Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #881  
Old 07-20-2018, 4:38 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 425
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
I’m actually a practicing attorney with 28 years in, so.....

Of course this is a takings case.

But the cited article mentions a violation of the second amendment. Only. You don’t need a violation of any other amendment as a precursor to finding an unconstitutional taking, and there is no mention of them finding a taking.

No, I am not watching the hearings.

So the lay report seems to say the second amendment violation, or at least a potential violation, is the reason the injunction will stay in place.

So if it’s the second amendment violation instead of the takings that is the reason the injunction remains, that logic would apply to any magazine, not just the ones that were grandfathered, because it’s the magazine, not the date.

I didn’t advise anyone, and NOBODY took my post as permission, to run out and start importing magazines. The case isn’t over anyway, just the appeal of the injunction.

I appreaciate the mental exercise.
If you are a practicing attorney, you know damn well that the lay understanding of the decision is irrelevant. Further, you know or should know that it has been illegal to purchase, transport into the state or otherwise acquire a 10+ magazine. Hence, the only thing that the case could even conceivably apply to, at this point in time, is ten round mags that are LEGALLY possessed, i.e., those obtained prior to 1/1/2000. Lat but not least, if you have been following the lawsuit, you already know that the lawsuit attacks a new law that sought to eliminate the grandfathering of old mags and require their removal from the state or destruction. The injunction suspends the effect of the new law, not the old ones, and the injunction effects ONLY mags owned prior to 2000. Which of course you knew already.

Now personally, I really enjoyed reading the judge's decision granting the injunction, but it is meaningless. Once the case goes to trial, it evaporates. The only thing that will be of any importance then is the final judgment, which of course is something no one can know, nor can we with any reasonable accuracy predict what the Ninth will do with it on the inevitable appeal. But we are really jumping the gun to suggest now that maybe somewhere down the road in a few years it MIGHT form the basis for an attack on the 10+ round mag law.

Last edited by TruOil; 07-20-2018 at 4:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 07-20-2018, 4:45 PM
divert_fuse's Avatar
divert_fuse divert_fuse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Y'all are flaming Citadel way too hard. He clearly just isn't trying very hard. If I was a lawyer, and used to getting paid for my legal opinions, I might not try very hard on an internet forum either. The point's been clarified. You aren't doing anything useful anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 07-20-2018, 4:56 PM
tenemae tenemae is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by divert_fuse View Post
Y'all are flaming Citadel way too hard. He clearly just isn't trying very hard. If I was a lawyer, and used to getting paid for my legal opinions, I might not try very hard on an internet forum either. The point's been clarified. You aren't doing anything useful anymore.
I know. I wasn't flaming him because he was wrong. I was flaming him because he was being insufferably wrong and arrogant about it when he should have easily known better. If you've seen my other posts, I'm quite civil the overwhelming majority of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 07-20-2018, 5:01 PM
tenemae tenemae is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WartHog View Post
Would this be for all standard capacity mags produced today or just grandfathered mags?
We definitely have not won yet. This merely upholds the injunction against banning previously grandfathered mags. The mag laws in effect today and until the case is decided are the same as they were in 2016. Please do not attempt to import any new 10+ mags.
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 07-20-2018, 5:05 PM
divert_fuse's Avatar
divert_fuse divert_fuse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm not saying he didn't deserve it. I'm saying it never helps. If you ignore people's *****iness, extract the factual assertions and respond to them, and treat the other stuff like it doesn't exist, sometimes they stop.

And unlike scuzzing people, it sometimes actually makes them feel bad, instead of just self-righteously angry right back at you. Which makes it way more hardcore.

