The first decision came in 2017 and was appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year’s Bruen decision was followed by the high court granting cert, which vacated the ruling. This sent the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which then transferred it back to Benitez to consider once more.
Benitez once again decided that the California law was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
“Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms,” he wrote. “Therefore, magazines come within the text of the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The judge noted that while states allow citizens to possess firearms, some arbitrarily decide how many rounds they are permitted to have for self-defense. A wide range of magazine limits have been enacted, none with a firm basis in factual evidence.
Benitez added that millions of these magazines holding between 10 and 30 rounds are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for a variety of reasons. These include self-defense.
And there is no history or tradition within U.S. law of regulating weapons based on the number of rounds they shoot.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), an anti-gun radical who is angling for higher office, was outraged by Benitez’s ruling. Posting on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, he smeared the Cuban-born judge as “an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life.”
Newsom then warned that “NRA-owned federal judges” will continue to block gun control measures until a constitutional amendment is passed. The governor has proposed a 28th Amendment that would enshrine California’s failed gun laws into the Constitution.
