Thread by @gabrielmalor

Fed. court holds California's ban on possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment right to self-defense in the home. michellawyers.com/wp-content/upl… #RKBA

It's a very readable decision.

The judge characterizes Heller as a simple hardware test in concluding that magazines that hold more than ten rounds are protected.

Judge finds that the historical prohibitions exception to Heller does not apply. He just tears through AG Becerra's examples of bullet bans because the laws Becerra actually cites are about machine guns.

The judge is not a fan of the 9th Cir. approach to Second Amendment questions, but he applies it anyways, as he is bound to do.

"It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero" is a construction that's going to stay with me for a while.

The judge is not wild about the evidence Becerra offered of the need for a ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds. It was a Mother Jones study of mass shootings, which it turns out are exceptionally rare compared to home invasions.

He really gets a head of steam about using activist reports to justify curtailing rights under intermediate or strict scrutiny.

"This is a federal court."

Judge Willett gets a mention on page 54.

"Perhaps this is a reason why the Second Amendment has been described as 'the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bill of Rights.' Mance v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 390, 396 (5th Cir. 2018) (Willett, J.,
dissenting)."

I don't think this paragraph is well considered. This law was only ironic in the Alanis sense, maybe.

The court finds that seizure of magazines that hold more than 10 bullets is an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.

The court concludes with an injunction preventing Becerra, his officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys from enforcing the magazine ban.