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
  #641  
Old 12-01-2017, 4:17 PM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,192
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Have any new sb 1446 regs been posted or finalized since the last ones were withdrawn?

I'd like to know if the state has established final language on 10/30 construction. Ive searched but found nothing.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 12-05-2017, 8:34 PM
Rami22's Avatar
Rami22 Rami22 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 235
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Been reading up on these threads. So it looks like we are still “safe” with LCM for now. I saw a post form earlier and it caught my attention. So would a LCM with something like a Taran mag plate be considered somewhat safe to use?
Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 12-05-2017, 8:51 PM
AR15fan's Avatar
AR15fan AR15fan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 219
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rami22 View Post
Been reading up on these threads. So it looks like we are still “safe” with LCM for now. I saw a post form earlier and it caught my attention. So would a LCM with something like a Taran mag plate be considered somewhat safe to use?
Assuming you legally possessed the hi-cap magazine prior to 2000, you can use, and do whatever you want to them. Right now.
Reply With Quote
  #644  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:47 PM
Rami22's Avatar
Rami22 Rami22 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 235
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AR15fan View Post
Assuming you legally possessed the hi-cap magazine prior to 2000, you can use, and do whatever you want to them. Right now.
Got it, thanks for clearing that up. I was just unsure if the addition of a mag plate would change everything up.
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 12-07-2017, 8:22 AM
Mesa Defense's Avatar
Mesa Defense Mesa Defense is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chasing Bears
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

“I'd like to know if the state has established final language on 10/30 construction. Ive searched but found nothing”

+1...
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 12-28-2017, 4:38 PM
GW's Avatar
GW GW is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Evergreen State
Posts: 15,082
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Any new developments?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #647  
Old 12-28-2017, 5:13 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,572
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW View Post
Any new developments?
stuff like this moves like pond water. If the AG is going to challenge it and our AG is as anti gun and the rest of them. He's gonna have to have his ducks in a row. If he loses it's game over for the ban if I'm correct here?

If he wins a very bad precedent will be set in this state for further legalized taking.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 12-29-2017, 10:18 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 257
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
stuff like this moves like pond water. If the AG is going to challenge it and our AG is as anti gun and the rest of them. He's gonna have to have his ducks in a row. If he loses it's game over for the ban if I'm correct here?

If he wins a very bad precedent will be set in this state for further legalized taking.
I'm not sure it is game over if they lose at the 9th. As I understand it, they are only appealing the injunction issued by the district court, not the validity of the actual law. My assumption with all CA anti-gun laws is that there is an implicit guarantee by the 9th Circuit that they will allow them to stand by any means necessary. Even if you beat the antis at a 3 judge panel at the 9th, they will take the case en banc and overrule the 3 judge panel to make sure the anti-gun law is declared constitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 12-30-2017, 5:52 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,572
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
I'm not sure it is game over if they lose at the 9th. As I understand it, they are only appealing the injunction issued by the district court, not the validity of the actual law. My assumption with all CA anti-gun laws is that there is an implicit guarantee by the 9th Circuit that they will allow them to stand by any means necessary. Even if you beat the antis at a 3 judge panel at the 9th, they will take the case en banc and overrule the 3 judge panel to make sure the anti-gun law is declared constitutional.
of course he's appealing the injunction that way the law will be in force and we will be once again be forced to surrender or destroy our property. If the injunction is removed IMO it will set a very bad precedent for the state to "take" other property they deem undesirable in the state to posses. Let your imagination go with that one.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 01-02-2018, 10:22 PM
Erion929's Avatar
Erion929 Erion929 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: So. Orange County, CA.
Posts: 3,669
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

What do the pre-ban standard cap mags look like?

How are they recognized as "pre-2000"....were they manufacturer date-stamped back then? Were they all metal? Or just like a typical present-day Magpul-with-a-block-inside?

Pardon the ignorance....didn't get into ARs til after that.


-
__________________
Join Active Junky for online rebates....$10 to both you and me!

https://www.activejunky.com/invite/238017
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 01-02-2018, 11:16 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,676
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post
What do the pre-ban standard cap mags look like?

How are they recognized as "pre-2000"....were they manufacturer date-stamped back then? Were they all metal? Or just like a typical present-day Magpul-with-a-block-inside?

Pardon the ignorance....didn't get into ARs til after that.


-
In most cases, pre-2000 mags are indistinguishable from post-2000 mags, except where new mags were designed and manufactured for post-2000 guns.

And, for mags in CA post-2000, it was legal to repair those mags with post-2000 parts, even if marked with a post-2000 date or code - so it's possible a pre-2000 mag might have the appearance of a post-2000 mag of the same type.

