In a massive setback for the hateful bigots at “Lift Every Voice Oregon,” a Federal judge in California has declared that that state’s ban on standard capacity magazines is unconstitutional …again.

In the decision Judge Roger Benitez noted:

One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen. That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers.

This is the exact opposite of the reasoning used by Federal Judge Karin Immergut when she found the magazine ban in Measure 114 to be constitutional.

Immergut ignored clear dictates from the US Supreme Court in the Bruen decision, and common sense, when she ruled in our lawsuit against the measure, that it was perfectly ok to ban Oregon gun owners from owning virtually any firearm magazine. She chose to ignore the painfully obvious reality that anyone intent on committing a crime would have ready access to magazines of any size and only the law abiding would be damaged by her clearly biased ruling.

This is very positive news for our ongoing efforts to reverse this dangerous and malicious law that barely passed with the help of out-of-state millionaires and the willing lapdogs in the cartel media.

While not directly affecting the state case currently in Harney County, it should had a positive impact there as well.

The ruling does stay the decision for ten days to give the far left state of California a chance to appeal, and there is a long way to go, but this is a very positive and long awaited development.

it really isnt good news cause the communists will ignore it and do what they want. only the "law and order" right bows before judges who hate them

If you’ll remember, back in 2017, Judge Roger Benitez struck down California’s ban on standard capacity magazines the state had arbitrarily ruled to be “high capacity.” That ruling was, of course, overturned by an en banc Ninth Circuit ruling. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court where it sat until Bruen was decided.

After Bruen, the Supreme Court granted cert, vacated the ruling, and remanded it for reconsideration. Today, Judge Benitez has, as expected, struck down the ban as clearly unconstitutional.

As he wrote . . .

Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Therefore, magazines come within the text of the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because millions of removable firearm magazines able to hold between 10 and 30 rounds are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and because they are reasonably related to service in the militia, the magazines are presumptively within the protection of the Second Amendment. There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried. The best analogue that can be drawn from historical gun laws are the early militia equipment regulations that required all able-bodied citizens to equip themselves with a gun and a minimum amount of ammunition in excess of 10 rounds.

Oh, and this . . .

One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen. That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Big BIG win!

From Oregon Firearms Federation

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/huge-victory-over-magazine-bans