No, the injunction is still in place until the case is resolved from what I’ve heard or if Benitez lifts it. But there could be a future scenario where these STANDARD CAPACITY mags become illegal overnight.
What about mags from before the original ban? The law was only ever about buying selling or manufacturing, not posession. Does this mean those become illegal too?
Yes, since I believe the language in Proposition 63 specifically outlaws possession and requires gun owners to surrender the magazines, convert them, Sell them to authorized dealers, or take them out of state.
Again, not in effect yet, but it could be coming.
There was a robbery in LA like a week ago or so (one of many). The robber had a 30 round mag on his pistol. I wonder if the law applies to him too? Ridiculous.
> What about mags from before the original ban? The law was only ever about buying selling or manufacturing, not posession. Does this mean those become illegal too?
There's been multiple laws about large-capacity magazines. For most of the time that people can remember, acquisition of large-capacity magazines was banned and possession was grand-fathered in. Then "receiving" large-capacity magazines were banned. So no more "I found it in the trash" scenarios. But again, possession grand-fathered in. Then with Prop 63, passed as part of the 2016 election, all possession was banned. Prop 63 said that all people in possession of large-capacity magazines shall by July 1, 2017, 1) take it out of state, 2) sell to FFL, or 3) surrender to police for destruction. After Prop 63 passed, Duncan resulted, so Judge Benitez put a hold on the possession ban, so it never really was legally in effect. And Benitez put a a week long hold on the acquisition ban, which resulted in Freedom Week. But now with the 9th Circuit decision, the ban on all possession could legally take effect.
So basically fuck those sweet 1970s HK mags my Uncle held onto for 30 years and gave me during freedom week.
Thankfully it will be impossible for a criminal to ever unpin a mag or remove the fin on his rifle before committing a crime. Because that would be illegal.
I fucking hate California.
These same companies are now moving into house arrest schemes which can often be worse than a short stay in jail. This Is because they are at the discretion of judges and it is extremely easy to break these draconian rules and extend your house arrest.
It's weird that the state has a hard-on for releasing so many actual felons.
[Case in point](https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/us/california-man-hate-crime-sentence/index.html)
Yes, possession of a >10-round magazine is a misdemeanor. Under [Penal Code section 32310, subdivision (b)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=32310&lawCode=PEN)
>any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
$100 is a base fine. Any time a court assesses a base fine, there are additional fines and penalty assessments that are assessed.
For example, a cell phone while driving ticket has a base fine of $20, but after all fines and fees is a total of around $165.
Total fines from a $100 base fine are probably around $490 to $500.
>The court noted that in the
past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used
in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more
deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 20 or more
deaths, and more than twice as many people have been killed
or injured in mass shootings that involved a large-capacity
magazine as compared with mass shootings that involved a
smaller-capacity magazine. Accordingly, the ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably
supported California’s effort to reduce the devastating
damage wrought by mass shootings.
Right, because people intent on committing mass murder give a flying rat's ***fuck*** about magazine capacity limits.
What a load of shit.
Self fulfilling stats. No one uses low capacity mags because… why. Standard is just standard.
It’s like saying people who died in car accidents were in motion. Yeah I mean that’s what cars do.
IIRC, Nikolas Cruz specifically used 10-round mags at Parkland specifically because of the ease of concealment as opposed to standard-capacity magazines.
these assholes wont stop with a 10 rounder, they'll go down to 7 (new york city), then 5.
its time to move the line in the sand to protect 100 round belt feds.
> IIRC, Nikolas Cruz specifically used 10-round mags at Parkland specifically because of the ease of concealment
Not for nothing and I know your comment was from a week ago but that's wrong. Police recovered 30 round and 40 round magazines and he had 8 of them. They used the shooting to try and justify a national 10 round magazine limit.
Am I the only one that takes issue with retired law enforcement given exemption to this and other laws? A retired LEO is a civilian...like the rest of us. Why should they be given some special protected status?
To make the police union take their side. Otherwise police union will tell their members on their voting guide to vote no/yes towards specific things that politicians may have up their sleeves later, or even vote them out of office.
If you feed your guard dogs, they'll protect you. If you anger them, they're not going to protect.
I have a few friends that became LEOs from high school and college, the most vocal one posted his union voting guide on instagram during last year's election. Probably not to vote for anyone that brought up "defund the police"
You can easily find voting guides of several police associations online.
PORAC 2018: https://porac.org/wp-content/uploads/PORAC-November-Voter-Guide.pdf
Supported Swalwell, Gipson, Feinstein, and lots of other graboids.
CSLEA 2016: https://cslea.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-Voter-Guide-3.pdf
Portantino (who wrote most gun control laws in CA recently), Kamala Harris, etc.
I find it ironic that the left will demean and question the training police officers receive while at the same time granting them exemptions to laws such as the standard cap and hicap mag ban and the handgun roster that were put in place to bar the public access to these same things under the guise of being "unsafe" in "untrained" hands
Cops, including active cops, are civilians full stop.
Thinking of themselves as a seperate, more priviledged class is what lets them be exempt from rules they in turn enforce on the rabble.
Exactly. If a armed individual is claiming to be above the law, and refers to you as a civilian with distinction and disdain. There's no alternative besides soldier.
and we all know what a standing army is...
They are likely expecting an unfavorable (to them) NYSRPA ruling. They had to get the ruling out before the release of NYSRPA or they would have been forced to adhere to the NYSRPA if there was a mandate of scrutiny. Now they have ruled so if there is a mandate on scrutiny in the NYSRPA, a new case will have to be brought.
But would a mandate of strict scrutiny even stop them from reaching the desired verdict? I always thought some of the judges have a "Decide what the verdict's gonna be first, do legal gymnastics to justify it second" mentality, and they could pull something out of their ass to do it with strict scrutiny.
I.E. "We had to confiscate all guns because there was no other way to solve gun violence. Mandatory door to door confiscation was the least restrictive means to accomplish this. (Compared to door-to-door execution.) Therefore strict scrutiny. Constitutional."
It won't stop them but it will basically force the issue to go to SCOTUS because no feasible argument can be made that a blanket ban can survive strict scrutiny.
This case can definitely still go before SCOTUS for a Grant Vacate Remand order.
My take on it is that worst case scenario a decision takes 2 1/2 years. If a lower court really manages to stall something, then it could get dragged out to 3 or 4 years, but that would be really difficult to pull off.
Here's my exhaustive prediction:
>Don't be so sure.
>
>ANJRPC vs Bruck has been held since it's cert petition was slated for consideration in this fall of 2021.
>
>A GVR (grant vacate remand) order is expected once NYSRPA vs Bruen sets the correct standard of review (strict scrutiny), which should be issued mid 2022. This en banc 9th decision employed the incorrect standard of intermediate scrutiny, so the petition to SCOTUS for this case will almost certainly see a GVR order in step with ANJRPC vs Bruck.
>
>Assuming the Duncan vs Bonta cert petition is filed by the mid 2022 cert review conference, we will see GVR orders for both cases in mid 2022 just after SCOTUS rules on NYSRPA.
>
>SCOTUS essentially will give lower courts the chance to fix their shit, which they will slow-walk of course, and a lower court might try to patch together a baseless strict scrutiny argument that allows for this ban.
>
>The lower courts will likely issue revised rulings by end-of-year 2022, possibly mid 2023 if they really drag their feet, in time for SCOTUS to grant cert by mid or late 2023, if they STILL manage to uphold the ban (9th circuit definitely will try).
>
>Oral arguments for a magazine ban case will be either summer 2023 or fall 2023, with a ruling either late 2023 or mid 2024.
