Court ruling inspires a gun accessories company to troll the State of California.
Last week, a federal judge in California ruled that the state’s large capacity magazine ban was unconstitutional.
In response to this ruling, Magpul Industries began shipping magazines to residents in the state.
FreeBeacon said this regarding the move:
“The announcement comes after Judge Roger T. Benitez of the District Court for the Southern District of California ruled on Friday that California’s ban on the sale or possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition was unconstitutional. Magpul, which makes one of the most popular 30-round AR-15 magazines in the world, took the opportunity to begin selling its products in the state, which had previously been outlawed. They announced sales of the magazines to Californians had begun on Tuesday.”
“Magpul is now accepting direct orders for all magazines to California addresses,” the company said in a post on Tuesday. “Due to the momentous Mar. 29 decision in the NRA and CRPA-backed Duncan V. Becerra lawsuit, declaring California’s ban on ‘large capacity magazines’ unconstitutional, a little piece of freedom has been restored to California gun owners. You can also show that you’re on the side of taking back more of what is rightfully yours with a Magpul Free the Republic T-Shirt.”
This troll-like behavior is excellent. It shows just how frivolous these bans are. In fact, Magpul has a history of trolling gun-grabbing states. FreeBeacon adds this regarding their activities in the past:
“Magpul has previously worked against new gun-control provisions that ban the sale or possession of its products. The company moved its operations out of its former home state of Colorado in 2013 as a protest after that state instituted its own magazine ban. The company handed out free 30-round magazines to Coloradans before the ban went into effect. They did the same for citizens of Vermont in the lead up to their state’s ban.”
In 1998, legal scholars were calling the Second Amendment an “under-enforced constitutional norm.” It has only been within the last decade where this constitutional norm has been brought out of under-enforcement.
I wrote in my article yesterday about how states try to get as close as they can to constitutionally impermissible conduct that has been clearly articulated by the Supreme Court. Yet, because the Second Amendment existed in obscurity in constitutional law, the announced standards we have from Heller and McDonald do not address every aspect of firearm law.
Courts are still finding their way in light of those decisions.
As this process continues, states will begin to see that their laws, which were supposed to go right up to Heller and McDonald, might not be acceptable after all.
I think this is illustrated by a child playing on the shore. As the waves recede, they run out onto the new exposed sand, thinking that this new found territory will always be dry. But! Another wave comes in, pushing them farther in and leaving less dry sand to walk on.
Let’s continue with this illustration. Let’s pretend that we know that 30 yards out from the shore, regardless of tide or waves, there is always going to be water. These are the announced standards of the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment itself. We know that whole classes of firearms cannot be banned. We know the Second Amendment applies to the states. We know the trigger locks are unconstitutional. As we get closer to the shore, let’s say 10 or 15 yards, the water gets shallower, and sometimes it may be dry. These are things like magazine capacity restrictions and bullet buttons. States think that this land is dry, but the water may rise to cover it as well.
States are better off playing it safe. They must remain far back, respecting the rights of citizens, until the waves of Second Amendment jurisprudence settle.