Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Tyrel Cody

California magazine ban ruled to violate 2nd amendment.

Recommended Posts

Quote

"It is enough to make an angel swear. Suffice it to say that either the law-abiding
hunter returning home with a 30-round rifle magazine, or the resident that receives from
another a 15-round pistol magazine, or the enthusiast who makes a 12-round magazine
out of a 10-round magazine, may be charged not with a minor infraction but with a
felony. And perhaps not ironically, conviction as a felon carries with it the complete
forfeiture of Second Amendment rights for a lifetime. For Second Amendment rights,
statutory complexity of this sort extirpates as it obfuscates. And in the doing, it violates a
person’s constitutional right to due process. “[A] statute which either forbids or requires
the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due
process of law.” Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926); see also
United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266 (1997) (quoting Connally). "

and

"Today, self-protection is most important. In the future, the common defense may
once again be most important. Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast
through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Needing a solution to a current law
enforcement difficulty cannot be justification for ignoring the Bill of Rights as bad
policy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech.
Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures.
Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a
law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves
into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law."

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

By GAWD!  If this ruling stands, the reasoning set out in it could be used to overturn almost all of the California anti-gun laws.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

By GAWD!  If this ruling stands, the reasoning set out in it could be used to overturn almost all of the California anti-gun laws.

I'll be praying for y'all. 

 

What will happen next is an appeal to the 9th Circuit where it will be overruled. Then hopefully escalated to the Supreme Court where it will be upheld.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

 "The analog is that the State may not now ban lawfully-kept large capacity magazines owned since 1999 as a means to ban large capacity magazines unlawfully manufactured or imported after January 1, 2000. Lawful arms do not become unprotected merely because they resemble unlawful arms. “The Government’s proposed prophylaxis – to protect against the violations of the few, we must burden the constitutional rights of the many – turns the Second Amendment on its head. Our Founders crafted a Constitution to promote the liberty of the individual, not the
convenience of the Government.” "



I don't know if the judge was aware of it, but he paraphrases an 1878 decision
 

Quote

"No doubt in time of peace, persons might be prohibited from wearing war arms to places of public worship, or elections, etc. Andrews v. State, 3 Heiskel, 182.
But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.
WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Hopeful.

 

Not optimistic... but eternally hopeful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I was hoping to soon market my 30 shot revolver in California too!

 

:D

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post

...and some folks whine about "the NRA doesn't do anything for California"...yeah, well...they do what they can indeed. 

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

All this did was stop confiscation of already in possession high cap magazines. They are still illegal to buy, import and transfer in CA. 

 

Actually protected the 4th amendment more than the 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rancho Roy said:

All this did was stop confiscation of already in possession high cap magazines. They are still illegal to buy, import and transfer in CA. 

 

Actually protected the 4th amendment more than the 2nd.

 

If you read the decision, Judge Benitez struck down the ban itself.

Of course, Beccera has asked for a stay while CA appeals the decision that restored our rights.


http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-01-Defendants-Ex-Parte-to-Stay-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf

He pretty much just regurgitates the points that were repudiated in the decision, and, in his ex parte he says that people are now able to acquire standard capacity magazines:

Quote

To effectively preserve the status quo, and to prevent a sudden influx of largecapacity magazines (LCMs) into the State of California (the “State”), Defendant respectfully requests that the Court issue an immediate, temporary stay pending its ruling on the application for a stay pending appeal. Even if this Court, or the Ninth Circuit, ultimately issues a stay pending appeal, the State will suffer irreparable injury if LCMs are permitted to flow into the State in the interim. Defendant respectfully requests that such a temporary stay be issued by no later than April 2, 2019. As discussed in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Ex Parte Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal (the “Memorandum”), all four factors considered in such a stay request are satisfied. See Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A party 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the California Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 89 Filed 04/01/19 PageID.8143 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal (17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB) seeking a stay must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, [3] that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and [4] that a stay is in the public interest.” (citing Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008))). Defendant brings this ex parte application for good cause on the ground that the State will suffer irreparable and immediate injury until a stay pending appeal is issued. California has restricted the acquisition of LCMs for nearly two decades, and until the Judgment is stayed pending appeal, individuals will be free to acquire new LCMs, and there is evidence that sales have begun already.

 

In response:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Duncan_Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-Defendants-Ex-Parte-Application-for-Temporary-Stay-of-the-Judgment_90.pdf

Quote

Plaintiffs oppose the State’s request for a temporary stay of the judgment while the Court considers the State’s Ex Parte Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal of this Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs understand the State’s concerns, but 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. Plaintiffs are still evaluating the State’s arguments for staying the judgment pending appeal and intend to respond in detail to that request promptly. Because the potential consequences of the State’s temporary stay request are so severe, however, Plaintiffs believed it prudent to make the Court aware of their concerns immediately.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Does California still have a ban on the possession of "high capacity magazines", such as the standard 15 round magazine in a Glock 19?

 

https://www.quora.com/Does-California-still-have-a-ban-on-the-possession-of-high-capacity-magazines-such-as-the-standard-15-round-magazine-in-a-Glock-19

 

The short answer is yes, although the details are more nuanced.

Enforcing the PC 32310[1] (c) possession ban from Proposition 63 in 2016 remains blocked by an injunction granted in Duncan v. Becerra so you can’t be arrested today, although you could be prosecuted later if that changes before the statute of limitations expires.

Regardless, such magazines are still subject to confiscation as nuisances under PC 32390[2]and PC 18010[3] .

The PC 32310(a) ban on manufacturing, importing, receiving, transferring, and selling from 1999 remains.