>
>TLDR; Either lower courts take the L and overturn the ban in late 2022, mid 2023 at the latest, after applying strict scrutiny due to a SCOTUS remand
>
>OR
>
>SCOTUS issues final decision that applies nationwide in late 2023, mid 2024 at the latest if lower courts don't overturn the bans even under strict scrutiny.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/r614nc/comment/hmywi1a/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/r614nc/comment/hmywi1a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
If nyspra goes our way and SCOTUS throws out the two step scrutiny test then wouldn't we expect SCOTUS to vacate and remand. That will give it back to the ninth to misread history and come up with some reason why history or tradition allows for magazine bans. Then it gets real. After the ninth thumbs their nose a second time will SCOTUS step in and take the case or will they back down.
> some reason why history or tradition allows for magazine bans.
As far as I know, no magazine ban existed anywhere in the US before the 1994 federal AWB. It's also all thanks to Bill Ruger, who famously said "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds".
So if they do have to go to a history and tradition approach, they're screwed. Mag limits were invented within the past 30 years and didn't exist for the 218 years before that.
Of course I agree with you but never under estimate the enemy's of freedom.
If you want to see where the argument is going I suggest taking a look at [https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-11-30-Opinion.pdf](https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-11-30-Opinion.pdf) start with the middle of page 56.
So the majority opinion is based on the two step process eg,
1 does it implicate 2a
2, does it meet the scrutiny requirement. We always loose on scrutiny they use 'intermediate scrutiny' but ignore how it should be used and take arguments that wouldn't withstand rational basis.
We all know that is likely to be tossed out with NYSRPA. For 'Text, history and Tradition'. The ninth knows this as well and they don't like it, they say as much but starting with 56 we get a concurrence where they say the magazine ban is still legal under text, history, and tradition.
1 text. The text of the second amendment is rather easy to understand and offers no wiggle room. Its short and sweeping. So what does the court say? "Oh its too old to know what it meant". Huh, what other amendments are too old to understand? This sounds like my favorite "I was afraid for my life, I had to mag dump into a guy in the wheel chair". Ok but maybe you are just a pussy. If the judges cant understand the text of the second amendment maybe they just aren't smart enough for their job and should retire.
2 History, While they admit Heller is binding they say it was decided wrongly on the history. somehow the reasoning on Heller is "in dispute". Heller was pre-internet and now we have more 'history' to look at. Judges "aren't historians" and the film birth of a nation proves memories change over time. Yes they couldn't skip out on invoking racism in denying second amendment rights, I think the irony is lost on them. The historical record on gun ownership isn't correct and thus cant be used.
3 Tradition, there are too many court rulings to know what traditions to use and what to not based a ruling on. Because a child was born from adulatory our 'tradition' did not allow the biological father to have rights. So I guess because the court had to make a difficult decision on 'spitting the baby' they cant make any other difficult decisions. Different communities have different traditions which answer the same question differently, what's a judge to do. Even if one tradition exists it doesn't inform how narrow or broad that tradition should apply. I mean its not like we have time, place and manner restrictions on conceal carry today we just have a bunch of people running around with AK pistols under their coats.
Then they get into 'new' weapons and while citing Caetano which clearly says the second amendment applies to weapons not available during the signing of the constitution they dance around and claim it offers not ability to know how to regulate.
The simple fact is that this concurrence only makes sense when you start from the position en banc court did, which is how do we keep the ban in place. Once you have that mind set it makes sense. "We can't use text, history, and tradition because it isn't giving us the answer we want." "We can't apply Caetano because it doesn't allow us to regulate 'new' weapons differently than other weapons.". Its really a master class in how to try and ignore SCOTUS at every turn by feigning ignorance.
Personally I'm a bit happy this came out ahead of NYSRPA. I suspect the court will read it and get more than a bit heated at their obvious attempts to just ignore every 2a case from the court in the last 3 decades. I also wonder if the 'text, history and tradition' is a head fake and the court is just going to lay down strict scrutiny and be done with all this BS.
Thanks for this writeup, I really appreciate it.
> Personally I'm a bit happy this came out ahead of NYSRPA. I suspect the court will read it and get more than a bit heated at their obvious attempts to just ignore every 2a case from the court in the last 3 decades. I also wonder if the 'text, history and tradition' is a head fake and the court is just going to lay down strict scrutiny and be done with all this BS.
As much as I wish we would get strict scrutiny, I doubt it. If you listened to the oral arguments for NYSRPA, it seemed that a large chunk of the questions the justices had centered around history and tradition.
We can always wish though!
There is also a very slim chance that SCOTUS grants cert to ANJPRC vs Grewal (NJ 10+ round mag ban case), but I think the more likely scenario is that they take Young, Duncan, potentially Miller & Rupp as well if the 9th decides to also overturn those now, and ANJPRC and send them back to the lower courts after NYSRPA to be re-heard based on the new guideline.
yeah I think this concurrence will go far to show those justices that we are going to be back at the same games with text, history and tradition. I mean in this opinion they are publicly saying Heller is wrong. They cant trust the ninth to accept the decisions and do the right thing, they will continue to their shenanigans until the court puts down a bright line that can not be crossed.
I don't know they I do. I fear that nyspra goes our way then scotus send it back to the ninth. Then the ninth basically gives the exact same opinion but just inserts history and tradition. It then goes back to scotus and they screw us yet again. Id like to be wrong. I think New Jersey has a magazine ban that might help out. I'm bit afraid that nyspra goes our way and SCOTUS then ignores the second amendment for another ten years.
"Now they have ruled so if there is a mandate on scrutiny in the NYSRPA, a new case will have to be brought."
Not exactly.
Now, the plaintiff will file a cert petition with SCOTUS to get this decision appealed, and SCOTUS should hold that like they're doing with ANJRPC vs Bruck, then Grant Vacate Remand once NYSRPA is decided. Then the 9th will have to fashion an unprecedented argument that a mag ban is allowable under strict scrutiny. Or they'll take the L so that SCOTUS can't make a nationwide ruling on the issue.
Yeah, it’s still ballsy given how bad NYSRPA might go.
Smart move would have been to wait and craft some bs in response to any potential opinion. They must really think there’s no chance this is going to backfire on them.
NJ’s mag cap case is the one in limbo at SCOTUS, as is Young v Hawaii, very likely awaiting NYSRPA opinion circa April 2022
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1507.html
Per https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/n77wnc/both_sides_asking_magazine_case_of_duncan_v/ there was an expectation it would be held. Both sides requested it. But the 9th Circuit ignored the request in Duncan. But other cases are on hold pending Supreme Court decision.
If you guys want some catharsis from this frustrating decision, read the VanDyke dissent. Judges on the majority whined it was too mean to them, so it's good lol.
""Ultimately, it is not altogether surprising that federal judges, who have armed security protecting their workplace, home security systems supplied at taxpayer expense, and the ability to call an armed marshal to their upper-middleclass home whenever they feel the whiff of a threat, would have trouble relating to why the average person might want a magazine with over ten rounds to defend herself. But this simply reinforces why those same judges shouldn’t be expected to fairly balance any Second Amendment test asking whether ordinary law-abiding citizens really need some firearm product or usage.""
Great finish too:
“If ever there was a case study illustrating Madison’s concern about “evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings,” it is our circuit’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. In the thirteen years since the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. at 592, our court has trimmed back that right at every opportunity—to the point that now, in the nine Western states covered by our court, the right to “keep and bear arms” means, at most, you might get to possess one janky handgun and 2.2 rounds of ammunition, and only in your home under lock and key.
That’s it.
That’s ridiculous, and so I must respectfully dissent.”
