#2
|
||||
|
||||
TSA and local LE don't care.
That said, there is no current exemption in the law for importing - take it out is legal, bring it back is not.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If it is true that I can’t return with legally-owned standard cap mags, then wouldn’t it also be true that I could not travel out of state with a registered assault weapon? Or an off-roster handgun?
Are we guessing here, or has any legal authority actually rendered an opinion? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
But, 32310 Quote:
Quote:
ETA Moved to CA Laws forum. Tighter rules here ...
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. Last edited by Librarian; 05-04-2019 at 12:48 PM.. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Is there a legal definition of "importing?"
Because taking something that you legally bought here in California on vacation with you out of state and then returning home with your lawfully owned property seems like an overly broad definition of "importing." Importing to me means that you're bringing something into the state for the first time and that never resided in California to begin with.
__________________
"Kestryll I wanna lick your doughnut." Fighter Pilot |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by champu; 05-04-2019 at 2:55 PM.. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The absolute ban on importation of SCMs makes sense if possession in the state is illegal for everyone. If the ruling survives the 9th, I can’t see how a ban on traveling with legally-owned property could possibly remain in effect. However, that would be in a world where things make sense, and unfortunately this is California. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
When 32310 parts (c) and (d) were added, 32420 was rendered useless, so it was repealed at that time. If the striking of 32310 in its entirety is ultimately upheld, then the fact that 32420 was repealed doesn't matter. If (what I happen to opine is the more likely outcome) the 9th circuit affirms the district court's striking of 32310 (c) and (d) (but for other than 2nd amendment reasons), overturns the decision to strike of 32310 (a) and (b), and we aren't granted cert by SCOTUS, then we're in a wonky place (ban on travel with legal to own property) because 32420 is gone. Just because it's wonky doesn't mean it isn't the law until we do something about it. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"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." Last edited by Dvrjon; 05-04-2019 at 4:56 PM.. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
"IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019."
I would argue that this is exactly the sort of nonsense that that order sought to prevent.
__________________
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As applied to a person who legally possesses a LCM within the state, but leaves and later returns with the LCM is ambiguous. Where the plain language of a statute is ambiguous given its textual context, the courts will seek to construe it according to rules of statutory construction as a general rule. However, an accused is entitled to due process, which includes fair notice of what may result in criminal charges. The most basic definition of "to import" is to "bring in" and I tend to think of imported cars and wines; things originating outside of the country that are brought into it. Not things that originate in the States, are shipped overseas, and for some reason brought back. Unlike a civil statute, statutory construction won't save an impermissibly vague criminal law. A law abiding citizen shouldn't have to familiarize themselves with changes in the law in order to understand its command. This is much like the Rule of Lentity, which holds that where an accused proffers a reasonable definition of an ambiguous criminal statute the court will apply the statute most favorably to the accused over that offered by the prosecution. The principal limitation on the rule of lenity is that the ambiguity or uncertainty must be grevious, since most statutes are ambiguous to some degree. Regardless of whether the statute can successfully be brought for bringing magazines back in, the problem comes down to who can risk being a test case. Even if you can afford the attorney fees, loss of time from work, and he accompanying stress, many will take the safe road. The State very well knows that, I suspect, and is thereby encouraged to intentionally pass vague laws. Last edited by Chewy65; 05-05-2019 at 10:23 AM.. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
No, importing is part of 32310(a), which is NOT enjoined.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The more I look into it, the stronger it seems that Penal Code section 32301 would be void for vagueness were charges to be brought under it for the "re-importation" of a large capacity magazine. The statute provides with, with exceptions,
Quote:
Quote:
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You raise a good question of legislative intent. There's a strong semantic inference that "Re-Importation" is simply a form of "Importation" and not something distinct from "Importation." If the legislature intended for "Re-Importation" to be something different, then there would have been no purpose served by former Penal Code section 32420 which exempted folks who lawfully possessed large-capacity magazines in the state, then removed them, and later returned with them, from punitive sanctions from "Importation."
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Of course re-importation is importation, but the operative question is what does the law punish. If it meant to forbid reimportation, the legislative body ( the voters) is supposed to know how to make itself clear. You are getting into statutory construction, the first rule of which is it isn't done where the meaning of statutory language is plain in textual context. If you have to compare present to former versions to decipher that meaning, you have an ambiguous statute. The same is true if you have to look at exemptions to the predecessor that no longer apply. Where a criminal statute is ambiguous, the statute is void for vagueness. An accused is entitled to fair notice of that for which he may be charged. So look at the text of 32310 and ask how it should be construed based only on the plain meaning of its language. If it can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, it will be strictly construed against the prosecution and in favor of the accused. if I ever had to guess why 32420 treated leaving the state with LCMs legally possessed in the state prior to 2000 and returning with them as importation, I imagine it was because it was either the first time they would have been illegally brought into the state, since any prior importation would have been legal, or they may never have been imported should they have been manufactured in California. if you really want to puzzle this out, ask yourself why the law makers would even be concerned that anyone would leave the state and return with an LCM, if possession itself was illegal. The electorate wasn't counting on Freedom Week and a flood of LCMs being legally imported into the State. Well, it may be legal. Last edited by Chewy65; 05-06-2019 at 1:31 AM.. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"If the legislature intended for the statute to provide (what it says), then it will have to state so more explicitly" Statutes are formed as a result of the legislative process, which often involves a multitude of competing objectives, and the morphing of terms to achieve sufficient votes for passage. The result is often the antithesis of clarity.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The way I look at it, statutes always provide what the say and the problem is what they say is not what they intend the statute to provide. As for the legislative process, while the initiative is a form of legislative process, I wonder if the average voter is even less informed and paying less attention than our legislators. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I stopped wondering that years ago.
__________________
True wealth is time. Time to enjoy life. Life's journey is not to arrive safely in a well preserved body, but rather to slide in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "holy schit...what a ride"!! Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain A man's soul can be judged by the way he treats his dog. Charles Doran Last edited by -hanko; 05-06-2019 at 3:24 PM.. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The general populace doesn’t read or understand the Propositions (again, see Prop 63), but they follow the emotional guidance of the sponsors: “Safety for All”. That gets you 63% of the vote for stoopid stuff.
__________________
"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." |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Regarding legislative intent of the language in 32310 (a), keep in mind that it and 32420 were part of the same bill (1999 SB23). At the time, for reference, the sections were 12020(a)(2) and 12020(b)(23) respectively. So the legislature was not trying to ban people from leaving and then returning with their magazines when the law was originally written.
The question then becomes, was the legislative intent of repealing 32420 specifically to make sure people doing so could be charged with a wobbler for importing instead of just an infraction for possession? (i.e. did they intend to make leaving and coming back a separate, worse, crime than staying put?) Or were they simply removing it because they felt it didn’t make sense anymore, because of 32310(b),(c)? Either way, nothing happens automatically. Maybe the complaint or relief request can be amended at some point in time to say, “if 32310(a)(b) stay, but you get rid of (c)(d), can you please undo the repeal of 32420 so that we’re not in this goofy position?” |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Not trying to be the guinea pig either. -W |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|