This is good. Enough 2nd Amendment cases need to be thrown at the Federal Courts so that the SCOTUS is forced to rule on them. Hopefully, by the time this happens, maybe Trump will get the chance to replace Ginsberg and Kennedy.

I'm thinking that this blocking action gives relief to folks that have moved into CA in possession of mags with 10+ rounds. Also CA residents that possess mags with 10+ rounds purchased prior to date X.

But I think CA residents still can't legally purchase mags with 10+ rounds, or legally possess mags with 10+ rounds purchased after date X. Hope that I'm wrong …

It's a felony in CT, NJ & NY, that I know of.
I hope the NRA goes after reversing these BS Laws!

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:


“Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way,” Becerra said in the statement. “Restricting large capacity magazines and preventing them from ending up in the wrong hands is critical for the well-being of our communities.”


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/sta...4.html#storylink=cpy

So was Prop 8 but his office choose to fight the people then, instead of supporting them.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I'm thinking that this blocking action gives relief to folks that have moved into CA in possession of mags with 10+ rounds. Also CA residents that possess mags with 10+ rounds purchased prior to date X.

But I think CA residents still can't legally purchase mags with 10+ rounds, or legally possess mags with 10+ rounds purchased after date X. Hope that I'm wrong …

I don't think you could bring them in after a certain date back in the '90's.

You could keep the 10+ round capacity magazines you had in the state before that date, but could not sell them to someone else.

This new law, as I understood it, required you get rid of those which were legal before.

Good news. And thanks to George W. Bush for appointing Judge Benitez.

A very nice ruling for those, like myself, that own legally grandfathered magazines. Don't have to take a trip to Nevada today now.

Basically all this ruling does is keep the status quo in place until the court case is fully heard. As it were, any magazine with a capacity >10 rounds would have been illegal to own unless you had a special dispensation such as being a LEO. Magazines would needed to have been removed from state, destroyed or surrendered to authorities. This injunction staves off having to do that for now and hopefully forever, but that depends on how the case comes out.

TL;DR Unfortunately this doesn't mean we can go out and buy new high-capacity magazines. All it's saying is what is or is not legal today will remain so July 1st when the new law was to take effect.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:


“Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way,” Becerra said in the statement. “Restricting large capacity magazines and preventing them from ending up in the wrong hands is critical for the well-being of our communities.”


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/sta...4.html#storylink=cpy

So was Prop 8 but his office choose to fight the people then, instead of supporting them.

My 1st thought on this too!!

C'mon Jallen, we all know that cutting the magazine capacity in half would cut gun crime rates in half. And if we could magically eliminate guns, all violent crime would cease.

Curious question. IIRC a judge ruled against CA's "may carry" rules, the feeling was that CA would start issuing more CCW permits. But it seems that hasn't really happened, various counties have somewhat indicated they would process the apps "in a few years".

(But it seems our CA-exit target is around next April, so the outcome won't effect me).

Like how this CA AG POS crows about public safety while shielding illegals from the Feds/ICE, even the violent ones. Those are present and future base of the demoRATic party. Disgusting.

Here is a link to the injunction:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-co...inary-Injunction.pdf

The judge really took the state to task. Many of the exhibits they submitted were dated, involved revolvers, or were from such sources as Mother Jones magazine (see page 27, line 10 for his thoughts on that). He also quotes the survey from Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) starting on page 28. Another submission included information on multiple incidents in Australia dating back to 1867 with no mention of large capacity magazines (if there were even any in existence at that time).

One thing I REALLY liked was on page 55, where he takes on the term "gun violence". He turned it on its side, saying "Put differently, violent gun use is a constitutionally-protected means for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. The phrase “gun violence” may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. Implicit in the concept of public safety is the right of law-abiding people to use firearms and the magazines that make them work to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and their state against all armed enemies, foreign and domestic. To borrow a phrase, it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of public safety and reducing gun violence, statutes were permitted to subvert the public’s Second Amendment rights – which may repel criminal gun violence and which ultimately ensure the safety of the Republic."

He also noted that the State's representative at the injunction hearing was not able to describe all of the various exceptions to the laws, saying "Who could blame her? The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled
with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law. Statutes must be sufficiently well-defined so that reasonably intelligent citizens can know what conduct is against the law. The plaintiffs, who are law-abiding responsible residents of California, want to keep pistols and rifles and the magazines that are commonly used with their firearms without running afoul of California’s gun control statutes. But these statutes are too complicated to give fair notice."

In other news, yet another District Court in California, another judge denied a preliminary injunction that was filed in Wiese v. Becerra, anther case on magazines. Some of the same exhibits were submitted on both sides of the argument, and he saw no reason to provide an injunction.