This is a gun forum, not a big stick forum, because presumably we all believe that if you're gonna hurt somebody, do it right.
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 07-20-2018, 5:21 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,257
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

That's not MY 15 round Mag officer, it must be yours.
__________________
IF WE EVER FORGET WE ARE ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
THEN WE WILL BE A NATION GONE UNDER.
Ronald Reagan


We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 07-20-2018, 5:28 PM
tenemae tenemae is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by divert_fuse View Post
And unlike scuzzing people, it sometimes actually makes them feel bad, instead of just self-righteously angry right back at you. Which makes it way more hardcore.
Fair enough
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 07-20-2018, 5:33 PM
WartHog's Avatar
WartHog WartHog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 2,689
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 07-20-2018, 5:39 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The bottom line is that no final determination has been made by the district court or by the appellate court. The 9th Circuit simply refused to set aside the preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the current law while the case proceeds. The state can still win the case and, if that happens, the injuction will be dissolved and the law enforced. The district court has not considered and did not rule on the earlier law that originally banned the sale of larger than 10 capacity magazines as far as I know and so, arguably, the preliminary injuction has no bearing on that law.
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 07-20-2018, 5:47 PM
ojisan ojisan is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,518
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

Welcome to CalGuns, divert fuse.


Interesting posts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 07-20-2018, 7:58 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 952
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Meh. URL is misleading. This pertains to the magazine ban, not the ammo ban.

Hope they choke out the commie ****tards on that and the "asaault weapons" ban next.
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 07-20-2018, 8:19 PM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 544
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootstrap View Post
Meh. URL is misleading. This pertains to the magazine ban, not the ammo ban.
I was caught by that too. I don't understand why the discussion of the 5th came up at all. The 9th was only answering a single core question - did the lower court follow the rules for making a ruling? They said it did, now the case can proceed. They could still, and very well may, rule 9-0 against the plaintiffs when the actual case comes up.
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 07-20-2018, 8:32 PM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,726
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

My position on this particular bs is that NO MATTER HOW THE STATES WORDS IT, this laa is crap and is retroactive in nature AND a taking BECAUSE "we" are not being compensated for property legally owned prior to 2000 in any way. The state claims it is not a taking because 'we' were GIVEN options of turn in,destroy,or move property out of state(never to be allowed to be brought back in). Not that according to the law we could not offer for sale even out of state because the mags and owners were in state..So it is a taking.

Its retroactive due to us baving property that has been owned since 90s,80s,70s and with a stroke of the pen is made illegal... period. If this does not define retroactive,dont know what does.
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

[SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 07-20-2018, 8:41 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Um, I thought all it meant is that old timers can keep their grandfathered mags? It also just keeps the status quo of LEO confiscating things on a whim if it's a "public nuisance". You can claim it was 20 years old but they can still make a decision to confiscate, since no one can prove anything. Then you can try and get them back.
I think it is worse than that. The do not care if they are grandfathered or care if you prove that they are grandfathered. Legal possession is not the issue, nor a defense. The public nuisance scam amounts to them simply saying "we don't want you to have these so we are stealing them from you and you can't stop us". It is just the raw naked abuse of power.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 07-20-2018, 8:45 PM
capitol's Avatar
capitol capitol is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: I live in California
Posts: 2,388
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Piling on... !!
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 07-20-2018, 8:59 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,756
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

retroactive / ex post facto,,,,, doesn't really matter. This state has already gone there. Seem to recall a few years back that misdemeanor assaults / domestic violence record/conviction did not trigger a firearms prohibition. Many people pled their assault/DV cases down from felonies to misdemeanors to avoid embarrassing court etc....with the knowledge that they would not be prohibited via the penal code from owning / using firearms for personal use, and employment. With the stroke of a pen, our state made all of them prohibited people, retroactively, ex post facto. Didn't seem right or fair to me. Lawful one day, unlawful the next. Not defending violent people, just bringing up the fact that our state has done some strange stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 07-20-2018, 9:10 PM
tenemae tenemae is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledReaper View Post
The state claims it is not a taking because 'we' were GIVEN options of turn in,destroy,or move property out of state(never to be allowed to be brought back in).
Almost. It's a bit more complicated since the state argued that people had the option of altering the magazines to reduce capacity to 10rnds. They argued since the people were still in possession, it was not a taking.

