A federal judge for the second time overturned California's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, ruling that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.
A federal judge for the second time overturned California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.
The State’s historical list also includes, surprisingly, 38
laws that applied only to particular groups, such as slaves, Blacks, or Mulattos. Those laws are not relevant to the magazine prohibition challenged in this case. “And
Founding-era statutes that disarmed groups of persons who governments thought might
be dangerous because of their race or religion were not considered analogous to modern
carry prohibitions on released felons also thought to be dangerous: ‘any such analogy
would be far too broad.’”163 Even if they were, this Court would give such
discriminatory laws little or no weight."
Not really. His conclusion is good, but his process is so deeply flawed that if allowed to set precedent our judicial system will manage to get even worse.
Well then I regret to inform you that he wasn't setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen. The precedent already exists on a national scale.
[...] he wasn’t setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen.