Posted July 18, 2018 4:00 pm by Comments

By Tom Knighton

In California, it’s well-known that you can’t buy magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Oh, if you had a 30 round or other so-called “high capacity” magazine from before the ban, that was fine. “If you like your magazine, you can keep your magazine,” kind of thing.

However, recently, the grandfather clause that permitted that was removed, requiring people with those magazines to either remove them from the state, sell them to a licensed gun dealer (and why they would buy something they couldn’t sell is beyond me), or turn it in to law enforcement for destruction.

Unsurprisingly, the rule was challenged and a preliminary injunction was issued. This is a logical step designed to keep people from being forced to lose magazines they can’t recoup should the challengers win.

Then, in a shocking turn of events, the Ninth Circuit actually affirmed the preliminary injunction.

Earlier today, a Ninth Circuit Panel affirmed the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction. The panel found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that “magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.” The opinion also stated that the district …Read the Rest

Source:: Bearing Arms

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *