Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: Benitez hearing 12-12 in SD

[wolfwood]

I'll put money on us getting this injunction. The judge sounded very pro 2a. I've had one 1a case before him in the past had I thought he was fair.
He really hammered the government on the exception for Hollywood and the best argument she could make was analogizing to bans on shark fins. The judge will rule on it by July 1st 2017 either way.

[Citizen One]

Is there an audio or video recording of the proceedings?

[darkshire]

Originally Posted by Citizen One

Is there an audio or video recording of the proceedings?

i second this request !

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I'll put money on us getting this injunction. The judge sounded very pro 2a. I've had one 1a case before him in the past had I thought he was fair.
He really hammered the government on the exception for Hollywood and the best argument she could make was analogizing to bans on shark fins. The judge will rule on it by July 1st 2017 either way.

I hope you are correct. Having to dispose of hi-cap magazines that were legally purchased pre-ban just seems like soo much over-reach.

[c good]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

I hope you are correct. Having to dispose of hi-cap magazines that were legally purchased pre-ban just seems like soo much over-reach.

Have to agree. It's pretty much "Confiscation without Compensation".....

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I'll put money on us getting this injunction. The judge sounded very pro 2a. I've had one 1a case before him in the past had I thought he was fair.
He really hammered the government on the exception for Hollywood and the best argument she could make was analogizing to bans on shark fins. The judge will rule on it by July 1st 2017 either way.

This seems like a text book takings so there would need to be some crazy logic to not give us the injunction.

The one I'm interested in is the ghost gun serialization. Defacing property especially possible historical items to comply isn't a clear taking but I'm hoping we see a similar injunction.

So out of gunmaggedon we have about half dead with injunctions while the cases crawl through the courts. Then the AW ban/registration and ammo sales that doj doesn't look like they can manage the administration of.

So gunmaggedon will be dead not because they don't want it but because they can't actually do it.

[Chaingun]

If a Judge issues an injunction order to halt the magazine ban, couldn't another Judge issue a stay order repealing the injunction?

The way things are going around here these days, there are way more democrat Judges willing to issue anything democrats want.

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by Chaingun

The way things are going around here these days, there are way more democrat Judges willing to issue anything democrats want.

Exactly.
The court system has been hijacked by libtard ideology, and gun owners are the ones being run over by the bus. When normally good people are made to be criminals simply by the mere possession of once common articles, it is it any surprise that more folks come to have zero respect for the judiciary and legislature?....No.

[epilepticninja]

Originally Posted by c good

Have to agree. It's pretty much "Confiscation without Compensation".....

FIFY

[BumBum]

Looks like FPC is trying to throw this case off the rails, which is shocking considering how well this hearing seems to have gone. I posted more details in the 2A forum, but wow. FPC's filings specifically refer to the CRPA case. Read for yourself.

[homelessdude]

In my humble opinion funds sent to FPC should dry up. Everyone should be getting behind CRPA and the NRA. They are the best chance we have to stop all this anti gun crap. Again JMO

[warbird]

It would be nice if the White House order the federal attorney general's office to assist in fighting these laws and maybe that would send a message to Brown and his lackeys. When Brown knows the feds are lining up against him he bails on his liberal buddies and runs. We need some action in the White House to back brown and his people off over the second amendment including high cap mags, definitions, and so forth.Federal definitions should be the rule.

[bubbapug1]

Jerry brown has been around a long long time. Trump is a flash in the pan who won't go two terms, possibly not even one. Brown vetoed bills against us for years but finally caved on us.

He doesn't seem too worried about the Feds on much, so he's not going to run and hide over magazines.

The one and only hope we have is justice Kennedy retires and we get another 2A supporter on the bench. Eventually the AW ban, mag confiscation, and ammo restriction laws will work their way up to scotus, but in the meantime block the mags and keep a low profile with them until the dust settles.

[Merovign]

I wish I could do more to support this case. The Cost Of Living has drained me, though.

I'm worried that so many courts have been running roughshod over the Constitution lately. I mean, I've studied history and frankly they've been doing it on and off since the beginning, but it seems really bad now.

This is turning into a nail-biter, I'm checking this nearly every day now.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by Merovign

This is turning into a nail-biter, I'm checking this nearly every day now.

