Letter from DOJ to all CA law enforcement stating possession is legal

[PMACA_MFG]

Pretty clear from reading the entire order, staying in part, that there were two groups of persons, for one the judgment is stayed, for the other it's not.

I think you may be reading "stayed in part" as partially stayed in full.

Think of it like a corral of 40 million cats. The judge opened the gate and 400,000 got out. The judge then closed the gate leaving 39,600,000 cats still in the corral, pending appeal, most of whose didn't want to be free anyway. The free cats are still free, but are likely to be shot, by the AG, if they free any other cats from the corral.

[Califpatriot]

Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG

Pretty clear from reading the entire order, staying in part, that there were two groups of persons, for one the judgment is stayed, for the other it's not.

I think you may be reading "stayed in part" as partially stayed in full.

Think of it like a corral of 40 million cats. The judge opened the gate and 400,000 got out. The judge then closed the gate leaving 39,600,000 cats still in the corral, pending appeal, most of whose didn't want to be free anyway. The free cats are still free, but are likely to be shot, by the AG, if they free any other cats from the corral.

And to those who say that this makes no sense, I disagree entirely. If you purchased or otherwise obtained 30 magazines, it doesn't matter if you have 10 more, even if you accept the State's argument that LCMs increase the effectiveness of mass shooters AND that this provides a basis for banning them. Whether a person has 30 or 40 LCMs won't make a difference in preventing mass shootings. I believe CRPA made a similar argument, albeit unsuccessfully, against the 10 day waiting period in Silvester v. Harris.

I don't know what Judge Benitez's reasoning was, and whether this was it, but I do know that the plain meaning of his ruling is clear.

[Chewy65]

How many recall what Kestryll did when members started to suggest that the order of April 4 barred enforcement of 32310 (a) and (b) after 5 pm if April 5 as to persons that manufactured, imported, sold, bought or received a LCM during freedom week? Did you read his posts regarding what the lawyers for CRPA had to say and to delete posts? This thread got closed within a minute after CalAlumnus posted that anyone who made a purchase during Freedom Week should afterwards be able to make additional purchases.

[Cortelli]

Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG

"Both parties indicate inbriefing that persons and business entities in California may have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds since the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and in reliance on the injunction. Indeed, it is the reason that the Attorney General seeks urgent relief in the form of a stay pending appeal. Both parties suggest that it is appropriate to fashion protection for these law-abiding persons."

"Without question, entering a stay pending appeal will harm the Plaintiffs, and all others like the Plaintiffs (who are many), who would choose to acquire and possess a firearm magazine holding more than 10 rounds for self-defense. “It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”

Seems pretty well thought out to me, its simple, free or not free, and doesn't reimpose an unconstitutional blanket ban on those who chose to exercise their freedom.

I do think it should only be used as a shield though, since a lot of actions involving 32310 are between two individuals, a buyer and seller, etc... and there would be laws broken if one of the two was not exempt, and I think there would be a way to prosecute one directly, and the other indirectly, (aiding and abetting a felon in his felonious act).

How does your view of the stay account for this language?

In layman's terms, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies therein will be free to restart the enforcement of Calif. Penal Code Sec 32310 (a) and (b) which currently prohibits, among other things, any person in the state from manufacturing, importing into the state, offering for sale, giving, lending, buying, or receiving a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds (as defined by Calif. Penal Code Sec 16740). This will continue until the appeal proceedings conclude or the stay is modified or lifted.

(I didn't add any emphasis; but were I to do so for purposes of this argument, I'd emphasize "any person")

I don't think there is much colorable confusion about the impact of the Judge's stay -- by which I mean to say I don't think the argument that there are now two classes of people and one class can purchase LCMs today without violating Sec 32310 -- will pass a laugh test in court.

But I recognize that others think differently. Readers of these threads should of course proceed at their own risk and/or consult an attorney for advice.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by Califpatriot

I don't know what Judge Benitez's reasoning was, and whether this was it, but I do know that the plain meaning of his ruling is clear.

Please explain to all the rules for construing a court order. Include the rules for determining how an order is to be construed if enforcement per its language would lead to an absurdity and/or a result contrary to the manifest intention of its maker.

[igs]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

How many recall what Kestryll did when members started to suggest that the order of April 4 barred enforcement of 32310 (a) and (b) after 5 pm if April 5 as to persons that manufactured, imported, sold, bought or received a LCM during freedom week? Did you read his posts regarding what the lawyers for CRPA had to say and to delete posts? This thread got closed within a minute after CalAlumnus posted that anyone who made a purchase during Freedom Week should afterwards be able to make additional purchases.

And they were WRONG just as they were WRONG about the initial 3/29 ruling only applying to grandfathered mags.

[Califpatriot]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

How many recall what Kestryll did when members started to suggest that the order of April 4 barred enforcement of 32310 (a) and (b) after 5 pm if April 5 as to persons that manufactured, imported, sold, bought or received a LCM during freedom week? Did you read his posts regarding what the lawyers for CRPA had to say and to delete posts? This thread got closed within a minute after CalAlumnus posted that anyone who made a purchase during Freedom Week should afterwards be able to make additional purchases.

