freedom week case for those of you who purchased magazines during that freedom week period when the initial decision was made by the district court now off the bat the decision by the NUMBER_TOKENth circuit on bank panel was not in favor of our second amendment rights here in the state of california and it was not in favor of our right to possess magazines that hold more than NUMBER_TOKEN rounds in this video i'm going to give a quick rundown on the decision and answer one of the important questions i'm sure a lot of you guys have about the impact of this on-bonk panel decision now what is going on with this case for those of you who aren't aware this is a case in california that involves the possession of so-called large capacity magazines under california penal code section NUMBER_TOKEN the state of california bans the buying selling possession etc of magazines that hold more than NUMBER_TOKEN rounds and this applies primarily to just ordinary citizens in the state of california but doesn't apply to individuals like law enforcement officers this law was challenged in federal court and the district court judge roger t benitez or saint benitez issued a ruling that found the law was a violation of our second amendment rights this led to what was called freedom week in california during this week period of time millions of magazines were purchased by lawful gun owners in the state of california now one important aspect of judge benitez's ruling is that he also issued a stay of enforcement against those individuals who lawfully purchased those magazines during that period of time so it became lawful for individuals to possess and use magazines that they purchased during freedom week and essentially he did that because he knew the state of california would appeal his decision up to the ninth circuit which they did but during that appeal process he wanted people to be protected and still be able to be in lawful possession of those magazines well like he anticipated the state of california didn't like his decision and they did appeal the decision up to the united circuit initially the decision went to a three-judge panel in the ninth circuit and on review that three judge panel in the united circuit agreed with judge benitez and found that california's magazine ban was unconstitutional well after that and after the state of california lost again of course they didn't like that so they sought an on-bonk panel review of the decision and that went up to the onboard panel review which is a review by NUMBER_TOKEN randomly selected judges they reviewed this issue they reviewed this case and we were waiting for the decision and now we have their decision now the decision of the onboard panel is about NUMBER_TOKEN pages in total plus some other documents i'm working my way through it i made it through the majority of the decision and i will likely be putting up a follow-up video that will break down all the main arguments more in detail but i wanted to get this initial reaction and answer one of the more important questions i knew would be popping up now one of the main takeaways of the decision by the on bonk panel is that they believe the ban on the legal possession of magazines that hold more than NUMBER_TOKEN rounds is actually supported by california's efforts to reduce so-called mass shootings therefore they upheld california's magazine ban as constitutional because they say
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN