This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, April 27, 2020:
It’s becoming clearer all the time that when Donald Trump vacates the White House, he will leave behind a legacy of appointing constitutionalist judges. They will be tasked with the burden of restoring the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights to its proper place in judicial reasoning. The impact of his appointments on the American culture will be generational.
One judge not appointed by Trump but by President George W. Bush makes the point. Born in Havana, Cuba and educated in law at Western State University, Roger T. Benitez was appointed to a new seat on the Southern District Court of California by President Bush in 2003.
His two recent decisions have thrust him into the public spotlight.
In 2016, California voters were persuaded that precious rights could be ignored in favor of faux security promised by anti-gun politicians. Laws were enacted limiting magazines to 10 rounds and requiring background checks on anyone purchasing ammunition.
The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), with funding from some private groups and individuals and the NRA, sued the state’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra.
Benitez’s ruling on the first, Virginia Duncan v. Xavier Becerra, ran 86 pages. The judge reviewed all the reasons the State of California presented to support the law limiting magazines to just 10 rounds.
His ruling came down to this:
The magazine ban arbitrarily selects 10 rounds as the magazine capacity over which possession is unlawful. The magazine ban admits no exceptions, beyond those for law enforcement officers, armored truck guards, and movie stars. The ban does not distinguish between citizens living in densely populated areas and sparsely populated areas of the state.
The ban does not distinguish between citizens who have already experienced home invasion robberies, are currently threatened by neighborhood burglary activity, and those who have never been threatened.
The ban does not distinguish between the senior citizen, the single parent, and the troubled and angry high school dropout. Most importantly, the ban does not distinguish between possession in and around one’s home, and possession in or around outdoor concerts, baseball fields, or schoolyards.
The ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American citizens for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The prohibition extends to one’s home where the need to defend self, family, and property is most acute.
And like the ban struck down in Heller, the California ban threatens citizens, not with a minor fine, but a substantial criminal penalty….
Under any level of heightened scrutiny, the ban fails constitutional muster.
The judge took the opportunity to review some history behind the Second Amendment:
Latest Comments