Prosecution made a tough sell for modification constituting a "taking" by citing various precedence. As the injunction currently stands, I take it she was successful. Hat-tip to the lawyer for doing her homework.
17-56081 Virginia Duncan v. Xavier Becerra
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 07-20-2018, 9:24 PM
tenemae tenemae is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
But we are really jumping the gun to suggest now that maybe somewhere down the road in a few years it MIGHT form the basis for an attack on the 10+ round mag law.
Finally being back on a proper computer which allows me to do research, I've verified that this is that challenge. The requested relief in the complaint is:

Quote:
Desiring to acquire, possess, use, and/or transfer these constitutionally protected firearm magazines for lawful purposes including self-defense, but justifiably fearing prosecution if they do, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: (1) declare that California Penal Code section 32310 infringes Plaintiffsí constitutional rights; and (2) permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing section 32310 to the extent it prevents law-abiding Californians, like Plaintiffs, from acquiring, possessing, using, or transferring constitutionally protected arms.
As a reminder, PC 32310 is the entire 10+ ban

So if this particular legal challenge is successful some time in the future, brand new 10+ rounders will once again be welcome in CA
Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 07-20-2018, 9:40 PM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 544
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I thought the court could reject only a part of it? effectively putting us back to the previous status quo? What would be the reason for all-or-nothing ruling?
Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 07-20-2018, 9:49 PM
tenemae tenemae is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbo80 View Post
I thought the court could reject only a part of it? effectively putting us back to the previous status quo?
I suppose. But this litigation does challenge the general mag ban, not just the grandfathered mag dispossession.
Reply With Quote
  #901  
Old 07-20-2018, 10:16 PM
Lex Talionis's Avatar
Lex Talionis Lex Talionis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 412
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
If the reason the grandfathered mags are ok is the second amendment, then is the initial ban valid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Well, it's not. The reason the grandfathered mags were OK is the 5th amendment takings clause. Otherwise you're arguing we can all go buy brand new "assault weapons" right now

Jesus. Try to pay attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Hey, blowhard, did you read the article cited?

The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction or by concluding that magazines fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Do you see a reference to fifth amendment or takings there, because I donít.

Maybe you are the one who should pay attention.

Beg, borrow, or steal a clue, but donít post again until you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Thanks for the large font. Larger letters are more convincing than small ones.

Had you been paying attention, that's just to uphold the injunction. That means nothing for the outcome of the case until.... you know... the case actually gets decided. The reason we have grandfathering is the 5th amendment. Otherwise the government would just ban possession with no exceptions.

would you like another slice of humble pie? It so dericious

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
The font is frequently necessary when dealing with unwarranted smugness, like yours. As you can see, youíre the last person that should pretend to have the upper hand.

I am paying attention, blow hard.

The THREAD is about the action of the 9th, isnít it?

Iíll answer that, yes, yes indeed itís is.

The thread references the article, which cites a lay impression of why the 9th upheld the injunction.

The thread is further discussing the implications of this action, not the eventual outcome of the suit, your ham handed efforts to scaramble and turn this from your own thrashing into something else notwithstanding.

Humble pie? See a doctor, you are delusional. Your idiotic smugness has been force fed to you, and youíre trying to save face.

Which isnít working.

Pack up and move on, this didnít work out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Guys? No, one guy. The one that condescendingly flitted in and instead of adding to the discussion, told me to pay attention.

Screw that, hes not on my team. Hes out to lord his pretend superior intellect over me
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Cool. Then you agree. Only previously grandfathered 10+ round mags are currently legal in CA. You may not buy, sell, give, import, transfer, etc. And the grandfathred mags are legal while new ones aren't because of which amendment again? I'll give you a hint. It's greater than 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Iím actually a practicing attorney with 28 years in, so.....

Of course this is a takings case.

