Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Enough almost to make me weep.... | Main | Article criticizing NFA classification of short barreled rifles »

Federal judge enjoins California's magazine ban

Posted by David Hardy · 30 June 2017 08:03 AM

It's a preliminary injunction, so no guarantees, but the option is here.

The opinion starts getting interesting at p. 16. At p. 26, the Court criticizes the evidence offered by the state. It sounds to me as if the state assumed it'd be a slam-dunk, no judge is going to enjoin the state no matter how sloppy our evidence, and so just threw a stack of paper at the judge.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Old Guy | June 30, 2017 9:17 AM | Reply

Seems like they found a judge who is not willing to just roll over and play dead. That he actually looked at what was being asked and went through a rigorous analysis. All good stuff - outcome not guaranteed but at least we get to play ball.

Ratus | June 30, 2017 4:44 PM | Reply

Wow, that was a good read.

With quotes from Mencken and the (Kozinski
dissent from Silveira v. Lockyer.

On page 28 I love the start of the detailed dissection of the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns survey", also the footnote is hilarious. :D

Deep Lurker | July 1, 2017 11:40 PM | Reply

At a tangent, the opinion mentions an exception for current & retired law enforcement officials. Which brings up a question that has been on my mind for some time now: Who has standing to challenge those sorts of "retired law enforcement" exceptions as being defacto Patents of Nobility and therefore unconstitutional?

Leave a comment