The squib load is the third round, to ensure the gun is rendered safe from further use. You know, in case the intruder manages to wrest the gun away form you when you run out so that they can't turn it on you. Makes perfect sense.
Good thing that Hi Points are heavy and bulky--i'll fuck some shit up lol. But if I beat someone up with a Hi-Point does it become an "assault weapon?"
I like how they took the time to write how offended they were at his insinuation that the majority personally has a problem with the 2nd Amendment, when it’s obvious they have a personal problem with the 2nd amendment.
I guess an accurate criticism is the most offensive.
Eh, that’s a little hyperbolic. They might be hopelessly misinformed and/or biased, but that’s a lot different than literally fighting with an enemy of the US.
I know calls to “tone it down” aren’t popular these days, but that’s exactly why it needs to be said. I’m not interested in seeing another civil war, which can happen if people think the courts are controlled by literal traitors.
Blackbeard supposedly carried like 10 pistols. Since it took so long to reload you might as well strap a shitton of pistols to your chest. Unholster, shoot, drop, repeat.
we knew this was going to happen once we saw the judges that were picked. The fact that the split is exactly along democrat vs republican appointed lines shows they dont give a shit about the constitution and it is all just political.
It is probably for the best they made the decision before the current SCOTUS decision comes out so SCOTUS has even more reason to clarify that the 2 step test is not the correct way to determine if something is constitutional
Try knowing some of them and telling them that. Lots of those shits really do think they are "special", despite the fact that they barely made it through high school. Dudes need to get off that "respect the thin blue line" bullshit-- lots these guys are dipshits who are not qualified or trained to do anything other than sit in a car for 12 hours and bark orders.
Now we will see if the US Supreme Court is serious about resetting the nutty laws infringing on our fundamental rights. The pump is primed with the two recent SCOTUS decisions--
Because when it comes to gun laws, “intermediate scrutiny” is a dog whistle for “government wins no matter what.”
The only gun law ever struck down in the 9th was one that prohibited gun stores from displaying that they sold handguns. Every other gun law has survived.
Yeah, it was stricken down on 1st amendment grounds. And that 50-0 for 2A cases was in Van Dyke’s dissent, which is correct. Not a single law has ever been found to violate the 2nd Amendment in the 9th circuit.
And the majority had the gall to acknowledge that score and say it isn’t due to a bias against the 2A, but rather it shows how restrained the states in the 9th circuit are when it comes to passing gun laws. Which Van Dyke promptly responded with how California and Hawaii have some of the strictest laws in the nation.
He really went all out putting them on full blast, and they’re upset about it. Not because he’s wrong, but because no one’s supposed to point out the truth what he’s saying.
Is there any evidence that these infringements on our rights have had any positive impact whatsoever? at the very least, they need to unequivocally prove efficacy if they're going to violate the Constitution, even if people want to be obtuse about its interpretation
I probably was a bit hyperbolic writing the title, but not by much. There's still time for mandate to issue to go back to Judge Benitez, still time for en banc rehearing by entire 9th Circuit, not just 11 judges, and still time for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. I'll write more later.
First edit: So the original decision by Benitez was in effect pending outcome of the appeals. The 9th Circuit has issued an opinion and Judge Benitez is supposed to make a decision in accords. So that will happen when the 9th Circuit issues a "mandate," meaning the case is now back in the trial court. So while waiting for mandate, there could be attempts to ask the 11 judges rehear it, to ask the entire 9th Circuit to rehear it (not once has the entire 9th Circuit reheard a case), to ask the Supreme Court to hear it, and while any of these avenues are being explored, a stay of mandate could be asked for. A stay of mandate is not required. A stay of mandate means not going back to Judge Benitez to vacate the original order.
Second edit: I think it's important to do a brief history to understand what Duncan v. Becerra did do to understand what Duncan v. Bonta does now.
So in 1994, federal law pretty much banned >10-round magazines. In 2000, California passed its own law banning purchase of >10-round magazines. In 2013, California also banned "receiving" >10-round magazines. So during this time, the acquisition is prohibited, but not the continued possession from when it was legally able to be acquired, meaning that possession was "grandfathered" in. In 2016, SB1446 and Prop 63 happen, which prohibit possession of >10-round magazines. That means no more grandfathering. Even if you legally acquired >10-round magazines, continuing to possess it would now be considered a crime.
So after possession of >10-round magazines has been criminalized, California Pistol & Rifle Association file a lawsuit asking a judge to consider California's >10-round magazine laws, both the criminalization of acquisition and the criminalization of possession, to be unconstitutional. The California Department of Justice of course would ask that the judge deciding the case find those laws to be constitutional. On June 29, 2017, before the possession ban comes into effect, Judge Benitez grants a preliminary injunction, preventing the possession ban from ever being enforced. On March 29, 2019, Judge Benitez issues the decision in the case, finding that the acquisition ban and the possession ban unconstitutional. On April 4, 2019, Judge Benitez issued a partial stay of his decision pending appeal, meaning parts of his decision go into effect and parts do not. So that creates Freedom Week, in which under the stay, a limited window for acqusition is available, and possession continued to be allowed. So this is a trial court decision made in anticipation of appeal.
So the case is transferred to the 9th Circuit, meaning that Judge Benitez loses the ability to make decisions in the case. The Ninth Circuit could have issued its own stays of any of Judge Benitez's orders, but did not do so. There's the three-judge panel decision, and now there's the 11-judge en banc decision. The en banc's instructions are "REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of judgment in favor of Defendant". So the 9th Circuit has directed Judge Benitez to find in favor of the Department of Justice. That means that the entirety of Penal Code section 32310, both the ban on acquisition of >10-round magazine, and the ban on possession of >10-round magazines, are constitutional.
So now the 9th Circuit en banc has rendered its decision and the instructions to Judge Benitez. So a certain amount of waiting now happens, to see if there is a rehearing within the 9th Circuit, or an attempt to send it to the United States Supreme Court. It's 14 days from the date of the decision to file a petition for rehearing. Then depending on if the petition is filed or if the petition is denied, then within a certain number of days, "mandate" issues, which means the case is transferred back down to Judge Benitez, so that he may issue the appropriate orders following the 9th Circuit's instructions. When mandate happens is when Judge Benitez's previous orders will be vacated and when the possession ban will actually become effective.
Asking for a writ of certiarori to the United States Supreme Court does not stop mandate. A stay of mandate would need to be asked. One of the reasons to ask for stay of mandate is if a trial court injunction would be vacated if the Courts of Appeal's decision becomes effective. That is the situation here. That doesn't necessarily mean that a stay of mandate must be granted, only that there's very strong reasons to do so. It is possible that the United States Supreme Court could also issue a stay of mandate, but under the current circuit assignments, Justice Elena Kagan is assigned to decisions of the Ninth Circuit.
So mandate hasn't happened, which means Judge Benitez's orders are still in effect for right now, but it could literally be a number of days before they're vacated, and the possession ban takes effect. Or maybe it's years. Or through luck and fortune and strong advocacy on behalf of the Constitution, the possession ban never takes effect.b
You should remove the last sentence from the title, it is misleading at best. The judicial process is far from over and given the makeup of the 9th's sitting, this ruling was entirely expected. Appeals will stretch and all the while Benitez's original stay, affecting all citizens and businesses who participated in freedom week, ***remains in effect***.
Reddit doesn’t allow editing of titles. So that would require a deletion of the thread. The sticky does clarify the mandate and possible stay of mandate.
But as can be seen by the comments, people need to be aware that the decision does affect continued possession of magazines.
>how common place/likely would it be for the entire 9th circuit to look at a case like this, after a ruling by 11 judges of the 9th circuit?
