Breaking! Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment

[delaware_export]

My read was that he basically returned the status quo, overall, as it existed before to the 2016 law.


Except maybe some of new mags. Not understanding how that part plays out. It sounds like they may be ok, but I am not a lawyer.

 

[W2D]

Playing rope-a-dope until the witch is dead and this can make its way to SCOTUS?


————-
Be a man and defend yourself.

 

[platoonDaddy]

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction
enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in
effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported,
sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of
this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
Dated: April 4, 2019

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-04-Order-Staying-in-Part-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf

 

[HaveBlue]

It’s probably the right move. It’s sad that we have to be so defensive. Sometimes it comes across as a lack of conviction.

 

[ironpony]

Looks to me like every single gun owner in Cali has :

" manufactured, imported,
sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of
this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
Dated: April 4, 2019"



Just sayin'

 

[TexDefender]

The way I read this is the judge is allowing the California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) to become effective once again at 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019. However, those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of his Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019, may keep their new property?

 

[danb]

The way I read this is the judge is allowing the California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) to become effective once again at 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019. However, those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of his Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019, may keep their new property?

Looks that way. I foresee a lot of emergency road trips to a border state in the next few hours.

 

[Jimboy]

Uber and Lyft will be very busy for the next few hours, lol.

 

[Dogmeat]

By issuing the stay on purchase, but leaving it in place for possession, he has in effect made the CA law and the MD law the same. Thus, if CA just chooses to fight to keep the purchase part illeagl, and wins, it sets up a definitive split in identical laws, between the 9th and the 4th. Can that be the Judges intention? One can only wonder...

 

[ironpony]

Called "The Loooooong Game" but a good thought.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

What about magazines that were ordered and shipped . . .

. . . before the stay but that have not been received by the Friday deadline?

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

What about magazines that were ordered and shipped before the stay but that have not been received by the Friday deadline?

 

[danb]

Well, based on my emails, there is still time.

 

[whistlersmother]

What about magazines that were ordered and shipped before the stay but that have not been received by the Friday deadline?

From the vendors, it would appear they think the person takes possession when the order is placed.

What's the parts of acquiring when you possess it but have not yet taken delivery?

I wonder what happens if law is ultimately upheld - all those mags would presumably have to be turned in or destroyed.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[delaware_export]

Just as an aside, I’d be interested in the numbers of mags >30 cap.

In the ruling, the judge discussed common use then questioned 50-100 cap mags

Maybe the rest of us should stock up! Get the numbers of before some fed thing goes full nutso

 

[MigraineMan]

I wonder what happens if law is ultimately upheld - all those mags would presumably have to be turned in or destroyed.

Uhhm ... what mags?

 

[whistlersmother]

Uhhm ... what mags?

Well, that goes without saying...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[erwos]

Uhhm ... what mags?

If we're playing that game, this entire charade is meaningless. Go buy your mags over the border in NV, and then bring them back in your trunk and hide them. You can feel good about how you've got a bunch of mags you can never use in public or semi-public situations for fear of getting busted. That stay was important to Californians in order to be able to get real use out of their magazines. This isn't like in MD where possession isn't banned.

Now, that said, everyone who DID have standard-caps is gonna be able to go out to play with them and claim they were bought legally during the pseudo-amnesty, at least until some other court goes and reverses this decision (which I think is likely, but not a certainty). But when that reversal happens, every single person in Cali is gonna have to decide whether to get those mags out of state/in-the-garbage or keep them. You can be damned sure the state is gonna be issuing subpoenas to the big retailers to see who those mags were mailed to, and playing dumb is only gonna work so long.

 

[j_h_smith]

Bet this is really happening and not just a meme.

 

[ironpony]

Bet this is really happening and not just a meme.

Nope, sorry JH these were purchased during the grace period!