Joined
·
57,902 Posts
10/6/2019
Last week, Gun Owners of America filed an important amicus brief in the Duncan v. Becerra case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, defending the right of Californians to possess standard capacity magazines.
Since 2000, it has been illegal to import, sell or transfer any magazine that can hold over ten rounds, but previously-owned magazines were grandfathered.
Then, in 2016, Californians passed Proposition 63, banning such magazines entirely. Thankfully, in March, a district court judge blocked the law from going into effect.
After California appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, 18 Democrat state Attorneys General from around the country submitted a brief in support of the state’s ban.
GOA and its legal arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), have weighed in on this case in conjunction with Gun Owners of California, the Heller Foundation, and several other pro-gun organizations.
This is an important case when it comes to the ability to defend oneself, as the government has no business telling people how many rounds they “need.”
We refute several anti-gun arguments in our brief, including the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to so-called “military-style” firearms. For example:
You can read the entire brief here.
Last week, Gun Owners of America filed an important amicus brief in the Duncan v. Becerra case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, defending the right of Californians to possess standard capacity magazines.
Since 2000, it has been illegal to import, sell or transfer any magazine that can hold over ten rounds, but previously-owned magazines were grandfathered.
Then, in 2016, Californians passed Proposition 63, banning such magazines entirely. Thankfully, in March, a district court judge blocked the law from going into effect.
After California appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, 18 Democrat state Attorneys General from around the country submitted a brief in support of the state’s ban.
GOA and its legal arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), have weighed in on this case in conjunction with Gun Owners of California, the Heller Foundation, and several other pro-gun organizations.
This is an important case when it comes to the ability to defend oneself, as the government has no business telling people how many rounds they “need.”
We refute several anti-gun arguments in our brief, including the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to so-called “military-style” firearms. For example:
The Second Amendment protects first and foremost the right to self-defense -- not just against petty criminals, but against governments, both foreign and domestic. In order to combat foreign aggression or domestic tyranny, military-grade arms are, as the framers understood, “necessary to the security of a free State.”
You can read the entire brief here.
