CA Mag Ban Unconstituional

Status
Not open for further replies.
Corpral_Agarn said:
perhaps I don't live close enough.
Click to expand...
Another thing to consider.

When you get to Oregon, fill the trunk with mags as when you return back home, you will be able to resell for more when all the LGS sell out of mags with people trying to buy during Monday (state holiday) that state AG/DOJ cannot make official announcement as earliest announcement will be on Tuesday.

As 10 O'Clock approaches when many gun stores open, I have a feeling gun stores packed with customers trying to buy magazines today but price could shoot up as day progresses and inventory diminish. Smarter move may be buying out of state and not giving CA more taxes.
 
Really happy for the interim for you California folks. Haven't looked over the Trump appointments to the 9th Circus; but hopefully it will help with the liberal drivel we have had coming out of there; that my state is unfortunately tied with. That 9th Circus needs to be split up, there are states at opposite spectrum from each other that make it up.
 
F-111 John said:
As has been pointed out earlier, California Statute 32390, which declares all magazines greater than ten rounds to be a public nuisance and are to be confiscated by authorities whenever encountered, while mentioned in the ruling as specious was not also struck down, so there may well be a lot of police confiscation of magazines from brick and mortar stores today.
Click to expand...
I thought larger than 10 round magazines were public nuisance because they were contraband.

Since Friday's ruling, because judge's order also included judgement, ruling became law for all LEO to follow immediately. The "arms"/magazines are legal and confiscation of legal property is illegal.

As I posted, every LEO will wait for CA AG/DOJ response before doing anything. Any LEO confiscating legal "arms"/magazines or giving such order will be making career ending move.
 
F-111 John said:
As has been pointed out earlier, California Statute 32390, which declares all magazines greater than ten rounds to be a public nuisance and are to be confiscated by authorities whenever encountered, while mentioned in the ruling as specious was not also struck down, so there may well be a lot of police confiscation of magazines from brick and mortar stores today.
Click to expand...

It's technically possible, but I really don't see that happening. The dicta of Judge Benitez' decision makes clear his view that PC 32390 is unconstitutional. LE agencies tend to very respectful of court decisions (both dicta and holding) while a case is working through the system.
 
bds said:
I thought larger than 10 round magazines were public nuisance because they were contraband.

Since Friday's ruling, because judge's order also included judgement, ruling became law for all LEO to follow immediately. The "arms"/magazines are legal and confiscation of legal property is illegal.

As I posted, every LEO will wait for CA AG/DOJ response before doing anything. Any LEO confiscating legal "arms"/magazines or giving such order will be making career ending move.
Click to expand...

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-32390.html

Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400 [Law enforcement exemption]) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700 [Antique Firearm exemption]) of Division 2 of Title 2, any large-capacity magazine is a nuisance and is subject to Section 18010 [confiscation and summary destruction] .​

Nowhere in 32390 or the related cited statutes 32400, 17700, or 18010, is Section 32310 referred to at all when identifying large capacity magazines as a nuisance. The judge did not enjoin the enforcement of 32390 in his order, only 32310.

The judge did make a very reasoned argument that 32390 could be unconstitutional, but did not rule it so. I see no legal basis at this time that would prohibit any LEO from executing 32390 via 18010.

What the judge wrote regarding 32390:

California has deemed large-capacity magazines to be a nuisance. See Cal. Pen. Code § 32390. That designation is dubious. The Supreme Court recognized a decade before Heller, “[g]uns in general are not ‘deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste materials.’” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 610 (1994) (citation omitted). Casting a common sized firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds as a nuisance, as a way around the Second Amendment, is like banning a book as a nuisance, as a way around the First Amendment. It conjures up images from Ray Bradbury’s novel, Fahrenheit 451, of firemen setting books on fire, or in this case policemen setting magazines on fire. Plaintiffs remonstrate that the law’s forced, uncompensated, physical dispossession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds as an exercise of its “police power” cannot be defended. Supreme Court precedent casts doubt on the State’s contrary theory that an exercise of the police power can never constitute a physical taking. In Loretto, the Supreme Court held that a law requiring physical occupation of private property was both “within the State’s police power” and an unconstitutional physical taking. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982). The Court explained that whether a law amounts to a physical taking is “a separate question” from whether the state has the police power to enact the law. Id. at 425–26 (“It is a separate question, however, whether an otherwise valid regulation so frustrates property rights that compensation must be paid. We conclude that a permanent physical occupation authorized by government is a taking without regard to the public interests that it may serve.”). In a similar vein, the Supreme Court holds that a law enacted pursuant to the state’s “police powers to enjoin a property owner from activities akin to public nuisances” is not immune from scrutiny under the regulatory takings doctrine. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1020–27 (1992). The Court reasoned that it was true “[a] fortiori” that the “legislature’s recitation of a noxious-use justification cannot be the basis for departing from our categorical rule that total regulatory takings must be compensated.” Id. at 1026.​
 
Last edited:
If some LEO did attempt to confiscate a magazine, they might wind up giving the person they confiscated it from grounds to claim 32920 was unconstitutional. Seems like their lawyer(s) would have half their work done for them.

