This is a good thing, banning and making you get rid of items that were legal previously is a slippery slope.
Not to mention thet the right to keep and bear arms shall be uninfringed.
Several states and localities have gone to far and need to be reined in.
I hope the folks out there win this and can get back some more of their guns rights.
Actually, it's a slippery slope and worse. The "worse" part is that it's an uncompensated "taking" (violating the Fifth Amendment) or a taking of property without due process (violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment). The slippery slope is that if this is allowed to stand, additional laws will become possible and be passed - the Ds have a veto-proof legislature - that, step by step, nullify the Second Amendment by making gun ownership and use all but impossible (or impossibly expensive).
As I posted in the Shoutbox, here's what I believe will happen:
* If he hasn't already, AG Becerra will appeal this to the 9th Circus Court;
* Normal process is that the case will be heard by a 3 judge panel; there are some non-loon judges on the 9th, so how the panel rules probably depends on who is on the panel;
* Regardless of how the panel rules, either the AG or NRA will appeal to the full 9th Circus Court, and the law will be upheld (unless the 9th has one of its occasional fits of sanity - it has happened);
* Regardless of how the 9th Circus Court rules, either the AG or NRA will appeal to the USSC
*.
I think, if/when it gets to that point, the USSC will decide to hear the case. At that point, who is on the court gets interesting. As it currently stands, unless a liberal or 2 has a fit of sanity (as they did in the Trinity Lutheran case),
Weather Vane Kennedy will probably be the deciding vote. OTOH, if Kennedy retires and/or if Ginsburg retires or succumbs to her health problems and Trump's nominee(s) are confirmed, it is likely the law would be overturned. But ...
* ... if the 9th Circus has a fit of sanity and there is 1 or 2 more Trump appointees on the USSC, AG Becerra might decide not to appeal to the USSC, in which case the sane decision of the 9th would only be binding in the 9th Circuit (that kind of thing has also been done, e.g. in
Calabretta vs. Floyd, et al, where the 9th had one of its fits of sanity but the case was not appealed to the USSC, to limit the "damage" done to CPS/DSS type agencies).