Some cities like Sunnyvale and Los Angeles have their own possession bans without grandfather clauses.

The implications are that you shouldn’t be convicted of a state crime for continued possession of a magazine you owned in California before 2000, although that magazine is contraband subject to seizure. Having a magazine acquired after 2000 isn’t illegal, but is evidence of a likely crime.

In spite of having magazines legally grandfathered under state law, you can still have problems in specific cities like Los Angeles and Sunnyvale, even traveling through them with 18 USC 926A[4] only mentioning firearms without commenting on accessories.

Share this post


Link to post

Becerra is asking for the stay in order to keep people from legally buying standard capacity magazines.    Quora is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

"Delusional" does not begin to describe the CA Attorney General

 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-03-Dec-of-AMB-ISO-Plaintiffs-Brief-to-Defendants-Ex-Parte.pdf

 

Quote

5. On April 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that portion of Defendants’ ex parte application seeking the immediate, temporary stay. As part of that opposition, Plaintiffs argued that should the judgment be stayed immediately, even if only temporarily, countless law-abiding Californians who have already ordered magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, but have not yet received them, would be unjustly subjected to severe criminal penalties without notice.

6. Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Opposition the same day. In their Response, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs offered “no evidence that there are any Californians who have either ordered or are currently in possession of” magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds in reliance on this Court’s March 29, 2019 Order.

7. On April 3, 2019, my office contacted representatives of Palmetto State Armory (“PSA”). PSA representatives informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that PSA had sold significant quantities of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds to California. Due to the extremely tight deadlines under which the parties are litigating this issue and due to the limitations of PSA’s software, Plaintiffs are unable to provide PSA’s exact figures at this time, but we will file a supplemental declaration as soon as those numbers are available—probably as early as Thursday, April 4, 2019.

8. In addition to contacting representatives of PSA, my office has been contacted by several firearm-related businesses and individuals regarding this Court’s March 29, 2019 Order and its effect. Many of these businesses and Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 94-1 Filed 04/03/19 PageID.8189 Page 3 of 12 4 DECLARATION OF ANNA BARVIR 17cv1017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 individuals have told us that they have either begun selling and shipping or had already purchased magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an article posted on Ammoland.com titled “Companies Crushed with Heavy Demand for Gun Magazines from California,” posted on April 2, 2019, by John Crump. https://www.ammoland.com/2019/04/companies-hit-with-heavy-demand-formagazines-from-california/#axzz5k3kBBoMP.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an article titled “Sales Soar After Judge Rules California’s Decades Long Ban On HighCapacity Ammunition Magazines ‘Unconstitutional’” by Christina Fan and posted online at https://abc30.com/society/sales-soar-after-ban-on-high-capacityammunition-ruled-unconstitutional-/5231610/ on April 3, 2019. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed with the United States on April 3, 2019.

 

and

 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-03-Dec-of-C.-Wylie-ISO-Plaintiffs-Brief-to-Defendants-Ex-Parte.pdf

 

Quote

DECLARA TION OF CHARLES DAVID WYLIE, JR. 2 I, Charles David Wylie, Jr., make this declaration of my own personal 3 knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the 4 truth of the matters set forth herein.  

1. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Palmetto State Armory,  LLC, a limited liability company organized in the State of South Carolina.

 2. Palmetto State Armory is a manufacturer and retailer of firearms and firearm 8 accessories, including firearm magazines with a capacity greater than ten (10) 9 rounds.

 3. I am generally aware of an order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California styled as Duncan v. Becerra, Case No.: 12 3:17-cv-l017-BEN (JLB), Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion/or Summary Judgment, Declaring California Penal Code § 32310 Unconstitutional and Enjoining Enforcement (S.D. Cal. March 29,2019) ("Order"). 4. Since the issuance of the Order, Palmetto State Armory has received, accepted, processed, and shipped orders from thousands of residents of the State of California for firearm magazines with a capacity greater than ten (10) rounds.

I declare under penalty of peljury that the foregoing is true and correct. 21 Executed within the United States on April 3, 2019.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

The enforcement of that hi-cap 'law' was put on hold a couple of years ago.

Most companies are now to chicken to sell hi-caps to folks here in PRK.

Plus-the burden of proof is on the state to prove that you did not own those hi-caps before the cut off date.

It's still a deep cluster fluk, that will be tied up in the courts for many years to come. :rolleyes:

OLG

Edited by The Original Lumpy Gritz

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

https://abc30.com/5231610/?ex_cid=TA_KFSN_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5ca476433817e80001f143d8&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR19Yb6b9DluC_kIN9adpevFyZ5XLt8c5zuziA8M3Z309mMYFCiL6T2rBSA 

"Sheriff Margaret Mims was never a supporter. 

"Because gang members, human traffickers, they aren't going to follow any kind of law that restricts their firepower," Mims said. "So the only people that would follow the law are law abiding citizens." 

 


The ruling has prompted a massive shipment of magazines to California. 
"

Edited by Subdeacon Joe

Share this post


Link to post

Margaret is plumb cool...

 

I heard an interview recently, with Chris Daniel of KMJ:

 

Chris: "Ya know, I've known you for a number of years now, and have always addressed you as 'Sheriff.'  So what do your friends call you?"

 

Margaret: "Sheriff."

 

Chris: "Oh.  Well... what does your mother call you?"

 

Margaret: "Sheriff."

 

Chris: "Okay... what about your husband?"

 

Margaret: "Sheriff."

 

:lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sure hope that PSA has a degause button for their customer records.  I can see the capons in the PRoK subpoenaing those records for nefarious purposes. :(

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.