A federal court has blocked California’s prohibition on so-called “high capacity” magazines because it restricts weapons in regular usage, which the judge deemed obviously unconstitutional.
A report shows that in 2016, 63% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 63, often known as the “Firearms and Ammunition Sales” initiative.
The 2016 bill used school shootings and mass shootings to argue that no one but qualified law enforcement should be permitted to acquire high-capacity ammunition magazines like those often found in civilian hands.
Possession of such a publication was considered a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of $100.
According to a report, Federal District Judge Roger Benitez ruled for a second time that the measure violated the Constitution. He also overturned the legislation again in 2020, only to have it upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his 71-page decision, Benitez wrote that the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In continuation, the federal court said that it is compelled to follow rulings that hold that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of weaponry that is within common usage or armaments that are usually carried by law-abiding individuals for legitimate reasons.
In this example, we’re looking at a California regulation that makes it illegal to own ordinary weapon magazines legally. The Second Amendment’s language, history, and precedent render this statute invalid. An issue with older rifles was that they might run out of ammo and need a lengthy reloading process. A bigger magazine is necessary when there is a requirement for additional bullets in case of conflict.
In related news, California’s Democrat governor, Gavin Newsom, called his state’s new 11% gun and ammo tax a “sin tax.” He said it was essentially a charge for firearms safety. It helps pay for counseling and school safety initiatives.