If the mag ban itself is upheld, such distinctions will be moot.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 01-07-2018, 7:06 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...pellees_55.pdf

answering brief filed
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 01-07-2018, 12:21 PM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 280
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

An interesting read. I appreciate a legal document that is well ordered, cogent and has a "written voice" that is reasonably understandable by the general citizenry and hopefully the Court.

Best wishes for success both in the short and long run on this suit!
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 01-08-2018, 1:47 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This case seeks to overturn both the confiscation, and the underlying ban on acquiring, right? I like how the brief is written and let's hope for success!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 01-08-2018, 3:04 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,096
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
This case seeks to overturn both the confiscation, and the underlying ban on acquiring, right? I like how the brief is written and let's hope for success!
Here's what the original complaint says:

Quote:
Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that California Penal Code section 32310 is unconstitutional on its face or, alternatively, to the extent its prohibitions apply to law-abiding adults seeking to acquire, use, or possess firearm magazines that are in common use by the American public for lawful purposes, because such unlawfully infringes on the right of the People to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, unconstitutionally takes property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause, and arbitrarily deprives Plaintiffs of protected property interests under the Due Process Clause.
2. Issue an injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, and employees from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310 in its entirety, or, alternatively, to the extent such can be segregated from the rest of the statute, any provision of section 32310 that prohibits the acquiring, using, or possessing of firearm magazines that are in common use by the American public for lawful purposes;
3. Award remedies available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or any other applicable law; and
4. Grant any such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Note that, while the complaint prayed for relief in the form of an injunction against the laws prohibiting BOTH possession AND acquisition, the injunction that we got didn't cover both. However, the final judgment might.

Here was the (relevant portion of the) injunction text:

Quote:
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.

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 01-08-2018 at 3:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 01-08-2018, 3:44 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Note that, while the complaint prayed for relief in the form of an injunction against the laws prohibiting BOTH possession AND acquisition, the injunction that we got didn't cover both.
Right, makes sense. The law to dispose of them causing more immediate harm to the owners than the part of the law that blocks acquiring them causes to would-be owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
However, the final judgment might.
Cool! but I'm pretty sure that we need one more Trump appointed justice on SCOTUS to have a serious hope of winning that.

If I'm reading the page right there are 5 current vacancies in the 9th court of appeals. If Trump would get those filled quickly that might also help us quite a lot here in California.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 01-08-2018, 4:49 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,096
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Right, makes sense. The law to dispose of them causing more immediate harm to the owners than the part of the law that blocks acquiring them causes to would-be owners.



Cool! but I'm pretty sure that we need one more Trump appointed justice on SCOTUS to have a serious hope of winning that.

If I'm reading the page right there are 5 current vacancies in the 9th court of appeals. If Trump would get those filled quickly that might also help us quite a lot here in California.
I'm getting way too far ahead of myself here, but there's always the tiny chance that we win a 3-judge panel in the 9th, and the case doesn't get en banc, nor heard by scotus - which would also be a win. We *almost* had that happen with peruta, except that one actually did get en banc, but historically only about 5% of circuit courts of appeals cases get heard en banc.

But, let's not dive too far down that rabbit hole just yet, we haven't even finished in the lower courts yet
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 01-08-2018, 7:05 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 863
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Note that, while the complaint prayed for relief in the form of an injunction against the laws prohibiting BOTH possession AND acquisition, the injunction that we got didn't cover both. However, the final judgment might.
I think the reason the injunction only applied to the ban on grand-fathered possession was because rolling back the grand-fathered possession would cause irreparable harm. Especially given the perceived high likelihood of success at trial.
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 01-08-2018, 7:06 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 863
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
But, let's not dive too far down that rabbit hole just yet, we haven't even finished in the lower courts yet
However, the DC felt that the likelihood of success at trial was high enough to justify granting the injunction....
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 01-08-2018, 10:36 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,096
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
However, the DC felt that the likelihood of success at trial was high enough to justify granting the injunction....
True, but there's always a bit of unpredictable "luck of the draw" involved with these things, nobody gets to handpick the presiding appeals judges. But one of these days it seems like, just purely based on the laws of probability, that we'd score all the right judges at all the right times and get a win - I'm hopeful that this will be one of those times.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #661  
Old 01-16-2018, 1:00 PM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,183
iTrader: 74 / 99%
Default

Good News:

Quote:
Eighteen States, Law Enforcement, Doctors, and Firearm Rights Groups File Amicus Briefs in Lawsuit Challenging California 10+ Magazine Ban


On Friday, January 12, several amicus briefs were filed in support of the NRA and CRPA supported lawsuit challenging California’s restrictions against magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The lawsuit, titled Duncan v. Becerra, challenges California’s recently enacted ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds as a result of Proposition 63, as well as all of California’s other restrictions on such magazines. The lawsuit challenges the restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment, Due Process clause, and Takings clause of the United States Constitution.

