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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism > Temp Post-Duncan Mag Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:49 AM
Shamag's Avatar
Shamag Shamag is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keepitlow View Post
What did you guys and any gals do with all your old hi cap mags? Did you turn them in or trash them?

If mags were squirreled away you should not have had a hard-on for the current mag rush.
I was young and active military during the period the first mag ban happened so I didn’t pay much attention.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:50 AM
keepitlow's Avatar
keepitlow keepitlow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Born in L.A.-NYC is 2nd home-Rustbelt is home base
Posts: 83
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Yep. Thats the problem with the law.

The grandfathered original mag ban sucked, but at least people with mags got to keep their property.

The new law seeks to outlaw things people already own that were legal when purchased.

Even most gun grabbers get queasy when people start talking about taking people’s property that was at one point legal.

Judge Benitez had the legal authority to issue the order that lifted the purchase ban. There is no better showing of good faith and a willingness to follow the law that this community, which dutifully used 10 rounders for twenty years, then, when a judge with the authority to do so told us it was legal to buy scms.

I fully expect the ban on future purchases to be set in stone by the 9th CA, but i am almost as certain that everything bought this week will be grandfathered.
C'mon. It al goes up in flames. Just one word...Swalwell!

Their goal is to disarm citizens. Much better if you had an organized militia...then let them disarm the militia. All for one and one for all.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:50 AM
Aaron_ Aaron_ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keepitlow View Post
What did you guys and any gals do with all your old hi cap mags? Did you turn them in or trash them?

If mags were squirreled away you should not have had a hard-on for the current mag rush.
Big difference lol I'll throw 10 in my bag and come back from Nevada. But getting 90 or 100 shipped to you is just better. Its because theres a kind of excitement behind the fact that now we can go use our standard cap mags at the range

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:51 AM
johnk518's Avatar
johnk518 johnk518 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: HB
Posts: 928
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

While I don't think this is a real problem, I also don't think it's a problem posting the question. Don't worry about it. Just because you have uncertainty, isn't a reason not to ask.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:53 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by faris1984 View Post
WTF , really , I wouldnt buy if I knew this,
Quote:
Originally Posted by faris1984 View Post
I didnt know there is a chance we could lose what we bought , so if this true I'm confident they will find a way and we lose . bye bye my money.
Freedom isn’t free. Others have given their lives for the ideals these purchases represent. You’re concerned your money will be lost.

If you’re that concerned at this point, take an axe to what you bought and burn the remnants. Throw your guns in, too.
__________________
"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
  #46  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:56 AM
keepitlow's Avatar
keepitlow keepitlow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Born in L.A.-NYC is 2nd home-Rustbelt is home base
Posts: 83
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
5th Amendment
Even the 9th Circus wouldn't allow confiscation of the mags.
Certainly SCOTUS will over turn the confiscation. No worries.
Jeeeesus...you guys got it all worked out...in your head. Good to have a plan b, c and d.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg patriot frog .jpg (89.0 KB, 51 views)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:58 AM
Aaron_ Aaron_ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by threeperreaper View Post
People will make jokes about losing their mags in a boat wreck or say, “there is nothing they can do”...but the fact is, this is only a real win for the 2A community if there is a PERMANENT and LEGAL way for us to own standard capacity magazines


Having this over turned by the 9th and never heard by the Supreme Court would put us back at square one...unfortunately, it also feels like the most likely outcome


Again, I don’t know this stuff all that well...
I am just hoping someone can tell me I’m wrong here
Tbh I highly doubt the 9th will overturn. The state doesnt have enough evidence or reason that these mags should be banned. Especially since millions of mags just came into the state.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:00 AM
Aaron_ Aaron_ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by threeperreaper View Post
I’m relaxed...



Just seems like a bunch of folks went out and bought mags that will (more than likely) be illegal, just as they were a week ago





I WAS HOPING SOMEONE WOULD TELL ME I’M WRONG!
You're most likely wrong. I'm being pretty hopeful but between how many mags just came to California and the lack of reason to have them banned other than "they're dangerous I dont like em" I dont think thec9th will overturn it

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:02 AM
Shamag's Avatar
Shamag Shamag is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you buy them using a temporary Visa card and have them shipped to Kermit the frog what are they going to do with that info. Prove you are Kermit the frog.

There were 280 million people in this country in 1999. There are over 330 million now in 2019. Law enforcement, both federal and state, are roughly the same size. The resources through technology we have today in order to obtain these magazines is so vast compared to that of 1999.

The number of mags coming into state back then was a trifle compared to what just transpired. A fraction.