But the cited article mentions a violation of the second amendment. Only. You donít need a violation of any other amendment as a precursor to finding an unconstitutional taking, and there is no mention of them finding a taking.

No, I am not watching the hearings.

So the lay report seems to say the second amendment violation, or at least a potential violation, is the reason the injunction will stay in place.

So if itís the second amendment violation instead of the takings that is the reason the injunction remains, that logic would apply to any magazine, not just the ones that were grandfathered, because itís the magazine, not the date.

I didnít advise anyone, and NOBODY took my post as permission, to run out and start importing magazines. The case isnít over anyway, just the appeal of the injunction.

I appreaciate the mental exercise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Don't feel bad. Citadel's allegedly a lawyer, and even he struggles.

The constitutionality of the "taking" (or dispossession) is what is being argued. Until the court gives it's opinion on the constitutionality of the ban, an injunction was declared preventing people from losing their (otherwise legally owned) property, which cannot be recovered, on the basis of the 5th amendment. Buy as Citadel so eloquently stated:

So the argument isn't over whether the ban will eventually be struck down due to a successful second amendment challenge, but over what you can legally own right now as a result of upholding the PI on grounds of the takings clause.

The answer is: the same things you could legally own in 2016. Nothing's changed. Yet.
__________________


THE LAW OF RETALIATION
Leviticus 24:19Ė21 "an eye for an eye" (עין תחת עין‬, ayin tachat ayin)
Reply With Quote
  #902  
Old 07-21-2018, 1:24 PM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 19,082
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
One helluva bag of popcorn sir!

Watching the decision now, the judges thought the states stance was weak based off of future hearings regarding this issue
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #903  
Old 07-21-2018, 2:35 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 317
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When are we going to understand that 2a protected doesn't mean legal. All it means it's the government most meet intermediate scrutiny to regulate.

Just as first amendment protected doesn't mean legal. It just means it is a form of expression the court will recognize as "speech". So burning a flag isn't written speech but is considered a form of expression and thus is entitled to second amendment protection. That protection isn't a blanket legalization rather forces the government to meet a high bar to limit.

When the court says an object is protected by the second amendment. They aren't saying it is legal for us to keep or the state can't regulate it. They are saying the state must meet intermediate scrutiny to regulate it away.


All nineth says was the second applies. As one can see. The question then was did the judge abuse his authority which didn't happen. Yet our descenter goes further and says well you aren't going to win anyway so the PI is invalid. He basically ruled on questions that weren't before him so try and get the outcome he wanted.

No the question is do we see an en banc challenge to ur PI. My guess is no as it won't matter the judge will rule soon enough. He will likely rule for us, possibly tossing the entire magazine limit for everyone. Then we will see the challenge in the nineth which we will lose or will lose en banc. So it will come to SCOTUS. And we get to see where all these new judges really stand.

I'm hoping we will see a few AGs filling in support of us. Im sure the gun shop in their states are ready so sell us truck loads of standard capacity magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #904  
Old 07-21-2018, 4:40 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 491
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Can the injunction get a second appeal En Banc ? That seems like the pattern for government losses in the 9th, they lose then En Banc and they win. I'm guessing they can't because it's just for the injunction, but still wondering.

Last edited by abinsinia; 07-21-2018 at 7:35 PM.. Reason: can to can't
Reply With Quote
  #905  
Old 07-21-2018, 8:41 PM
tenemae tenemae is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Can the injunction get a second appeal En Banc ? That seems like the pattern for government losses in the 9th, they lose then En Banc and they win. I'm guessing they can't because it's just for the injunction, but still wondering.
I don't think that's how this works. The ball is still in the 3-judge-panel's court. Once they are done with it, a higher court can pick it up/go en banc. I don't think anything else can be done with it until the 3 judges are finished (but maybe I'm wrong on that)
Reply With Quote
  #906  
Old 07-21-2018, 9:03 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,545
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The 9th was lambasting California for bringing this appeal in the 1st place because the actual court decision was due in a few months. I don't think the 9th will entertain an en banc.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #907  
Old 07-21-2018, 10:19 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 842
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
The 9th was lambasting California for bringing this appeal in the 1st place because the actual court decision was due in a few months. I don't think the 9th will entertain an en banc.
This.
Reply With Quote
  #908  
Old 07-22-2018, 9:48 PM
lrdchivalry's Avatar
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 1,031
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

