9th Circuit Rules in favor of our Magazines

[Alan Block]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...edium=referral
Every now and then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — arguably the nation’s most progressive federal circuit — can offer up a legal surprise. Yesterday, it gave us a legal shock, when a divided panel of its judges affirmed last year’s federal district-court injunction temporarily blocking enforcement of California’s confiscatory ban on so-called large-capacity magazines.
Finally - some good news!

[nicky c]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=808

Great news but there's already two locked threads on this from the last day.

[Lifter015]

Originally Posted by nicky c

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=808

Great news but there's already two locked threads on this from the last day.

Can someone tell me what this is, I have a disability called stupid.
We already cannot have 10rd+ mags for how many years now?

Are they saying that now even a 10rounder(I call em democrat mags) is too much and we can only have 7rounders like in new York?
Or are they saying they are getting rid of 10rd max and allowing 10+ 30/60/drum mags now?

[ACfixer]

^^^ Yes, I'd like to know what this means as well. Does this mean we can carry standard cap mags until (and if) if goes to the SCOTUS?

[timdps]

It means that you can use standard capacity mags that you owned in CA before 2000.

T

[ACfixer]

Yeah, that's what I am gathering... BFD eh?

[dwinters14]

It's sad what we tout as "victories". Simply being allowed to keep your 18 year old property is considered a win.

I wish we actually had something to celebrate.

[chris]

Originally Posted by dwinters14

It's sad what we tout as "victories". Simply being allowed to keep our property is considered a win.

I wish we actually had something to celebrate.

FIFY.
Prop 63 banned possession no matter when it was acquired.

[Lifter015]

Originally Posted by dwinters14

It's sad what we tout as "victories". Simply being allowed to keep your 18 year old property is considered a win.

I wish we actually had something to celebrate.

I do not have a receipt with date of purchase...

I do not have CCW but for those that do or carry anyway to protect their family, they can not be charged a felony with stupid high cap law should they be forced to use pistol...?

[robertkjjj]

Originally Posted by Lifter015

I do not have a receipt with date of purchase...

I do not have CCW but for those that do or carry anyway to protect their family, they can not be charged a felony with stupid high cap law should they be forced to use pistol...?

What's that you say? No receipt for your magazines???
Well, I guess you'll just have to throw them all in the trash, just like I did!

[Chapped Hide]

Does this change anything for out of state residents traveling to CA?

[tenemae]

This thread should be heavily altered or deleted. To say "9th Circuit Rules in favor of our Magazines" implies standard cap is legal in CA (as evidenced by how many questions are being asked about it).

Only grandfathered 10+ rnd mags (posessed before 2000) are legal in Ca. You still may not import/buy/give/sell standard caps.

This means the status of standard cap mags is the same as it was in 2016. Nothing has changed yet.

[Richbutnotwealthy]

Originally Posted by Lifter015

Can someone tell me what this is, I have a disability called stupid.
We already cannot have 10rd+ mags for how many years now?

Are they saying that now even a 10rounder(I call em democrat mags) is too much and we can only have 7rounders like in new York?
Or are they saying they are getting rid of 10rd max and allowing 10+ 30/60/drum mags now?

JTFC. in 1999 the legislature banned the importation or sale of any mags greater than 10rds, effective Jan1 2000. Magazines already possessed which had greater capacity were grandfathered.
2016, in the wake of the Jihadist shootings in San Bernardino weeks prior, our crap Dem-Socialist supermajority legislature criminalized a bunch of stuff, including any mags with >10rd capacity. Made it a misdemeanor offense to have them, effective July 1 2017.
Lawsuits were filed. Sand Diego Circuit court granted an injunction against the criminalization right before it took effect. Those of us who had such magazines lawfully before Jan 1 2000 have been criminals-in-waiting for the last full year while CA appealed the judgement to the 9th Circus. Expecting that body to overturn the lower court. Instead we get this nice surprise. Yay, I'm not a crook today.

[jwkincal]

Originally Posted by Richbutnotwealthy

2016, in the wake of the Jihadist shootings in San Bernardino weeks prior, our crap Dem-Socialist supermajority legislature criminalized a bunch of stuff, including any mags with >10rd capacity. Made it a misdemeanor offense to have them, effective July 1 2017.

Incorrect, it was your friends and neighbors who voted for Proposition 93 which made previously-grandfathered magazines illegal to possess. The Legislature did have a couple of bills with that language in front of them but never passed them. The legislature probably figured it'd be too hard to defend, so Grabbin' Gavin took it to the electorate, and the sheep did just what you'd expect.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by tenemae

This thread should be heavily altered or deleted. To say "9th Circuit Rules in favor of our Magazines" implies standard cap is legal in CA (as evidenced by how many questions are being asked about it).

