Judge Benitez, a Trump appointee, California District Court Judge, and all-around genius has been ****-stomping California's inane gun restrictions that target and punish the law-abiding and don't do **** to prevent illegal purchase or use of firearms.
Previously, he banned the stupid restrictions on magazine capacity as being ineffective, and a violation of the 2nd amendment. Yesterday, he issued a preliminary injunction, precluding enforcement of an equally inane and ineffectual restriction and outright ban on ammunition purchases.
In particular, California has onerous measures that make it very difficult to purchase ammunition in the state. Must be a state resident, have valid ID (not to vote of course since that's a right and the Constitution says nothing about self-protection or guns. Hold on ...), and go through an electronic verification process that is time-consuming and very, very often wrong.
The plaintiffs in the action proved that nearly 17% of ammunition purchases by lawful citizens with the necessary identification were denied for erroneous reasons. Further, Judge Benitez ruled that the outright ban on ammunition purchases online and delivered into the state (something known as "interstate commerce") violated the commerce clause as a direct regulation on interstate commerce - solely a Federal function.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-23-Order-Granting-MPI.pdf
Rock on, Judge Benitez - good call.
As to firearms and self-protection - I don't own guns. They scare me. But as to gun ownership, a right in our nation, I quote the great abortion advocates about abortions and those seeking to impede on such "right": If you don't want one, don't get one. Just leave me out of your own decisions on exercising Constitutional rights.
Previously, he banned the stupid restrictions on magazine capacity as being ineffective, and a violation of the 2nd amendment. Yesterday, he issued a preliminary injunction, precluding enforcement of an equally inane and ineffectual restriction and outright ban on ammunition purchases.
In particular, California has onerous measures that make it very difficult to purchase ammunition in the state. Must be a state resident, have valid ID (not to vote of course since that's a right and the Constitution says nothing about self-protection or guns. Hold on ...), and go through an electronic verification process that is time-consuming and very, very often wrong.
The plaintiffs in the action proved that nearly 17% of ammunition purchases by lawful citizens with the necessary identification were denied for erroneous reasons. Further, Judge Benitez ruled that the outright ban on ammunition purchases online and delivered into the state (something known as "interstate commerce") violated the commerce clause as a direct regulation on interstate commerce - solely a Federal function.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-23-Order-Granting-MPI.pdf
Rock on, Judge Benitez - good call.
As to firearms and self-protection - I don't own guns. They scare me. But as to gun ownership, a right in our nation, I quote the great abortion advocates about abortions and those seeking to impede on such "right": If you don't want one, don't get one. Just leave me out of your own decisions on exercising Constitutional rights.
