LiveLife
Member
Not for many Northern Californians living next to Oregon border.Sales tax vs gas prices is a tough one.
My daughter's 2019 Elantra got 45 mpg on flat stretch of I-5 to Portland and 42 mpg through the southern Oregon mountains.
Not for many Northern Californians living next to Oregon border.Sales tax vs gas prices is a tough one.
perhaps I don't live close enough.Not for many Northern Californians living next to Oregon border.
Just rent the highest MPG car and make a one day trip. Most rentals come with unlimited mileage.perhaps I don't live close enough.
Another thing to consider.perhaps I don't live close enough.
Well... I would have... if i hadn't pulled the trigger on another method...Just rent the highest MPG car and make a one day trip. Most rentals come with unlimited mileage.
You will be back before a nice happy dinner after you return the rental car.
I thought larger than 10 round magazines were public nuisance because they were contraband.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.
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.
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.
I do not see confiscation happening today by LEO.there may well be a lot of police confiscation of magazines from brick and mortar stores today.
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...)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.
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.
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!
- ...much of sales to new "non-traditional" gun owners.
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.
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.
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.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!
Because likely they can hold unto inventory and sell at higher prices later when other stores sell out at lower prices.at least 2 local gunshops to me are not selling mags yet at the advice of their legal team.
well IDK.Because likely they can hold unto inventory and sell at higher prices later when other stores sell out at lower prices.
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,
You know, we have been losing for so many decades that we forgot what winning is.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"
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you.You know, we have been losing for so many decades that we forgot what winning is.
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.
Past does not equal to the future.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.