A federal judge has sided with the National Rifle Association after the group filed a lawsuit against the state of California. The state had restrictions in place that barred any law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that held more than 10 rounds. The judge cited the Second Amendment as the main reason he sided with the NRA.
In 2000, California made it illegal to buy or sell a firearm that carried more than 10 rounds, but those who already had the “high capacity” magazines were allowed to keep them. Over 16 years later, California voted again to strengthen the ban, the Daily Mail reported.
In turn, the NRA filed a lawsuit against the state claiming the strict gun laws violated the Second Amendment. On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez sided with the NRA when he handed down an 86-page ruling that stated, in short, that the state law did infringe upon gun owners’ rights.
“California’s law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny,” he wrote.
“California’s ban is far-reaching, absolute, and permanent. The ban on acquisition and possession on magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds, together with the substantial criminal penalties threatening a law-abiding, responsible, citizen who desires such magazines to protect hearth and home, imposes a burden on the constitutional right that this Court judges as severe,” he concluded.
After the ruling, the NRA applauded the judge’s ruling by stating it was a “huge win for gun owners.”
“Judge Benitez took the Second Amendment seriously and came to the conclusion required by the Constitution,” Chris Cox, who is NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director, told The Hill. “The same should be true of any court analyzing a ban on a class of arms law-abiding Americans commonly possess for self-defense or other lawful purposes.”
The case ruling is expected to be appealed to the 9th circuit.