Last edited by Shamag; 04-06-2019 at 7:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:03 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Mar 29th:
-An argument that these magazines aren’t in “common use” is based on the prohibition on their use in CA for the past 19 years.

-You can use them.

April 5th:

-Millions of mags are now in the state, in “common use.”

-Oooooops.
__________________
"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
  #51  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:10 AM
Unsilenced's Avatar
Unsilenced Unsilenced is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 387
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

They can't wave a wand and make all the mags go away, which is the only way we'd really be "at square one."

The sudden influx of magazines will make it a lot harder to go for full confiscation. It's no longer "oh, there's a couple geezers holding on to their relics," it's an item now in common use across the state. So many more people will be effected, and the state will have such a harder time justifying it, nevermind enforcing it.

Last edited by Unsilenced; 04-06-2019 at 7:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:14 AM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 1,483
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

I think the concern about legal status of magazines purchased during the week between the Court ruling the ban unconstitutional and imposition of the stay ignores the safe harbor provision Judge Benitez built into the stay: there is a permanent injunction against the state prohibiting enforcement of the ban against anyone who bought, sold, imported, or manufactured a magazine with more than ten round capacity. If the 9th Circuit reverses Judge Benitez it does not affect the injunction. I think this is why Judge Benitez stayed his own ruling instead of leaving it for the 9th Circuit to issue the stay.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
"One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me
"Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:16 AM
G-forceJunkie's Avatar
G-forceJunkie G-forceJunkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SCV, So. Cal
Posts: 4,662
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Lets say worst case happens. Do you really think the DOJ has the man power, do you think judges are going to write warrents to kick in your door...over an infraction? Sure your hi caps may have to sit in the closet while while more cases go through the courts but jesus, storm troopers are not going to be kicking in your door and shooting your dog over magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:16 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsilenced View Post
[...] "oh, there's a couple geezers holding on to their relics,"...
That’s a little personal, don’t you think?
__________________
"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
  #55  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:26 AM
Shamag's Avatar
Shamag Shamag is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyer898 View Post
I think the concern about legal status of magazines purchased during the week between the Court ruling the ban unconstitutional and imposition of the stay ignores the safe harbor provision Judge Benitez built into the stay: there is a permanent injunction against the state prohibiting enforcement of the ban against anyone who bought, sold, imported, or manufactured a magazine with more than ten round capacity. If the 9th Circuit reverses Judge Benitez it does not affect the injunction. I think this is why Judge Benitez stayed his own ruling instead of leaving it for the 9th Circuit to issue the stay.
Listen to this man. He is correct.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:26 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is online now
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,956
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by threeperreaper View Post
I’m relaxed...

Just seems like a bunch of folks went out and bought mags that will (more than likely) be illegal, just as they were a week ago


I WAS HOPING SOMEONE WOULD TELL ME I’M WRONG!
You're not wrong, but even under the law before being challenged, mere possession SCM's was equivalent to a traffic ticket. Sure, you can rail against the law etc., but at the end of the day you have a better chance of getting a speeding ticket on the way to the range than getting your SCM's seized.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:28 AM
WartHog's Avatar
WartHog WartHog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Northern Kalifornistan
Posts: 3,460
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

OP deserves to have his Man/Mag Card revoked for sending the negative waves.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierra57 View Post
Civil War 2.0 - If it comes to pass, lefties will have brought it upon themselves. I value freedom more than their sorry lives and the form of governance they have to offer, which offers no freedom and complete servitude to the state.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:29 AM
ACfixer's Avatar
ACfixer ACfixer is offline
Global Warming Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: KAPV-L35 SoCal
Posts: 2,614
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by threeperreaper View Post
Maybe I’m just a negative Nancy...

Again, maybe I’m just a negative Nancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WartHog View Post
OP deserves to have his Man/Mag Card revoked for sending the negative waves.
Well... his name IS Nancy.
__________________


Buy made in USA whenever possible.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:30 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,714
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamag View Post
I was young and active military during the period the first mag ban happened so I didn’t pay much attention.
Same here, never gave it much thought.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:30 AM
Shamag's Avatar
Shamag Shamag is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Somebody needs to organize a sewing circle for the malcontents
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:32 AM
comblock comblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Uzbekistan
Posts: 1,280
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Shhhhh loose lips sink ships
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:36 AM
Hsu Hsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 220
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Sounds like we have a decent shot at winning.
Because of Trump's court appointments to the 9th we might be able to keep our MAGAzines since the split between liberal and conservatives is now pretty even. So statistically it is very improbable that it will be 2 to 1 liberal judge in a full panel deciding this like it used to be. These victories aren't cheap and it sounds like people liked the results please donate. Here's a video talking about what's ahead. Ignore the possession part of the discussion as they have now said anything in transit is legal.

https://youtu.be/LSQr5r7ksdA
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:50 AM
Nor*Cal Nor*Cal is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,607
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamag View Post
I have never seen so many dead set on ignoring a reality presenting itself to them that they have wanted for so long. Twisting yourself into knots reinterpreting the meaning of plain words is folly. He gave us all a gift. Be great full and calm down.

