California Wants Gun Mag BAN Case to Go Away, Not So Fast Freedom Haters

Magazine Bans
File Photo

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a long-running legal challenge of California’s magazine ban statute have filed a memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to the state’s counter-motion for a summary judgment. The case is known as Wiese v. Bonta, originally filed in 2017.

SAF is joined by the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and several private citizens. They are represented by attorneys George M. Lee at Seiler Epstein LLP in San Francisco and Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at DiGuiseppe Law Firm in Southport, N.C. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

“California has been stubbornly defending what amounts to a confiscatory effort to deprive state residents of magazines which are commonly owned by millions of citizens across the country,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Following the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling last year, the state has doubled down with its gun control efforts, and defending this indefensible magazine ban is a major component of what amounts to a campaign of resistance which the courts should not allow.”

“We’ve been in this fight for six years,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The state has now resorted to absurd arguments that concede an inherent operating part of a firearm is an ‘arm’ only so long as it holds an arbitrarily determined number of rounds, but suddenly becomes something else if it holds more. As we explain in the text of our memorandum, nothing in the Second Amendment supports the state’s position on drawing these random lines to determine whether something is an ‘arm’ or not.

“Last summer’s Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case established a new directive for handling Second Amendment cases, which now require that challenged gun laws must be supported by historical traditions, and the state cannot do that in this case,” he added.

The 28-page memorandum also notes;

“Therefore, the common use of an arm overrides any decrees or policy judgments of the State as to what its citizens ‘really need’ for purposes of exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear protected arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes. And it is beyond any reasonable dispute that the magazines at issue are commonly owned, both here in California and throughout the United States.”


The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Second Amendment Foundation

31 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Arizona

Free men don’t ask permission of the state.

Shall not infringe does not have a list of exceptions.

commiefornia cannot win, and is consistently ignored… rightly and justly.

Cappy

Give Commifornistan back to Mexico. Build a wall.

Desert Guy

Governments, by their very diefinition, do not obey laws.

Rowboat

Six years of lawyering with several teams of lawyers is adding up to some pretty high billings.
My question is ; when we eventually win this, in the next several years , who is footing the bills? Will Commiefornia be penalized for constipating the Justice system and will our side just have to suck it up and be content with the moral victories and drained coffers?

Rob J

“Therefore, the common use of an arm overrides any decrees or policy judgments of the State as to what its citizens ‘really need’ for purposes of exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear protected arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.” This quote from the 28 page memorandum is a long game trap, despite its supposed presumption of immediate support. The definition of “in common use” is going to eventually haunt firearm owners. David Codrea posted an article the other day opposing this, and I too have vehemently opposed this definition since Scalia first penned it in Heller. There… Read more »

Last edited 2 years ago by Rob J
Tank

Reductio ab adsurdum

Chuck

The whole “Reduced Capacity Saves Lives” argument has been Debunked so many times, it’s beyond ridiculous at this point. The Parjland Shooting being the most infamous. In that shooting, the Perp was limited to 10 round mags but still managed to kill or wound 34 victims, which means he changed magazines a minimum of 4 times. Uvalde’s another. In the ridiculous and absurd amount of time it took for a response from LEOs, the Perp could have killed/wounded the same number of casualties with a single shot muzzle loading Flintlock rifle. The real determining factor for the number of casualties… Read more »

DDS

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and all you creatures in between, TAKE HEART!

New York tried a similar gambit to make the Bruen case “moot” just before SCOTUS flipped over the two tiered intermediate scrutiny apple cart for good.

If Bruen didn’t give California et al enough of a wake up call, I’m pretty sure Associate Justice Thomas is prepared to slap them up side the head again.

Wiese v. Bonta just might be his excuse to do it.

Finnky

California can make this case go away as fast as they want. All they have to do is admit that they are wrong and remove the law. Simple common-sense solution.