Breaking news out of California where a Judge Roger Benitez just ruled that the state’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional:

#Breaking Federal judge in CA grants summary judgment to plaintiffs in case challenging the state's 10-round limit on firearms magazines. Law is declared unconstitutional and is permanently enjoined from being enforced. #2A #NRA — Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) March 29, 2019

A “master class in constitutional law”:

Judge Roger Benitez has once again offered a master class in constitutional law striking down California's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds and enjoining @AGBecerra from enforcing the ban. pic.twitter.com/CpI2MEH5D2 — Corey Uhden (@CACoreyU) March 29, 2019

More from attorney Gabriel Malor:

“The judge characterizes Heller as a simple hardware test in concluding that magazines that hold more than ten rounds are protected.”

The judge characterizes Heller as a simple hardware test in concluding that magazines that hold more than ten rounds are protected. pic.twitter.com/v81YslICB5 — Friendly Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) March 29, 2019

California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra did not have a good day:

“Judge finds that the historical prohibitions exception to Heller does not apply. He just tears through AG Becerra’s examples of bullet bans because the laws Becerra actually cites are about machine guns.”

Judge finds that the historical prohibitions exception to Heller does not apply. He just tears through AG Becerra's examples of bullet bans because the laws Becerra actually cites are about machine guns. pic.twitter.com/fNnrcnsVo1 — Friendly Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) March 29, 2019

And maybe libs shouldn’t rely on activists from Mother Jones for their legal arguments?

The judge is not wild about the evidence Becerra offered of the need for a ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds. It was a Mother Jones study of mass shootings, which it turns out are exceptionally rare compared to home invasions. pic.twitter.com/W5asHjHT9t — Friendly Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) March 29, 2019

Whoops:

He really gets a head of steam about using activist reports to justify curtailing rights under intermediate or strict scrutiny. "This is a federal court." pic.twitter.com/9JesFoPve2 — Friendly Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) March 29, 2019

Twitchy favorite Judge Willett even got a mention:

Judge Willett gets a mention on page 54. "Perhaps this is a reason why the Second Amendment has been described as 'the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bill of Rights.' Mance v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 390, 396 (5th Cir. 2018) (Willett, J.,

dissenting)." — Friendly Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) March 29, 2019

Perfect.

***