Only grandfathered 10+ rnd mags (posessed before 2000) are legal in Ca. You still may not import/buy/give/sell standard caps.

This means the status of standard cap mags is the same as it was in 2016. Nothing has changed yet.

As I posted in another thread...

If anyone is interested, here's the panel's actual decision...

Duncan v. Becerra

You will note that it has NOTHING to do with the 9th's take on the merits of the ban. The appeal was over whether the lower court had abused its discretion in granting the injunction.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Second Amendment grounds...

The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment...

The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the incorrect level of scrutiny...

The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that sections 32310(c) and (d) did not survive intermediate scrutiny...

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Takings Clause grounds...

[colossians323]

Originally Posted by Not so Chapped Hide

Does this change anything for out of state residents traveling to CA?

NO! you would still be importing if you are not an FFL with a "reg capacity" permit

[chris]

Originally Posted by Richbutnotwealthy

JTFC. in 1999 the legislature banned the importation or sale of any mags greater than 10rds, effective Jan1 2000. Magazines already possessed which had greater capacity were grandfathered.

2016, in the wake of the Jihadist shootings in San Bernardino weeks prior, our crap Dem-Socialist supermajority legislature criminalized a bunch of stuff, including any mags with >10rd capacity. Made it a misdemeanor offense to have them, effective July 1 2017.
Lawsuits were filed. Sand Diego Circuit court granted an injunction against the criminalization right before it took effect. Those of us who had such magazines lawfully before Jan 1 2000 have been criminals-in-waiting for the last full year while CA appealed the judgement to the 9th Circus. Expecting that body to overturn the lower court. Instead we get this nice surprise. Yay, I'm not a crook today.

Originally Posted by jwkincal

Incorrect, it was your friends and neighbors who voted for Proposition 9363 which made previously-grandfathered magazines illegal to possess. The Legislature did have a couple of bills with that language in front of them but never passed them. The legislature probably figured it'd be too hard to defend, so Grabbin' Gavin took it to the electorate, and the sheep did just what you'd expect.

FIFY.

He's correct the legislation and the Proposition were a cause and effect. The cause the Jihadis attacked us and the effect is legislation and a Proposition.

You are correct here.

it was your friends and neighbors who voted for Proposition 9363 which made previously-grandfathered magazines illegal to possess.

gun owners on this very board voted for it as well/.

[isntzen]

Originally Posted by chris

FIFY.

He's correct the legislation and the Proposition were a cause and effect. The cause the Jihadis attacked us and the effect is legislation and a Proposition.

gun owners on this very board voted for it as well/.

WTH, what could possibly be the reasoning behind this?

[big red]

Could someone who really knows something and can cite sources clear something up for me. Is the date you acquired your more then ten round mags the determining point on which this ruling determines whether it is a legal mag or not? In 12/1989 I believe when they started this garbage they asked how many mags a person had on the form and friends of mine listed 20-30 on the form so as to not encourage a visit to really establish you had them and to make sure you had every one of them by the 12/1989 deadline. It was rifle make and number of mags. If this is true then it would be a nightmare for DOJ to even try to enforce this ruling if the 9th went the other way wouldn't it. Or am I all mixed up on the issue?

[mooseboy84]

The appeals court held up the injunction of implementing the law. What that means is the court has not thrown out the law or made a determination on it, simply, it upheld the law going into effect (having to surrender the hicap mags). SO as of now you can still maintain your properly/legally acquired hi cap magazines UNTIL they actually rule on the case, which could potentially take years.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by big red

Is the date you acquired your more then ten round mags the determining point on which this ruling determines whether it is a legal mag or not?

There's not really been a ruling yet. The judges merely upheld an injunction preventing the DoJ from taking action on the mag ban specifically when it comes to grandfathered mags.

To have a legally grandfathered mag, it must have been possessed prior to Jan 1, 2000. So, yes, date of acquisition is the key criteria for determining if your standard cap mag is grandfathered, thus legal for you to possess today.

Originally Posted by big red

In 12/1989 I believe when they started this garbage they asked how many mags a person had on the form and friends of mine listed 20-30 on the form so as to not encourage a visit to really establish you had them and to make sure you had every one of them by the 12/1989 deadline. It was rifle make and number of mags. If this is true then it would be a nightmare for DOJ to even try to enforce this ruling if the 9th went the other way wouldn't it. Or am I all mixed up on the issue?

