If anyone is keeping track, Judge Benitez released his decision in Duncan vs Becerra yesterday. This challenges CA’s 10-round magazine limit (and the criminalization of import, transfer, possession, etc.).
You can read it here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6082773/149/duncan-v-becerra/
Decision is 71 pages total. There’s actually only about 30 pages worth of decision, and the rest is an incredible number of footnotes citing relevant cases, evidence, etc.
This is the second time Benitez has heard this case. The first time he also ruled against the state and it resulted in “Freedom Week.” The case went up to the 9th for appeal, and the state lost again. Then it went en banc, where it was overturned. Then it went to SCOTUS, who sent it back to be heard again after they released the Bruen decision last year.
Of course, it’s all not all over yet. This has to work its way back through the appeals process all over again. BUT, Judge Benitez did such a thorough job dismantling every argument the state brought to the table that you might find it useful in your own discussions on the topic.
[ul]
[li]Heller says “dangerous AND unusual” not “dangerous OR unusual” as the state tried to argue, it’s a non starter[/li][li]State tries to argue that applies to “commonly used for self defense” rather than what SCOTUS defined as “commonly used for lawful purposes,” state furthermore tries to argue that “used” only includes situations where the weapon was actually discharged. Judge wasn’t having either argument.[/li][li]10 rounds is clearly arbitrary, and the state’s expert witness was unable to define or defend their logic when questioned[/li][li]Magazines are considered arms, and are therefore part and parcel with the 2A. State got caught in a bind when they tried to argue that handguns can operate without a magazine since they also have the handgun roster that requires magazine disconnects and therefore a handgun cannot function without its magazine. Furthermore, Judge called out that CA law lists magazines within the relevant definition of firearms, so they can’t argue both ways.[/li][li]State presented over 300 “analogous” laws as prescribed by Bruen, and not one was actually applicable. Judge clealry points out that there was NEVER any firearms law that limited possession and ownership of any particular firearm until the 20th century. Furthermore, the only laws that did exist were there to control behavior (i.e. carrying a firearm with intent to do harm)[/li][li]Judge calls out the state for claiming that modern weapons are so much more devastating than founding era. He points out that both revolvers and lever action guns developed in the 1800s represented incredible increases in firepower for the individual, and yet no law was made to control them.[/li][li]Judge points out at the end that the state conveniently omitted one analogous founding era law that did not place a maximum limit on how much ammunition could be carried, but instead defined a minimum amount of ammunition to be carried (20 rounds)[/li][/ul]
There’s a lot more to dig into. The take down of the state’s expert witness on the “2.2 rounds fired per defensive use” statistic is extremely well done.
There are a few more cases pending release form this judge, including one about CA’s assault weapons ban. Interesting times.