quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
So, as I said, we end up in this back and forth until we all more or less understand where the lines are.

Reminds me of what my dear grandfather (god rest his soul) used to tell us kids..."If bullshit was music, lawyers would be a brass band." Maybe he should have used the term "judges" instead. Nothing's ever simple when it enters a court setting.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
In any case, did you really want the judges to come up with a hard number to determine constitutionality?

Absolutely not, under no circumstances should they attempt to establish law, that's the legislatures role. But I am left wondering at what point the number of rounds in a magazine no longer becomes an encroachment of the 2A? That's the angle I was coming at this from. But I admit, I evaluate things rationally, not from the perspective of court protocol. Hence the reason I ask questions of the attorneys here.

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
If this ever makes it to NY there will be a run on scuba gear and shovels.

Perfect!
That would apply to NJ too as many will retrieve the ones being held in PA!

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
Since the judges determined that the ban of mags over 10 rounds was unconstitutional, they really didn’t have to go into why 10 vs 7 or 8 or 15. In any case, did you really want the judges to come up with a hard number to determine constitutionality?

In reading through the summary opinion, the State defined Large Capacity Magazines (LCM) as having more than ten rounds as Flashlightboy noted earlier. As a result of their focus on the state's definition, they didn't attempt to come up with a "hard number" that was constitutionally allowable but they did a good job showing how acceptance of such a number would be a restriction on fundamental rights (starting at bottom of page 45 through top paragraph of page 51). Possibly most telling is the paragraph beginning on page 49 and concluding at the top of page 50.

"There is also no stopping point to the state’s argument. Under its logic, California could limit magazines to as few as three bullets and not substantially burden Second Amendment rights because, on average, 2.2 bullets are used in every defensive encounter according to one study.21 But the threat to life does not occur in an average act in the abstract; self-defense takes place in messy, unpredictable, and extreme events. And what’s more, the state’s logic is in no way limited to restricting the number of bullets in a magazine. If it is not substantially burdensome to limit magazines to ten rounds because the average defensive shooter uses fewer bullets, then there is no reason it could not impose a one-gun-per-person rule. In fact, there is a more compelling case to impose a one-gun policy under the state’s theory. After all, the study relied on by the state also shows that an overwhelming majority of mass shootings involved the use of multiple guns while a relative few definitively involved LCMs. This cannot be right. We would never uphold such a draconian limitation on other fundamental and enumerated constitutional rights." Emphasis added.

Footnote 21 (at the bottom of page 49 and referenced in the above paragraph) may show the State's ultimate goal of neutering the 2nd Amendment:

"21 At oral argument, counsel for the state conceded that there is a threshold below which some capacity “does actually impose a severe burden on the core right of self-defense” and would be “too low.” When asked whether the state could permissibly restrict magazines to contain zero bullets, allowing for one round in the firearm’s chamber, counsel offered only a qualified concession: 'I think that might be too low. Hypothetically.'"

Might be too low? But you know in your heart that there are people in power in California who wouldn't have any trouble sleeping at night if they could get such a law enacted and make it, somehow, pass constitutional muster.

History lesson from the "Opinion" on when multishot, greater than 10 rds firearms were first used: And it then goes on to list for a few more pages up through the 1990's what was and are commonly used fire arms In America.

Case: 19-55376, 08/14/2020, ID: 11788886, DktEntry: 97-1, Page 22 of 81
DUNCAN V. BECERRA 23
"Semi-automatic and multi-shot firearms were not novel or unforeseen inventions to the Founders, as the first firearm that could fire more than ten rounds without reloading was invented around 1580."

As to limits, Cuomo tried 7 rounds with the Safe act but it was struck down in state court and we went back to 10. You don't need 10 rounds to kill a deer, he said.

This will have no effect on NY as the US Constitution is irrelevant here.

Anyone who is not affected by this ruling, you'd better get busy and get any magazines you need. There should already have been a sense of urgency in this, with the election in less than three months. As we edge closer to November 3rd, gun owners will grow more anxious and will seek to augment their existing magazine supply.

In addition to this, we have shooters in California and other states which may very soon be playing catch-up. I think that in the next few weeks, we will see most high capacity magazine inventories dry up to nothing. Get 'em now, boys and girls.

https://gunmagwarehouse.com/bl...fornia-magazine-ban/

The comments indicate PSA is already sold out.

Some places still have Glock mags, I know that much is true. Err, or at least it was true last night.

Make haste

The smart ones in California took advantage of freedom week back in 2019. Over one million magazines were shipped just to california after that one week buying frenzy, and most companies were cool prioritizing sales to Californians during that time. This case involves not just restrictions in CA but Hawaii as well. So depending on the legal review and potential limited window to buy magazines, this could get much crazier. I hope folks in other states already have what they need for now and can help out CA and Hawaii gun owners by holding off on panic buying of thier own. That being said you gotta do what you gotta do right? If you need a specific magazine(s), you might have to compete with thousands of unchained west coasters.

