Excerpts from the Benitez injunction

[…] [a]s Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

[…]

United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. It is a right naturally possessed by regular, law-abiding responsible citizens, whom are neither reliant upon, nor subservient to, a privileged, powerful, professional police state.

[…]

Gun violence to carry out crime is horrendous and should be condemned by all. Defensive gun violence may be the only way a law-abiding citizen can avoid becoming a victim. Put differently, violent gun use is a constitutionally-protected means for law- abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. The phrase “gun violence” may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. Implicit in the concept of public safety is the right of law-abiding people to use firearms and the magazines that make them work to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and their state against all armed enemies, foreign and domestic.

[…]

“Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending the values and ideals which set this Nation apart … It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties – the freedom of association – which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”

[…]

The public interest favors the exercise of Second Amendment rights by law-abiding responsible citizens. And it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a person’s constitutional rights.

[…]

Plaintiffs remonstrate that defending the law’s forced, uncompensated, physical dispossession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds as an exercise of its “police power” is not persuasive.

[…]

“The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Clause is made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. […]”

[…]

As the law-abiding owner relinquishes his magazine, he or she may also forfeit the self-defense peace of mind that a large capacity magazine had instilled. As in other cases where constitutional rights are likely chilled, the balance of hardships weighs in the citizen’s favor.

[…]

[…] [t]he Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

[…]

Source: Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge, in the case of Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. Xavier Becerra, June 29, 2017

Author: Greg Raven

Trained with Chuck Taylor. What else is there to know?