|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
FAQ: Yes, all the local laws on magazines in force Thursday remain in force
The Duncan decision was about one section of California Penal Code.
The State does not have pre-emption on magazine laws. See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...Gun_Regulation Unless and until the local laws are successfully, individually challenged - and the arguments from Duncan should be helpful - those laws remain in force. Note that Sunnyvale's law has been challenged, but plaintiffs lost. Fyock v Sunnyvale, see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=867249
__________________
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. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I believe it's just San Francisco, Sunnyvale, and Oakland. Los Angeles let their ban expire due to the statewide ban being implemented (I think).
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Trouble is those Oakland guys will come out HERE eastward to Martinez/Pleasanton/Livermore to shoot. I'm willing to bet they bought and sent them to houses of relatives to try and skirt the city ordinance.
__________________
Anyway...here's a dearth of reasoning to ponder: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Guns Last edited by Swagman00; 04-03-2019 at 8:28 PM.. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
San Francisco has an ordinance that states it is a misdemeanor to be in possession of, sale of, or transfer of any magazine with capacity larger than 10 rounds.
__________________
Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
This is from San Francisco's ordinance. Doesn't it suggest the following:
- It labels any California state law that bans "large capacity magazines" a duplicate. A duplicate of an unconstitutional State law is itself unconstitutional. - Doesn't the state pre-empt duplicate law, such as in FISCAL v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, over the Prop H handgun ban? - That It has no effect or force because CA enacted its own law banning said magazines. Or is a Proposition not legislation? Genuinely asking, IANAL. https://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfi...S130585tdr.pdf Last edited by Ocguy31; 04-03-2019 at 9:25 PM.. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Los Angeles: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome Last edited by curtisfong; 04-03-2019 at 9:13 PM.. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Reeds
Reeds is in Santa Clara, shouldn't be an issue.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The LA one is fine because it only prohibits sales and transfers of those magazines in Los Angeles. Aside that there is nothing about buying the magazine or getting it shipped to you (not that I found, I searched as much as I could to find a municipal code for it or even a bill but the only thing I found was the ban on possession which expired about 2 years ago). Here's the link -> https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/gu...alpdf/download |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
For Los Angeles, isn't this the case now? Why wouldn't it apply to all localities?
https://www.turners.com/info/crpa-nr...t#.XKWbTShKhPZ "The following year, both Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 were enacted, making it a violation of state law to possess these standard capacity magazines. As a result, the City’s ordinance was duplicative of and preempted by the state laws" Last edited by Ocguy31; 04-03-2019 at 9:55 PM.. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I really wish CRPA would chime in here; there is still a lot of confusion over local/county laws. Update: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Injunction.pdf Pre-emption challenge (Hance v Los Angeles) failed: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...on_8.21.98.pdf
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome Last edited by curtisfong; 04-03-2019 at 10:07 PM.. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That wasn't a challenge based on the 2000 state law though, so it would have to be re-challenged? It looks like they acknowledged the theory by agreeing to the sunset law to the possession ban during pre-lit. Last edited by Ocguy31; 04-03-2019 at 10:30 PM.. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
However, the state ban exists, it just cannot be enforced. And on what planet does it make sense that if a law is stricken for being unconstitutional, it no longer preempts local law? The law is a *** indeed.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Each locality has some authority to create laws; those laws stand until specifically challenged. The Legislature gets its power from the California Constitution, article 4, section 1. Cities, for example, get their power from Government Code, title 4.
__________________
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. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
That's what I wouldve done if I lived in one of those prohibited areas. Not every gun owner in Oakland is a gang banger.
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
That’s what I thought. What’s the “trouble”?
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
I understand that, but CRPA (or Chuck? not sure which) mentioned that a pre-emption challenge itself might be made more difficult if the state law no longer exists (where "no longer exists" might also apply to laws that are enjoined from being enforced).
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
2) LAMC 55.13 did not sunset.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
As I read LAMC 55.13, it does not prohibit anyone in LA from taking possession of magazines with capacity greater than ten rounds via lawful purchase or transfer, such as receiving from out of state or outside of LA right now. Part (a) states, "No person shall sell or otherwise transfer to any other person..."
Accordingly, right now, it would seem perfectly legal for an LA resident to be purchasing or receiving magazines that are currently legal to possess in CA and LA, but they can't sell or otherwise transfer the mags to anyone else in LA unless the other party is exempt per part (b). It would seem to prohibit dealers in LA from selling magazines with capacity greater than ten rounds right now, even though they are currently legal to possess in CA and LA. Last edited by liberty_head; 04-04-2019 at 2:02 PM.. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
There was a separate section (section 46.?? something) of the LA Municipal Code that dealt with possession; it sunsetted on July 1, 2017.
