Federal Judge strikes down California's magazine capacity limit.

My CZ P0-7 with a 16 round magazine that would be banned under California's law. 

A Federal Judge has struck down California's law on "high capacity" magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The Hill. U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled that such magazine bans violate the 2nd amendment and prevents citizens from their right to self defense. He said that the law would put a severe burden on law abiding gun owners. The NRA hailed the ruling as a major victory but admitted that the State of California would likely appeal the case to the famously liberal 9th circuit court. 

My Comment:

Obviously, this is a huge victory for gun rights supporters and a major turning point in the gun rights cause. Magazine capacity has always been a target for gun control groups and many states have put into place bans on standard capacity magazines. Having this ruling survive would mean that those laws would be null and void. 

I've always said that magazine bans are stupid. A prepared mass shooter can always find an alternative. Though he used normal magazines, the New Zealand attacker showed how stupid such a ban would be by tapping his magazines together, essentially doubling their capacity with a much quicker reload. The difference between a 15, 20 or 30 round magazine and two 10 rounders is minimal. Taping magazines together isn't even necessary if you simply bring along dozens of magazines. And even if you limit an attacker to a revolver a speedloader and practice means that you won't lose that much time in shooting if you are at all skilled.

But in self defense, magazine size is key. For a relatively unskilled shooter, like myself, capacity trumps pretty much everything else. A self defense situation against a moving target is a hugely stressful and demanding experience and it's very possible to miss multiple times. Plus it's very possible to hit your attacker and not disable him. Having extra shots in a magazine is often the difference between life or death and it's critical to have standard capacity of 15 rounds or more. 

However, it's too soon for gun rights activists to celebrate yet. The ruling will almost certainly be appealed and given that it is going to the 9th circuit court, it may yet be overturned. Thanks to President Trump, the 9th isn't as completely loony as it once was but it still has a well deserved reputation of ruling against conservative causes. I would not be surprised if this ruling gets overturned by them. 

It would then go to the Supreme Court of the United States and that's where things really get interesting. The Court has been giving out mixed signals on gun rights. In theory, they have five pro-gun justices now and have taken up gun rights cases for the first time in a very long time with an expectation that they will overturn New York's gun transport law. On the other they denied hearing to an emergency ruling on President Trump's bump stock ban. 

It's unclear which court would show up if this case were to reach them. I'd like to think that they would affirm the lower court's ruling and overturn the 9th, but that's no sure thing. It's possible that they could deny a hearing on the issue or, even worse, agree with the 9th. That would be a nightmare scenario, but I don't see it being very likely. 

Still, it's no question that this ruling is a huge victory for gun rights supporters. If the ruling survives we would no longer have to worry about having our guns taken away from us based on magazine size. For me personally, it's a relief knowing that I won't become a felon just because I would keep the magazines for my pistol that it was designed to accept. It seems that the judicial tide against gun control is turning and we can all be thankful for that.