Read the 8 page opinion and it's really good and worth a read. In summary
1. Court recognizes that magazines and ammunition likely fall within the scope of the 2A.
2. The rights under the 2A protect weapons useful for a militia, including magazines
3. Banning magazines is probably not lawful, and the capacity bans are vague, ambiguous, and based in unsupported opinions and speculation and unreasonable and not based on any facts
4. Illegal under the takings clause, without just compensation
5. Injunction granted against the law b/c the party is likely to prevail on the issues and suffer irreparable harm if the gun mag ban goes into effect and it's in public interests to stop the law from taking effect.
It's a fantastic precedent out of the 9th.
----
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/upl ... irming.pdfSee link for the 8 page opinion. There is encouraging language therein, including:
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that
magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.
First, the district court identified the applicable law, citing United States v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174 (1939), District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Caetano
v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) (per curiam), and Jackson v. City and
County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014). Second, it did not exceed
its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of
the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon “that has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia,” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178; see also Heller, 554 U.S. at 583, 627-28;
Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1028; and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the
magazine for a weapon, Jackson 746 F.3d at 967 (“‘[T]he right to possess firearms
for protection implies a corresponding right’ to obtain the bullets necessary to use
them.” (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 61 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011))).
The district court concluded that a ban on
ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the
prohibition did not have a “historical pedigree.” Next, the district court concluded,
citing Fyock, that section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment
right, but, citing Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816, 823 (9th Cir. 2016), Fyock, 779
F.3d at 999, Jackson, 746 F.3d at 965, 968, and Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1138, that
intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate scrutiny level. The district court
concluded that California had identified four “important” interests and reasoned
that the proper question was “whether the dispossession and criminalization
components of [section] 32310’s ban on firearm magazines holding any more than
10 rounds is a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary
injunction on Takings Clause grounds. ...
Second, the district court did not exceed its
discretion by concluding (1) that the three options provided in section 32310(d)
(surrender, removal, or sale) fundamentally “deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use
of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of
property rights”; and (2) that California could not use the police power to avoid
compensation, Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1020-29; Loretto, 458 U.S. at 426 (holding “a
permanent physical occupation authorized by the government is a taking without
regard to the public interest it may serve”).
