are similar to the infringements on the First Amendment. And on the 4th and 5th Amendments.

    Both sides need to reread the Bill of Rights and think long and hard about the consequences of bad infringements for good reasons.

    Slippery slope.

    And passing bad laws makes criminals out of once law abiding citizens. Once you cross the line, your respect for the system diminishes. We need for most people to have a stake in the survival of the system.

  12. The argument against going in a direction away from a condition where every American is militarized in an unlimited manner, seems always to be that this or that move in, what most Americans see as the right direction, will do: little, or not enough, or marginally, or not stop the carnage, or any one of an endless stream of partial remedies to this sickness. This is the same mentality that argues agains wearing masks because they are not 100% effective. Statistics around the world have shown that where masks alone are not 100% effective, they seem to be part of a more sane approach. Statistics around the world also point to the fact that limitations on individual ownership of unlimited firepower reduces the carnage. However there will be always be a gun nut that will base the argument for unlimited weaponry on the exception, or some inconsequential detail.

    There are no magic bullets. The purpose of the law is to guide the population into going/evolving/progressing in the right direction. Each common sense move, regardless of how little it accomplishes moves the country in the direction of eliminating a portion of the carnage. The NRA and lawyers such as Turley will argue that each move by itself, ‘won’t solve the problem’ or isn’t backed up by irrefutable evidence, or merely a response to the carnage du jour, and that these laws won’t stand alone. However, if a mad killer can easily swap our magazines, then why not ban high capacity magazines as each sane ‘sportsperson’ should be able to swap out magazines as well. Bump stocks don’t a killer make. High capacity magazines don’t a killer make. Etc. However, if the goal is to return America to a day when it was acceptable for a household to have a rifle and/or shotgun and perhaps a handgun at home for hunting and/or protection, and if all guns should be registered and controlled; not to fall into the hands of those society deems not to be permitted weapons, then it can only be done, in this perverse condition, inch by inch.

    If a high capacity magazine is illegal and a criminal is found to possess one, then the law will be more severe where it might do the most good. It is all about the direction and the degree. The argument of the perverse is if it doesn’t do the whole job, don’t do it. Who really suffers if a ‘marginal’ difference is made by banning high capacity magazines.

    1. Isaac, what you described is ironically exactly what the anti-abortion movement has been doing. Changing the right to an abortion by making small incremental changes eventually undermining the right.

  13. A law banning gun magazine devices over a certain size. To protect humans? Why don’t they outlaw tobacco shops and vaping? Over 485,000 deaths in A my Erica from self inflicted smoking. Also second hand smoke effects. Suicide is dangerous. The mobs in Chicago should burn down the tobacco and vape shops.

    1. logic that contra-indicates the left’s agenda is always a difficult thing for progressives. They only believe what they have been programmed to believe, despite the constitution. I always wonder why those types just don’t leave us in peace by moving to another country.

      1. “Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

        Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

        The act of February 28, 1795, which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.

    2. Mainly because vaping isn’t particularly harmful if one isn’t using illegitimate parts or substances. And anyway, there are cities in CA that HAVE banned it. That’s what they do there – rather than find solutions that work with input from all involved – BAN IT. The CA mentality has spread across the country at this point (largely due to millennials and their parents that originate there or similar) and if you care as much as you purport, you should probably pay more attention. This has all moved beyond the realm of an armchair exercise.

    3. Influenza under Obama was let the citizen beware it’s their fault with a million plus dead b ut did the fascist socialist left place the blame where it belonged. Nope they just cut deals with the source of that one, China, just like they arecondoning that source with this pandemic.. The Collective for the various Socialist organizations be they National, International, or Regressive Liberal is the same Collective world wide.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia yes, David, a pingback could be considered a thought, since it links the article to another website.

  14. How would we have a well regulated militia to fight the Brits or some Indian tribe if the guns our militia carry don’t compete with the guns on the other side?
    Yeah home protection is one aspect of gun ownership.
    But what will we need if we have to revolt against a crazy federal government? We need to compete with the guns held by the army.

    The article here on the black g is scattered and so is the court opinion.

    I think that the McCloskeys should read the Turkey blog here today and chime in.

  15. Horrifyingly, I find myself agreeing with the Ninth Circuit. However, it isn’t over until the fat lady sings and en banc is still on the table. However, I do not think the SC has taken a 2A case in years. Maybe some of the judges do not want to give up their houses in their gentrified communities?

    1. PCS,

      Why is it so difficult for the SCOTUS to read the Constitution with comprehension and apply it, as is its duty?

      Not one of California’s many anti-gun laws is constitutional. A SCOTUS, sworn to support the Constitution, must have, long ago, clarified that it shall void any legislation at variance with the 2nd Amendment text. By what authority does the SCOTUS assign itself the power to legislate and act as a political entity when fundamental law is as clear as a bell to every sentient American? This issue – “shall not be infringed” – makes Hamilton crystal clear.

      To wit,

      “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      1. George – as my mother used to says about some of her students “I swear they read it upside down.”

Leave a Reply