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

« David Kopel on proposed Colorado "red flag law" | Main | British proposal: register knives, and require them to be fitted with GPS »

Major 2A victory in California

Posted by David Hardy · 29 March 2019 06:58 PM

Duncan v. Becerra, striking down California's ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds. Chuck Michel claims the victory. I haven't done more than skim the opinion -- it's 86 pages long!

Of course, since this is the Ninth Circuit, don't hold your breath yet. But with New York State Rifle and Pistol pending in the Supreme Court, this may be part of the next wave of serious appellate challenges.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Brad | March 30, 2019 4:56 AM | Reply

Am I dreaming? Is this real?

old guy | March 30, 2019 3:28 PM | Reply

With what is going on in NJ that is another place where this opinion would be welcomed

FWB | March 30, 2019 7:23 PM | Reply

Whoopie Dingy!! If the supreme court hadn't fouled everything up in Barron (1833), we wouldn't be having to fight all these state level battles. Marshall was an idiot, unable to grasp simple relationships. And so we have a mess that will never be straightened out. But then the court did transfer a lot of power to itself through those early incorrect decisions.

Rkh | March 31, 2019 4:27 PM | Reply

Solid opinion, but I wish the judge had used a better editor.

Trump-style capitalization and sentence fragments got groans from me and I would not have used the true-crime anecdotes as an intro to improve readability.

Then there's his statement that AP ammo bans are a "good idea." WTF. Where did that come from?

Fyooz | March 31, 2019 5:18 PM | Reply

Rkh: "the true-crime anecdotes as an intro"

agreed. Recalls a Reason article about how some SupCt justices lard up the intros to their rulings with emotional appeals. But we take solace in the results, no?

Meanwhile I'd like to establish a more faithful reading of Miller: "common use" means commonly used by the forces that a militia might oppose. Every terrible implement of the Soldier is our birthright.

JohnS | April 5, 2019 2:00 PM | Reply

=== DEADLINE FRIDAY APRIL 5, 5 PM ===

Judge Benitez issued a partial stay of his order on April 4.

1) the 'possession' stay in force before last Friday, Mar 29, is still in force.

2) Magazines ordered, but not necessarily delivered, by April 5, 5 PM PDT, are legal under the March 29 court order

Leave a comment