I don't think so.
Preliminary injunction issued by judge Benitez in 2017 was for "possession" of legally obtained larger than 10 round magazines (LCM) and
only covers CA Penal Code sections (c) and (d), which addresses "possession"; not section (a) which addresses "manufacture, importation, sales, gifting/lending and transfer" of LCM, nor section (b) which addresses "magazine kits" -
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-32310/
Judge Benitez issued the preliminary injunction against sections (c) and (d) because state would fine or imprison owners of LCM who legally obtained them:
(c) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with
Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with
Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;
(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or
(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.
From the preliminary injunction -
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants,employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 32310 (c) & (d), as enacted by Proposition 63, or from otherwise requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed.
2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 29, 2017
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Judge Benitez gave final ruling with judgement on March 29, 2019 declaring entire CA Penal Code section 32310 unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement -
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf
But the
ruling was stayed IN PART week later on April 5, 2019 < I remember clearly as it's my birthday > as judge Benitez stayed only CA Penal Code sections 32310 (a) and (b) but continued the preliminary injunction for sections (c) and (d) and enjoined enforcement of sections (a) and (b) for "Freedom Week" of 3/29/2019 - 4/5/2019 -
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...r-Staying-in-Part-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf
ORDER STAYING IN PART JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL ...
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in partpending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) shall remain in effect.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported,sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
April 4, 2019
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
After the stay in part order, CRPA (Lawyers representing plaintiff) issued the following clarification -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-4#post-11102503
... the court’s June 2017 injunction prohibiting California from enforcing its restriction against the “possession” of such magazines, remains in effect ...
I. CAN I STILL PURCHASE MAGAZINES CAPABLE OF HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS IN CALIFORNIA?
NO! As of 5:00 P.M. Friday, April 5, the decision granting the Duncan Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has been stayed pending appeal by the California Attorney General. As a result, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazines are once again in effect.
II. CAN I CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED?
YES! As of the date of this bulletin, California’s restrictions against “possession” have been unenforceable since June 29, 2017, when this same court issued a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect while the parties litigated the merits of the case.
VI. I OWN “LARGE-CAPACITY” MAGAZINES THAT ARE CURRENTLY OUT OF STATE, CAN I STILL BRING THEM BACK INTO CALIFORNIA?
NO! As noted above, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazine are currently in effect. Attempting to bring back magazines into California, despite already being owned by you, can be construed as “importation” which is currently prohibited.
VII. CAN I TRAVEL WITH THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA?
NO! Prior to the enactment of Proposition 63 in 2016, California law allowed individuals to travel with their lawfully acquired magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds outside of California and then return with them.2 But this provision was repealed with the enactment of Proposition 63. As a result, individuals can no longer travel outside of California with their lawfully acquired magazines unless they plan on leaving their magazines out of California.
So since most magazines are not date stamped whether they were manufactured prior to 1/1/2000, 7/1/2017 or during the "Freedom Week" of 3/29/2019-4/5/2019 (And BTW "Freedom Week" legalized all previously obtained LCM since 1/1/2000 and enforcement against them was taken away FOREVER by judge Benitez's ruling with judgement) or later, CA tried to have magazine manufacturers date stamp magazines/bodies to identify magazines manufactured after the "Freedom Week" but thankfully were told to kick rocks by the magazine manufacturers (I heard this on talk show "GunTalk").