Interesting news. Thank you Alan Gottlieb and the second amendment foundation. Snip, In a move that could ultimately have legal ramifications nationwide, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated a California law banning the sale and possession of ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, ruling that the state law violates the Second Amendment rights of residents. https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/08/14/9th-circuit-mag-ban-2a/
Marxists burning down their cities did more for the 2A than the NRA ever could. As I always say, the best way to defeat leftists is to let them implement their ideas.
The state of California is in a unique predicament with this particular case. If they apply for an en banc ruling by the full ninth circuit court of appeals, there is the possibility of the previous ruling being overturned. But to do so would open the door for the plaintiffs to appeal the case to the higher courts, where it could very well be heard, just as the case against the state of New York was not long ago. Meaning the case could potentially go all the way to the united state supreme court, which has the potential to not only take up the case, but rule against the state, just as it did against the city of Chicago in the McDonald ruling. If such happens, all magazine restrictions in the entire country will be declared unconstitutional simultaneously, and no state or city will ever be able to implement such proposals again. No one will ever be able to support such proposals again, as they will be as unconstitutional as discriminating against homosexual marriage. The only way for the matter to truly be "won" by supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions, is if they choose to accept this present loss, and take no further action that could have national implications. They must either give up their firearm-related restrictions, or earn the condemnation of all supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions for setting their plans back by decades with a ruling that would apply nationally. If such were to happen, once magazine limitations are declared unconstitutional, prohibitions of so-called "assault weapons" that use such magazines could very well be the next to go. The state of California can either accept its loss, or it can risk everything and potentially lose everything for everyone with similar firearm-related restrictions on the books.
Good news. There is zero logic behind the unconstitutional law and the number of rounds was random at best. I think they came up with "10" from watching the movie Spinal Tap. Unfortunately, we still have laws that make a detachable magazine illegal on certain guns.
Denver said 20. Colorado said 15. California insisted on 10. New York State tried 7. Oregon state Democrats have introduced a bill for 5. Arbitrary and capricious? Nah....
The one flaw I see in your argument is that you overlook that ammunition manufacturers nay take note of this ruling & begin suing other jurisdictions w/ similar restrictions. Are you just saying it would be better to have these restrictions picked away, one at a time, rather than potentially (probably) all lost at once? And perhaps some states/municipalities will win there cases, right? But then couldn't the ammo. manufacturer appeal the ruling, potentially to eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court, anyway?