SAF to challenge California magazine ban
The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by several other groups and individuals, today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California, challenging that states law prohibiting the possession, use or acquisition of so-called large capacity magazines, calling the ban hopelessly vague and ambiguous.
Joining SAF are the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation and six individuals including one retired California peace officer. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The complaint is a constitutional challenge to California Penal Code 32310, as recently amended by Senate Bill 1446 and Proposition 63, and Penal Code 32390 (the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban). The lawsuit alleges that if these measures are enforced as applied, they would individually and collectively prohibit law-abiding citizens from continuing to possess, use, or acquire lawfully-owned firearms, in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense (inside and outside the home), competition, sport, and hunting.
This one seems a bit risky to me. But, historically, SAF has been pretty good at these sorts of things.
May 2nd, 2017 at 7:25 pm
There’s no reason why standard capacity magazines should be reserved for criminals only.
May 2nd, 2017 at 8:51 pm
This “in common use for lawful purposes” thing annoys me.
It reads like “second amendment is about duck hunting.”
The test is not, was not, should not remain, ‘in common use’ by private citizens. If gradually these arms went out of common use, so would go the last few guys’ right to hold on to them.
It should read, ‘in common use by military entities’ because our militia was intended to be competitive with such entities. As military arms advance, the arms available to private citizens should advance, to keep the Militia competitive.
May 2nd, 2017 at 11:02 pm
“It should read, ‘in common use by military entities’ …”
How about: was ever in use or considered for use by any military entity, for any purpose, at any time or place, on or off Earth. “Common” use be damned.
May 3rd, 2017 at 9:55 am
The Miller case was not overruled by Heller or McDonald. While the phrase “in common use” from Heller might have relevance in this CA case, the more applicable case law is Miller, wherein citizen’s arms, of military utility, are fully approved as constitutional.
My end goal is to get Letters of Marque issued from the feds via a free shall-issue online application process hosted by BATFE, hopefully with DCM issuing milsurp guns for free use to Letter holders. Let the antigun forces try to roll back from that position to a magazine ban for a few centuries.