Category: A Victory!
Fed Judge: California’s ‘High-Capacity’ Magazine Ban Unconstitutional
by
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Friday that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), noting: “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”
On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling, voting 2-to-1 against the ban and sending the case back to Benitez.
Benitez again relied upon Heller, noting that “millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense. This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test.“
The case is Duncan v. Becerra, No. 2:17-cv-56-81 in the U.S. District Court for Southern California.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Trending Today
Bully for the Show me State!

The measure passed 23-10.
SB613 counts as what could be the strongest defense against federal encroachments on the right to keep an bear arms ever considered at the state level. It reads, in part:
All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
Federal acts which would be considered “null and void and of no effect” include, but are not limited to:
(a) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens
The legislation specifically bans all state employees from enforcing or attempting to enforce any acts running counter to the proposed law. Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a federal government busting at the seams. Even the National Governors Association admitted the same recently when they sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.”
That means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.” On federal gun control measures, Judge Andrew Napolitano suggested that a single state standing down would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce” within that state.
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic. Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power inFederalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a way to successfully thwart federal acts.
FRIENDLY FIRE
The bill passed despite strong opposition from the law enforcement community. According to a Report from the Institute of Justice, Missouri law enforcement cashed in to the tune of $34,462,153 in forfeiture from 2001 to 2008. They only get this money if they do the bidding of the federal government.
The NRA also came out against the legislation due to a proposed amendment. Anti-gun Senator Jamilah Nasheed added language requiring gun owners to report a stolen firearm to police no more than 72 hrs after the discovery of the theft. The NRA claimed the amendment also included penalties.
“Those who are unable to report a lost or stolen firearm within this arbitrary amount of time, would be subject to penalties including: a $1,000 fine, Class A misdemeanor and the loss of their Right to Carry Permit.”
But the actual text of the amendment included no such language. (read it here)
Bill author Sen. Brian Nieves and Nasheed agreed to reconsider and the amendment was removed earlier this week, removing the source of NRA opposition.
PENALTIES
In what many legal experts consider a controversial move, the Missouri bill also includes criminal charges for any federal agent who violates the state law. Under the law, state and local law enforcement would have “discretionary power” to determine determine if they will press charges. Inside sources say this was done to alleviate concerns from Missouri Law Enforcement organizations who actively lobbied against the effort in 2013, citing a requirement to arrest “federal law enforcement partners in the field” as a primarily concern.
While constitutionally valid within the original understanding of the Constitution, “legal experts” and federal courts won’t likely support this provision. Even so, every bill in Missouri is severable. That means if a court finds part of it unconstitutional, the rest remains. And the main provision calling on the entire state to stop enforcing federal gun control measures stands on solid legal ground under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Court precedent going from 1842 to 2012 holds the feds simply cannot require state to help them violate your rights. And the feds don’t have the manpower to do it themselves.
STATE CONSTITUTION
Also today, a measure supporters say will work hand-in-hand with SB613 passed the Senate. Senate Joint Resolution 36 (SJR36) proposes an amendment the Missouri state constitution with text obligating the state government to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. It passed the Senate today by a vote of 29-4. If passed by the House, it will go to Missouri voters for approval this fall.
According to Missouri First, as a constitutional amendment to the Missouri Constitution’s existing Article I, Sec. 23, SJR 36 does these things:
- Elevates the right to keep and bear arms to “unalienable rights” status. While you and I would and should maintain that a “right is a right”, the courts don’t look at it that way. The courts give more weight to some constitutional rights than others. Government actions infringing on what they consider lesser rights are not scrutinized as closely as the “weightier” rights. For example, when a citizen claims his rights are being violated by some law, the courts can “test” the law against two basic standards of review. The least strict standard is often referred to as the “Rational Basis Test”, and the tougher standard — the one that best protects your rights — is the “Compelling State Interest Test”.
- The Second thing SJR36 does is “obligate” the state to protect the right to keep and bear arms from all infringements — including those from the federal government. Coupled with the “unalienable” provision, this clause will also help to defend any bills like SB613 to nullify unconstitutional federal gun control laws if those bills are challenged in state courts. This is an important provision that helps to empower state nullification of unconstitutional federal edicts.
- It adds “ammunition and accessories” as explicitly constitutional protected. And adds the phrase “any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny” to the state Constitution. This phrase reinforces the concept in (1), above, which is a tremendous help in keeping the courts from redefining our gun rights.
SB613 and SJR36 now move on to the state House, where it will first need to pass out of committee before the full House can consider it.
Well I liked it!

