Gavin Newsom Freaks Out At Federal Judge Who Struck Down California 10-Round Magazine Limit
Newsom: “California’s high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life.”
A federal judge just dealt a blow to gun grabbers in California by ruling against a ban on high-capacity gun magazines. It’s amazing. No matter how bad crime gets, Democrats keep on pushing for new forms of gun control.
Reuters reports:
US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun magazines
A federal judge in California on Friday declared that state’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition unconstitutional, saying it violated the Second Amendment rights of firearms owners.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego said California’s “sweeping ban” went too far by preventing people from using magazines for lawful purposes, including self-defense.
“The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen,” Benitez wrote in a 71-page decision.
Benitez cited a June 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, requiring that firearms restrictions be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” to pass muster.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who enforces the state’s laws, plans to seek a stay while he appeals the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
He said Californians need to be kept safe from weapons enhancements that are “designed” to cause mass casualties.
Gavin Newsom ran to Twitter and posted the following message:
BREAKING: California’s high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life.
Wake up, America.
Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America.
BREAKING: California's high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life.
Wake up, America.
Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional…
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) September 23, 2023
The NRA actually responded:
Perhaps this is a wake-up call, Governor.
You took an oath of office to defend the entire Constitution of the United States — Second Amendment included.
Ambition can be blinding… https://t.co/AMKwHOQayG
— NRA (@NRA) September 23, 2023
Others piled on as well:
I was reliably informed that attacking judges in this manner was devastating to the rule of law and threatened our entire democracy https://t.co/qrIVuDwXEA
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) September 23, 2023
Don’t Democrats say that attacking Judges and immigrants is an attack on democracy Gavin? Judge Benitez is a survivor of communism in Cuba. He knows what tyrants like you do when gun rights are taken from the people. He’s an American hero for stopping Marxist tyrants like you. https://t.co/4gTaLkCeqn
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 23, 2023
Why are you under minding the rule of law? Are you in insurrectionist? https://t.co/WqVMP42DUH
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) September 23, 2023
This you, asshole? @GavinNewsom https://t.co/PGjqQHQuvN pic.twitter.com/sn0D72Kb1e
— Kron (@Kronykal) September 23, 2023
I imagine there are a lot of people in California who want to be able to protect themselves and their families, due to high crime caused by the policies of Democrats like Gavin Newsom.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Newsom did finally get it correct in his 3rd para; ‘Our…laws will continue to be thrown out…by Federal Judges until we pass a.Constitutional Amendment…’
OR and Wa?
Oregon banned them but exempted police. Judge allowed testimony from law enforcement which said that these mags were useful for them and if it was important for them, it would be more useful for citizens to defend themselves.
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/09/21/oregon-judge-surprised-by-states-approach-in-defense-of-measure-114-n75148
Yes. Now, Oregon is trying to pass Measure 114, which would require that individuals wishing to buy a gun must first obtain a permit from the Sheriff’s Department.
But before the Sheriff can issue the permit, the applicant must pass an FBI background check.
But the FBI has declared it cannot conduct background checks for Measure 114, which means the Sheriff cannot issue the permit and the applicant cannot legally buy a gun.
North Carolina legislature just removed such a law which had been a carry over from the Jum Crow era. When my father (WASP) wanted to purchase a revolver he had to get the sheriff’s approval. I still have that paperwork. All of these Dem laws are not new, but came from the times of banning free and recently freed slaves and , in some states, Catholics from acquiring firearms. Jim Crow is near and dear to the Dems.
Magazine changes take only a few seconds.. sometimes less than 2. The number of guns and magazine do not equal crime. Thes ban(dages) only help criminals …. both in and outside of government. NEVER trust a Dem..NEVER!!!!
Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.
If someone is willing to kill someone for walking on the wrong block, or hose down a house because of some personal slight, they sure as hell will not limit their ordnance supply to comply with a chicken-s**t big magazine restriction.
