|
Category: Gun Fearing Wussies
 |
Judge Benitez Issues Ruling to Save Magazine Owners from Government
Confiscation and Prosecution
On Monday, September 26, 2022, Judge Roger T. Benitez proved once again that he is ten steps ahead of the California government and its anti-gun leaders when he re-issued his ruling to protect “traditional” magazine owners from prosecution.
If you have been following the “merry-go-round” that has been the life of Duncan v Bonta (formerly Becerra), it’s entirely possible that you have been confused.
Let’s break this down:
Initially, the case of Duncan v Becerra (ban on 10+ round magazines which originated from legislation and an initiative) went before Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez. He said that it violated the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment using the test that Justice Scalia established in Heller v DC and was therefore unconstitutional. Knowing that the crazy 9th would use a different standard, Benitez ruled that it would still be unconstitutional regardless of what standard was used.
This opened what became known as “Freedom Week” where Californians legally purchased between one and two million magazines.
California threatened to appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so Judge Benitez issued an order staying his decision from going into effect until all legal proceedings were completed, thus preventing the California government from banning any “Freedom Week” magazines.
The 9th assigned the case to a 3-judge panel who agreed with Judge Benitez that the mag ban was unconstitutional.
Angered by this defeat, the State immediately asked for an 11-judge en banc panel who as expected, reversed the previous pro 2A decisions and sided with the State.
The pro-gun forces – which included Gun Owners of California – appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). SCOTUS kept the case alive pending their decision in NYSRPA v Bruen. Once the court declared that the only rule that lower courts can use to test Second Amendment challenges, that being text, as informed by history and tradition and nothing else, the court accepted the case (granted Certiorari which means it could be heard), then vacated the anti-2A decision of the 9th Circuit and remanded the case back to them, with the instructions to reconsider the case with the new one-step standard.
At this point, the 9th Circuit en banc panel could have reversed its decision and declared the mag ban unconstitutional. Of course, they did not. Instead, they returned the case to Judge Benitez who had already declared the law unconstitutional.
Is your head swimming by now?
In doing so, the 9th essentially “erased” Judge Benitez’ original decision and directed him to start from scratch.
Given this turn of events, we are confident the State of California had been preparing to begin the confiscation of magazines and enforcing the ban because forcing Benitez start from scratch meant that his original order that protected “Freedom Week” magazine buyers from prosecution was no longer in place.
As we’ve said time and time again, Judge Benitez doesn’t pussy-foot around; he was one step ahead of the gun mag grabbers, and re-issued his order protecting magazine owners from prosecution by the state.
Bottomline? We are free to own, possess and in many cases use our 10+ magazines (as long as they are not used on “California Compliant Semi-Autos”).
What happens next? The entire convoluted process is set to begin again, but with one huge difference: lower courts MUST follow the rules for deciding Second Amendment case as established by the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision. This changes everything. Both SCOTUS and Judge Benitez have come to the rescue, not only of citizens who abide by the law, but of the Constitution itself.
Get off the merry-go-round/rollercoaster of confusion and join Gun Owners of California; we will keep you up-to-speed and continue to march ahead to fully restore, then defend and protect the Second Amendment. We will accept NO COMPROMISE!
Source: AP Photo/Wilson Ring
Several historical reenactments in New York have been canceled in recent weeks over concerns that participants could be violating the state’s restrictive gun laws.
A law that took effect Sept. 1 prohibits carrying weapons in “sensitive locations,” including public parks, sport fields and museums.
In Allegany County, a Civil War reenactment weekend for Sept. 23-25 was nixed after participants consulted with local law enforcement about the new law. A War of 1812 Battle of Plattsburgh reenactment was postponed. A separate Living History Weekend in German Flatts, which included a Civil War reenactment, was canceled after law enforcement consulted their attorneys, the Observer-Dispatch reported.
“Our attorneys advised us that there is no exemption in the law for civil war reenactments,” Herkimer County Sheriff Scott Scherrer told the Dispatch. “It would be illegal according to the letter of the governor’s law.”
The Observer-Dispatch noted that in each of the events, the use of a black powder musket “seems to violate” the law’s restrictions. However, a statement sent to USA TODAY Network New York claimed that the law allows historical reenactments to occur.
“These laws allow historical re-enactments to occur,” Hochul’s statement read, “and we will work with legislators and local law enforcement to ensure these events can legally and safely proceed.”
Terry Parker, who runs the historical reenactment events in Allegany County, told the Observer-Dispatch that there are “no plans” to revive the Civil War reenactment weekend.
“All it would take is a citizen complaint,” he said, adding that “and the whole thing will become a mess.”
Last week, Townhall covered how Mayor Eric Adams has taken to scapegoating gun manufacturers for New York City’s rise in violent crime. In remarks he made at the National Press Club, he claimed that gun violence has stemmed from “greedy” gun manufacturers who employ “aggressive” marketing tactics to sell guns.
When a gun crime is committed, we need the name of the gun and how that gun was obtained by the shooter. Who looked the other way. Where it was bought and who profited from that sale. Following the money is how you get to the heart of the story.
Gun violence is no exception.
Guns don’t magically appear in the hands of shooters. They don’t fall from the sky or grow on trees. Guns are made and marketed with the express purpose of generating profit.
Over the summer, President and CEO Mark Smith of Smith & Wesson fired back at politicians like Adams and Hochul. A report from the New York Daily News found that Glock, Taurus, Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Polymer8o produced more than half of the guns used in crimes in New York and 11 other major U.S. cities.
A number of politicians and their lobbying partners in the media have recently sought to disparage Smith & Wesson. Some have had the audacity to suggest that after they have vilified, undermined and defunded law enforcement for years, supported prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions, overseen the decay of our country’s mental health infrastructure, and generally promoted a culture of lawlessness, Smith & Wesson and other firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the crime wave that has predictably resulted from these destructive policies…
But they are the ones to blame for the surge in violence and lawlessness, and they seek to avoid any responsibility for the crisis of violence they have created by attempting to shift the blame to Smith & Wesson, other firearm manufacturers and law abiding gun owners…To be clear, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never broken into a home; a Smith & Wesson firearm has never assaulted a woman out for a late-night run in the city; a Smith & Wesson firearm has never carjacked an unsuspecting driver stopped at a traffic light. Instead, Smith & Wesson provides these citizens with the means to protect themselves and their families…
We will continue to work alongside law enforcement, community leaders and lawmakers who are genuinely interested in creating safe neighborhoods. We will engage those who genuinely seek productive discussions, not a means of scoring political points. We will continue informing law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves and their families. We will never back down in our defense of the 2nd Amendment.