For me at least, this series about the History of Technology was a real eye opener to me. Hopefully you might enjoy them also! Grumpy
Western Civilization documentaries: The day the universe changed by James Burke
Click here for a link list of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation series as well as James Burke’s connections 1.The day the universe changed is also created by James Burke and follows a similar style as that documentary. In this one, though, it tends to focus on how the development of a revolutionary big idea has tended to shape our understanding of the world and/or universe.
Hence the title. Honestly, the concept for the series leans a little too relativist in that respect for my liking, but not in an extreme way that is common in post-modernism.
Its true enough that new data can change your perceptions about reality, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t or wasn’t an objective reality that doesn’t give two cents for what you happen to be perceiving, right or wrong.
I would think that Burke himself would basically agree with this point, while also stating that for us, at least, these changing perceptions have had very important consequences. True.
Anyway, it is a mainstream documentary so it tends to have the same problems you can expect from most of those, but since its old (1985), generally pro-western civilization, and vaguely conservative leaning, as a result, it is quite easy to look past that and enjoy a well produced documentary the likes of which you are unlikely to find produced today. Please enjoy the ten episodes linked below:
Episode 1: The way we are: It started with the greeks.
Episode 2: The light of the above: medieval conflict – faith and reason
Episode 3: Point of view: Scientific imagination in the renaissance.
Episode 4: A matter of fact: Printing transforms knowledge
Episode 5: Infinitely reasonable: Science revises the heavens
Episode 6: Credit where its due: The factory and marketplace revolution
Episode 7: What the doctor ordered: Social impact of new medical knowledge
Episode 8: Fit to rule: Darwin’s Revolution
Episode 9: Making waves: The new physics – Newton revised
Episode 10: Worlds without end: Changing knowledge, changing reality
blob:https://www.dailymotion.com/d58f2d77-c69c-4965-9950-9eb9d718e54a

My Dad & I almost pissed our pants from this one. Because we were laughing out loud so hard!
I miss you Dad! Grumpy
Anyways Happy 107th Birthday Sir! I am sure that God is having a good time with you! Grumpy