Less than three days before California’s ban on the mere possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds was scheduled to take effect, San Diego Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez issued an order granting NRA and CRPA attorney’s request for an injunction while the lawsuit is pending. As a result, California gun owners who currently possess such magazines may continue to do so without fear of prosecution while the constitutionality of the law is decided in the courts. Unsurprisingly, the California Department of Justice has appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit.

In support of the plaintiffs, 18 States, including Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, filed an amicus brief illustrating how the Second Amendment protects magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and how California’s restrictions constitute a “taking” which requires just compensation to affected owners.

Several Law Enforcement and State and Local Firearm Rights groups also filed an amicus brief highlighting how California’s restrictions will not reduce violent crime, but instead will increase the danger to victims. The brief also states how magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are not disproportionately used in attacks on law enforcement, and that California has failed to show that its restrictions will reduce mass shootings and injuries. The listed groups participating as an amicus include:


California State Sheriffs Association
Western States Sheriffs Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association
California Gang Investigators Association
International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association
Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund
Law Enforcement Action Network
Law Enforcement Alliance of America
International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs
Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club
Connecticut Citizens Defense League
Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association
Gun Owners Action League Massachusetts
Gun Owners of California
Hawaii Rifle Association
Illinois State Rifle Association
Missourians for Personal Safety
New York State Rile & Pistol Association
Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs
Vermont State Rifle & Pistol Association
Virginia Shooting Sports Association
Western Missouri Shooters Alliance


Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, the Independence Institute, Millennial Policy Center, and the National Rifle Association Freedom Action Foundation also filed amicus briefs, each detailing how magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are in common use and therefore protected under the Second Amendment.

To stay up to date on the Duncan lawsuit, as well as other important Second Amendment issues here in California and across the nation, make sure to subscribe to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And be sure to visit the NRA-ILA website at www.StandAndFightCalifornia.com and the CRPA’s website at www.CRPA.org.
__________________
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." - Ayn Rand.

Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight
Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 01-16-2018, 2:50 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,886
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
True, but there's always a bit of unpredictable "luck of the draw" involved with these things, nobody gets to handpick the presiding appeals judges. But one of these days it seems like, just purely based on the laws of probability, that we'd score all the right judges at all the right times and get a win - I'm hopeful that this will be one of those times.
Already happened in Peruta, and we all know how that turned out. I know we should be optimistic but it gets harder with each "en banc" and "SCOTUS refuses to hear" case that gets tossed on the garbage heap of what's left of the 2A.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 01-16-2018, 6:30 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,859
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I particularly liked the sentence in the Amici brief of the 18 AGs where is says: "To the extent the Ninth Circuit has previously applied alternative tests foreclosed by Heller, this is an opportunity to hew to the proper standard for Second Amendment cases."
Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 01-16-2018, 8:51 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 856
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

So the 9th circuit appeal is getting all briefed up... but when does the 3 judge panel get selected?
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 01-17-2018, 5:10 PM
RandyD's Avatar
RandyD RandyD is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: La Jolla, California
Posts: 5,472
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1968LS2 View Post
Good News:
I am interested in reading these briefs. I have looked but have not found any links where these briefs are in pdf form. Does anyone have any leads on where to find them?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 01-17-2018, 5:23 PM
Maltese Falcon's Avatar
Maltese Falcon Maltese Falcon is offline
Ordo Militaris Templi
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 5,964
iTrader: 75 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyD View Post
I am interested in reading these briefs. I have looked but have not found any links where these briefs are in pdf form. Does anyone have any leads on where to find them?
There are a couple here:

https://www.crpa.org/litigation/eigh...-magazine-ban/

Edit: It looks like those two cover everyone.

.
__________________
The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. Charles-Louis de Secondat (1689-1755) Baron de Montesquieu


In America, freedom and justice have always come from the ballot box, the jury box, and when that fails, the cartridge box.
Steve Symms, ex-U.S. Senator, Idaho

Reply With Quote
  #667  
Old 02-09-2018, 10:48 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,060
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

reply brief filed linked here

https://www.scribd.com/document/3711...an-Reply-Brief

also I saw this on pacer

This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco

Please review the San Francisco sitting dates for May 2018 and the two subsequent sitting months in that location at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on any of the dates, please inform the court within 3 days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: regarding availability for oral argument).

