,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
California Liberals Must Be Freaking-Out After Federal Judge Strikes Down Magazine Ban lidblog.com/judge-strikes-… via @yidwithlid
“Ten years of a federal ban on large-capacity magazines did not stop mass shootings nationally. Twenty years of a California ban on large capacity magazines have not stopped mass shootings in California.
“That large capacity magazines are useful in military service, there is no doubt. But the fact that they may be useful, or even “most useful,” for military purposes does not nullify their usefulness for law-abiding responsible citizens.
It is the fact that they are commonly-possessed by these citizens for lawful purposes that places them directly beneath the umbrella of the Second Amendment.”—Judge Roger Benitez, Page 66
“People may cede liberty to their government in exchange for the promise of safety. Or government may gain compliance from its people by forcibly disarming all. In the United States, the Second Amendment takes the legislative experiment off the table.
Regardless of current popularity, neither a legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights. An unconstitutional statute adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity.”
If the Benitez ruling is upheld by the Ninth Circuit, or if it fails there and then goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, the outcome could be catastrophic for the gun prohibition movement.
The ruling effectively dismantles many of the leading gun control arguments, including the scary notion that just because a magazine holds more cartridges, it is somehow more dangerous in civilian hands.
The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous.”—Judge Roger Benitez, Page 21
