SIGforum
Federal Judge Finds CA Hi-Cap Mag Ban Unconstitutional
April 02, 2019, 10:29 PM
David LeeFederal Judge Finds CA Hi-Cap Mag Ban Unconstitutional
I went through this for many years back in New York State. Pre bans were OK to own. After cuomo 2 got hired by the Big Apple, we had to get rid of all high caps. Havn't lived or visited back in that State now for 3 1/2 years. Maybe we can sell those west coasters some Post Ban mags at huge prices..
.
April 02, 2019, 10:48 PM
Pipe Smokerquote:
Originally posted by sjtill:
Sig wouldn’t let me order 21-round mags for my 320 yesterday.
You can wait for SIG to loosen up – might take awhile. Or you could look for another supplier. If the latter, don’t wait too long. There might be an adverse court decision. And maybe the sudden CA demand will exhaust supplier inventories.
Serious about crackers. April 03, 2019, 12:18 PM
ontmarkquote:
Originally posted by StarTraveler:
I received an e-mail from Beretta a little while ago advertising that they were sending “High Capacity Magazines” to California. If I thought it would be read by a real person, I’d send back:
“No, now you’re sending regular capacity mags instead of the reduced capacity ten rounders they’d allowed in for a while.”
Regardless, it’s good to see more and more companies filling the need of our magazine-starved Golden State brethren.
Yes I received the same email.
It was sure good to see a Firearms Manufacture web Sight get on board.
My CC has taken a rather large hit lately.
Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it! - John Steinbeck
April 03, 2019, 01:28 PM
FlashlightboyThe CA asked for a stay and essentially asked the court to grant it without the plaintiff (Duncan) being able to file a substantive response.
Duncan asked for time to file a detailed opposition and the AG replied with a different request to grant a temporary injunction.
As of yesterday Justice Benitez had neither acted on nor set a date for any oral presentation of the motions. In their moving papers the CA AG conceded that it's legal for residents to buy high cap or as they call them LCMs, but also difficult to recapture them so that is sort of their tail-wagging-the-dog argument for a stay or an injunction.
It's doubtful that Benitez will agree since he could have very easily issued his decision and a stay pending appeal but he didn't. I don't see a strong likelihood that he will now and if that's the case, off we go for the 9th Circuit circus.
April 03, 2019, 01:43 PM
ontmarkquote:
Originally posted by Skins2881:
Now if you add a plus one baseplate to your magazine I could see calling that an Hi-Cap Mag.
Didn’t SIG sell some P226s with magazines with the plus two base plate with them. So if they did, then the plus 2 mags could be considered as the standard magazine on them.
Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it! - John Steinbeck
April 03, 2019, 01:54 PM
navyshooterin part it says...…
"should the judgment be stayed immediately, even if only temporarily, countless otherwise law-abiding Californians who have already ordered LCMs in reliance on the Court's order but have not received them would unjustly be subjected to severe criminal penalties without notice. See Cal. Penal Code § 32310(a); see also Cal. Penal Code § 1170(h).
Therefore, unless the Court can unequivocally protect those individuals in an order granting the State’s temporary stay request, that request should be denied."
"Blessed is he who when facing his own demise, thinks only of his front sight.”
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Montani Semper Liberi
April 03, 2019, 02:10 PM
Flashlightboyquote:
Originally posted by ontmark:
quote:
Originally posted by Skins2881:
Now if you add a plus one baseplate to your magazine I could see calling that an Hi-Cap Mag.
Didn’t SIG sell some P226s with magazines with the plus two base plate with them. So if they did, then the plus 2 mags could be considered as the standard magazine on them.
I see where you're going with that line of thought however that's not exactly what's going relative to the court ruling.
Benitez said the ban on magazine capacity in that section of the Penal Code is unconsitutional however IIRC, there are other specific sections of the CA law that say guns can't be sold to civilians that exceed 10 rounds. I could be wrong on this but I don't think so.
It creates a legal gray area where the gun wasn't supposed to sold with the hi caps but the state can't enforce the possession of them. It's the difference - convoluted as it is - that says it can't be sold but we can't take them once you have them.
April 03, 2019, 03:57 PM
ElToroquote:
Originally posted by ElToro:
Just got an email from Natchez that part of my order was from a drop ship vendor that isn’t on the freedom train yet. So I’m only getting a partial order. Oh well it was a handful of glock mags that I already had and it saved me a few $$. I mixed and matched my ordering between vendors depending on what they had in stock. So a partial shortage by Natchez is not the end of the world.
Now a day later Natchez CALLS me and says oh hey sorry were out of Pmags. FML. What DO you have in stock ?! Less money spent I guess
April 04, 2019, 11:18 AM
Pipe Smoker“FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- The ads are popping up everywhere.