When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date.

If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a letter within 3 days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: request for mediation).[10744552] (AW) [Entered: 01/30/2018 02:23 PM]

Last edited by wolfwood; 02-09-2018 at 10:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #668  
Old 02-09-2018, 2:23 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,886
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Right from the start the state (doing what demacrats do best) uses the term "intermediate scrutiny" where they are actually referring to "rational basis". This tactic of redefining a term by using it over and over again in the improper context is tiring. When will the judiciary stop being accomplice to the watering down of the constitution? (yea, that's a rhetorical question)
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #669  
Old 02-09-2018, 2:46 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 336
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Right from the start the state (doing what demacrats do best) uses the term "intermediate scrutiny" where they are actually referring to "rational basis". This tactic of redefining a term by using it over and over again in the improper context is tiring. When will the judiciary stop being accomplice to the watering down of the constitution? (yea, that's a rhetorical question)
Can improperly using the language and using the wrong standard open them up to challenge?
Reply With Quote
  #670  
Old 02-10-2018, 10:25 AM
RazoE's Avatar
RazoE RazoE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 236
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ban upheld?

https://wp.me/p1Le03-Ck1
Reply With Quote
  #671  
Old 02-10-2018, 10:37 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,096
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoE View Post
That was another parallel case filed by CGF. It was doomed from the beginning, and now this Duncan case faces an uphill battle as a result. Another example of too many cooks in the kitchen. Frustrating that CGF couldn't communicate with CRPA before filing this losing case and hurting our cause. Anyways, Duncan is (for now) still alive and the injunction is still in effect.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 03-05-2018, 12:40 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I apologize for having to ask something that has likely been covered somewhere already, but I have a question regarding one of the DOJ's arguments:

Quote:
as the Fourth Circuit recently
determined, “whatever their other potential uses,” because LCMs are
designed to “kill or disable the enemy,” they are “clearly most useful in
military service” and thus are not within the right secured by the Second
Amendment. See Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 137.
I see where the Fourth indeed so held in Kolbe, but it seems to me that is far from what SCOTUS held in District of Columbia v. Heller regarding the correct interpretation of Miller. The way I read it, Heller is saying that Miller said that for a firearm to be protected by the 2A its possession or use had to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia. However, in Kolbe the Fourth twisted those words in Heller to mean that weapons most useful in war are not protected. I missed how they got there and it seems to me that if a weapon must be related to preservation of a well regulated militia then what could be more so related than a large capacity magazine as compared to a 10 rounder?

Do I have the above right or what am I missing? TIA.
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 03-05-2018, 8:07 AM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 396
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Going off memory of what I recall I from the Kolbe decision, but they introduced an entirely new and never before seen standard, the “weapons of war” criteria. Blatantly ignoring the standard set forth in Heller.

They noted Scalia’s mention of M16’s ‘and the like’ could be subject to reasonable regulations ran with with it.

The only explanation I can give for scotus not reviewing Kolbe is that the conservatives on the court don’t have the numbers to overturn it.
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 03-05-2018, 12:14 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Going off memory of what I recall I from the Kolbe decision, but they introduced an entirely new and never before seen standard, the “weapons of war” criteria. Blatantly ignoring the standard set forth in Heller.

They noted Scalia’s mention of M16’s ‘and the like’ could be subject to reasonable regulations ran with with it.

The only explanation I can give for scotus not reviewing Kolbe is that the conservatives on the court don’t have the numbers to overturn it.
Thanks. That is what I gathered from my read of Kolbe and Heller. The liberals on the Ninth and the Fourth will twist any and everything to reach the results they want as long as they know that SCOTUS isn't taking any 2A cases.
Reply With Quote
  #675  
Old 03-09-2018, 7:19 PM
Anonreg_89323423's Avatar
Anonreg_89323423 Anonreg_89323423 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Southern California
Posts: 166
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm not surprised people are still talking about this. It all falls in a grey area and the idea was to make it confusing and scare people. Enforcement is a non-issue because of the judge thing, you can have any magazines and burden of proof falls on them. Can you import/export something? Legally no and I'm not saying you should because you are responsible for what you do, but it doesnt fall under anybody's jurisdiction because california doesn't regulate interstate commerce and whoever you bought something from would have no enforcement due to state-line jurisdictions. Cant prosecute somebody under california law who lives on the other side of the country. Magazines pass through the mail all the time, postal employees can't just x-ray and rip open packages without a warrant, and those are not easy to get. There isn't a difference between a 10 and 17 round magazine on an xray, so good luck with all that.