The law requiring US citizens in California to destroy or give up to the state their own property paid for legally with their own post tax currency was the most clearly unconstitutional of all. That isn’t coming back in my opinion.

However I believe this is was the last hurrah for buying high cap mags in CA.

This was the gold rush of ‘19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamag View Post
The can is open. Worms everywhere. They don’t have the manpower or resources to take them back. I don’t care what they decide. I spent 8 years in harms way for this country. I’m not giving up anything. The burden is on them to prove I bought mags, how many, and where they are currently. I would tend to be uncooperative in these situations.
Well said sir, couldn't agree more with everything you said. And thank you for your service.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-06-2019, 8:00 AM
Shamag's Avatar
Shamag Shamag is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor*Cal View Post
Well said sir, couldn't agree more with everything you said. And thank you for your service.
Thank you. I feel like the circumstances such as they are in 2019 and the shear volume of magazines brought into the state will make it impossible for them to even begin to figure out how to confiscate them all. That’s a needle in a pile of a million needles.

Back in 1999 you had to make your way to a brick and mortar store and try to scrape together what you could. This time you could set on the John at 3am and buy 2k mags.

Last edited by Shamag; 04-06-2019 at 8:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-06-2019, 8:08 AM
SamIAm SamIAm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here are some things to chew on.

1. 9th Circuit affirms outright. Very unlikely outcome. I'm not saying it won't happen, if the case draws the right panel of three judges. But it won't last. The 9th Circuit has enough liberal judges to force an en banc, where all of the judges get to review the decision.

2. 9th Circuit effectively grandfathers standard capacity magazines purchased (or transferred) before 2000 and during Magapalooza (until we settle on a term for this last week). The reason is the Takings Clause of the Constitution. The State really overreached when it effectively confiscated/outlawed things that were previously legal to possess and legal to buy/sell/possess outside of California without compensation. And the State already conceded in its papers that purchases after the injunction were legal.

There are several reasons why the Ninth Circuit will be cautious here. It implicates the Takings Clause, and not just the 2A. Even judges who are anti-2A know that there are limits, and the Takings Clause is one of them. They also know that California could have easily addressed this by implementing a buy back, which would have been perfectly legal and eliminated the Taking Clause challenge. (And no, I'm not giving DoJ or anyone else any ideas here. Trust me, they know. But they also know that there was no way passage was going to happen if there was a few billion dollars in money that needed to be found to pay for it.) Finally, making this a case about both the Taking Clause and the 2A all but ensures that the Supremes will take the case on cert. If it's just about the 2A, there's a chance that the Supremes will simply deny cert.

3. The statute is whittled down so we're back to where we were before -- other than that there are now a few million more mags in the State due to Magapalooza. This is where I'm betting the Ninth Circuit is going to land. Even though they know that the Supremes might overrule their decision, that hasn't ever stopped the Ninth Circuit before.

4. That takes us to the Supremes. Will cert (or review) be granted? Sometimes, the Court refuses to take on cases for reasons like they want to avoid a huge internal battle or the stakes aren't high enough (they can't take every case that comes before them). So, inability to purchase a gun or to transport a gun? High stakes. Inability to purchase a 15 round magazine, but ability to purchase a 10 round magazine? Lower stakes.

I don't see the Supremes passing. But they don't have the bandwidth to review everything.

Last edited by SamIAm; 04-06-2019 at 8:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-06-2019, 8:26 AM
1911RONIN's Avatar
1911RONIN 1911RONIN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,264
iTrader: 75 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIAm View Post
Here are some things to chew on.

1. 9th Circuit affirms outright. Very unlikely outcome. I'm not saying it won't happen, if the case draws the right panel of three judges. But it won't last. The 9th Circuit has enough liberal judges to force an en banc, where all of the judges get to review the decision.

2. 9th Circuit effectively grandfathers standard capacity magazines purchased (or transferred) before 2000 and during Magapalooza (until we settle on a term for this last week). The reason is the Takings Clause of the Constitution. The State really overreached when it effectively confiscated/outlawed things that were previously legal to possess and legal to buy/sell/possess outside of California without compensation. And the State already conceded in its papers that purchases after the injunction were legal.