Did you mean 12/1999? I'm not familiar with what the 1989 date references.
The DoJ has consistently whinged about the difficulty of establishing legal status of mags specifically considering that the mags have no individually identifiable characteristic (such as a serial number). This point was even brought up in the case proceedings as an argument of why the state needed to compel a dispossession. For mags manufactured before the ban date, it would be nearly impossible for them to determine if they were in the state before the cutoff date and thus determine the mags legal status (new models designed post 2000 would be obvious as a counter example)

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by big red

Could someone who really knows something and can cite sources clear something up for me. Is the date you acquired your more then ten round mags the determining point on which this ruling determines whether it is a legal mag or not? In 12/1989 I believe when they started this garbage they asked how many mags a person had on the form and friends of mine listed 20-30 on the form so as to not encourage a visit to really establish you had them and to make sure you had every one of them by the 12/1989 deadline. It was rifle make and number of mags. If this is true then it would be a nightmare for DOJ to even try to enforce this ruling if the 9th went the other way wouldn't it. Or am I all mixed up on the issue?

You might also consult this thread, including the links provided by Librarian...

Magazines: all the answers you need

For now, the 'answers' provided should still apply (though the latest update appears to be 8/29/17) in that the injunction is in place and, given the panel's decision, should remain so, for now.

[robertkjjj]

Originally Posted by tenemae

There's not really been a ruling yet. The judges merely upheld an injunction preventing the DoJ from taking action on the mag ban specifically when it comes to grandfathered mags.

To have a legally grandfathered mag, it must have been possessed prior to Jan 1, 2000. So, yes, date of acquisition is the key criteria for determining if your standard cap mag is grandfathered, thus legal for you to possess today.


Did you mean 12/1999? I'm not familiar with what the 1989 date references.
The DoJ has consistently whinged about the difficulty of establishing legal status of mags specifically considering that the mags have no individually identifiable characteristic (such as a serial number). This point was even brought up in the case proceedings as an argument of why the state needed to compel a dispossession. For mags manufactured before the ban date, it would be nearly impossible for them to determine if they were in the state before the cutoff date and thus determine the mags legal status (new models designed post 2000 would be obvious as a counter example)

............................
To have a legally grandfathered mag, it must have been possessed prior to Jan 1, 2000.

Question: I have dozens of magazines, been acquiring them off and on since 1992 or so. And they're all mixed together in a big box. Soooooo, how do I separate them into 2 piles, Pre-2000 and Post-2000? How do I know which is which?

[Califpatriot]

Originally Posted by tenemae

To have a legally grandfathered mag, it must have been possessed prior to Jan 1, 2000. So, yes, date of acquisition is the key criteria for determining if your standard cap mag is grandfathered, thus legal for you to possess today.

As far as I can tell, it's a complete injunction on the possession ban. I don't see a limitation to the injunction to legally acquired magazines. See below.

Point is, unless you incriminate yourself that you illegally obtained the mag within the statute of limitations, there's no practical way for the state to convict you of either possession (if the injunction holds) or with illegal acquisition of a standard cap mag.

They'll just confiscate it and move on.

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.

Note that the lawfully acquired portion is "or" not "and"

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by robertkjjj

Soooooo, how do I separate them into 2 piles, Pre-2000 and Post-2000? How do I know which is which?

I'm sure you're mistaken and they're all pre-2000 because if they weren't, you would have committed a crime (the statute of limitations of which is reportedly three years, as an interesting, unrelated trivia factoid).

But if you want to be absolutely certain, sift through your pile. Some newer designs are fairly obviously not kosher (most PMags if I recall correctly). Also, if I recall correctly, newer mags have the manufacture date printed on them. I checked this with a ca-legal 10-round pinned PMag 10/30 and it has a little circle stamped in it with the manufacture date.

I believe in this case it's a May 2013 manufacture. Now, you want to be careful throwing these around and mixing them up in your box since plastic is prone to scratching.

[tonyxcom]

We were able to repair them. So some parts may be of newer manufacture.

[big red]

if I have the 12/31/1989 cut off date for high cap mags wrong I apologize but then it was when i bought a CETME 308 rebuild and a bunch of high caps with it a few months before 12/31/1989 and when i filled out the form I put down the rifle and the number of mags I was receiving. All the mags had dates pre 12/31/1989 on them. i was under the impression i could not buy any more after 1/1/1990. if it was actually 2000 that the ban went into effect i apologize. It did not matter to me since i had more than i could use anyway.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by Califpatriot

As far as I can tell, it's a complete injunction on the possession ban. I don't see a limitation to the injunction to legally acquired magazines. See below.

Note that the lawfully acquired portion is "or" not "and"

Section (a) is still in full force

(a) any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

I.e, if the mag was not in your possession prior to 2000, you must have acquired it through illegal means [EDIT: not true. See posts below]. Now I'm going to make an assumption here which could be incorrect, but here goes: if the state determines you possess property which was acquired illegally, the state has the discretion to confiscate said property. I.e, you may not keep the proceeds of a crime. Importing/manufacturing/receiving a high cap mag after 2000 is a crime and therefore the mag acquired this way will be confiscated.

