San Diego Judge Halts CA Magazine Ban
Kevin Felts 06.30.17
California Prop 63, which made possession of high capacity magazines illegal, has been delayed by an injunction.
Under Prop 63, people who own so-called “high capacity” magazines are required to either sell them to someone with an Federal Firearms License (FFL), sell them to someone out of state, or hand them over the law enforcement.
The problem is, the Government cannot take your property without just and fair compensation. For example, there was a Supreme Court decision that prohibited the government from taking raisins without compensation.
Holding: The Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property.
Even though the case was about raisins, the Supreme Court affirmed the government must compensate people when property is taken.
In the preliminary injunction ruling, Judge Roger Benitez stated:
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez affirmed the public’s right to protect their homes, and the right to be compensated when the Government takes our property.
On a personal note, I love that Judge Roger Benitez says, “The Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” The Constitution was meant to protect the rights of the minorities from the majority. Even though most California voters okayed Prop 63, gun owners are afforded some protection from it simply because the rights of American citizens cannot be taken away by the whim of the majority. (That situation would be a form of “mob rule,” and it’s distinctly un-American.)
I wonder if California set aside funds to buy all the high capacity magazines in the state? Probably not.