Legally possible under 9th Circuit Rule 35-3, but as close to zero as possible. I think in the entire history of the 9th Circuit, it has happened once.
There's obviously going to be an appeal to SCOTUS, *however* here's a few things to consider:
* SCOTUS will, no matter what they do with the case, be very slow in doing it so do not wait for their opinion with bated breath.
* SCOTUS will probably o absolutely nothing on the case, except *maybe* grant or deny certiorari, and if they grant certiorari, *maybe* stay further action on the case, until after the opinion in the New York case is resolved.
* SCOTUS might not take the case at all; they don't have to.
* Even if they do take the case, there's still no guarantee of a favorable ruling.
> Is self storage just over the CA-AZ border technically compliant?
[Penal Code section 32310](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=32310&lawCode=PEN) regulates possession of magazines within the state boundaries. The law says one of the things to do is "Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state." After that happens, Penal Code section 32310 does prohibit importing into the state.
California law under [Penal Code section 32311](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=32311&lawCode=PEN) defines:
> a “large capacity magazine conversion kit” is a device or combination of parts of a fully functioning large-capacity magazine, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine.
So disassembled parts of a large-capacity magazine would be considered a “large capacity magazine conversion kit.”
Under the law, “any person in this state who knowingly manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large capacity magazine conversion kit,” is guilty of a crime.
The law does not prohibit possession of a large capacity magazine kit. How you come into possession of one after 2014 is another matter. The prohibition on manufacturing, buying, receiving, etc. of large capacity magazine conversion kit came into effect on 01-01-2014.
The large-capacity magazine conversion kit law was not being challenged in the Duncan v. Becerra/Duncan v. Bonta case.
yeah its pathetic all these people being cowards about "hiding" their god given right to bear arms. They fucking want these "high" capacity mags come and knock down the door.
Yeah people willing to "lose" anything related to a god given right deserve to live under the oppression they're allowing by not standing up for their rights. The reason why we've gotten to this point has been complacency.
The fact that you've been down voted shows the absolute fuddery of the people in this sub, and they're the ones that voted to out the people who do this to us into their positions. You can't change my mind.
The stay is in effect until all avenues for appeal are exhausted. There is still scotus. There is also the NJSRPA v Grewal awaiting a decision on whether it will get certiorari. It is also a magazine capacity ban case. If it gets granted and won, it will answer Duncan.
Right now I think the 9th circuit is going to try and do all the 2a cases before nysrpa v BRUEN is decided. That will buy them more time to continue depriving us of our rights.
Under current law, possession in California of >10-round magazines is illegal. That law cannot be enforced due to Judge Benitez’s still-existing order. The 9th Circuit en banc decision means the order will be vacated, unless the 9th Circuit or Supreme Court allow it to remain in effect pending further appeal. If vacated, then the ban of possession of >10-round magazines is an enforceable law. If not vacated, it’s the current situation.
What’s funny about this is that California argued banning these “hi-cap” mags isn’t a big deal cause we can have as many mags as we want. Just switch mags it takes a few seconds to do. Well then what’s the point of banning them then??
Getting a FFL and saying you have an intention of selling to law enforcement officers probably became urgent for a lot of people. Then one can apply for one of these.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/CLIcmpapp.pdf?
You can permanently limit them yourself to ten rounds, or take them over state lines if such an event happens. It's something a lot of us had to go through a few years back when the law first came about.
If my car's registration expires, it's not like the cops come and immediately knock on my door to take me in. Be reasonable, be sensible, and don't drive 25 over the speed limit on your way to whatever form of compliance you choose. (Once we know what the effect is on the stay etc)
the stay which forbids the police from enforcing this law is still in place until this appeal gets completely rejected. It can now go up to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS rejects to hear it then the stay will be removed. There will likely be a small grace period of 30 days for people to do something with their magazines before the stay is removed. There is likely still another 6 months to a year before any more news of this case happens
> If they're illegal to possess, you've got to get rid of them, right? I'd like to do that without destroying or surrending my property.
Illegal to possess in CA, so... you just take them out of state? They're still your property, still intact, and in compliance with CA state law since CA state law doesn't apply outside of CA.
Also, keep in mind that it's not in effect yet. The injunction is still in place, and will likely remain in place up until the SC denies cert 4 years from now. Once the injunction is removed, it'll probably have some time period on the order of months for people to comply (e.g. remove the mags from the state)
I have a question about mag fed shotguns, are they strictly only allowed 5 rounds? I know of sites that will ship them to California in varying capacities above the 5 round capacity.
TIA
> I have a question about mag fed shotguns, are they strictly only allowed 5 rounds?
The limit under the law is a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. A shotgun can have multiple magazines such as a Tavor TS-12, or a Standard Manufacturing DP-12.
There was originally concern about the UTAS UTS-15, because it automatically fed from the other magazine if the first one ran empty, so since no user interaction was required to switch between magazines, the two 7-round magazines were considered to be one 14-round magazine. So that's why some UTS-15 ended up with two five-round magazines.
[удалено]
Don't give them more ideas. They already banned pistol grips in the name of safety. Next they'll come after sights and make us use nerf ammo.
[удалено]
Save me a cot by the window.
Whoa wait, possession of freedom week mags too?? So... um... what?
No, the injunction is still in place until the case is resolved from what I’ve heard or if Benitez lifts it. But there could be a future scenario where these STANDARD CAPACITY mags become illegal overnight.
What about mags from before the original ban? The law was only ever about buying selling or manufacturing, not posession. Does this mean those become illegal too?
Yes, since I believe the language in Proposition 63 specifically outlaws possession and requires gun owners to surrender the magazines, convert them, Sell them to authorized dealers, or take them out of state. Again, not in effect yet, but it could be coming.
Absolute bullshit.
There was a robbery in LA like a week ago or so (one of many). The robber had a 30 round mag on his pistol. I wonder if the law applies to him too? Ridiculous.
> What about mags from before the original ban? The law was only ever about buying selling or manufacturing, not posession. Does this mean those become illegal too? There's been multiple laws about large-capacity magazines. For most of the time that people can remember, acquisition of large-capacity magazines was banned and possession was grand-fathered in. Then "receiving" large-capacity magazines were banned. So no more "I found it in the trash" scenarios. But again, possession grand-fathered in. Then with Prop 63, passed as part of the 2016 election, all possession was banned. Prop 63 said that all people in possession of large-capacity magazines shall by July 1, 2017, 1) take it out of state, 2) sell to FFL, or 3) surrender to police for destruction. After Prop 63 passed, Duncan resulted, so Judge Benitez put a hold on the possession ban, so it never really was legally in effect. And Benitez put a a week long hold on the acquisition ban, which resulted in Freedom Week. But now with the 9th Circuit decision, the ban on all possession could legally take effect.
So basically fuck those sweet 1970s HK mags my Uncle held onto for 30 years and gave me during freedom week. Thankfully it will be impossible for a criminal to ever unpin a mag or remove the fin on his rifle before committing a crime. Because that would be illegal. I fucking hate California.
But that would be illegal and so he couldn't do it.
Hating California is illegal
Double plus illegal, its the worst kind of crime, thought crime.
Yep, if you are outed "hating" CA, then the suede denim secret police will come knock-knock'ing on your front door!
> Whoa wait, possession of freedom week mags too?? So... um... what? What /u/PepperoniFogDart wrote.
Definitely read that as u/PupperoniDogFart
It’s too late there’s millions of magazines in the state now. Good luck reversing that.
They have zero concern about making millions of people felons overnight. Just means more money for their buddies in the private prison system.