I think that this would make an excellent pair of book Ends! Grumpy

Invention of the Drive-In Movie Theater
![]()
In 1931, Richard Hollingshead Jr. owned and worked in his own automotive supply store called Whiz Auto Products Company.
Always on the lookout for the next great new idea, Hollingshead noted that even though the Great Depression was in full swing, people still found money to attend movies at their local theater.
He pondered the means to combine his auto parts business with movies and dreamt of opening a deluxe gas station and auto repair shop that featured a restaurant and movies for the customers to watch while they customers waited for their car repairs to be completed.
To bring his dream to fold, Hollingshead began by experimenting with the “outdoor movie” concept (and as he progressed, the concept morphed to exclude the gas station and auto repair business).
Hollingshead tested the outdoor movie concept in the driveway of his home located at 212 Thomas Avenue in Riverton, New Jersey.
He placed a 1928 Kodak projector on the hood of his car projecting the movie onto a white screen nailed to a nearby tree. He tried various placements of speakers behind the screen in an attempt to find the right distance and volume for the soundtrack. His experiments grew in complexity and soon he was testing the sound projection with windows in his car opened at different heights. He even used a sprinkler to simulate rain to see how outside noises would affect the soundtrack of the movie.
![]()
Hollingshead soon realized that if several cars were lined in a row, the cars in the rear would not have a clear view of the screen, even as he adjusted the distance of the screen from the ground. To ensure the automobiles had an unobstructed view of the screen, he placed ramps on the ground and drove the cars up onto the ramps to raise the front of the car off of the ground.
He reasoned that a series of ramps placed at taller and taller heights as you got closer to the screen would solve the problem. Soon Hollingshead was comfortable with the setup and filed a patent (United States Patent 1,909,537) for the Drive-In Movie Theater on August 6, 1932.
![]()
While he waited for the patent application to clear, Hollingshead began promoting his novel idea and sought investors for the new project.
His cousin, Willie Warren Smith, a parking lot operator, agreed to partner with Hollingshead and the two formed Park-In Theaters Inc. Edward Ellis, a road contractor, was offered a portion of the company’s stock in exchange for paving the lot the theater would be located in Pennsauken Township, New Jersey.
A 4th investor, Oliver Willets, an executive at Campbell’s Soup, was also allowed to provide seed money in exchange for shares of the new company’s stock.
![]()
On May 16, 1933, the day the patent was granted, Hollingshead began construction of the world’s first drive in theater on Crescent Boulevard in Pennsauken Township, New Jersey. Construction took three weeks at a cost of $30,000 and included a 40 foot wide by 30 foot high screen located 12 feet off the ground. The screen was enclosed in a mammoth concrete and brick structure that could be seen from miles away.
The drive in theater lot was paved with gravel and oil to keep dust down and discourage mosquitoes. Sound was supplied by three six-foot square RCA speakers (that could be heard from miles around on clear summer nights).
![]()
Opening night was scheduled for Tuesday June 6, 1933. The new drive in was to be known simply as “Drive-In Theater”. Hollingshead hammered on the numerous advantages drive-ins provided over indoor theaters.
Drive-in Theaters provided patrons the option of smoking in their own cars, not having to worry about talking and disturbing other movie goers, did not have to worry about finding or paying for parking spots (theaters in the 1930’s were often located downtown where available parking was sparse) and most importantly, children could be taken and allowed to sleep in the backseat of the car while their parents enjoyed the show.
Opening night was a smashing success as 400 car loads of patrons packed the lot to see the 1932 release of Wives Beware.
Strangely, a skeptical movie industry forced Hollingshead to pay $400 for a four day rental of the movie while indoor theaters only paid $20 for an entire week. Admission was 25¢ for each car and an additional 25¢ for each person, somewhat higher than the prevailing price at the indoor houses at the time (who were also offering double features for a lesser price).
Families arrived in droves while teenagers protested with “Down with Drive-Ins, More Work for Babysitters” signs (in the 1930’s, it was common for adults to leave their children with babysitters while they enjoyed a night out to watch a movie). A week later Hollingshead added a concession stand to sell food before and during the show.
![]()
Success of the first drive-in theater was short lived. By 1936, Hollingshead was forced to close the theater in Riverton and move his operations to nearby Union, New Jersey. Revenues were good but Hollingshead incurred significantly higher movie rental costs than the typical indoor theater which made it hard to turn a profit.
During that same year, a second theater was opened in Weymouth Massachusetts on May 6, 1936. The owners of the Weymouth Drive-In neglected to purchase licensing rights from Hollingshead (who held the patent for the drive-in movie concept) and Hollingshead filed a patent infringement suit against them.
A settlement was reached and Weymouth Drive-In entered into a licensing agreement with Hollingshead’s Park-In Theater company. Shortly thereafter, theaters began popping up all over the area and legal wrangling lasted for years afterward. So many suits and countersuits were filed that Hollingshead could barely keep up with the legal battles.
One case, involving Leows Theater in the late 1930’s, made its way to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The courts decision was stunning and crushed Hollingshead’s Park-In Company.
The court ruled that the patent, which was the basis for the licensing fees that Hollingshead collected from other drive-in theater owners, was invalid and should have never been granted in the first place.
The court’s opinion was that the outdoor theater patent was not inventive and was merely a facsimile of the layout of an indoor theater utilizing cars instead of seats. Although a crushing blow to Hollingshead and his Park-In Company, the effect was to open the gates for further drive-in theater development.
![]()
By the 1940’s, community complaints concerning the noise that the drive in theaters emanated, spawned the introduction of in car speakers. The innovation was well received by drive-in movie patrons. By the end of 1949 there were 155 drive-ins located around the country. When the “car culture” of the 1950’s roared into full swing, the number of drive-in theaters swelled to over 800. By the end of the 1950’s there were over 4,000 drive in movie theaters in the United States.
In the 1950 post war years, Americans began to move to the suburbs and everyone owned an automobile. And they loved their cars. Drive ins became particularly popular in rural areas. Parents loved drive-ins because they could take their kids. Teenagers loved them because of the privacy they gave them and their dates. During their height, some drive-ins used attention-grabbing gimmicks to boost attendance.
They ranged from small airplane runways, unusual attractions such as a small petting zoo or cage of monkeys, actors to open their movies, or musical groups to play before the show. Some drive-ins held religious services on Sunday morning and evening, or charged a flat price per car on slow nights like Wednesday.
This boom caused a trend toward ever-larger and more elaborate drive-ins, such as the Bel Air Drive-In in Detroit, built in 1950. This location featured space for 2200 cars, an elaborate concession stand along with a full playground and a train ride for the kids.
Some operators put up amusement parks, boat rides, fishing ponds and added in-car heaters to remain open year-round for their patrons. It was also during this period and into the 1960’s that the drive-in business began to expand beyond U.S. borders, with locations opening in Australia, Great Britain and Denmark among other countries.

Please let us know if you’re having issues with commenting.