There are several reasons why the Ninth Circuit will be cautious here. It implicates the Takings Clause, and not just the 2A. Even judges who are anti-2A know that there are limits, and the Takings Clause is one of them. They also know that California could have easily addressed this by implementing a buy back, which would have been perfectly legal and eliminated the Taking Clause challenge. (And no, I'm not giving DoJ or anyone else any ideas here. Trust me, they know. But they also know that there was no way passage was going to happen if there was a few billion dollars in money that needed to be found to pay for it.) Finally, making this a case about both the Taking Clause and the 2A all but ensures that the Supremes will take the case on cert. If it's just about the 2A, there's a chance that the Supremes will simply deny cert.

3. The statute is whittled down so we're back to where we were before -- other than that there are now a few million more mags in the State due to Magapalooza. This is where I'm betting the Ninth Circuit is going to land. Even though they know that the Supremes might overrule their decision, that hasn't ever stopped the Ninth Circuit before.

4. That takes us to the Supremes. Will cert (or review) be granted? Sometimes, the Court refuses to take on cases for reasons like they want to avoid a huge internal battle or the stakes aren't high enough (they can't take every case that comes before them). So, inability to purchase a gun or to transport a gun? High stakes. Inability to purchase a 15 round magazine, but ability to purchase a 10 round magazine? Lower stakes.

I don't see the Supremes passing. But they don't have the bandwidth to review everything.


Solid. Well said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
"...for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-06-2019, 8:30 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,128
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by threeperreaper View Post
I’m not a lawyer but it seems simple to me...the 9th can simply overturn Benitez’ ruling...and we would be back where we were with the original pc32310.

Is that incorrect?

We may want to believe these mags will be grandfathered in. However, We all know how determined the left is to take away our rights...their original plan was to have us turn in all of the standard cap mags....

What makes you think they will stop pursuing their plan?
Yes, they can overturn his ruling. No, they cant get around the fact that his stay of March 29 was a legal order he had the authority to make. They dont get to pretend he didnt make such an order.

His order provides a good faith basis to act. If it didnt, every vendor that said “we are checking with our lawyers” would have said “sorry, we cant/wont sell to you”.

Becerra’s briefing plainly stated that the order made it legal for people to LEGALLY buy magazines.

9th CA sucks from a political standpoint, but this is very powerful stuff.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-06-2019, 8:40 AM
M76's Avatar
M76 M76 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Urbanized Suburbia
Posts: 1,650
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

The real disturbing part of this is that the state encourages millions
of impoverished, diseased, criminal aliens to rapidly flood into CA
while millions of inanimate objects are a threat? Really sick of progs.
__________________


1A - 2A = -1A

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunndeal View Post
Stop digging.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-06-2019, 8:52 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,128
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keepitlow View Post
C'mon. It al goes up in flames. Just one word...Swalwell!

Their goal is to disarm citizens. Much better if you had an organized militia...then let them disarm the militia. All for one and one for all.
Just one word back, the Constitution.

Hes not in charge of jack s, and even if he was, the courts still exist.

I know you guys think the courts just screw us, willy nilly, but taking away legally owned property was a huge overstep that violates basic ideas of fairness.

They could have left well enough alone, and waited for me to die. But they overreached. They tried to take away a basic, legally owned piece of property.

And to do anything about the week stay, they'd have to not only do the same basic blunder again, they would have to also pretend like a sitting federal judge does not have the authority to stay an unconstitutional law.

Thats not how it works.

Imagine the next abortion restriction law passed gets to stay in effect until the SCOTUS agrees to hear it, IF SCOTUS agrees.

Do you think, even to get the guns, they want to change the rules like this?


Nope.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-06-2019, 8:53 AM
44.shooter.lb 44.shooter.lb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by threeperreaper View Post
Maybe I’m just a negative Nancy...

It seems obvious to me that the 9th will be reversing Benitez’ order (effectively making all the magazines purchased in the last week now illegal to possess)


For them ever to be legal again, it would need to be heard by the Supreme Court AND have a favorable outcome


Again, maybe I’m just a negative Nancy.


Tell me if I’m wrong but I think the most likely outcome is that the order is reversed by the 9th and the Supreme Court never heard the case


The unfortunate truth about living in California is you have to learn to adapt. If you don't want to deal with this, there are alternatives. Stay within the laws of this &**!~!! State or move to a different one. If you can't move now, plan your move for the future. There are plenty of other options available too - far to many too many to list.

As of today, enjoy your little bit of freedom, go shoot your 11+ magazines, and enjoy up until they change the rules again - whenever that is.

You can't spend your time worrying about what might happen, you can ony deal with what the situation is now.