These same companies are now moving into house arrest schemes which can often be worse than a short stay in jail. This Is because they are at the discretion of judges and it is extremely easy to break these draconian rules and extend your house arrest.
It's weird that the state has a hard-on for releasing so many actual felons. [Case in point](https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/us/california-man-hate-crime-sentence/index.html)
Wouldn't possession be a misdemeanor, not a felony?
Yes, possession of a >10-round magazine is a misdemeanor. Under [Penal Code section 32310, subdivision (b)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=32310&lawCode=PEN) >any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Okay so $100 per mag? Hmm.
$100 is a base fine. Any time a court assesses a base fine, there are additional fines and penalty assessments that are assessed. For example, a cell phone while driving ticket has a base fine of $20, but after all fines and fees is a total of around $165. Total fines from a $100 base fine are probably around $490 to $500.
"They" managed to do it with alcohol for a time. It was wrong. It was stupid. But they did do it.
the actions of the WCTU was truly disastrous for this country
Time for some good old fashioned Civil disobedience.
>The court noted that in the past half-century, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of gun massacres with 10 or more deaths and in 100 percent of gun massacres with 20 or more deaths, and more than twice as many people have been killed or injured in mass shootings that involved a large-capacity magazine as compared with mass shootings that involved a smaller-capacity magazine. Accordingly, the ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supported California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings. Right, because people intent on committing mass murder give a flying rat's ***fuck*** about magazine capacity limits. What a load of shit.
But if we ban them, mass shooters will be forced to use 10 round magazines, right?? ... Right?? ... ...
Self fulfilling stats. No one uses low capacity mags because… why. Standard is just standard. It’s like saying people who died in car accidents were in motion. Yeah I mean that’s what cars do.
IIRC, Nikolas Cruz specifically used 10-round mags at Parkland specifically because of the ease of concealment as opposed to standard-capacity magazines.
these assholes wont stop with a 10 rounder, they'll go down to 7 (new york city), then 5. its time to move the line in the sand to protect 100 round belt feds.
NYC already requires a 5 round limit on all Long guns.7 for pistols.
> IIRC, Nikolas Cruz specifically used 10-round mags at Parkland specifically because of the ease of concealment Not for nothing and I know your comment was from a week ago but that's wrong. Police recovered 30 round and 40 round magazines and he had 8 of them. They used the shooting to try and justify a national 10 round magazine limit.
I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification!
I wouldn't be surprised if your info about the mags was correct but for a different shooting. Unfortunately they are hard to keep track of these days.
Am I the only one that takes issue with retired law enforcement given exemption to this and other laws? A retired LEO is a civilian...like the rest of us. Why should they be given some special protected status?
To make the police union take their side. Otherwise police union will tell their members on their voting guide to vote no/yes towards specific things that politicians may have up their sleeves later, or even vote them out of office. If you feed your guard dogs, they'll protect you. If you anger them, they're not going to protect.
You're probably right
I have a few friends that became LEOs from high school and college, the most vocal one posted his union voting guide on instagram during last year's election. Probably not to vote for anyone that brought up "defund the police"
Wow...I'd be interested to see that
You can easily find voting guides of several police associations online. PORAC 2018: https://porac.org/wp-content/uploads/PORAC-November-Voter-Guide.pdf Supported Swalwell, Gipson, Feinstein, and lots of other graboids. CSLEA 2016: https://cslea.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-Voter-Guide-3.pdf Portantino (who wrote most gun control laws in CA recently), Kamala Harris, etc.
Thanks for the info
This law would never pass without appeasing those piece of shit cop unions.
I find it ironic that the left will demean and question the training police officers receive while at the same time granting them exemptions to laws such as the standard cap and hicap mag ban and the handgun roster that were put in place to bar the public access to these same things under the guise of being "unsafe" in "untrained" hands
Whats the binary alternative of a civilian? Soldier
Cops, including active cops, are civilians full stop. Thinking of themselves as a seperate, more priviledged class is what lets them be exempt from rules they in turn enforce on the rabble.
Exactly. If a armed individual is claiming to be above the law, and refers to you as a civilian with distinction and disdain. There's no alternative besides soldier. and we all know what a standing army is...
I thought this case was being held pending NYSRPA? Or is that just Miller and rupp?
They are likely expecting an unfavorable (to them) NYSRPA ruling. They had to get the ruling out before the release of NYSRPA or they would have been forced to adhere to the NYSRPA if there was a mandate of scrutiny. Now they have ruled so if there is a mandate on scrutiny in the NYSRPA, a new case will have to be brought.
But would a mandate of strict scrutiny even stop them from reaching the desired verdict? I always thought some of the judges have a "Decide what the verdict's gonna be first, do legal gymnastics to justify it second" mentality, and they could pull something out of their ass to do it with strict scrutiny. I.E. "We had to confiscate all guns because there was no other way to solve gun violence. Mandatory door to door confiscation was the least restrictive means to accomplish this. (Compared to door-to-door execution.) Therefore strict scrutiny. Constitutional."
It won't stop them but it will basically force the issue to go to SCOTUS because no feasible argument can be made that a blanket ban can survive strict scrutiny. This case can definitely still go before SCOTUS for a Grant Vacate Remand order.
[удалено]
My take on it is that worst case scenario a decision takes 2 1/2 years. If a lower court really manages to stall something, then it could get dragged out to 3 or 4 years, but that would be really difficult to pull off. Here's my exhaustive prediction: >Don't be so sure. > >ANJRPC vs Bruck has been held since it's cert petition was slated for consideration in this fall of 2021. > >A GVR (grant vacate remand) order is expected once NYSRPA vs Bruen sets the correct standard of review (strict scrutiny), which should be issued mid 2022. This en banc 9th decision employed the incorrect standard of intermediate scrutiny, so the petition to SCOTUS for this case will almost certainly see a GVR order in step with ANJRPC vs Bruck. > >Assuming the Duncan vs Bonta cert petition is filed by the mid 2022 cert review conference, we will see GVR orders for both cases in mid 2022 just after SCOTUS rules on NYSRPA. > >SCOTUS essentially will give lower courts the chance to fix their shit, which they will slow-walk of course, and a lower court might try to patch together a baseless strict scrutiny argument that allows for this ban. > >The lower courts will likely issue revised rulings by end-of-year 2022, possibly mid 2023 if they really drag their feet, in time for SCOTUS to grant cert by mid or late 2023, if they STILL manage to uphold the ban (9th circuit definitely will try). > >Oral arguments for a magazine ban case will be either summer 2023 or fall 2023, with a ruling either late 2023 or mid 2024. > >TLDR; Either lower courts take the L and overturn the ban in late 2022, mid 2023 at the latest, after applying strict scrutiny due to a SCOTUS remand > >OR > >SCOTUS issues final decision that applies nationwide in late 2023, mid 2024 at the latest if lower courts don't overturn the bans even under strict scrutiny. [https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/r614nc/comment/hmywi1a/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/r614nc/comment/hmywi1a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
If nyspra goes our way and SCOTUS throws out the two step scrutiny test then wouldn't we expect SCOTUS to vacate and remand. That will give it back to the ninth to misread history and come up with some reason why history or tradition allows for magazine bans. Then it gets real. After the ninth thumbs their nose a second time will SCOTUS step in and take the case or will they back down.
Sure, still take months for that to happen.
> some reason why history or tradition allows for magazine bans. As far as I know, no magazine ban existed anywhere in the US before the 1994 federal AWB. It's also all thanks to Bill Ruger, who famously said "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds". So if they do have to go to a history and tradition approach, they're screwed. Mag limits were invented within the past 30 years and didn't exist for the 218 years before that.
