Last year, van Nieuwenhuyzen v. Sniff set up the Ninth Circus for the dilemma of upholding a gun control law or shooting down sanctuary cities.
Now federal Southern District of California Judge Roger T. Benitez has made a ruling in Duncan et al vs. Becerra that, once appealed by the state of California, likewise presents the Ninth with a little problem. Benitez has found California’s 10-round magazine limit to be unconstitutional.
Ah, but the way he wrote it. You have to like a ruling that begins
“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts.”
And then the introduction: He cites three self-defense cases in which women needed more rounds.
The Ninth is likely to reverse Benitez, based on past history. And then we get to note that it means they want women dead.
Beyond the introduction, the ruling is rather dry reading, but worth the effort for Benitez’ analysis. He notes the irony of California’s law.
Perhaps the irony of § 32310 escapes notice. The reason for the adoption of the 19 Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an oppressive state. The anti-federalists were worried about the risk of oppression by a standing army. The colonies had witnessed the standing army of England marching through Lexington to Concord, Massachusetts, on a mission to seize the arms and gunpowder of the militia and the Minutemen—an attack that ignited the Revolutionary war. With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.
Exactly.
He spends a great deal of time explaining why the law is inconsistent with Heller, and why this law fails, not just strict scrutiny, but even intermediate.
In light of the ongoing bump-fire ban cases, I found a few other points interesting.
Plaintiffs who have kept their own larger capacity magazines since 1999, and now face criminal sanctions for continuing to possess them, no doubt feel they have been misled or tricked by their lawmakers.
[…]
In an analogous First Amendment case, the Supreme Court called this approach turning the Constitution upside down.
Sound familiar? Those once-lawfully owned stocks suddenly making people into criminals. I don’t know offhand if Guedes or the other bumpfire cases cite Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 474–75 (2007) or Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), but they should.
Benitez addresses “legislative deference,” too. In this context, that is the deference a court would owe the lawmakers who presumably carefully study matters before crafting law (giggle if you wish; that’s the theory). He tosses that in Duncan, because this law was passed by public referendum. No deference owed.
In Guedes et al an issue is what deference courts owe unelected bureaucrats who change legislative intent. None, I think.
After dozens of pages explaining why unsourced, anecdotal “expert” witnesses, mischaracterized laws, misstated rulings, arbitrary thresholds, and nonsensical exceptions are bovine excrement, Benitez concludes
This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.
Freedom over security. I am astonished to see that from a judge in California. The Ninth will soil their black dresses.
I expect all the Californian police-staters are going to have trouble wrapping their minds around that. To be perfectly clear:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
Paragraph 2 is a thing of beauty. Not only is the judge tossing the law, he has made AG Becerra personally responsible for making sure every LEO is the state knows it’s the law. If this were to stand — and that alone will make the Ninth want to reverse — then anyone busted in the future for a 15-round mag by some local yokel cop, who says he didn’t know, has grounds to sue Becerra, even if charges are eventually dropped.
This is obviously a good thing, but don’t get too comfortable. This is a ruling by a District court. In the Ninth Circuit. All things considered, I expect the Circuit to reverse and remand.
Depending on plaintiff’s resources, this will most likely need to go to the Supreme Court. Given the varied magazine limits in assorted jurisdictions, SCOTUS should grant cert. Will they? The post McDonald record isn’t encouraging, especially last week’s decision to deny a stay in the bump-fire ban.
Stay tuned.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
(More Tip Jar Options) |
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
