Plaintiffs contend that there is no genuine dispute that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the individual right of every law-abiding citizen to acquire, possess, and keep common firearms and their common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines which are typically possessed for lawful purposes. Plaintiffs also contend that the state of California has not carried its burden to demonstrate a reasonable fit between the flat ban on such magazines and its important interests in public safety. Plaintiffs contend that the state’s magazine ban thus cannot survive constitutionally-required heightened scrutiny and they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as a matter of law. Plaintiffs are correct.
Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted.69 California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge
March 29, 2019
VIRGINIA DUNCAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as attorney General of the State of California, Defendant
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DECLARING CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 32310 UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT
[Although I avoid it, sometimes I travel to or through California. When I do, I take a different gun with me rather than the usual STI DVC limited because the smallest magazine I have for it is 15 rounds. I take my Ruger P-89 with a couple 10-round magazines for when I can legally have it ready for use (such as in my motel room).
A stay of the enforcement of this judgement has been made so I will have to continue taking the P-89 until this goes through the appeal process. But I look forward to taking my usual carry gun and 18-round magazines and thumbing my nose at the tyrannical California politicians.—Joe]