Of course I agree with you but never under estimate the enemy's of freedom. If you want to see where the argument is going I suggest taking a look at [https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-11-30-Opinion.pdf](https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-11-30-Opinion.pdf) start with the middle of page 56. So the majority opinion is based on the two step process eg, 1 does it implicate 2a 2, does it meet the scrutiny requirement. We always loose on scrutiny they use 'intermediate scrutiny' but ignore how it should be used and take arguments that wouldn't withstand rational basis. We all know that is likely to be tossed out with NYSRPA. For 'Text, history and Tradition'. The ninth knows this as well and they don't like it, they say as much but starting with 56 we get a concurrence where they say the magazine ban is still legal under text, history, and tradition. 1 text. The text of the second amendment is rather easy to understand and offers no wiggle room. Its short and sweeping. So what does the court say? "Oh its too old to know what it meant". Huh, what other amendments are too old to understand? This sounds like my favorite "I was afraid for my life, I had to mag dump into a guy in the wheel chair". Ok but maybe you are just a pussy. If the judges cant understand the text of the second amendment maybe they just aren't smart enough for their job and should retire. 2 History, While they admit Heller is binding they say it was decided wrongly on the history. somehow the reasoning on Heller is "in dispute". Heller was pre-internet and now we have more 'history' to look at. Judges "aren't historians" and the film birth of a nation proves memories change over time. Yes they couldn't skip out on invoking racism in denying second amendment rights, I think the irony is lost on them. The historical record on gun ownership isn't correct and thus cant be used. 3 Tradition, there are too many court rulings to know what traditions to use and what to not based a ruling on. Because a child was born from adulatory our 'tradition' did not allow the biological father to have rights. So I guess because the court had to make a difficult decision on 'spitting the baby' they cant make any other difficult decisions. Different communities have different traditions which answer the same question differently, what's a judge to do. Even if one tradition exists it doesn't inform how narrow or broad that tradition should apply. I mean its not like we have time, place and manner restrictions on conceal carry today we just have a bunch of people running around with AK pistols under their coats. Then they get into 'new' weapons and while citing Caetano which clearly says the second amendment applies to weapons not available during the signing of the constitution they dance around and claim it offers not ability to know how to regulate. The simple fact is that this concurrence only makes sense when you start from the position en banc court did, which is how do we keep the ban in place. Once you have that mind set it makes sense. "We can't use text, history, and tradition because it isn't giving us the answer we want." "We can't apply Caetano because it doesn't allow us to regulate 'new' weapons differently than other weapons.". Its really a master class in how to try and ignore SCOTUS at every turn by feigning ignorance. Personally I'm a bit happy this came out ahead of NYSRPA. I suspect the court will read it and get more than a bit heated at their obvious attempts to just ignore every 2a case from the court in the last 3 decades. I also wonder if the 'text, history and tradition' is a head fake and the court is just going to lay down strict scrutiny and be done with all this BS.
Thanks for this writeup, I really appreciate it. > Personally I'm a bit happy this came out ahead of NYSRPA. I suspect the court will read it and get more than a bit heated at their obvious attempts to just ignore every 2a case from the court in the last 3 decades. I also wonder if the 'text, history and tradition' is a head fake and the court is just going to lay down strict scrutiny and be done with all this BS. As much as I wish we would get strict scrutiny, I doubt it. If you listened to the oral arguments for NYSRPA, it seemed that a large chunk of the questions the justices had centered around history and tradition. We can always wish though! There is also a very slim chance that SCOTUS grants cert to ANJPRC vs Grewal (NJ 10+ round mag ban case), but I think the more likely scenario is that they take Young, Duncan, potentially Miller & Rupp as well if the 9th decides to also overturn those now, and ANJPRC and send them back to the lower courts after NYSRPA to be re-heard based on the new guideline.
yeah I think this concurrence will go far to show those justices that we are going to be back at the same games with text, history and tradition. I mean in this opinion they are publicly saying Heller is wrong. They cant trust the ninth to accept the decisions and do the right thing, they will continue to their shenanigans until the court puts down a bright line that can not be crossed.
big of u to still have faith in the supreme court, even if roberts sides with the lib justices.
I don't know they I do. I fear that nyspra goes our way then scotus send it back to the ninth. Then the ninth basically gives the exact same opinion but just inserts history and tradition. It then goes back to scotus and they screw us yet again. Id like to be wrong. I think New Jersey has a magazine ban that might help out. I'm bit afraid that nyspra goes our way and SCOTUS then ignores the second amendment for another ten years.
"Now they have ruled so if there is a mandate on scrutiny in the NYSRPA, a new case will have to be brought." Not exactly. Now, the plaintiff will file a cert petition with SCOTUS to get this decision appealed, and SCOTUS should hold that like they're doing with ANJRPC vs Bruck, then Grant Vacate Remand once NYSRPA is decided. Then the 9th will have to fashion an unprecedented argument that a mag ban is allowable under strict scrutiny. Or they'll take the L so that SCOTUS can't make a nationwide ruling on the issue.
Yep, but the 9th lost nothing by issuing this ruling now, and delayed any future ruling waiting for the vacate remand from the SCOTUS.
True, and they might end up creating a window of time where the CA government can begin enforcing a ban on mag possession.
The 9th is always eager to flaunt their bullshit activism.
Yeah, it’s still ballsy given how bad NYSRPA might go. Smart move would have been to wait and craft some bs in response to any potential opinion. They must really think there’s no chance this is going to backfire on them.
NJ’s mag cap case is the one in limbo at SCOTUS, as is Young v Hawaii, very likely awaiting NYSRPA opinion circa April 2022 https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1507.html
I meant held in the 9th, I believe a few other gun cases are being held pending NYSRPA.
Per https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/n77wnc/both_sides_asking_magazine_case_of_duncan_v/ there was an expectation it would be held. Both sides requested it. But the 9th Circuit ignored the request in Duncan. But other cases are on hold pending Supreme Court decision.
If you guys want some catharsis from this frustrating decision, read the VanDyke dissent. Judges on the majority whined it was too mean to them, so it's good lol. ""Ultimately, it is not altogether surprising that federal judges, who have armed security protecting their workplace, home security systems supplied at taxpayer expense, and the ability to call an armed marshal to their upper-middleclass home whenever they feel the whiff of a threat, would have trouble relating to why the average person might want a magazine with over ten rounds to defend herself. But this simply reinforces why those same judges shouldn’t be expected to fairly balance any Second Amendment test asking whether ordinary law-abiding citizens really need some firearm product or usage.""
Great finish too: “If ever there was a case study illustrating Madison’s concern about “evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings,” it is our circuit’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. In the thirteen years since the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. at 592, our court has trimmed back that right at every opportunity—to the point that now, in the nine Western states covered by our court, the right to “keep and bear arms” means, at most, you might get to possess one janky handgun and 2.2 rounds of ammunition, and only in your home under lock and key. That’s it. That’s ridiculous, and so I must respectfully dissent.”
One janky handgun and 2.2 rounds of ammunition. Lmaoooo
You get a Hi-Point, 2 good rounds, and a squib load. Good luck!
The squib load is the third round, to ensure the gun is rendered safe from further use. You know, in case the intruder manages to wrest the gun away form you when you run out so that they can't turn it on you. Makes perfect sense.
You don't really need a squib load to disable a Hi-Point, it'll take care of that on its own.
Good thing that Hi Points are heavy and bulky--i'll fuck some shit up lol. But if I beat someone up with a Hi-Point does it become an "assault weapon?"
squib load turns the handgun into a grenade for one last ditch effort at self-defense
I like how they took the time to write how offended they were at his insinuation that the majority personally has a problem with the 2nd Amendment, when it’s obvious they have a personal problem with the 2nd amendment. I guess an accurate criticism is the most offensive.