Might not work out that way, of course, but a LEO who would otherwise confiscate standard capacity magazines might not want to take the chance.
 
Gridley said:
If some LEO did attempt to confiscate a magazine, they might wind up giving the person they confiscated it from grounds to claim 32920 was unconstitutional. Seems like their lawyer(s) would have half their work done for them.
Click to expand...
The judge seems to have done 90% of the lifting in this case. But it will take an actual confiscation and resulting suit to get 32920 struck, unless the legislature does it voluntarily. (I won't hold my breath for that one...)
 
ECVMatt said:
I have always felt that at some point the overly restrictive states would go too far and things would start to fail. I think this is an example of California going a bridge too far.... and now we might see national level implications from their overly zealous actions.
Click to expand...


This is true but has already happened. The original overly zealous "state" was Washington DC. The Heller case put an end to their shenanigans (at least on issues related to Heller) and Heller continues to help us in this case too.
 
After decades of erosion to 2A, I believe what's happening is like aligning of stars and planets:
  • Trump win and pro-2A nominations to SCOTUS
  • Conservative pro-2A nominations to federal courts
  • 2A cases poised for the SCOTUS to be heard
  • NRA/CRPA and other pro-2A mounting legal challenges
  • Growing number of gun owners from minority, liberal, female, LGBTQ communities
  • Historic record breaking gun sales, much of sales to new "non-traditional" gun owners.
  • 2A supporters reaching the point of "enough-is-enough" and pushing back, with vengeance and fury of "No more"
  • Reversal of anti-gun laws like ban on higher than 10 round capacity "arms"/magazines - This has to be demoralizing to the anti-gun crowd as they will wonder what anti-gun laws will be reversed next
I do hope the anti-gun crowd pushes even harder (and they will) as I believe the coalition of gun owners from all walks will solidify even more to form a greater resistance and push back (in voting anti-gun law makers out and voting pro-gun law makers in and help secure 2020 re-election of Trump) which will result in more 2A leaning House, Senate, SCOTUS, federal courts, etc.

And as more pro-2A judges get nominated to federal courts and the SCOTUS, I do hope more 2A cases get heard and ruled on.
 
Last edited:
I hope you're right on all counts (though I'm not quite as optimistic as you, I'm afraid). Was curious about this one:

bds said:
  • ...much of sales to new "non-traditional" gun owners.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any studies or reporting on this; would you mind sharing what you've seen? Agreed this would be a very encouraging sign!
 
F-111 John said:
As has been pointed out earlier, California Statute 32390, which declares all magazines greater than ten rounds to be a public nuisance and are to be confiscated by authorities whenever encountered, while mentioned in the ruling as specious was not also struck down, so there may well be a lot of police confiscation of magazines from brick and mortar stores today.
Click to expand...


This is what the judge had to say about 32390

California has deemed large-capacity magazines to be a nuisance. See Cal. Pen. Code § 32390. That designation is dubious. The Supreme Court recognized a decade before Heller, “[g]uns in general are not ‘deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste materials.’” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 610 (1994) (citation omitted). Casting a common sized firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds as a nuisance, as a way around the Second Amendment, is like banning a book as a nuisance, as a way around the First Amendment. It conjures up images from Ray Bradbury’s novel, Fahrenheit 451, of firemen setting books on fire, or in this case policemen setting magazines on fire.
Click to expand...
 
People should be thanking the California arm of the NRA for bringing suit against this draconian law. I just want to point that out as the NRA gets bashed for their lack of efforts (which I can attest to sometimes) but we need to give credit where credit is due.
 
Gridley said:
I haven't seen any studies or reporting on this; would you mind sharing what you've seen? Agreed this would be a very encouraging sign!
Click to expand...
I am retiring from state government job that required travel up and down the state. Since my assignments required week-long stay, often I would check out local gun stores after dinner.