Democrats firmly believe that if you ban things, they immediately disappear and become impossible to obtain. They’ve convinced themselves of this with over 40 years of doobie-fueled debates.
We fought hard down here for years to get this Jim Crow law removed. Democrats and law enforcement always fought hard to stymie our efforts until they suddenly didn’t. I think that with the rise in crime and increased numbers of people including the black voters in this state buying firearms to protect themselves they saw the writing on the wall. Now if we can just put a stop to the knee jerk “we need a black female police chief/mayor” nonsense and instead hire the best we can get a handle of violent crime.
Illuminating is that several years ago, Bloomberg spent millions to railroad exactly this sort of referendum in Nevada. When it was passed, the FBI refused in the same manner. However, the state AG ruled that therefore the new law was moot and unenforceable, so gun sales continued as they did before it. Now note that the Oregon AG is entirely unwilling to do the same, as he is complicit in the civilian disarmament scam.
Newsom, how many times have “high-capacity magazines” been used in the commission of a crime in California? Be specific: names, dates, places.
^ This.
“Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life…”
Abortion evangelists ought to be much, MORE more careful of the comparisons they invite.
Some used the obligate 10 rounders….got to be legal when you commit murder.
I believe every state still obligates 5 round or less magazines for hunting.
True. There is a place for larger magazines for culling as for wild pigs. As for regular hunting, the limit is more about sportsmanship.
“High-capacity magazines” being used in the commission of a crime is irrelevant. The use of speech in committing a crime is not a reason to censor speech. It is the responsibility of government and our elected leaders to limit crime, not the peoples’ rights.
“High capacity” magazines are used in many, many crimes in California.
The standard Glock magazine holds 13-17 rounds and it isn’t like criminals and gangbangers are limiting themselves to 10 rounds. I see photos all the time of dirtbags arrested with Glocks with 30 round magazines here in California. That’s what makes the ban so stupid. Criminals are going still have “high capacity magazines” because they, by definition, don’t give a crap about breaking the law, but the law-abiding citizen is being limited in his capacity for self-defense.
So, besides being unconstitutional, the ban helps the criminals and endangers the good citizens.
The real description is standard capacity magazine. “High capacity” Is another banner’s canard. They love to make up words to evoke fear.
Newsome is a politician who is just as worried about armed citizens as monarchs were, and he is an example of the kind of politician America’s founders were thinking about when the created the 2nd Amendment.
I’m still in the exploratory phase of forming a PAC entitled “The Society to Legally Prosecute & Execute Politicos (either elected or appointed) Who Enact Blatantly Anti-Constitutional Laws or Policies which Aggressively & Egregiously Attack the Plain Enumerated Civil Rights of U.S. Citizens.”
I’ve reached out to Kansas AG Kris Kobach’s office, and Missouri US Senator Eric Schmitt (that state’s former AG) for guidance.
If we do not severely punish these tyrants for their habitual tyranny, we will simply keep indulging in this perpetual political mas*urb*tion in the courts over and over and over and over and over…
Then, these tyrants will simply attempt their tyranny again.
“until we pass a Constitutional Amendment”
Hey, Grab ‘em Nuisance, we already have Constitutional Amendment. It follows #1.
What a dim bulb.
He wants to remove the 2nd with a 28th that is just terrible. I will let you look it up yourself.
I think this is what all of the admissions that the New Mexico governors emergency ban unconstitutionality is.
There are a lot of people who are scared of guns and what you not to have one. If they keep making law that those people think are reasonable they will vote to take our right away and give up their own right because they are very short sighted and easily scared.
I tried looking it up myself. Can’t find the text anywhere. Can you please post a link to it?
Upon hearing this news, “his hair was (no longer) perfect”.
Ow ooow
LOL.