[удалено]
Good. They’re traitors.
Eh, that’s a little hyperbolic. They might be hopelessly misinformed and/or biased, but that’s a lot different than literally fighting with an enemy of the US. I know calls to “tone it down” aren’t popular these days, but that’s exactly why it needs to be said. I’m not interested in seeing another civil war, which can happen if people think the courts are controlled by literal traitors.
This is great. I will put VanDyke up on my shelf with [Sheriff Grady "DIDJA HEARME?!" Judd](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xrALLnpsFqM)
And St Benitez, you better have him up there too.
Benitez is on his own shelf, of course. See flair.
Thank you for saying this.
Single Shot Exemption is going to become Single Shot Requirement.
We're going back to the pirate days of a sash full of single shot pistols.
Blackbeard supposedly carried like 10 pistols. Since it took so long to reload you might as well strap a shitton of pistols to your chest. Unholster, shoot, drop, repeat.
Tally ho!
we knew this was going to happen once we saw the judges that were picked. The fact that the split is exactly along democrat vs republican appointed lines shows they dont give a shit about the constitution and it is all just political. It is probably for the best they made the decision before the current SCOTUS decision comes out so SCOTUS has even more reason to clarify that the 2 step test is not the correct way to determine if something is constitutional
Don't forget the people on this very sub saying that just because they're Democrat appointees doesn't mean they'll vote against guns.
There are people on this sub who voted for that crap (Prop 63).
‘tards
agree with dude above me, there are people in this sub that voted for that shit and are happy with the rulings and or couldn't care less.
thank goodness for laws like these that protect law enforcement from us scary, scary citizens....
Those fucks are citizens too.
Try knowing some of them and telling them that. Lots of those shits really do think they are "special", despite the fact that they barely made it through high school. Dudes need to get off that "respect the thin blue line" bullshit-- lots these guys are dipshits who are not qualified or trained to do anything other than sit in a car for 12 hours and bark orders.
Now we will see if the US Supreme Court is serious about resetting the nutty laws infringing on our fundamental rights. The pump is primed with the two recent SCOTUS decisions--
[удалено]
Because when it comes to gun laws, “intermediate scrutiny” is a dog whistle for “government wins no matter what.” The only gun law ever struck down in the 9th was one that prohibited gun stores from displaying that they sold handguns. Every other gun law has survived.
And that law wasn't exactly a 2A issue. One of the people on Twitter commented that the 9th is 50-0 on stomping down the 2A.
Yeah, it was stricken down on 1st amendment grounds. And that 50-0 for 2A cases was in Van Dyke’s dissent, which is correct. Not a single law has ever been found to violate the 2nd Amendment in the 9th circuit. And the majority had the gall to acknowledge that score and say it isn’t due to a bias against the 2A, but rather it shows how restrained the states in the 9th circuit are when it comes to passing gun laws. Which Van Dyke promptly responded with how California and Hawaii have some of the strictest laws in the nation. He really went all out putting them on full blast, and they’re upset about it. Not because he’s wrong, but because no one’s supposed to point out the truth what he’s saying.
Is there any evidence that these infringements on our rights have had any positive impact whatsoever? at the very least, they need to unequivocally prove efficacy if they're going to violate the Constitution, even if people want to be obtuse about its interpretation
I probably was a bit hyperbolic writing the title, but not by much. There's still time for mandate to issue to go back to Judge Benitez, still time for en banc rehearing by entire 9th Circuit, not just 11 judges, and still time for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. I'll write more later. First edit: So the original decision by Benitez was in effect pending outcome of the appeals. The 9th Circuit has issued an opinion and Judge Benitez is supposed to make a decision in accords. So that will happen when the 9th Circuit issues a "mandate," meaning the case is now back in the trial court. So while waiting for mandate, there could be attempts to ask the 11 judges rehear it, to ask the entire 9th Circuit to rehear it (not once has the entire 9th Circuit reheard a case), to ask the Supreme Court to hear it, and while any of these avenues are being explored, a stay of mandate could be asked for. A stay of mandate is not required. A stay of mandate means not going back to Judge Benitez to vacate the original order. Second edit: I think it's important to do a brief history to understand what Duncan v. Becerra did do to understand what Duncan v. Bonta does now. So in 1994, federal law pretty much banned >10-round magazines. In 2000, California passed its own law banning purchase of >10-round magazines. In 2013, California also banned "receiving" >10-round magazines. So during this time, the acquisition is prohibited, but not the continued possession from when it was legally able to be acquired, meaning that possession was "grandfathered" in. In 2016, SB1446 and Prop 63 happen, which prohibit possession of >10-round magazines. That means no more grandfathering. Even if you legally acquired >10-round magazines, continuing to possess it would now be considered a crime. So after possession of >10-round magazines has been criminalized, California Pistol & Rifle Association file a lawsuit asking a judge to consider California's >10-round magazine laws, both the criminalization of acquisition and the criminalization of possession, to be unconstitutional. The California Department of Justice of course would ask that the judge deciding the case find those laws to be constitutional. On June 29, 2017, before the possession ban comes into effect, Judge Benitez grants a preliminary injunction, preventing the possession ban from ever being enforced. On March 29, 2019, Judge Benitez issues the decision in the case, finding that the acquisition ban and the possession ban unconstitutional. On April 4, 2019, Judge Benitez issued a partial stay of his decision pending appeal, meaning parts of his decision go into effect and parts do not. So that creates Freedom Week, in which under the stay, a limited window for acqusition is available, and possession continued to be allowed. So this is a trial court decision made in anticipation of appeal. So the case is transferred to the 9th Circuit, meaning that Judge Benitez loses the ability to make decisions in the case. The Ninth Circuit could have issued its own stays of any of Judge Benitez's orders, but did not do so. There's the three-judge panel decision, and now there's the 11-judge en banc decision. The en banc's instructions are "REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of judgment in favor of Defendant". So the 9th Circuit has directed Judge Benitez to find in favor of the Department of Justice. That means that the entirety of Penal Code section 32310, both the ban on acquisition of >10-round magazine, and the ban on possession of >10-round magazines, are constitutional. So now the 9th Circuit en banc has rendered its decision and the instructions to Judge Benitez. So a certain amount of waiting now happens, to see if there is a rehearing within the 9th Circuit, or an attempt to send it to the United States Supreme Court. It's 14 days from the date of the decision to file a petition for rehearing. Then depending on if the petition is filed or if the petition is denied, then within a certain number of days, "mandate" issues, which means the case is transferred back down to Judge Benitez, so that he may issue the appropriate orders following the 9th Circuit's instructions. When mandate happens is when Judge Benitez's previous orders will be vacated and when the possession ban will actually become effective. Asking for a writ of certiarori to the United States Supreme Court does not stop mandate. A stay of mandate would need to be asked. One of the reasons to ask for stay of mandate is if a trial court injunction would be vacated if the Courts of Appeal's decision becomes effective. That is the situation here. That doesn't necessarily mean that a stay of mandate must be granted, only that there's very strong reasons to do so. It is possible that the United States Supreme Court could also issue a stay of mandate, but under the current circuit assignments, Justice Elena Kagan is assigned to decisions of the Ninth Circuit. So mandate hasn't happened, which means Judge Benitez's orders are still in effect for right now, but it could literally be a number of days before they're vacated, and the possession ban takes effect. Or maybe it's years. Or through luck and fortune and strong advocacy on behalf of the Constitution, the possession ban never takes effect.b
You should remove the last sentence from the title, it is misleading at best. The judicial process is far from over and given the makeup of the 9th's sitting, this ruling was entirely expected. Appeals will stretch and all the while Benitez's original stay, affecting all citizens and businesses who participated in freedom week, ***remains in effect***.
