Judge Crushes Gun Control Hopes with Epic Takedown!


On Friday, a federal judge in California ruled that the state’s 10-round magazine limit was illegal.

On the same day, President Joe Biden advocated for the reinstatement of an “assault weapons” prohibition and the restriction of high-capacity magazines.

Judge Roger Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California based his decision on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that states’ gun restrictions must be consistent with the text of the Second Amendment as informed by its historical context.

“This case is about a California state law that makes it a crime to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes. Based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional,” Benitez wrote.

“The detachable firearm magazine solved a problem with historic firearms: running out of ammunition and having to slowly reload a gun,” the judge added. “When more ammunition is needed in case of confrontation, a larger … magazine is required. Many gun owners want to have ready more than 10 rounds in their guns.”

He stated that magazines with more than 10 rounds are fairly common, with popular sizes for pistols reaching up to 17 rounds and the most popular capacity for rifles having 30 rounds. The Glock 17 handgun, for example, has a normal 17-round magazine.

“There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious,” Benitez wrote.

California justified its 10-round limit by claiming that anything greater would be unsafe for its inhabitants, but the judge stated that such decisions should be left to the citizens.

He also emphasized the advancements in firearm technology over the decades since the Second Amendment was ratified.

“There are no cases where American government dictated that lever-action rifles were unsuitable because single shot rifles were good enough, or revolvers were unsuitable because derringers were good enough,” Benitez wrote.

“These choices have always belonged to the People to decide for themselves how much firepower they need. The right to have firearms for social security was important at the time the Constitution was adopted,” he added.

The judge noted, “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.”

“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.”

Such prohibitions are in violation of the Second Amendment.

“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,” Benitez argued.

“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,” he continued. “That kind of a solution is an infringement on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms.”

On the same day that Benitez supported the Second Amendment, Biden announced the formation of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which will be managed by Vice President Kamala Harris.

“It’s time again to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Biden said, adding, “If you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t own a gun.”

The “assault weapons” ban in the 1990s limited magazines to 10 rounds, so Biden wants to bring back a law that a federal judge just ruled unconstitutional.

Of course, the president is skewing the argument. Who has seen an 80-round magazine, let alone desire to carry a weapon with one attached?

When people are defending themselves against an armed home intruder (or several), 10 bullets can fly by.

With adrenaline rushing, it’s extremely possible that the first few rounds will miss, while others will wound but not stop the attackers. It’s not always as simple as the hero firing one well-placed cartridge and the criminal falling to the ground dead.

Benitez detailed several situations where having more than ten rounds on hand made all the difference.

“In Kentucky, when a home intruder wearing a bulletproof vest shot and killed one daughter asleep in her bed, the father awoke and needed to fire 11 shots from one gun and 8 shots from a second gun, while suffering 3 gunshot wounds himself, to protect his other daughter, his wife, and himself,” the judge wrote.

Benitez offered another instance when two masked and armed men broke into the home of Susan Gonzalez and shot her in the chest.

“She made it back to her bedroom and found her husband’s .22 caliber pistol. Wasting the first rounds on warning shots, she then emptied the single pistol at one attacker. Unfortunately, now out of ammunition, she was shot again by the other armed attacker,” the account stated.

Benitez is correct; Biden is incorrect.

Americans have a God-given, constitutional right to self-defense, and it is not the government’s duty to limit their capacity to do so.


Leave a Reply

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