CA Mag Ban Unconstituional

[Corpral_Agarn]

This is pretty encouraging news for us CA people.

It looks like the ban on Standard ("high") capacity mags may be over.

I am trying to research what this means exactly but things are looking like it could be good!

I know we have a lot of hoops to still jump through, but still...

The verbage:

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 enforcing California Penal Code section 32310. 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. DATED: March 29, 2019 _______________________________ HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...luHcQlp9yLsc7wWh-4VrsbOGDje97wwvnZ5dIgi6ADdrY

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

NRA Article:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...2feVzoSNo7ywhXrIXRuSk0rhO9_qKphx1B92JQ_WB_bQs

 

[Aim1]

Nice. He said strict scrutiny applies.

 

[danez71]

Nice. He said strict scrutiny applies.

That is nice.

IMO, its just as good or maybe even better that he said the std cap mag ban doesn't even pass intermediate scrutiny.

 

[toivo]

Don't want to get my hopes too high here in NY, but I would love to be able to use standard capacity magazines in my currently handicapped firearms. I would love even more to be reimbursed by NY State for the cost of replacing the pre-ban standard mags I had to ditch in 2013 when the NY "SAFE" Act was rammed through the legislature. One can dream ...

 

[LiveLife]

I had hoped but never imagined I would see the reversal of 10-round magazine restriction.

I believe the tide has started to turn for 2A.

Godspeed.

 

[AlexanderA]

Don't celebrate too soon. What are the chances of this surviving appeal to the 9th Circuit?

 

[natman]

Don't celebrate too soon. What are the chances of this surviving appeal to the 9th Circuit?

Slim at best. One can only hope that another injunction will be issued to delay enforcement until SCOTUS gets a crack at it.
Still it was good to read an opinion written by a judge that gets it.

 

[danez71]

Don't celebrate too soon. What are the chances of this surviving appeal to the 9th Circuit?

That's a good question and one that has an added twist in this case.

The judge had put an injunction against the law blocking it's enforcment.

The injunction blocking enforcement was appealed by the state to the 9th and the 3 person panel upheld the injunction and referred it back to the judge to rule.

If I understand right...

So the 9th HAS already seen this case and gave a favorable ruling.... BUT in limited scope and only ruled to uphold an injunction to block a std cap mag ban law based on the possibility of it being unconstitutional.

Now, the same judge ruled the std cap mag ban unconstitutional 'even by the simple Heller test'.

Again, if I understand right, now this ruling of the ban being unconstitutional can be appealed back to the 9th and a different 3 person panel would hear that appeal.


ETA: There looks to be a cpl of Web sites selling std cap mags into CA right now according to some members in a CA gun forum. ETAA: And some have called those sites and they look to be holding orders until further review.

 

[LiveLife]

Looking good so far.

Look forward to this ending favorably for us and going nationwide.

 

[pdsmith505]

Nice. He said strict scrutiny applies.

Actually, he said that it doesn't even reach scrutiny, that it fails the "in common use" "for lawful purposes" test laid out in Heller. He then went on to favorably quote Kavenaugh's dissent in the DC circuit regarding text, history, and tradition.

He goes into strict and intermediate scrutiny for good measure as well, explaining how neither standard could be met with respect to the ban even if they were applied.

 

[bannockburn]

At last some great news for California gun owners!

Or as Monty Python would have said: "And now for something completely different..."

 

[LiveLife]

At last some great news for California gun owners!

And hopefully for the rest of country.

I think this ruling will fuel and open many other cans of worms. Time to keep challenging and reversing other gun control laws.

Good video discussing the latest 2A ruling and other rulings.

 

[JN01]

Judge Benitez:
"This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now."

Nice.

 

[LiveLife]

Elections have consequences.

This judge was Bush appointee but Trump has appointed many pro-2A judges since the election.

 

[Zoogster]

So without reading the entire decision myself and trying to understand what it actually means, what people are quoting and saying appears to apply this to magazine bans in general not even passing the in common use test of Heller.

So in the attempt to remove previously grandfathered magazines from legal ownership they ended up creating a case allowing all gun owners such magazines.
That would certainly be an interesting unintended consequence.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is currently now the law of the land until higher level review? Which means the 9th District has no magazine capacity bans? Which would mean contrary to what is stated as California law all over the web prior to this and what most street cops will think is still the law (which could mean a lot of headache in the short term) people could import, manufacture, or otherwise possess such things?