In the past 10 years, historic record setting sales of guns of biblical proportions took place. Most gun stores I talked to said they sold more guns in several years than all the years they have been open. :eek: This is A LOT of guns sold.

And many stores said not all the guns were sold to "typical" gun buyers of the past and many guns were sold to younger/female buyers who never bought guns before. And that's where my comment is based on.
 
bds said:
Because likely they can hold unto inventory and sell at higher prices later when other stores sell out at lower prices. ;)
Click to expand...
well IDK.

One shop sent out a statement. This is part of it:

This ruling took effect immediately, however, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is expected to ask for that injunction to be stayed (unenforced) pending appeal of the Court’s decision. Should the court grant that request, this entire ruling (or parts of it) will have no effect until the appeal is resolved—which could take well over a year or more.

What does this mean to us??? This would mean Penal Code section 32310 will be enforceable and dealers and customers buying and selling “large-capacity” magazines will be liable for violating its provisions. At this time, we have chosen not to sell high capacity magazines because we want to be around for years to come to serve you. We suggest you exercise caution when obtaining these items. Our attorneys will soon be releasing additional information which we will pass on to you as it becomes available. As soon as we are certain we are in the clear to sell these magazines we will.
Thank you for your understanding,
Click to expand...
 
Corpral_Agarn said:
One shop sent out a statement. This is part of it:

"This ruling took effect immediately, however, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is expected to ask for that injunction to be stayed"
Click to expand...
You know, we have been losing for so many decades that we forgot what winning is. :eek:

I have in my possession many higher than 10 round capacity "arms"/magazines purchased legally with date receipts. When federal judge ruled on Friday with judgement, purchase of higher than 10 round capacity "arms"/magazines became immediately legal until stay by CA AG/DOJ which is Tuesday at the earliest because Monday is a state holiday.

If a shop does not want to sell legal "arms"/magazines during this time, there are plenty others that will.

Same argument could have been posed to me before 2000, "Aren't you worried legal larger than 10 round capacity 'arms'/magazines you buy now will become illegal in the future?"

Nope.

I have enjoyed my legal larger than 10 round capacity "arms"/magazines over the decades and hope the new owners of legal "arms"/magazines enjoy theirs for decades to come.

But it's a free country and I cannot tell others how to spend their money. But one thing is certain, as of today, it is legal to purchase higher capacity than 10 round "arms"/magazines in California or bring them into California.

Enjoy the day and celebrate this monumental win for 2A!
 
Last edited:
bds said:
You know, we have been losing for so many decades that we forgot what winning is. :eek:

I have in my possession many higher than 10 round capacity "arms"/magazines purchased legally with date receipts. When federal judge ruled on Friday with judgement, purchase of higher than 10 round capacity "arms"/magazines became immediately legal until stay by CA AG/DOJ which is Tuesday at the earliest because Monday is a state holiday.

If a shop does not want to sell legal "arms"/magazines during this time, there are plenty others that will.

Same argument could have been posed to be before 2000, "Aren't you worried legal larger than 10 round capacity 'arms'/magazines you buy now will become illegal in the future?"

Nope.

I have enjoyed my legal larger than 10 round capacity "arms"/magazines over the decades and hope the new owners of legal "arms"/magazines enjoy theirs for decades to come.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you.

I think that DOJ has made some pretty rough examples of gunshops not falling in line and attorneys that advise these shops are covering their ass.
 
Corpral_Agarn said:
I think that DOJ has made some pretty rough examples of gunshops not falling in line and attorneys that advise these shops are covering their ass.
Click to expand...
Past does not equal to the future.

What a business owner does with his/her business is his/her business.

What I do with my money legally is none of his/her business. If he or she does not want to sell legal "arms"/magazines to me, then I will simply buy from someone else who will.

Simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

pdsmith505
  • Locked
District Court (S. District CA) Blocks CA Ammo Sale Law
Replies
18
Views
1K
luzyfuerza
luzyfuerza
hps1
  • Locked
California AG Seeks Further Review of Ruling in Magazine Case
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Metal God
Metal God
LiveLife
  • Locked
Federal judge blocks California's high-capacity magazine ban
Replies
17
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
LiveLife
  • Locked
9th Circuit Court Rules CA’s Ban on High-Capacity Magazines Unconstitutional
Replies
2
Views
539
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
D
  • Locked
GA: Court Enjoins Athens-Clarke From Enforcing Gun Ban in Parks
Replies
6
Views
964
GTSteve03
G
Back
Top