Join our brand new verified AMN Telegram channel and get important news uncensored!

Gun Groups File Lawsuit Against California’s “High-Capacity” Magazine Ban

May 02, 2017

Seven individuals, the Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Firearms Policy Foundation filed suit against California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban on Friday. The suit is filed against Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Representing the plaintiffs is Attorney George Lee and he says the “high-capacity” magazine ban “violates… [The plaintiffs] Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition publicized the lawsuit and explained the roundabout path which Democrats gone to secure the magazine ban:

Last year, California Governor Jerry signed into law Senate Bill 1446 (SB 1446), which changed state statutes to completely ban law-abiding people from possessing all “large-capacity” firearm magazines as of July 1, 2017. Following that, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63 (Prop 63) “Safety for All Act” gun control initiative—which also contained language banning “large-capacity” magazines—was passed by voters in the November general election.

The result of this is that “thousands of law-abiding Californians” who own “high-capacity” magazines “now must remove them from their possession or ownership in the State by July 1 at their own expense or face criminal liability and fines.” Law-abiding citizens must surrender their magazines or destroy them at their own expense.

The plaintiffs argue that the “high-capacity” magazine ban strips them of their Second Amendment rights. They also contend that magazines are “an intrinsic part of all semi-automatic firearms” and “are not merely individual pieces of personal property, but rather, are intrinsic and inherent constitutionally-protected parts of constitutionally-protected firearms.”

“Not only does the ban infringe on Second Amendment rights, but it is clearly now a taking of private property,” Attorney George Lee said.

Lee points out the suit actually goes further by claiming that the ban “amounts to a de facto confiscation.”