“In the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings, the state of California barred its citizens from owning so-called “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster. California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today’s post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount.
California’s law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of self-defense. Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California. Even law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years — or face up to a year in jail.
The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. But the Second Amendment limits the state’s ability to second-guess a citizen’s choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense. Many Californians may find solace in the security of a handgun equipped with an LCM: those who live in rural areas where the local sheriff may be miles away, law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas, communities that distrust or depend less on law enforcement, and many more who rely on their firearms to protect themselves and their families. California’s almost-blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people’s right to self-defense. We affirm the district court’s summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310’s ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.” – Ninth Circuit Appellate Judge Kenneth K. Lee, from the majority opinion in Duncan v. Becerra. August 14, 2020
Comments Disabled To "The Editors’ Quote of the Day:"
#1 Comment By wally On August 17, 2020 @ 10:33 am
i am shocked that the 9th circus court would rule in this manner FOR the 2nd and firearm rights….
#2 Comment By N S On August 17, 2020 @ 5:14 pm
I’m of the belief that the 2nd is the first “written”, and hence legal document, that forces gov to acknowledge and uphold the right to self defense.
Thinking about it and following it backwards through history, the right of self defense can be traced clear back to when God created man.
Think of it this way: Any mammal defends his/her tribe/progeny the best way possible. From the advent of figuring out how to use sticks & stones more effectively all the way up to modern times. This is inherent in their actual make up and you might say it’s in their DNA. Humans are no different. Each tribe/family/individual is inherently defensive in their nature when another individual/tribe/group, whatever you want to call it, attempt to take/coerce/overcome you or what you hold dear (food, shelter, fire, offspring). So there is proof (I believe) that the right to self defense comes FROM GOD, is ENSURED, and in our written law, guaranteed by gov as well as individuals. It’s in our inherent makeup, It’s Gods plan, it’s the way He made us.. So when some lame bureaucrat or law says you are not able to defend yourself and must “retreat” to a safe refuge….. Laugh right in their face long and hard.
Even insects have a defensive nature. Think about that!