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.
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.
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.
What parts of his process do you disagree with?
I would say that the following is the main point of issue:
Deciding on laws based on tradition, and historical context has potential to be quite damaging – these decisions should be made based on principle.
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.
Indeed. It is rather unfortunate.