quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Based on this decision, the legal precent is that allowable magazines are in common use and not unusual.

That pretty much covers 30 round AR mags as they are extremely common and the standard size for military and law enforcement. Same for pistol mags of most common capacities.

But things like 100 round dual drum mags are not in common use, and could be deemed to be unusual.

On the plus side, a 200 round belt for a SAW is in common use and not unusual at all, so that would have to be allowed.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
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v. United States, 22 F.3d 939, 942 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We reject the government's argument that X-Citement Video is not binding precedent until the mandate issues in that case. In this circuit, once a published opinion is filed, it becomes the law of the circuit until withdrawn or reversed by the Supreme Court or an en banc court."), vacated on other grounds, 47 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gomez-Lopez, 62 F.3d 304, 306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 medic451:
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 KevinCW:

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.

I count this as a win.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You count what as a win? I am pointing out that current shortages of magazines is guaranteed to become worse as we approach the November election, and if the 9th court ruling stands, the shortages will become so severe that virtually all supplies of magazines will disappear. There's no assessment of win or lose anything in my warning. I am cautioning all of those who have a casual attitude towards such things because they feel they can buy magazines at any time, to get what they want now, for the reasons stated above.

quote:

Originally posted by Windhover:
Chuck Michel’s opinion is to wait before making any purchases.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunf...thread.php?t=1639287

quote:

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 Nismo:
Now, would that imply that they will make another arbitrary number of "allowed" round capacities again like they did when they came up with 10 rounds?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:

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.

I count this as a win.

You count what as a win? I am pointing out that current shortage of magazines is guaranteed to become worse as we approach the November election, and if the 9th court ruling stands, the shortages will become so severe that virtually all supplies of magazines will disappear. There's no assessment of win or lose anything in my warning. I am cautioning all of those who have a casual attitude towards such things because they feel they can buy magazines at any time, to get what they want now, for the reasons stated above.

quote:

Originally posted by Windhover:
Interesting to note there are 17 states which jointly filed an amicus brief in support of California's position that magazine capacity restriction is constitutional, and supporting the en banc request.

If you live in these states, you may not have a magazine capacity restriction now, but if the 9th Circuit reverses itself in en banc, you can bet such laws are coming.