I've got a shit load of 30-round Magpul AR magazines I'm going to send to my son in California. Glad I can finally do it.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

In addition to this, we have shooters in California and other states which may very soon be playing catch-up. I think that in the next few weeks, we will see most high capacity magazine inventories dry up to nothing. Get 'em now, boys and girls.

For those of you living in a free state, heed Para's advice. If you thought Freedom Week was bad for the supply chain, wait a week until all the cavemen in this state come out from under their rock and buy magazines in mass hoping to corner the market.

Buying a baker's dozen (or three) of 30- round magazines per AR owner...

Finally able to buy 17 round magazines for a 226, Gluck, etc, is gonna kill availability for a while.

I spent a LOT of money during freedom week. For Glock and Sigs and hi powers and AR and M1A. I did buy a Ruger PCC since then so I’d like to add to my Glock happy stick collection.

I had placed an order at Brownell's for some Sig and FN magazines on the 13th. Checked today and my order status is "order cancelled, unable to fulfill". No email from them or anything. I think they were overrun with orders.

Good advice on buying if you can find them.

Edit to Add: Also, last night the front page of Brownell's website had a banner "Now shipping any magazine, any capacity to our California customers"
That banner is gone today. Obviously some uncertainty from even major firearms suppliers on what is legal at the moment.

Well the CA DOJ is saying officially “not so fast”.
Again their interpretation could be legally incorrect, as the 9th has ruled on their appeal already, so to me this letter makes no sense. You had your appeal process and lost Becerra, shove it up your ass.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Anyone who is not affected by this ruling, you'd better get busy and get any magazines you need. There should already have been a sense of urgency in this, with the election in less than three months. As we edge closer to November 3rd, gun owners will grow more anxious and will seek to augment their existing magazine supply.

In addition to this, we have shooters in California and other states which may very soon be playing catch-up. I think that in the next few weeks, we will see most high capacity magazine inventories dry up to nothing. Get 'em now, boys and girls.

It was a little difficult to get certain mags way before the CA ruling. S&W 380 M&P EZ 8 round mags are impossible to find. A couple of weeks ago, I was looking at Black Dog's site for some 25 rd steel lipped mags (Sig 522), all gone.

From calguns:


Originally Posted by Originally Posted By NoloContendere:


A "published" decision is the law until/unless overturned.

That means mag sales to CA should be okay until some further order is made by that court (the 9th) or a higher court (SCOTUS).

“Although the Ninth Circuit has granted a stay of the mandate in Butler, the panel decision remains the law of the Circuit. See, e.g., Chambers v. United States, 22 F.3d 939, 942 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We reject the government's argument that X-Citement Video is not binding precedent until the mandate issues in that case. In this circuit, once a published opinion is filed, it becomes the law of the circuit until withdrawn or reversed by the Supreme Court or an en banc court."), vacated on other grounds, 47 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gomez-Lopez, 62 F.3d 304, 306 (9th Cir. 1995) ("The government first urges us to ignore Armstrong since we have stayed the mandate to allow filing of a petition for certiorari; this we will not do, as Armstrong is the law of this circuit."); see also Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that "once a federal circuit court issues a decision, the district courts within that circuit are bound to follow it and have no authority to await a ruling by the Supreme Court before applying the circuit court's decision as binding authority").

Schuller v. Horel, No. EDCV 08-1128-PA (RNB), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125879, at *6 n.3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2008)

I’m not saying this is the “ law” pre mandate, but the courts Seem to treat the opinion as law from my research. So.... take that for what it’s worth. And, (something something, soon).....



Here is the final paragraph of the majority opinion:

“We also want to make clear that our decision today does not address issues not before us. We do not opine on bans on so-called “assault weapons,” nor do we speculate about the legitimacy of bans on magazines holding far larger quantities of ammunition. Instead, we only address California’s ban on LCMs as it appears before us. We understand the purpose in passing this law. But even the laudable goal of reducing gun violence must comply with the Constitution. California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today. It makes unlawful magazines that are commonly used in handguns by law- abiding citizens for self-defense. And it substantially burdens the core right of self-defense guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment. It cannot stand.

We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs-appellees.”

The appellate court rules that the law “cannot stand.” The law is void and unenforceable.

I look forward to someone explaining how a district court stay, issued in advance of an appellate court ruling, can block the effect of the appellate decision.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Anyone who is not affected by this ruling, you'd better get busy and get any magazines you need.

Yes. I delayed getting a couple more 10-round magazines with pinky extensions for my new P365 at less than $50 per and now even those have dried up at my usual sources.

Just picked up 20 new pmags this morning and have been buying 5-20 a week for the last couple of months.

Now if I could get additional ammo to ensure they are all full.

To our CA brethren....load up, they'll make more.

Plus I went through my stash 27 empties and 50 or 60 or 70 loaded.