https://michellawyers.com/wp-c...20-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Here is the opinion. Much more interesting that a NRA tweet.

Hell yeah!!!

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-c...20-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Here is the opinion. Much more interesting that a NRA tweet.

Thanks. I was looking for it to post. No need to be rude about it.

Please let this make it to the SCOTUS.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this is a prime reason why we need Trump reelected.

Nice, very nice.

Chuck Michel & team once again, slapping CA legislators

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Please let this make it to the SCOTUS.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this is a prime reason why we need Trump reelected.

I hope they challenge this to the SCOTUS so CA can get their dick smacked at the highest level.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-c...20-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Here is the opinion. Much more interesting that a NRA tweet.

Ok, I read the summary opinion. It is interesting. However, since I'm no attorney, I thought I'd pose this question to you. The court threw around the term Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) throughout, but never once addressed the issue that LCM is not an 'accepted defined' term (i.e. means different things to different people). Why? That seems a pivotal aspect of this. A made up term is being used to justify a case seeking to infringe on a constitutional right yet it doesn't appear anyone on the court had any interest in that aspect.

It also appears a couple of the judges (as usual) were totally fine with tromping on the Constitution yet again.

There are two potential next steps in the process:

1. CA does nothing and lets the decision stand however that is extremely unlikley. Instead, they will ask for an en banc review or the case (the entire bench of judges instead of the three involved here) and the court will grant it.

2. The CA AG will ask for a stay on the decision or an injunction while the full court rehears the case. The court will in all likelihood grant the stay or injunction, just like the underlying judge did. That will take about a week for the documents to get filed, the plaintiffs to file their response and the court to hear it.

You have a few days to get your mags but my guess is a week from now you can't.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-c...20-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Here is the opinion. Much more interesting that a NRA tweet.

Ok, I read the summary opinion. It is interesting. However, since I'm no attorney, I thought I'd pose this question to you. The court threw around the term Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) throughout, but never once addressed the issue that LCM is not an 'accepted defined' term (i.e. means different things to different people). Why? That seems a pivotal aspect of this. A made up term is being used to justify a case seeking to infringe on a constitutional right yet it doesn't appear anyone on the court had any interest in that aspect.

It also appears a couple of the judges (as usual) were totally fine with tromping on the Constitution yet again.

There is no general legal requirement that something has to be an “accepted defined” term, as long as the term used is specifically defined in a statute or regulation. In this case, a LCM is defined in Section 16740 of the California Penal Code:

16740.
As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

I highly recommend reading the ruling. In particular: pp. 15-66 (the majority opinion).

Great stuff!

Silent

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-c...20-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Here is the opinion. Much more interesting that a NRA tweet.

Ok, I read the summary opinion. It is interesting. However, since I'm no attorney, I thought I'd pose this question to you. The court threw around the term Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) throughout, but never once addressed the issue that LCM is not an 'accepted defined' term (i.e. means different things to different people). Why? That seems a pivotal aspect of this. A made up term is being used to justify a case seeking to infringe on a constitutional right yet it doesn't appear anyone on the court had any interest in that aspect.

It also appears a couple of the judges (as usual) were totally fine with tromping on the Constitution yet again.

CA defines LCM as more than 10.

Wow thats great news and huge progress. #winning

Great news indeed. The Wa. state legislature has been working on banning high capacity mags and this should end that nonsense once and for all.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Please let this make it to the SCOTUS.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this is a prime reason why we need Trump reelected.

I hope they challenge this to the SCOTUS so CA can get their dick smacked at the highest level.

With John Roberts there, the dick smacking may not go as you think.

Best. News. [in almost] Ever.

Time to get me some victory scotch.

Holy Carp! 2020 isn't looking completely bad now.

WOOHOO!!!!

I guess unless they issue an injunction, we're off on a magazine buying spree again

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://michellawyers.com/wp-c...20-08-14-Opinion.pdf

Here is the opinion. Much more interesting that a NRA tweet.

Ok, I read the summary opinion. It is interesting. However, since I'm no attorney, I thought I'd pose this question to you. The court threw around the term Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) throughout, but never once addressed the issue that LCM is not an 'accepted defined' term (i.e. means different things to different people). Why? That seems a pivotal aspect of this. A made up term is being used to justify a case seeking to infringe on a constitutional right yet it doesn't appear anyone on the court had any interest in that aspect.

It also appears a couple of the judges (as usual) were totally fine with tromping on the Constitution yet again.

CA defines LCM as more than 10.

That was not my question. What if Illinois defines LCM as 8 rounds, New York defines it as 7 rounds, and other states don't define LCM at all. The term is not well defined or in common use. I just was curious as to why the court never questioned the term at all. Dwill104 likely provided the textbook answer to my question, though I wish the judges had at least shown 'some' interest in why 10 rounds meets some threshold for public safety.