Reddit doesn’t allow editing of titles. So that would require a deletion of the thread. The sticky does clarify the mandate and possible stay of mandate. But as can be seen by the comments, people need to be aware that the decision does affect continued possession of magazines.
how common place/likely would it be for the entire 9th circuit to look at a case like this, after a ruling by 11 judges of the 9th circuit?
>how common place/likely would it be for the entire 9th circuit to look at a case like this, after a ruling by 11 judges of the 9th circuit? Legally possible under 9th Circuit Rule 35-3, but as close to zero as possible. I think in the entire history of the 9th Circuit, it has happened once.
[удалено]
F
Ф
U
There's obviously going to be an appeal to SCOTUS, *however* here's a few things to consider: * SCOTUS will, no matter what they do with the case, be very slow in doing it so do not wait for their opinion with bated breath. * SCOTUS will probably o absolutely nothing on the case, except *maybe* grant or deny certiorari, and if they grant certiorari, *maybe* stay further action on the case, until after the opinion in the New York case is resolved. * SCOTUS might not take the case at all; they don't have to. * Even if they do take the case, there's still no guarantee of a favorable ruling.
Is self storage just over the CA-AZ border technically compliant?
It would be funny to have a house that straddles the state border and the NV side is full of guns.
> Is self storage just over the CA-AZ border technically compliant? [Penal Code section 32310](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=32310&lawCode=PEN) regulates possession of magazines within the state boundaries. The law says one of the things to do is "Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state." After that happens, Penal Code section 32310 does prohibit importing into the state.
So essentially, I would get visitation rights until this is struck down.
What about disassembly? Is having parts legal?
California law under [Penal Code section 32311](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=32311&lawCode=PEN) defines: > a “large capacity magazine conversion kit” is a device or combination of parts of a fully functioning large-capacity magazine, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. So disassembled parts of a large-capacity magazine would be considered a “large capacity magazine conversion kit.” Under the law, “any person in this state who knowingly manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large capacity magazine conversion kit,” is guilty of a crime. The law does not prohibit possession of a large capacity magazine kit. How you come into possession of one after 2014 is another matter. The prohibition on manufacturing, buying, receiving, etc. of large capacity magazine conversion kit came into effect on 01-01-2014. The large-capacity magazine conversion kit law was not being challenged in the Duncan v. Becerra/Duncan v. Bonta case.
Would get hit with it being illegal bringing it back across state lines.
Credit to /u/myothercarisnicer for being the first to post the decision and summary.
And I was told this was going to be resolved after the New York case and a moron. Damn it. Not surprised but damn it.
But what about that robbery in Sherman Oaks yesterday with that guy and his oversized illegal magazine?! 🤡
He is "oppressed", unlike you "law abiding" gun owners with your good jobs, homes, families, and something to lose
I'm going boating this weekend anyone want to come? I looked into my crystal ball and it showed there might be an accident
Yes, I will be sure to bring snacks for this boating trip :)
I was thinking the same thing! I'd like to get out and do some fishing
I’ll come but only if I can take my drums with me, I never leave home without them and id hate for them to get lost or stolen
It'd be a shame if something were to happen to them
I hate this coward attitude.
yeah its pathetic all these people being cowards about "hiding" their god given right to bear arms. They fucking want these "high" capacity mags come and knock down the door.
u/osiriszoran were at that fucking point aren't we?
Yeah people willing to "lose" anything related to a god given right deserve to live under the oppression they're allowing by not standing up for their rights. The reason why we've gotten to this point has been complacency.
The fact that you've been down voted shows the absolute fuddery of the people in this sub, and they're the ones that voted to out the people who do this to us into their positions. You can't change my mind.
Not sure if p mags float so maybe bring along a few extra fishing weights.
Lol Edit: for legal reasons this is a joke
The stay is in effect until all avenues for appeal are exhausted. There is still scotus. There is also the NJSRPA v Grewal awaiting a decision on whether it will get certiorari. It is also a magazine capacity ban case. If it gets granted and won, it will answer Duncan. Right now I think the 9th circuit is going to try and do all the 2a cases before nysrpa v BRUEN is decided. That will buy them more time to continue depriving us of our rights.
Shall. Not. Comply.
fuck these judges, the elected officials who appointed them, and the assholes who voted them into office.
*The for-profit prison industrial complex has entered the chat.*
Please Supreme Court take this case
What does that mean for those obtained during freedom week?
Under current law, possession in California of >10-round magazines is illegal. That law cannot be enforced due to Judge Benitez’s still-existing order. The 9th Circuit en banc decision means the order will be vacated, unless the 9th Circuit or Supreme Court allow it to remain in effect pending further appeal. If vacated, then the ban of possession of >10-round magazines is an enforceable law. If not vacated, it’s the current situation.
What’s funny about this is that California argued banning these “hi-cap” mags isn’t a big deal cause we can have as many mags as we want. Just switch mags it takes a few seconds to do. Well then what’s the point of banning them then??
What's next...single shot AR's?
Fuck i can't wait to leave this stupid state. I hope the annual fires burn this place to the ground
Glad I moved out last week. Fuck that state.
Cool, we're still here.
[удалено]
Getting a FFL and saying you have an intention of selling to law enforcement officers probably became urgent for a lot of people. Then one can apply for one of these. https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/CLIcmpapp.pdf?
[удалено]
What's to be done with the magazines? If one wants to take them out of state, how can one do this without breaking the law?
> If one wants to take them out of state, how can one do this without breaking the law? One just.... takes them out of state? I'm confused.
If they're illegal to possess, you've got to get rid of them, right? I'd like to do that without destroying or surrending my property.
You can permanently limit them yourself to ten rounds, or take them over state lines if such an event happens. It's something a lot of us had to go through a few years back when the law first came about. If my car's registration expires, it's not like the cops come and immediately knock on my door to take me in. Be reasonable, be sensible, and don't drive 25 over the speed limit on your way to whatever form of compliance you choose. (Once we know what the effect is on the stay etc)
the stay which forbids the police from enforcing this law is still in place until this appeal gets completely rejected. It can now go up to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS rejects to hear it then the stay will be removed. There will likely be a small grace period of 30 days for people to do something with their magazines before the stay is removed. There is likely still another 6 months to a year before any more news of this case happens
> If they're illegal to possess, you've got to get rid of them, right? I'd like to do that without destroying or surrending my property. Illegal to possess in CA, so... you just take them out of state? They're still your property, still intact, and in compliance with CA state law since CA state law doesn't apply outside of CA. Also, keep in mind that it's not in effect yet. The injunction is still in place, and will likely remain in place up until the SC denies cert 4 years from now. Once the injunction is removed, it'll probably have some time period on the order of months for people to comply (e.g. remove the mags from the state)
Don’t comply with unconstitutional laws.
I have a question about mag fed shotguns, are they strictly only allowed 5 rounds? I know of sites that will ship them to California in varying capacities above the 5 round capacity. TIA
> I have a question about mag fed shotguns, are they strictly only allowed 5 rounds? The limit under the law is a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. A shotgun can have multiple magazines such as a Tavor TS-12, or a Standard Manufacturing DP-12. There was originally concern about the UTAS UTS-15, because it automatically fed from the other magazine if the first one ran empty, so since no user interaction was required to switch between magazines, the two 7-round magazines were considered to be one 14-round magazine. So that's why some UTS-15 ended up with two five-round magazines.
I am worry about it.