What the PI addresses is preventing dispossession of lawfully possessed (i.e, lawfully acquired, i.e grandfathered) mags which is otherwise mandated by sections (c) and (d)

[fawndog]

Originally Posted by Librarian

8. You can have "large-capacity magazines"; no one may give them or sell them to you in California, and you may not give or sell them to anyone else in California; the law changed to be more specific in 2014: you may not buy or receive them. This includes sales from LEO and intrafamilial transfers - that can be charged as a felony. (See also the law change noted above, effective July 1, 2017)

If you find them in a garbage bin you're good.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by fawndog

If you find them in a garbage bin you're good.

I could have sworn that was the case, but I couldn't find the text change in the PC, so I didn't repeat it. I'll take Librarian's word for it (since it matches my memory from pre-2014), but I'd be more comfortable finding the legislation that specifically changed the wording

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by fawndog

If you find them in a garbage bin you're good.

Found the 2012 version of 32310.

contrast with the 2014 version which was amended to include "receives"

Footnote on 2014: (Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 728, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2014.)

So, indeed, if you were lucky enough to find a high cap mag in the trash at the range or lost by someone in the desert prior to 2014, it appears that is a legally possessed mag. Which makes it completely impossible for CA DoJ to determine which were legally acquired and which were illegally acquired.

Edit: Uhhhh.... am I tired and blind or did it not prohibit actually buying them...

[Califpatriot]

Originally Posted by tenemae

Section (a) is still in full force


I.e, if the mag was not in your possession prior to 2000, you must have acquired it through illegal means. Now I'm going to make an assumption here which could be incorrect, but here goes: if the state determines you possess property which was acquired illegally, the state has the discretion to confiscate said property. I.e, you may not keep the proceeds of a crime. Importing/manufacturing/receiving a high cap mag after 2000 is a crime and therefore the mag acquired this way will be confiscated.

What the PI addresses is preventing dispossession of lawfully possessed (i.e, lawfully acquired, i.e grandfathered) mags which is otherwise mandated by sections (c) and (d)

You're largely right in that the state can confiscate standard-cap mags as a nuisance, as a practical matter at least, and you have no real recourse.

My point is that the risk of criminal liability for standard-cap mags illegally acquired post-2000 is reletively low so long as the injunction holds because:
1) you cannot be prosecuted for possession, period, under the terms of the injunction, as I quoted.
2) you can be prosecuted for illegal acquisition--i.e. subsection (a)--with the evidence being that you are in possession of a standard capacity magazine that you could not have legally acquired (for example, you were not born in 1999, or the magazine that you have was not in production in 1999).

However, for two to occur, the state must prove not just that, but it must also prove (caveat, by a preponderance of the evidence--likelier than not--reasonable doubt is not the standard for this) that you acquired it illegally within the three year statute of limitations. See CALCRIM 3410; see also, People v. Crosby (1962) 58 Cal.2d 713, 725.

[Califpatriot]

Originally Posted by tenemae

Edit: Uhhhh.... am I tired and blind or did it not prohibit actually buying them...

No, that's correct. Purchasing a standard-cap magazine was legal (as the consumer) through Dec. 31, 2013.

[UberPatriot]

Originally Posted by timdps

It means that you can use standard capacity mags that you owned in CA before 2000.

T

Nice! I can break out my 30 round mini14 mags!

[AnthonyD1978]

Originally Posted by timdps

It means that you can use standard capacity mags that you owned in CA before 2000.

T

Originally Posted by UberPatriot

Nice! I can break out my 30 round mini14 mags!

As long as they are used with a properly configured rifle (featureless, etc).

[timdps]

Originally Posted by AnthonyD1978

As long as they are used with a properly configured rifle (featureless, etc).

So what exactly is a properly configured rifle (or pistol for that matter)? Obviously they would be legal in a featureless rifle. Before this AW registration, putting a 11+ round mag in a bullet button fire arm turned it into an AW.

Now (or at least soon...), any bullet button equipped firearm is likely to be an RAW, is it still not legal to use a large cap mag in one? Would it make the firearm a double AW? Have not chased this question down, but I'm kind of wondering if there are still ANY firearms that it is not legal to use a legally owned high cap magazine in? Would a fixed magazine firearm be limited to 10 round mags?

Dons fire suit...

T

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by timdps

I'm kind of wondering if there are still ANY firearms that it is not legal to use a legally owned high cap magazine in? Would a fixed magazine firearm be limited to 10 round mags?

Correct. If you have a mag lock (DFM, patriot, etc) on the rifle that requires "disassembly of the action" to remove the mag, inserting an 11+rnd mag into said rifle constitutes assembly of an AW