And right now, I'm looking down at two PMAGs with a small hole in them from where the rivet was removed yesterday before 5PM. 60 rounds between the two of them - and Gavin and Xavier can SUCK IT for now.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-06-2019, 8:56 AM
IAMSWUTIAMS's Avatar
IAMSWUTIAMS IAMSWUTIAMS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SunDieGo
Posts: 106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Yep. Thats the problem with the law.



The grandfathered original mag ban sucked, but at least people with mags got to keep their property.



The new law seeks to outlaw things people already own that were legal when purchased.



Even most gun grabbers get queasy when people start talking about taking people’s property that was at one point legal.



Judge Benitez had the legal authority to issue the order that lifted the purchase ban. There is no better showing of good faith and a willingness to follow the law that this community, which dutifully used 10 rounders for twenty years, then, when a judge with the authority to do so told us it was legal to buy scms.



I fully expect the ban on future purchases to be set in stone by the 9th CA, but i am almost as certain that everything bought this week will be grandfathered.
I agree.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:02 AM
DesertDave100's Avatar
DesertDave100 DesertDave100 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 375
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I only know two things, after most recent stay put things back the way they were.

1) compared to say February 2019, there are a lot more magazines in California, of all vintages, than there used to be. All treated the same as the 1999-owned ones. Until some future court decision, which will be predicted ad infinitum.

2) If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
__________________
NRA Life Member CRPA Life Member

Registration is the first step towards confiscation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPimping View Post
Hunt them with Rottweilers and shotguns. Drive them underground into the sewers.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:19 AM
huntingsocal's Avatar
huntingsocal huntingsocal is offline
(aka Hogswild)
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,225
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

If a buy back is instituted I’ll tape all my 10 rounders together and turn them in to pay for my newly acquired common mags

Just kidding, I won’t turn anything in
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:20 AM
ACfixer's Avatar
ACfixer ACfixer is offline
Global Warming Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: KAPV-L35 SoCal
Posts: 2,614
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDave100 View Post
2) If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
Or Michelle Obama.
__________________


Buy made in USA whenever possible.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:35 AM
The War Wagon's Avatar
The War Wagon The War Wagon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: da' 'BURGH
Posts: 5,781
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by threeperreaper View Post
Maybe I’m just a negative Nancy...

It seems obvious to me that the 9th will be reversing Benitez’ order (effectively making all the magazines purchased in the last week now illegal to possess)



Just tell 'em, "Molon labe, baby."


The go all Crow on 'em and such, with your new found 30rds of freedom!


(NSFW!)


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:35 AM
Jwalt Jwalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 317
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One thing to remember -

I might doubt Roberts on the 2nd, but I don't doubt him at all on takings.

Whatever the 9th does, we're likely to get a stay from SCOTUS and win there *at least* on grandfathering them in.

If we don't? Those of us lucky enough to have property or friends/family out of state might just take our mags back out of state. Otherwise, I'd expect to see a lot of mags sold on Gunbroker or lost in boating accidents.

Aside from that, there are always rivets and blocks.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:39 AM
Roering's Avatar
Roering Roering is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 583
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We will just assure the anti's that we will not put more than 10 rounds at a time in our mags.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:40 AM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 캘리포니아인민공화국
Posts: 3,541
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

My take is that the Ninth will probably maintain sections (a) and (b) of 32310 but overturn (c) and (d) which are major issues with the Takings Clause. In effect, congratulations, pre-ban (anything before April 5th 1700) mag owners. You have what you have.

If the Ninth were to overturn Benitez's injunction on (c) and (d), that just makes this case show up on SCOTUS's radar even more, especially considering the vastly larger pool of people who would be affected by (c) and (d) coming back into effect in such a hypothetical scenario of those who purchased SCMs last week. I think the Ninth, being the leftist political creatures that they are, don't want to risk a nationwide ruling that would go against them if they were to reverse the injunction on (c) and (d), so they'll leave it lie.

That's my reading of the situation, anyways. All I know is no matter what happens, state won't ever get anything.

Last edited by Syntax Error; 04-06-2019 at 9:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:44 AM
Harry Ono Harry Ono is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 255
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by threeperreaper View Post
Maybe I’m just a negative Nancy...

It seems obvious to me that the 9th will be reversing Benitez’ order (effectively making all the magazines purchased in the last week now illegal to possess)
The reversal of the ban was reviewed by the 9th.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine Ban
https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth...ornia-gun-maga...

Jul 17, 2018 - SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday affirmed a ... from enforcing a voter-approved ban on high-capacity gun magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:45 AM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 166
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What mags? Who bought mags?
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 8:43 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.