Unfortunately, the next court to probably hear either of these cases will be the 9th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals.

So does this mean that California is actually going to have to make a coherent argument to prove that ten rounds is some kind of magic number for magazine capacity? Will we finally learn what makes the 11th round in a magazine a whirling tornado of antisocial forces and catastrophic violence compared to rounds 1 through 10?

quote:

Originally posted by SigSAC:


The judge really took the state to task. Many of the exhibits they submitted were dated, involved revolvers, or were from such sources as Mother Jones magazine (see page 27, line 10 for his thoughts on that). He also quotes the survey from Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) starting on page 28. Another submission included information on multiple incidents in Australia dating back to 1867 with no mention of large capacity magazines (if there were even any in existence at that time).

While this Court made its point nicely, I, for one, wished a judge with Scalia's gift for rhetoric and snark had written parts of the opinion.

Including information about revolvers in a magazine capacity case seems particularly ripe for a pointed remark.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
For some reason, I had the idea that possession was a felony. I'm relieved to see it apparently is not. Sorry for the misstatement.

I had read this as being a misdemeanor and/or finable offense when I originally read about the law, hence my 'cavalier' comment about people likely not giving up their mags based on the penalties.

I will confess though, your reference to my 'cavalier' attitude might actually be somewhat kind in describing my attitude toward laws like this. At 54, I have lost virtually all the respect I once had for the judiciary in this country, and no longer harbor 'any' willingness to comply with laws that are both unconstitutional (in my opinion) and that put me and mine at risk to those who would seek to do us harm. I am frequently reminded of the military gentleman on CNN who when asked if he would break the law if Barry Obama were successful in putting into place highly restrictive new gun laws, simply responded that "Unconstitutional laws are not laws".

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by SigSAC:


The judge really took the state to task. Many of the exhibits they submitted were dated, involved revolvers, or were from such sources as Mother Jones magazine (see page 27, line 10 for his thoughts on that). He also quotes the survey from Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) starting on page 28. Another submission included information on multiple incidents in Australia dating back to 1867 with no mention of large capacity magazines (if there were even any in existence at that time).

While this Court made its point nicely, I, for one, wished a judge with Scalia's gift for rhetoric and snark had written parts of the opinion.

Including information about revolvers in a magazine capacity case seems particularly ripe for a pointed remark.

We learned in the course of several litigations over firearms enforcement that DOJ was not particularly knowledgeable about firearms. There were several enforcement actions that exposed the DOJ folks as idiots probably driven by ideology rather than expertise, very humiliating to those guys.

Nothing beats knowing what you are doing!

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
This is good. Enough 2nd Amendment cases need to be thrown at the Federal Courts so that the SCOTUS is forced to rule on them.

Clarence Thomas in responding to the SCOTUS' unwillingness to take up the Peruta case, made this very point earlier this week that it is way past time for SCOTUS to weigh in once and for all on the boundaries and interpretation of the 2A. Judge Gorsuch joined Judge Thomas on this position.

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
I hope this sticks - it will set precedent to help those of us that live in other Communist States.

We can only hope!!

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I'm thinking that this blocking action gives relief to folks that have moved into CA in possession of mags with 10+ rounds. Also CA residents that possess mags with 10+ rounds purchased prior to date X.

But I think CA residents still can't legally purchase mags with 10+ rounds, or legally possess mags with 10+ rounds purchased after date X. Hope that I'm wrong …

I don't think you could bring them in after a certain date back in the '90's.

You could keep the 10+ round capacity magazines you had in the state before that date, but could not sell them to someone else.

This new law, as I understood it, required you get rid of those which were legal before.

JALLEN is absolutely correct on this. I believe it was part of CA's "Assault Weapon Ban", or at least passed about the same time. I think it took effect 1/1/2000. If you already had them, you could keep and use them. You couldn't bring them in to the state, couldn't offer them for sale, couldn't advertise them, couldn't manufacture them, ... (I don't remember whether or not you could loan them out, I'd have to go find the code section)

If you liked your magazines, you could keep your magazines, at least until prop 63 was passed by the voters and/or the whole "Gunmageddon" raft of shit laws was passed by the legislature to the the wind out of Gavin Useless, uh, I mean Gavin Nuisance, uh, I mean the libtard that would be governor and his initiative, prop 63.

Oh the joys of living where far too many of the voters would far too stupid to breathe if it required conscious thought...

Komifornia and there damned propositions. They should just call them preparations cause the tax payer winds up taking them in the end...

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Judge Gorsuch joined Judge Thomas on this position.

Talk about first world problems - my first thought was that I wouldn't mind if the log raft didn't make it to the SCOTUS mill until after Trump puts another appointee on the bench. I admit it, I'm starting to get spoiled.