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
(e) This Section shall expire on July 1, 2017, unless the City Council acts by ordinance to amend this Section to extend its effective period. (Added by Ord. No. 184,767, Eff. 4/4/17.) |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
IMO there isn't much debate about 46.30, I'm much more concerned about 55.13
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
55.13 is concerning, but seems to prohibit selling or transferring to any other person, not lawfully buying/receiving/possessing like elsewhere in CA right now. That's how I read it. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Again, just my interpretation (and I'm not a lawyer). |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The mailman or UPS guy is not on the hook for delivering anything, especially not knowing what is in the package. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
This is what I pulled out for Oakland:
9.38.040 - Possession of large-capacity magazines prohibited. A. It is unlawful for any person to possess any large-capacity magazine, except as otherwise authorized by law, whether assembled or disassembled. B. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this article, was legally in possession of a large-capacity magazine shall have ninety (90) days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution: 1. Remove the large-capacity magazine from the City of Oakland; 2. Surrender the large-capacity magazine to the Oakland Police Department for destruction; 3. Sell or transfer the large-capacity magazine lawfully in accordance with Section 32410 of the California Penal Code. (Ord. No. 13352, § 1(D), 1-19-2016) 9.38.050 - Exemptions. The provisions of Section 9.38.040 shall not apply to the following: 1. Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to possess a large-capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties. 2. A person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915 of the California Penal Code; 3. A gunsmith for the purpose of maintenance, repair or modification of the large-capacity magazine; 4. Any entity that operates an armored vehicle business pursuant to the laws of the state, and an authorized employee of such entity, while in the course and scope of his or her employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's armored vehicle business; 5. Any person, corporation, or other entity that manufactures a large-capacity magazine for a person specified in subsection 1, or for an expert pursuant to applicable federal regulations; 6. Any person using the large-capacity magazine solely as a prop for a motion picture, television or video production, so long as it does not contain any live ammunition; 7. Any holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 18900, 31000, 32650, 32700—32720, or 33300; 8. Any person issued a permit pursuant to California Penal Code Section 32315 by the Department of Justice upon a showing of good cause for the possession, transportation or sale of large-capacity magazines between a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915 of the California Penal Code, and an out-of-state client, when those activities are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit; 9. Any federal, state or local historical society, museum or institutional collection which is open to the public, provided that the large-capacity magazine is properly housed, secured from unauthorized handling and unloaded; 10. Any person who finds a large-capacity magazine, if the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition pursuant to federal or state law, and the person possesses the large-capacity magazine no longer than is necessary to deliver or transport the same to a law enforcement agency for that agency's disposition according to the law; 11. A forensic laboratory or any authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of his or her authorized activities; 12. Any person in the business of selling or transferring large-capacity magazines in accordance with California Penal Code Section 32310 who is in possession of a large-capacity magazine solely for the purpose of doing so; or 13. Any person lawfully in possession of a firearm that the person obtained prior to January 1, 2000 if no magazine that holds ten or less rounds of ammunition is compatible with that firearm and the person possesses the large-capacity magazine solely for use with that firearm. (Ord. No. 13352, § 1(E), 1-19-2016) 9.38.060 - Penalty. A violation of this section shall be subject to enforcement through criminal prosecution and/or civil penalties, as provided herein. 1. Violation a Misdemeanor. A person who violates this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the County Jail not exceeding six months or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by both. Each violation shall be deemed a distinct and separate offense. 2. Civil Penalties. The City may assess civil penalties pursuant to Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 1.08 (Civil Penalties) in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per violation. (Ord. No. 13352, § 1(F), 1-19-2016) 9.38.070 - Remedies not exclusive. Remedies under this chapter are cumulative and not exclusive. They are in addition to and do not supersede or limit other administrative, civil, and/or criminal remedies provided under state or federal law, or other provisions of the Oakland Municipal Code. The City may seek an order for the award of attorney's fees. (Ord. No. 13352, § 1(G), 1-19-2016) 9.38.080 - Amendments to state laws adopted herein. In the event that any California statute adopted or referred to in this chapter is amended or succeeded by another enactment of the California Legislature, such amendments shall be deemed automatically adopted as part of this chapter as if fully set forth herein unless the City Council amends this chapter to provide otherwise. (Ord. No. 13352, § 1(H), 1-19-2016) "succeeded by another enactment of the California Legislature, such amendments shall be deemed automatically adopted as part of this chapter as if fully set forth herein unless the City Council amends this chapter to provide otherwise." Does this include the enjoinment? Or is it that it still stands that possesion after the 5th of April is still not allowed in oakland? |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Sunnyvale:
