Friday, June 30, 2017

Small Temporary Sanity Outbreak in California

A California federal judge temporarily blocked a California law that would require destruction of  normal capacity magazines, according to the AP.
The judge ruled that the ban approved by the Legislature and voters last year takes away gun owners’ Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.

California law has prohibited buying or selling the magazines since 2000, but until now allowed those who had them to keep them.

“Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property,” San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote.

He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while he considers the underlying lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association.
It was, unfortunately but not unexpectedly, a very small incidence of temporary sanity.  A Sacramento-based judge rejected a similar challenge by several other gun owners’ rights groups.

It seems to me, and I'm not a lawyer, that California has gone over the Rubicon on this one.  It's one thing to ban the sale of these magazines, and that's plenty bad.  It's another to require they be turned over to the state with no compensation whatsoever.  The state isn't saying, "turn in your 30 round AR magazine and we'll give you three 10 rounders"!  They're saying "send them out of state to get them modified to hold no more than 10 rounds, destroy them yourself, or turn them into law enforcement agencies to melt down." That's backed up by the threat that possession can bring $100 fines or up to a year in jail.

Considering how broke the state is, they couldn't possibly buy the magazines from California gun owners, so cry as they might, they're depriving people of use and ownership of legally obtained property, an ex post facto prohibition.  It doesn't matter that this was a resolution passed by California voters.  
Voters agreed in November when they approved Proposition 63, a measure that toughened the penalties by allowing violators to be fined or jailed.

[Judge] Benitez said he was mindful of voters’ approval and government’s legitimate interest in protecting the public but added that the “Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra disagreed but didn't openly defy Judge Benitez, saying he takes the side of the state.  I strongly suspect he takes the side of the state when he personally agrees with it. 
“I will defend the will of California voters because we cannot continue to lose innocent lives due to gun violence.”
In which AG Becerra scores high on the moron index for thinking passing a law like this can ever have any effect on so-called “gun violence.”

Meanwhile, in the saner portions of the state away from the coasts, county sheriffs seem to have a bit better perspective.
 Law enforcement officers, such as Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, told the Sacramento Bee that he looks negatively at this law and that he doesn’t expect anyone to turn in their magazines, nor will he be sending his deputies out to confiscate them.

“We’re not going to be knocking on anybody’s door looking for them,” Bosenko said. “We’re essentially making law-abiding citizens into criminals with this new law.”
I think this is newsworthy in the “man bites dog”/really unusual event-sense.  Seeing sanity out of the institutions in California, or, is so weird it's like having an actual crew of Klingons land their Bird of Prey in your front yard and ask to join you for tea and chocolate. 
For some reason, AP chose to illustrate their article with an older Ruger 10/22 carbine accompanied by a 25 round magazine and what it calls a 10; I'm using their picture because it looks like my older 10/22 carbine, before I put in a better magazine release.  It's also a useful picture to remind everyone these stupid magazine bans don't just affect EBRs; they affect everything.  I'm not familiar with that 10 round magazine, though.  The stock Ruger 10 round magazines are considerably smaller - just the top, block-shaped portion of these magazines.


  1. Judge Benitez is Cuban....he understands what freedom is, what rights are and what they Constitution means. Unfortunately this reprieve is temporary.....very. the state will appeal and eventually those appeal if not successful at a lower level will reach the Ninth Circus Court...and this "august body" (ha ha ha) WILL overturn this judge and allow the state to proceed with imposing this blatantly unconstitutional law. It will join countless other laws in Kali that directly, blatantly and proveably violate the Constitution. Those in power seeking to rule us no longer even care to pretend they believe everything in the Constitution. They do as they wish openly. There is no justice from the kangaroo courts in America. Citizens who wish to be treated justly must force those in power to do so.....and if they don't NOBODY is going to do this for them.

  2. Great title for the post.

    Sadly you're's only a temporary bout of sanity, and things will be back to their usual level of insanity very shortly.

    Our house goes on the market end of next week. ALL the realtors we talked with agree it will sell in 14~18 days. Then 20~25 days for escrow close, and were OUTTA HERE!

    WoW....less than 60 days left in this progressive paradise! I haven't been this excited since I picked my retirement date two years ago....

  3. @ Dan - I think you have the progression right, but you left out "take the 9th Circuit decision to SCOTUS."

    The hazard in all this is that this process takes years, a huge amount of change will occur during those years - whether anyone involved wants it or not - and if the process is long enough some of that coming change will drive what might be termed "other solutions to the problem."

    I strongly suspect that Kalifornia, as we currently know it, is in its last decade.

    As Herbert Stein said "things that cannot go on, won't."


    1. The SCOTUS refused to hear Peruta V CA. I doubt they will take this case either. So like Peruta V CA this dies at the Ninth.

  4. I strongly suspect that Kalifornia, as we currently know it, is in its last decade.

    In regards to??

    Are you thinking it will get worse, or better? More liberal or less? Collapse completely, or something else?

  5. In Far Northern California - Shasta and Siskiyou counties, at least - the populace and county law enforcement are conservative. The Sheriffs of those two counties have stated in public they will not enforce laws that contradict the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. (I use to live in the hills southwest of Yreka, and worked for CHP, so I had a lot of contact with the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department. I left in '95 as I lost my little 40 acre ranch in my divorce. I miss the land, but am glad not to have to deal with the politics and laws of Californica any more.

  6. "That's backed up by the threat that possession can bring $100 fines or up to a year in jail."

    The fine is there for the looks. If you get convicted of anything that rates a year in jail, you're no longer allowed to own firearms. That's what they're afraid of: Armed, mad peasants.