 

[LiveLife]

Yes, higher capacity than 10 round magazines now legal in California.

From the actual ruling in the Conclusion on Page 83 - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=22822941#post22822941

"Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."

"When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that law-abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home."

The issue of legally owned pre-2000 magazines is almost an afterthought in the decision:

"Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds."

"California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."

And California Penal Code 32310 - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=32310.

 

[LiveLife]

Vendors have started shipping higher than 10 round magazines to California.

Spread the word.

UPDATE: With millions of gun owners in CA, expect short-term "Out of stock" on more popular normal/standard capacity magazine. Sorry, but good sorry.

 

[Zoogster]

Many vendors still are in such shock they are erring on the side of caution and won't sell them even at California gun stores. I just called up some and heard they think it only applies to grandfathered magazines still as that is what the case was based on.
However based on this thread and the judge citing Heller in common use as one of the legal reasons in why standard capacity magazines cannot be be restricted in general the case law appears to extend well beyond just the grandfathered magazines.

It is the day after the decision and the court system and many attorneys will be off the clock until Monday. So I do not anticipate many changing how things are done until after this weekend. That will also be when the anti-gunners who will be very upset with this ruling kick their opposition into high gear and try to do something in court.
If hundreds of thousands or even millions of mags were sold in the interim it would probably go a long way towards reducing how motivated they are to reverse or change it as fast as possible.
I am however not in a position to legally advise anyone and do not know the consequences.

 

[Jeff H]

Vendors have started shipping higher than 10 round magazines to California.

Spread the word.

UPDATE: With millions of gun owners in CA, expect short-term "Out of stock" on more popular normal/standard capacity magazine. Sorry, but good sorry.

W.T.F. ????????? I leave the comfort of Ohio for a few days for a quick trip to Vegas and I get back and Hell Has frozen over and California has standard cap magazines again. I guess I need to go out of town more often. Maybe New York gets saved next trip.

 

[LiveLife]

I could see this ruling end up going nationwide.

 

[bluejeans]

YES! HAHAHAHAHA!




and now i can stop hiding my contraband mags when i visit family in CA

 

[pdsmith505]

Yes, higher capacity than 10 round magazines now legal in California.

From the actual ruling in the Conclusion on Page 83 - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=22822941#post22822941

"Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."

"When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that law-abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home."

The issue of legally owned pre-2000 magazines is almost an afterthought in the decision:

"Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds."

"California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."

And California Penal Code 32310 - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=32310.

There is talk over at Calguns about the fact that the order issued by the judge does NOT prevent enforcement of California Penal Code 32390:

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, any large-capacity magazine is a nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.

(a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of, importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a nuisance under any of the following provisions:
...
(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.
...
(b) These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary destruction whenever found within the state.

So... there may be no crime associated with owning the magazines, but there is nothing preventing the magazines from being confiscated and destroyed as a nuisance. Since the judge wrote about 32390 in the opinion, he must know what it entails, and had to have some reason to not stike it down at the same time... speculation is that he didn't due to the manner in which the plaintiffs brought the case (didn't request relief from that section? dunno...).

 

[Ignition Override]

Do these "normal capacity" mags operate with guns which have the California "bullet button"?
Or do a huge number of guns --supposedly-- still exist which more easily use such magazines?

Reading topics on four gun websites each night (am retired), didn't take the time to read everybody's remarks.

* We know that a single ruling is never a final ruling, but is this the first such ruling which creates a legal precedent regarding gun mags in the US?

 

[pdsmith505]

Do these "normal capacity" mags operate with guns which have the California "bullet button"?
Or do a huge number of guns --supposedly-- still exist which more easily use such magazines?

Reading topics on four gun websites each night (am retired), didn't take the time to read everybody's remarks.

If I understand correctly, center-fire semi-automatic firearms with fixed magazines that have a capacity of more than 10 rounds are defined in CA law as assault weapons.

If you have a non-Assault Weapon rifle with some sore of magazine lock that makes the rifle have a "fixed" magazine, putting the 30rd magazine makes them an assault weapon, which is another crime entirely.

If you already have a registered assault weapon (either regular or Bullet-Button) or a featureless rifle that can still have detachable magazines, then you can legally use the magazines in those rifles...

Until they are confiscated as nuisances and destroyed