I never thought that this would become a form of click-bait.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

I never thought that this would become a form of click-bait.

CRPA sues the DOJ over a magazine ban - what happens two weeks later will shock you!

[Merovign]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

CRPA sues the DOJ over a magazine ban - what happens two weeks later will shock you!

God, I hope so.

[Merovign]

Just in case I haven't mentioned it, thanks to the people working on this.

[Chewy65]

How is it a taking without compensation if the law permits the magazines to be sold out of state? Also, are they being taken when they may be kept if permanently blocked so as not to take more than 10 rounds. Reminds me of land use being restricted by zoning. No little of eminent domain and the law of a taking, but an important element to scrutinize is how completely one is deprived of value.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

How is it a taking without compensation if the law permits the magazines to be sold out of state? Also, are they being taken when they may be kept if permanently blocked so as not to take more than 10 rounds. Reminds me of land use being restricted by zoning. No little of eminent domain and the law of a taking, but an important element to scrutinize is how completely one is deprived of value.

How does one sell magazines out of state, when it is illegal to offer them for sale in California? It forces people to have to physically relocate to a different state while they conduct their magazine sales, which is a completely unreasonable expectation.

[mit31]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

How does one sell magazines out of state, when it is illegal to offer them for sale in California? It forces people to have to physically relocate to a different state while they conduct their magazine sales, which is a completely unreasonable expectation.

I've never understood why they made it illegal for someone in California to list mags for sale/sell to people out of state. I mean its obvious they are idiots and don't know what they are doing, but was it just an unintended consequence of the wording? It does seem to fly in the face of the "you can sell them out of state" response for "disposal."

[ojisan]

mit, there is so much wrong with all of these laws and regs.
They are poorly written and in several cases contradictory or impossible to comply with.
The legislature and DoJ have had the chance to fix them and they have not.
So off to court we go.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by mit31

I've never understood why they made it illegal for someone in California to list mags for sale/sell to people out of state. I mean its obvious they are idiots and don't know what they are doing, but was it just an unintended consequence of the wording? It does seem to fly in the face of the "you can sell them out of state" response for "disposal."

I think you misunderstand.
Most of this is intentional and they are not idiots, they are evil people.

[Bigdog68]

As a note to the lawyers on this case, I was going through some of the exhibits the state filed and I would suggest investigating some of the statistics cited. The state appears to be just throwing out some numbers without realizing what they mean or hoping no one else actually looks at them.

For example they claim firearms ownership is down based on surveys that measure the percentage of households and people saying they own firearms. I guess saying that with the percentage falling, it's matter that a) firearms are becoming less commonly owned and used within the US or b) it's ok, we can ban these because only a fringe group of people own firearms. However, the population and the number of households is growing. One example compared 50% of households having a firearm in the 1970s to around 33% in a recent survey. But households had increased by 55m during that course of time, so that the number of gun owning households had increased by 15-20%. And given the span in time, its likely not the same people but a whole new generation has come along and grown the number of firearms households.

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by EM2

I think you misunderstand.
Most of this is intentional and they are not idiots, they are evil people.

That statement PERFECTLY sums up the ENTIRE situation of gun laws, not only in California, but the entire nation. With that said, when confronted with evil and those who advance it, it is up to the individual citizen to figure out which laws to obey, and which laws to discard. Understand the risks/gains of personal choice, and act accordingly.
This all reminds me of history lessons about the founding of our country.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by splithoof

That statement PERFECTLY sums up the ENTIRE situation of gun laws, not only in California, but the entire nation. With that said, when confronted with evil and those who advance it, it is up to the individual citizen to figure out which laws to obey, and which laws to discard. Understand the risks/gains of personal choice, and act accordingly.
This all reminds me of history lessons about the founding of our country.

The legislators really are idiots, though. Bear in mind that they aren't the ones writing the legislation, they're just the ones stamping their names on it.

Evil, yes. They are definitely that. Worse than that, is they don't realize their own evil, they think they're saints who are saving the world, one plastic bag and standard capacity magazine at a time.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

The legislators really are idiots, though. Bear in mind that they aren't the ones writing the legislation, they're just the ones stamping their names on it.