… says the guy who runs the state where human life is as cheap as it is anywhere in the Western world. The complete disregard that the California governments have for human life is on display every single day in the repulsive, disgusting, putrid images and videos of violence and mayhem and all-encompassing human public filth that come out of that hellhole.
Why is it they never say:
“California’s high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by
Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human lifeTHE CONSTITUTION.”Because the constitution is an inanimate document and relies on living judges to strike things down in its name. Unfortunately so many of them fall down on the job. Thankfully this one didn’t.
With 27 states that now have Constitutional Carry, I have to wonder how he gets the 3/4 of the states to go along with a new amendment like this?
My first guess would be that he has no actual idea how the Amendment process actually works.
You’ve seen the meme about playing chess with a pigeon? Knocks over all the pieces, poops on the board, and struts around like he’s won?
Now, take a look at a news item from just this week: Democrats are agitating to have the Equal Rights Amendment ruled as in force, even though it has been past its ratification deadline for decades, for no legitimate reason I can detect. Probably they are claiming that “identifies as ratified” or some such shit. Really.
Well, they can just do that with the 28th as well. Right?
Coo! Coo! Coo!
Their argument is not obviously wrong. Congress proposed the amendment, and 3/4 of the states have since ratified it.
The amendment’s text does not include any deadline by which it must be ratified. When Congress first proposed it to the states, the joint resolution said it “shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress”, but who gave Congress the authority to make such a condition? The constitution certainly didn’t. Once congress proposes an amendment, it doesn’t get to withdraw it later, so why should it be allowed to impose conditions when it first proposes it?
There’s also the matter of six states that ratified it and then withdrew their ratification; the constitution doesn’t say whether they have the right to do that, but it stands to reason that they do, so long as they do it before there are 3/4 for it, which they did. So if the deadline is invalid, they’re still a few states short, but they can try to make them up now; but if they do, there will probably be a few more states that withdraw, so it will become a race to see whether they can hit the magic 38 at one time.
In the age of “pen and phone” governance, perhaps he intends to amend it with a Post-it® note?
Gavin Newsom, an extremist, left-wing zealot with no regard for the Constitution.
They rule… their rules are the law…. nothing must stand in their way to utopia.
Hey Gavin, GFY.
“Gun Safety Laws”. A nice, reasonable sounding term (who could argue with it, right?). Problem is gun violence is not the result of the inherent dangerousness of guns. In fact, all “assault weapons” have safeties.
Gun violence is from violent people.
Surely the governor is familiar with the Courts applying the ‘Rational Basis Review’ of laws when challenged. Government has to show that those laws serve a legitimate state interest and are neither irrational or arbitrary. So… how does 10 rounds serve that interest without 9 rounds being an arbitrary number? How rational is it to believe 9 rounds will not result in a mass shooting while 10 rounds will?
But then again, Liberals are power hungry statists with no interest in governing and get in a hissy fit when their dictatorial decrees are struck down.
I don’t think that rule applies to the 2A. Bruen decision changed that. Gov’t must show a history of such regulation going back to the period when 2A was adopted. If they can’t show that, the law is unconstitutional.
“
Yeah, the Court tried requiring the “strict scrutiny” standard of review and the states and lower courts just did what they damn well felt like (see “Applying the correct standard of review”). So they thought outside the scrutiny box, served up a recipe for crow from the Era of Good Feelings Cookbook, and said, “here, now you can choke on this.”
Unfairly and intemperately slandering and insulting a federal judge as an alleged “right-wing zealot” is more fairly construed as the behavior of an unhinged zealot than anything that Judge Benitez has done.
On a related note, scientists have determined that banning Newsome’s use of hair products would reduce California’s petroleum consumption by one-third.
BREAKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FAR LEFT FASCIST governor hairgel is ripped a new one by Constitutionalist judge over his attempts to strip the rights of every American’s legal right to own a firearm.
Governor hairgel who is owned by the communists and his greed for more riches than most can imagine had a melt down when he found out he can’t just take out a right of the people.