My understanding is that San Francisco already has laws on the books prohibiting possession of so-called hi cap mags. Does this injunction also apply to those laws as well?
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #909  
Old 07-22-2018, 9:58 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,951
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
My understanding is that San Francisco already has laws on the books prohibiting possession of so-called hi cap mags. Does this injunction also apply to those laws as well?
I don't believe they do have such a law (though other cities do/did). Sunnyvale and LA come to mind. Not familiar with an SF ban on possession.

At any rate, no, this injunction has no effect on city orinances prohibiting LCMs.

One notable exception is that LA repealed their LCM ban because Prop 63 passed, and then the injection caused people to be able to possess then there legally finally. But outside of that, this injection only mainained the status quo for the rest of the state - if they were legal before, they still are, and vice versa.
__________________



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-22-2018 at 10:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #910  
Old 07-22-2018, 10:12 PM
lrdchivalry's Avatar
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 1,031
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I don't believe they do have such a law (though other cities do/did). Sunnyvale and LA come to mind. Not familiar with an SF ban on possession.

At any rate, no, this injunction has no effect on city orinances prohibiting LCMs.

One notable exception is that LA repealed their LCM ban because Prop 63 passed, and then the injection caused people to be able to possess then there legally finally. But outside of that, this injection only mainained the status quo for the rest of the state - where they were legal before, they're legal now, and where they were illegal before, they still are.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...es-5249792.php

According to this article, SF banned possession, was sued but judge refused to issue injunction to prevent enforcement of the ordinance.

Was curious if the current state injunction affected the SF ordinance as well.
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #911  
Old 07-22-2018, 10:16 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,951
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...es-5249792.php

According to this article, SF banned possession, was sued but judge refused to issue injunction to prevent enforcement of the ordinance.

Was curious if the current state injunction affected the SF ordinance as well.
If such an ordinance exists, no this injunction would not affect it.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #912  
Old 07-23-2018, 12:22 AM
brassburnz's Avatar
brassburnz brassburnz is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In my wheelchair. 91214
Posts: 3,099
iTrader: 151 / 100%
Default

Sorry if this link is a dupe. I have not read all 900+ posts. This is from the NRA-ILA website.

"Unfortunately, this latest decision does not conclusively resolve the case. California can appeal the enforcement ruling to the full Ninth Circuit, which could overturn the decision and allow the surrender provisions to go into effect. And even if the decision is allowed to stand, the underlying case still must be resolved before Judge Benitez, who could change his mind once all the evidence is fully presented.

All of which only underscores the importance of a strong Second Amendment backstop at the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Brett Kavanaugh ó President Trumpís latest nominee to the high court ó could play a decisive role in this and other Second Amendment cases currently making their way through the lower courts."


https://www.nraila.org/articles/2018...er-requirement
__________________
Randy
NRA Life Member

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #913  
Old 07-23-2018, 12:49 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 668
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
If such an ordinance exists, no this injunction would not affect it.
From 28 June 2017...

Why California gun owners may be breaking the law on July 1

Quote:
...California banned the sale of high-capacity detachable magazines in 2000, but it remained legal to possess them, except in cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and Sunnyvale that enacted local bans...
26 April 2016...

Report: ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Bans Having No ‘Actual Impact’ in CA Cities

Quote:
A report on “high capacity” magazine bans in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sunnyvale shows the bans are not having any “actual impact.”

This means that “no magazines [have been] turned in, and none seized as a direct result of the local large-magazine bans on the books.” Therefore, criminals still have them, but law-abiding citizens cannot get them in LA, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sunnyvale...
27 February 2014...