Evil, yes. They are definitely that. Worse than that, is they don't realize their own evil, they think they're saints who are saving the world, one plastic bag and standard capacity magazine at a time.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by EM2

I think you misunderstand.
Most of this is intentional and they are not idiots, they are evil people.

^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^
They are, or have advisors that are, as smart or smarter than many of us. They also have a comparatively limitless budget. They are elected by a majority of people who have been drinking the Koolaid for generations.

[kenl]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

The legislators really are idiots, though. Bear in mind that they aren't the ones writing the legislation, they're just the ones stamping their names on it.

Evil, yes. They are definitely that. Worse than that, is they don't realize their own evil, they think they're saints who are saving the world, one plastic bag and standard capacity magazine at a time.

C. S. Lewis summed them up perfectly

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[CandG]

That's a great quote.

Basically, be wary of a government that spends all its time trying to save people from themselves.

[Merovign]

Originally Posted by Bigdog68

For example they claim firearms ownership is down based on surveys that measure the percentage of households and people saying they own firearms. I guess saying that with the percentage falling, it's matter that a) firearms are becoming less commonly owned and used within the US or b) it's ok, we can ban these because only a fringe group of people own firearms. However, the population and the number of households is growing. One example compared 50% of households having a firearm in the 1970s to around 33% in a recent survey. But households had increased by 55m during that course of time, so that the number of gun owning households had increased by 15-20%. And given the span in time, its likely not the same people but a whole new generation has come along and grown the number of firearms households.

People eat fewer vegetables in the last 40 years, therefore the government can confiscate your vegetables without a warrant.

???

[carabuser]

So nothing new ?? whats that judge in San Diego waiting for ??

[ScottsBad]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

In my humble opinion funds sent to FPC should dry up. Everyone should be getting behind CRPA and the NRA. They are the best chance we have to stop all this anti gun crap. Again JMO

I stopped sending money to the FPC a couple of years ago... And have been sending as much as I can to the CRPA and NRA. The FPC just seems to be problematic.

Now is a good time to send money to the CRPA.

[DueceMcGurk]

Originally Posted by Prince

" criminals buy them from unlicensed criminal manufacturers."

Is there any data to support this? I see this statement often. It hurts those who build guns as a hobby (they become "unlicensed criminal manufacturers" under the law).

I believe criminals most often buy STOLEN retail weapons . The new laws won't effect them at all. In fact, as weapons ownership (the major source of stolen weapons?) increases dramatically (71% increase since 1994) the supply of weapons available to steal increases.

Politicians impose more stringent gun control on law abiding citizens. Citizens (many of whom are not properly trained to own much less store a weapon) rush to buy -- before the law takes effect. More non-secured guns available to be stolen by criminals. And the music goes round and round.

In my opinion, the attempt to use "gun issues" as a political vote-getting tool has backfired and actually hurts the average American, who simply wants a safe home/neighborhood/city/country.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by ScottsBad

I stopped sending money to the FPC a couple of years ago... And have been sending as much as I can to the CRPA and NRA. The FPC just seems to be problematic.

Now is a good time to send money to the CRPA.

^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Blade Gunner

^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^

It's upsetting, to me, that FPC is asking for money to help in the fight against the DOJ regarding the AW regulations, when there is little-to-no evidence (that I've seen) that they're even doing in that particular fight. Donations to them for that purpose, in my view, does nothing but take donations away from CRPA, who IS doing something in that fight.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's the way it appears to me.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

It's upsetting, to me, that FPC is asking for money to help in the fight against the DOJ regarding the AW regulations, when there is little-to-no evidence (that I've seen) that they're even doing in that particular fight. Donations to them for that purpose, in my view, does nothing but take donations away from CRPA, who IS doing something in that fight.



Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's the way it appears to me.

^^^^^^^^This, one more time^^^^^^^^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolfwood]

Okay I've got a day to prepare for a boating accident so I'd like the Court to rule on this by the end of the day.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Okay I've got a day to prepare for a boating accident so I'd like the Court to rule on this by the end of the day.

[rero360]

Hey Wolfwood, I have a lake you can have your boating accident in. By lake I mean a 5 gallon bucket 😄