Again, this was all created to waste your time and give you something to be afraid of. The penalties are a joke anyway, a $200 fine for possession. Unless it's a felony, and again good luck convincing a jury of that.
Reply With Quote
  #676  
Old 03-09-2018, 7:37 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 336
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The question I have is it legal to load more then rounds in to any legal magazine?

Suppose you buy a 10rd .458 socom magazine. That is legal under the law. Now without modification you load it with 11 5.56 rounds. Are you still legal?

The point is is any magazine legal such that it marketed and sold to hold no more then 10rds of a specific cartridge?

Here is another specific example. If you have a shotgun the holds ten 3 inch shells but load it with aguila mini shells above the ten limit are you still legal?

I don't read anything in the law about use or loading of the magazine. Rather they seem to assume if the 10 is some immutable limit of the magazine and there are no other factors in play.
Reply With Quote
  #677  
Old 03-17-2018, 10:42 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,990
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
The question I have is it legal to load more then rounds in to any legal magazine?

Suppose you buy a 10rd .458 socom magazine. That is legal under the law. Now without modification you load it with 11 5.56 rounds. Are you still legal?

The point is is any magazine legal such that it marketed and sold to hold no more then 10rds of a specific cartridge?

Here is another specific example. If you have a shotgun the holds ten 3 inch shells but load it with aguila mini shells above the ten limit are you still legal?

I don't read anything in the law about use or loading of the magazine. Rather they seem to assume if the 10 is some immutable limit of the magazine and there are no other factors in play.
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1216067
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=896731
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...d.php?t=383426
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #678  
Old 03-23-2018, 4:55 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 336
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

All these examples assume the laws are reasonable and are trying to comply with the intent. But that way leads to madness as one could argue the overall intent is to harass gun owners until they are former owners. So we need not bother ourselves with intent. Bullet buttons were not born from trying to follow the intent of the law. Yet until recently were legal.

Just as a muzzle break is not a flash hider as how it is labeled we must assume a 10rd magazine is 10rds depending on how it is sold.
I still can't find the law the law it regulation based on how the magazine is used. It only takes about manufacturer, selling, buying, gifting or trading. The socom magazine loaded with 5.56 if is the extreme case. What about other hand gun rounds where a slightly smaller cartridge could be loaded holding and extra round? If it isn't trading hands all they have is manufacturer but if you don't replace or change a part how can that be manufacturer? Simply use, loading can't be manufacture. If it were then use of any gun or other product would be manufacture and everyone using that product would be subject to the regulations of manufacturers of that product. By that logic anytime you use any product in California you would be required to place a prop65 warning on it.

I would suggest the people that want to live on the edge where in the past they would just use their old grandfathered magazines and a rebuild kit will now be the people to avoid the magazine limits with cartridge size mismatch. So much that I wouldn't be surprised if we see wildcat cartridges invented knowing there would be a market for their magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #679  
Old 03-23-2018, 5:40 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
The question I have is it legal to load more then rounds in to any legal magazine?

Suppose you buy a 10rd .458 socom magazine. That is legal under the law. Now without modification you load it with 11 5.56 rounds. Are you still legal?

The point is is any magazine legal such that it marketed and sold to hold no more then 10rds of a specific cartridge?

Here is another specific example. If you have a shotgun the holds ten 3 inch shells but load it with aguila mini shells above the ten limit are you still legal?

I don't read anything in the law about use or loading of the magazine. Rather they seem to assume if the 10 is some immutable limit of the magazine and there are no other factors in play.
If it helps you somewhere I read that magazine capacity is determined by the rounds for which the firearm was manufactured. For example, while you can fit over ten mini shells into the tubular magazine of a shotgun chambered for 3" shotshells, it is still legal since it will hold no more than 10 3 inchers. While you can fit more than ten mm rounds into a magazine made for a .40 caliber, I also recall someone explaining that it is still not considered a large capacity magazine since it only holds 10 for which it is designed to be used. You can run into a problem if the magazine isn't stamped .40 caliber, since you would have a problem establishing that it is a .40 caliber and not a 9 mm mag.

Last edited by Chewy65; 03-23-2018 at 5:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #680  
Old 03-23-2018, 5:57 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 576
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Suppose you buy a 10rd .458 socom magazine. That is legal under the law. Now without modification you load it with 11 5.56 rounds. Are you still legal?
If you bought the right magazine with the intention of staying CA legal, you can't load 5.56 rounds into a .458 magazine since the follower is custom. They'll just all pop out.
http://www.calegalmags.com/458-SOCOM...ne_p_1396.html

Not experienced enough to respond to your shotgun query.
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 4:46 PM.




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.