2 nd. Amendment Wins

pr5992 said:

Breaking news: a California federal court issued a preliminary injunction holding the California handgun roster unconstitutional.

This order won't be effective until 14 days from now to allow the State to appeal this order (which the State no doubt will do) but it's nice news for the Second Amendment.

Here's a link to the court decision so you can read it yourself:

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-03-20-Order-Granting-MPI2240711.1.pdf

This is the summary if you don't want to read the entire opinion:

"The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for selfdefense. U.S. Const. amend. II. That right is so fundamental that to regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the government must show more than that the regulation promotes an important interest like reducing accidental discharges or solving crime. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022). Rather, to be constitutional, regulations of Second Amendment rights must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id.

California’s Unsafe Handgun Act (the “UHA”) seeks to prevent accidental discharges by requiring handguns to have particular safety features. First, the UHA requires certain handguns to have a chamber load indicator (“CLI”), which is a device that indicates whether a handgun is loaded. Cal. Penal Code §§ 16380, 31910(b)(4). Second, the UHA requires certain handguns to have a magazine disconnect mechanism (“MDM”), which prevents a handgun from being fired if the magazine is not fully inserted. Id. §§ 16900, 31910(b)(5). Third, the UHA requires certain handguns to have the ability to transfer microscopic characters representing the handgun’s make, model, and serial number onto shell casings when the handgun is fired, commonly referred to as microstamping capability. Id. § 31910(b)(6). No handgun available in the world has all three of these features.

These regulations are having a devastating impact on Californians’ ability to acquire and use new, state-of-the-art handguns. Since 2007, when the CLI and MDM requirements were introduced, very few new handguns have been introduced for sale in California with those features. Since 2013, when the microstamping requirement was introduced, not a single new semiautomatic handgun has been approved for sale in California. That is because the technology effectuating microstamping on a broad scale is simply not technologically feasible and commercially practical. The result of this is that when Californians today buy a handgun at a store, they are largely restricted to models from over sixteen years ago.

In this case, Plaintiffs Lance Boland, Mario Santellan, Reno May, Jerome Schammel, and California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, allege that the UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements are unconstitutional, contending that they violate the Second Amendment under Bruen.1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining California from enforcing those requirements. (Dkt. 23 [Motion for Preliminary Injunction, hereinafter “Mot.”].) Because the plain text of the Second Amendment covers Plaintiffs’ proposed course of conduct of purchasing state-of-the-art handguns, and the UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements are not consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED."

Click to expand...

SJ 40 said:

Click to expand...

Lucian_253 said:

Would this effect other states?

Click to expand...