The fight for your magazines
- Posted on
- By Write Winger
- 0
Last week four pro-RKBA groups, The Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation, filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven individuals challenging the forthcoming ban on the possession of +10rd magazines, Wiese v. Becerra.
Last week four pro-RKBA groups, The Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation, filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven individuals challenging the forthcoming ban on the possession of +10rd magazines, Wiese v. Becerra.
California gun owners have until July 1, 2017 to destroy, move out of state, or turn in any magazine that holds over 10 rounds, or be charged with a misdemeanor facing fines and/or jail for each magazine. The sale, importation, transfer, and manufacture of +10rd magazines has been a crime since January 1, 2000, however magazines owned prior to the ban were "grandfathered" in, meaning those who owned them could continue to own them. But when the state said, "if you like your +10rd mags, you can keep your +10rd mags", it should have been taken with a hefty grain of salt.
Up until 2014, you could buy "rebuild kits" to replace parts of your legally owned +10rd magazines, up to every single part. This was due to a letter obtained from the CA DOJ stating this was in fact lawful. But of course rebuild kits (or as the state called them "conversion kits" which added confusion to the law) were banned. The forthcoming ban on the possession of +10rd mags was predicated on the state's belief that everyone who bought a rebuild kit made them into +10rd mags, so banning even grandfathered magazines, legally owned for over 16 years, was justifiable to them.
The complaint is based on simple constitutional principles. First, magazines are an integral part of a firearm, that without one it cannot function, and therefore fall under the 2A protections of "arms". By banning a part of a firearm, you're infringing on the right to arms, especially if there's no or limited means for replacing a +10rd magazine for a firearm designed for use of one with that capacity.
Second, the same magazine can hold 30 rounds of 5.56 NATO or 10 rounds of .458 SOCOM, and the law is vaguely written and can be vaguely interpreted to open up those who own, buy, sell, transfer, import, or manufacture 10 round .458 SOCOM magazines to criminal liability. Even if the courts do not rule in the plaintiffs' favor, this aspect of the case will be interesting to follow.
Third, banning the possession of currently owned and legally acquired property without real means of compensation or avenue for transfer violates the 5A and 14A due process clauses - that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. The government cannot take your property or force you to give up your property on a whim; each person has the fundamental right to a hearing and be adjudged prior to having their life, liberty, or property taken. Passing a law that bans the people from possessing currently owned property is akin to preemptively convicting every single person of a crime they didn't commit without a trial, and forcing them to give up their property.
If the ban on the possession and the subsequent confiscation of currently owned +10rd magazines is upheld and the unelected government appointed lawyers deem the ban to fall outside 5A and 14A protections, it is feared that it will set precedent for the state to then ban the possession of registered assault weapons, as they stated it was their intent in 2013.
If you're not aware of just who the main plaintiff on this case is (Bill Wiese), you should know he, among a small handful of others, are the reason you were able to buy rebuild kits. And off-list lower receivers. And bullet button semiautomatic rifles. And off-roster single shot exempt pistols. And make off-roster pistols from 80% receivers. Every California gun owner has benefitted from the efforts of Bill Wiese and friends for finding liberty in the law, defending us against the constant assault on our rights from Sacramento, and keeping California gun owners out of jail.
It should be noted too, these plaintiffs have willingly put their +10rd magazines up on the chopping block in an attempt to protect your ability to keep the ones you own or to lawfully obtain ones in the future. If they lose, which this IS California ruled by California judges, they will have willingly sacrificed their magazines for you. They're sticking their necks out for you; they deserve your support.
Lawyers are expensive and the color of justice is green. If you don't want to hide your magazines, if you don't want to risk fines or jail for keeping your property, if you want to maybe buy them in the future, help these four organizations pay for the case.
Give to one or to all. Each are supporting the case so each would benefit from your support.
Comments
Be the first to comment...