Gun stores are eagerly welcoming back California customers after the state's nearly twenty-year ban on certain ammunition magazines was declared unconstitutional.
"Immediately we had people calling us and asking us do you have standard capacity magazines, can we buy them are they legal," said Jacob Belemjian, owner of The Firing Line.
The flood of questions started last Friday when a U.S. District Court declared Proposition 63 unconstitutional.
The voter-approved measure banned the possession of magazines holding more than ten bullets. The law calls the magazines "large-capacity," but they are often the standard size for those guns…”
www.google.com/amp/s/abc30.com...titutional-/5231610/
Serious about crackers. April 04, 2019, 03:00 PM
ontmarkJust checked on my orders.
One is getting delivered today.
One is somewhere in the middle of the USA on a truck bouncing up and down.
Two orders are shipping today.
All in all I got everything covered I think.
Life is good!!
Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it! - John Steinbeck
April 04, 2019, 03:30 PM
SigSauerP226Think I'm getting my first order tomorrow. I might have gone a little over board in the end ordering similar things from 3 vendors, but wanted to make sure I got some of my stuff haha.
...Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel, was just a freight train coming your way... April 04, 2019, 03:36 PM
oddballIssued today by Becerra (Defendant). Threatening if Benitez does not issue a stay by the end of the day, he will take it ASAP to the 9th Circus.
quote:
Indeed, even Plaintiffs acknowledge that these newly purchased large-capacity magazines will be rendered unlawful if Defendant prevails on appeal and that “the law will require these individuals to divest themselves of their newly acquired magazines.” Opp’n at 8:11-12. A stay is necessary both to avoid the irreparable harm to public safety and prevent the problems that may occur should the Court’s decision be reversed on appeal.
The evidence submitted by Plaintiffs supports the Defendant’s request for immediate judicial relief. An immediate stay of the judgment pending appeal is required to preserve the status quo, prevent irreparable harm to the State and its residents, and ensure an orderly process for reviewing the constitutionality of this important public safety measure. In light of the new information presented by Plaintiffs, Defendant requests that the Court issue a stay of the Judgment pending appeal no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, April 4.
If a stay is not in place by that time, Defendant, due to the urgency of this matter, will seek an emergency stay pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-co...Ex-Parte-to-Stay.pdf
"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
April 04, 2019, 03:36 PM
cslingerquote:
I might have gone a little over board in the end
Said EVERY CA gun owner at some point this weekend.
I am surprised there aren’t wildfires from all the friction from all the simultaneous credit cards being ripped from wallets.
Good on ya guys. Here is hoping this is the start of something big.
Take Care, Shoot Safe,
Chris
April 04, 2019, 03:59 PM
sigfreundI hope everything turns out well for the California gun owners who have ordered magazines these last few days and there will be no “gray area” about their possession in the future.
That said, if the courts attempt to make it illegal to have possession them after they were ruled to be legal to own, I hope it will serve to motivate enough new owners to express their outrage that the law itself will be changed by the legislature.
► 6.0/94.0
To operate serious weapons in a serious manner. April 04, 2019, 04:32 PM
RHINOWSOAlways fun to watch the churn of an insane state.
Good luck out there!
April 04, 2019, 05:54 PM
Il Cattivo"Irreparable harm to the state"!?!?
What %$@!()& "irreparable harm to the state"!?!?
April 04, 2019, 06:50 PM
oddballJudge Benitez ordered a stay before the 5pm deadline. Purchases after today is illegal. But those who did purchase in the last week are grandfathered in, possession of standard caps seems to be legal.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-co...t-Pending-Appeal.pdf
"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
April 04, 2019, 06:54 PM
12131quote:
Originally posted by oddball:
Judge Benitez ordered a stay before the 5pm deadline. Purchases after today is illegal. But those who did purchase in the last week are grandfathered in, possession of standard caps seems to be legal.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-co...t-Pending-Appeal.pdf
So, the judge blinked at Becerra's threat?
Q
April 04, 2019, 07:11 PM
DennisMquote:
Originally posted by 12131:
quote:
Originally posted by oddball:
Judge Benitez ordered a stay before the 5pm deadline. Purchases after today is illegal. But those who did purchase in the last week are grandfathered in, possession of standard caps seems to be legal.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-co...t-Pending-Appeal.pdf
So, the judge blinked at Becerra's threat?
Perhaps predicting that an emergency motion would land on one or more rather unfriendly judges at the 9th?
There will soon be a few more strict constructionists on that court. Slow-rolling the appeal might be advantageous.
April 04, 2019, 08:17 PM
oddball^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this went to the 9th for a stay, they most likely would have dialed back legal possession of standard cap mags. Benitez issuing the stay was the best strategy for CA gun owners for now. But it is a good bet the 9th will get their claws on this thing.
God, I'm glad I do not reside there anymore.
"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965