9.44.050. Possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines prohibited. (a) No person may possess a large-capacity magazine in the city of Sunnyvale whether assembled or disassembled. For purposes of this section, “large-capacity magazine” means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following: (1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds; or (2) A .22 caliber tubular ammunition feeding device; or (3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm. (b) Any person who, prior to the effective date of this section, was legally in possession of a large-capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do either of the following without being subject to prosecution: (1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the city of Sunnyvale; or (2) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to the Sunnyvale department of public safety for destruction; or (3) Lawfully sell or transfer the large-capacity magazine in accordance with Penal Code Section 12020. (c) This section shall not apply to the following: (1) Any federal, state, county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties; (2) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to possess a large-capacity magazine and does so while acting within the course and scope of his or her duties; (3) A forensic laboratory or any authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of his or her duties; (4) Any entity that operates an armored vehicle business pursuant to the laws of the state, and an authorized employee of such entity, while in the course and scope of his or her employment for purposes that pertain to the entity’s armored vehicle business; (5) Any person who has been issued a license or permit by the California Department of Justice pursuant to Penal Code Section 18900, 26500-26915, 31000, 32315, 32650, 32700-32720, or 33300, when the posses-sion of a large-capacity magazine is in accordance with that license or permit; (6) A licensed gunsmith for purposes of maintenance, repair or modification of the large-capacity magazine; (7) Any person who finds a large-capacity magazine, if the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition pursuant to federal or state law, and the per- son possesses the large-capacity magazine no longer than is reasonably necessary to deliver or transport the same to a law enforcement agency; (8) Any person lawfully in possession of a firearm that the person obtained prior to January 1, 2000, if no magazine that holds fewer than ten rounds of ammunition is compatible with the firearm and the person possesses the large-capacity magazine solely for use with that firearm. (9) Any retired peace officer holding a valid, current carry concealed weapons (CCW) permit issued pursuant to the California Penal Code. (Ord. 3027-13 § 1). https://qcode.us/codes/sunnyvale/vie...-9_44-9_44_050
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
San Francisco
SEC. 619. Prohibition against Possession of Large Capacity Magazines. (b) Definition. "Large capacity magazine" means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following: (1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds; (2) A . 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or (3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm. (c) Prohibition on Possession of Large Capacity Magazines. (1) No person, corporation, or other entity in the City may possess a large capacity magazine, whether assembled or disassembled. (2) Any person who, prior to the effective date of this chapter, was legally in possession of a large capacity magazine shall have 90 days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution: (A) Remove the large capacity magazine from the City; (B) Surrender the large capacity magazine to the Police Department for destruction; or (C) Sell or transfer the large capacity magazine lawfully in accordance with Penal Code § 12020. (d) Exceptions. Subsection (c) shall not apply to the following: (1) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to possess a large capacity magazine in connection with his or her official duties; (2) A person licensed pursuant to Penal Code §§ 26700 to 26915, inclusive; (3) A gunsmith for the purposes of maintenance, repair or modification of the large capacity magazine; (4) Any entity that operates an armored vehicle business pursuant to the laws of the state, and an authorized employee of such entity, while in the course and scope of his or her employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's armored vehicle business; (5) Any person, corporation or other entity that manufactures the large capacity magazine for a person mentioned in subsection (a) or for export pursuant to applicable federal regulations; (6) Any person using the large capacity magazine solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production, or entertainment event; (7) Any holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Penal Code § 33300, 32650, 32700, 31000, or 18900; (8) Any person issued a permit pursuant to Penal Code § 32315 by the California Department of Justice upon a showing of good cause for the possession, transportation, or sale of large capacity magazines between a person licensed pursuant to Penal Code §§ 26700 to 26915 and an out-of-state client, when those activities are in accordance with the terms and conditions of that permit; (9) Any federal, state or local historical society, museum, or institutional collection which is open to the public, provided that the large capacity magazine is properly housed secured from unauthorized handling, and unloaded; (10) Any person who finds the large capacity magazine, if the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition pursuant to federal or state law, and the person possesses the large capacity magazine no longer than is necessary to deliver or transport the same to a law enforcement agency for that agency's disposition according to law; (11) A forensic laboratory or any authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of his or her authorized activities; (12) Any person in the business of selling or transferring large capacity magazines in accordance with Penal Code § 12020, who is in possession of a large capacity magazine solely for the purpose of doing so; or (13) Any person lawfully in possession of a firearm that the person obtained prior to January 1, 2000 if no magazine that holds 10 or less rounds of ammunition is compatible with that firearm and the person possesses the large capacity magazine solely for use with that firearm. (e) Penalty. Any person violating this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (f) Severability. If any subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Section be for any reason declared unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or the effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Section or any part thereof. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have adopted this Section notwithstanding the unconstitutionality, invalidity, or ineffectiveness of any one or more of its subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words. (g) No Duplication of State Law. In the event that the State of California enacts legislation prohibiting possession of large capacity magazines, this § 618[sic] shall have no force or effect to the extent that it duplicates any such state law. https://www.atf.gov/file/117161/download No clue if SF intends to ignore (g). I would say odds are high they have no intention of honoring any part of the law that is inconvenient for them.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome Last edited by curtisfong; 04-09-2019 at 7:00 PM.. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
From how you describe the Los Angeles law, if someone had a SCM outside of Los Angeles and then transported it to his home in Los Angeles, that would appear to not violate the LA Law. Correct? (Asking for my Little Friend.) Best!
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|