Victory in San Francisco: San Francisco’s Magazine Capacity Limit Upheld

Quote:
Recently two California cities—San Francisco and Sunnyvale—took the lead in keeping their communities safe from gun violence by banning the possession of large capacity ammunition magazines. These lethal magazines allow a shooter to fire dozens of rounds—and kill countless people—without pausing to reload, and because of this, they have been consistently used in mass shootings...
The denial of an injunction can be found Here.

The filing for an injunction can be found Here.

Here is the Ordinance amending the Police Code, dated 10/10/13.

If you look Here, scroll down and you will find...

SEC. 619. PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES.

Quote:
(b) Definition. "Large capacity magazine" means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds;
(2) A . 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or
(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

(c) Prohibition on Possession of Large Capacity Magazines.
(1) No person, corporation, or other entity in the City may possess a large capacity magazine, whether assembled or disassembled.
(2) Any person who, prior to the effective date of this chapter, was legally in possession of a large capacity magazine shall have 90 days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(A) Remove the large capacity magazine from the City;
(B) Surrender the large capacity magazine to the Police Department for destruction; or
(C) Sell or transfer the large capacity magazine lawfully in accordance with Penal Code ß 12020.
Unfortunately, the impression I'm getting is that it's not about: If such an ordinance exists...
Reply With Quote
  #914  
Old 07-23-2018, 4:37 PM
RoundEye's Avatar
RoundEye RoundEye is offline
CGSSA Director, LA Chapter Leader, Captain: Calguns.net Shooting Team
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northridge
Posts: 2,968
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...es-5249792.php

According to this article, SF banned possession, was sued but judge refused to issue injunction to prevent enforcement of the ordinance.

Was curious if the current state injunction affected the SF ordinance as well.
A similar situation existed in Los Angeles as well. However, the CRPA / NRA sued under state preemption. When Prop 63, and Kevin Leon's stuff passed, the city of LA repealed the ordinance in plea with the NRA to drop the lawsuit.

So while the injunction is in place possession is once again legal in Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote
  #915  
Old 07-31-2018, 12:15 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,436
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Then you should know better than to opine on a case where you are ignorant of the proceedings. That's on you.


And that's thanks to.... which amendment again?

Maybe that's because....



A VERY lay (and incorrect) interpretation. Because



Which is where you're definitely wrong and start making dangerous allegations regarding the legality of illegal things. In the proceedings the plaintiff's argument was absolutely a takings clause.... the 5th amendment. They spent quite a while on it. Which you would know if you weren't totally ignorant of the proceedings.


...Jesus...
Jesus? What a blow hard. No, it’s NOT on me, cowboy. The thread is not about watching the hearings, it’s about that article. Don’t bloviate about danger, anyone getting legal advice from an Internet forum, particularly when it’s NOT advice, is as questionable in their mental faculties as you are.

I commented on what was posted, I didn’t make an argument to the court.

Give it up, you’re not superior to anyone, particularly me. Give it a rest, find a new hobby, blow hard.

Piss off.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXX

Last edited by Citadelgrad87; 07-31-2018 at 12:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #916  
Old 07-31-2018, 12:31 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,436
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
If you are a practicing attorney, you know damn well that the lay understanding of the decision is irrelevant. Further, you know or should know that it has been illegal to purchase, transport into the state or otherwise acquire a 10+ magazine. Hence, the only thing that the case could even conceivably apply to, at this point in time, is ten round mags that are LEGALLY possessed, i.e., those obtained prior to 1/1/2000. Lat but not least, if you have been following the lawsuit, you already know that the lawsuit attacks a new law that sought to eliminate the grandfathering of old mags and require their removal from the state or destruction. The injunction suspends the effect of the new law, not the old ones, and the injunction effects ONLY mags owned prior to 2000. Which of course you knew already.

Now personally, I really enjoyed reading the judge's decision granting the injunction, but it is meaningless. Once the case goes to trial, it evaporates. The only thing that will be of any importance then is the final judgment, which of course is something no one can know, nor can we with any reasonable accuracy predict what the Ninth will do with it on the inevitable appeal. But we are really jumping the gun to suggest now that maybe somewhere down the road in a few years it MIGHT form the basis for an attack on the 10+ round mag law.
I am a practicing attorney, and nothing anyone posts on Calguns can change that.

Reread my first post. Itís absolutely correct. IF the judge relied upon the second amendment to invalidate or predict invalidation of the new law, it would apply to any more than ten round mag.

Iím not going to read the briefs or the transcripts. I am commenting on a news story that was posted.

If anyoneís nose gets bent from such comments, thatís too bad. I donít think a bunch of comments questioning whether I am ďreallyĒ a lawyer adds much to the discussion.

I didnít charge anybody for my opinion, and I didnít risk anyoneís freedom with it. Itís my take on what was posted. Anyone doesnít like it, good for you.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #917  
Old 07-31-2018, 7:00 PM
zWade's Avatar
zWade zWade is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nor*Cal
Posts: 378
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
I am a practicing attorney, and nothing anyone posts on Calguns can change that.

Reread my first post. It’s absolutely correct. IF the judge relied upon the second amendment to invalidate or predict invalidation of the new law, it would apply to any more than ten round mag.

I’m not going to read the briefs or the transcripts. I am commenting on a news story that was posted.

If anyone’s nose gets bent from such comments, that’s too bad. I don’t think a bunch of comments questioning whether I am “really” a lawyer adds much to the discussion.

I didn’t charge anybody for my opinion, and I didn’t risk anyone’s freedom with it. It’s my take on what was posted. Anyone doesn’t like it, good for you.
They found the judge did not abuse his discretion in applying intermediate scrutiny under the 2nd and finding the gov could not likely carry the burden (obviously it should be strict scrutiny -but that will probably need to come from SCOTUS if they stop ducking this) AND found that the court did not abuse it's discretion in concluding that that the law was a taking w/o compensation. ... which is obvious.

So both 2A and 5A grounds. The ruling is only a couple of pages... so short and sweet.

And obviously the dissent attacked based on the faulty application of intermediate scrutiny.. basically saying the state met the standard AND absurdly argued that its not a taking because we can move out of state with the mags and not surrender them.
__________________
There is something about a Republican that you can only stand him for so long; and on the other hand, there is something about a Democrat that you can't stand him quite that long. ~ Will Rogers

Last edited by zWade; 07-31-2018 at 7:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #918  
Old 08-08-2018, 10:56 AM
TenKen714 TenKen714 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 73
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

For the next court meeting in September, can someone point me in the right direction to obtain more information? Would this be open to the public, if so, where can we find information on how to attend, when, and where?
Reply With Quote
  #919  
Old 08-23-2018, 7:16 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Filed order (J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, N. RANDY SMITH and DEBORAH A. BATTS) A judge of this court has called for a vote to determine whether this case will be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a). Within 21 days of the filed date of this order, the parties shall file simultaneous briefs addressing their respective positions on whether this case should be reheard en banc. Parties who are registered for ECF must file the response electronically without submission of paper copies. Parties who are not registered for ECF must file the original response plus 50 paper copies. [10985453] (OC)
Reply With Quote
  #920  
Old 08-23-2018, 8:22 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,626
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Filed order (J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, N. RANDY SMITH and DEBORAH A. BATTS) A judge of this court has called for a vote to determine whether this case will be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a). Within 21 days of the filed date of this order, the parties shall file simultaneous briefs addressing their respective positions on whether this case should be reheard en banc. Parties who are registered for ECF must file the response electronically without submission of paper copies. Parties who are not registered for ECF must file the original response plus 50 paper copies. [10985453] (OC)
Wow! Judges in the 9th wanting to allow a government taking and creating criminals.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:17 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.