Neither Kestryll nor Michel & Assoc. are infallible, and I haven't seen anything from CRPA explaining why my theory is incorrect. If Kestryll wants to prohibit one line of reasoning from being advanced, it's his website and he's free to do that, and I'll honor that. But it won't make him or CRPA (to the extent they are saying this) correct.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by igs

And they were WRONG just as they were WRONG about the initial 3/29 ruling only applying to grandfathered mags.

So you know better than the lawyers at Michelle & Associates!

[Califpatriot]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Please explain to all the rules for construing a court order. Include the rules for determining how an order is to be construed if enforcement per its language would lead to an absurdity and/or a result contrary to the manifest intention of its maker.

Sure. Neither applies. It would neither be absurd (I've put forth at least one colorable argument for why it would make sense for Benitez to write it precisely the way he did) nor contrary to the intention of its maker.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by Califpatriot

Sure. Neither applies. It would neither be absurd (I've put forth at least one colorable argument for why it would make sense for Benitez to write it precisely the way he did) nor contrary to the intention of its maker.

Again you dodge the question, which was "how an order is to be construed if enforcement per its language would lead to an absurdity and/or a result contrary to the manifest intention of its maker." Instead you claim that it will neither lead to an absurdity nor a result contrary to the intention of its maker. Please try to answer the question as it was asked.

[Califpatriot]

Let's recall that Chewy is the same guy who posted this absurd thread: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1524487

Then tried to walk it back by saying "oh, I wrote it in the middle of the night" when he was deservedly clowned-upon.


--
The reason I am so adamant about this is that spreaders of FUD do the gun controllers' work for them. Gun rights is advanced as much by gun owners establishing facts on the ground as it is by legal developments (court decisions, legislation, etc.) This is the case with all sorts of activism. Marijuana wouldn't have been decriminalized by states all across the country if stoners adopted the defensive crouch position FUD-spreaders would like gun owners to adopt.

Again, I'm not advocating breaking the law and everybody has to assess the risk for themselves of whatever actions they take, in consultation with their lawyer if they can afford one. But if you have a federal judge saying, "If you bought magazines during freedom week, the prohibition on acquisition cannot lawfully be enforced against you" and the practicalities of enforcement are extremely difficult anyway, maybe you shouldn't roll up in the corner and hide.

[Califpatriot]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Again you dodge the question, which was "how an order is to be construed if enforcement per its language would lead to an absurdity and/or a result contrary to the manifest intention of its maker." Instead you claim that it will neither lead to an absurdity nor a result contrary to the intention of its maker. Please try to answer the question as it was asked.

Who the hell do you think you are? I don't answer to you unless you want to pay my rates. And even if you were a client, I'd fire you.

I certainly don't answer stupid rhetorical questions to which you very well know the answers. Your "questions" are based on false premises. What happens if a result would be absurd or contrary to the manifest intention is irrelevant if neither would be the case.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun hiding in a corner.

[Chewy65]

It seem that Califpatriot is desperate to wriggle out of addressing the questions put to him here.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by Califpatriot

Who the hell do you think you are? I don't answer to you unless you want to pay my rates. And even if you were a client, I'd fire you.

I certainly don't answer stupid rhetorical questions to which you very well know the answers. Your "questions" are based on false premises. What happens if a result would be absurd or contrary to the manifest intention is irrelevant if neither would be the case.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun hiding in a corner.

It is interesting that you admit that I know the answers, but you are unable to come up with them. As for your rates, whatever they are you are overpaid and you would never have to fire me as a client. I would never hire you in the first place.

I thought you would run when pinned down. But I agree that at this point, where your inability to address simple legal questions, we are

[BPK]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

It does not say that "possession is legal"!

Do you know definition of "injunction" as it applies to law?

...ergo, possession is legal for those who lawfully acquired magazines...

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part
pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent
injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued
on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) shall remain in effect.
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, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
Dated: April 4, 2019

[PMACA_MFG]

Originally Posted by Cortelli

How does your view of the stay account for this language?



(I didn't add any emphasis; but were I to do so for purposes of this argument, I'd emphasize "any person")

I don't think there is much colorable confusion about the impact of the Judge's stay -- by which I mean to say I don't think the argument that there are now two classes of people and one class can purchase LCMs today without violating Sec 32310 -- will pass a laugh test in court.

But I recognize that others think differently. Readers of these threads should of course proceed at their own risk and/or consult an attorney for advice.

Try this as an example of how laws are written in a "Newtons method of successive approximations" manner.

ARTICLE 2. Possession of Live Ammunition [29650 - 29655] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

29650.
A minor shall not possess live ammunition.

... but if you look at the next one. You find:-

29655.
Section 29650 shall not apply if one of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The minor has the written consent of a parent or legal guardian to possess live ammunition.
(b) The minor is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.
(c) The minor is actively engaged in, or is going to or from, a lawful, recreational sport, including, but not limited to, competitive shooting, or agricultural, ranching, or hunting activity, the nature of which involves the use of a firearm.

The "any person" language is in reference to the first order of the stay in part.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by BPK

Do you know definition of "injunction" as it applies to law?

...ergo, possession is legal for those who lawfully acquired magazines...

Obviously you don't know it. Have someone with the time to waste explain the difference between legality and being protected from enforcement of laws criminalizing acts pending a determination of legality.

[OlderThanDirt]

Originally Posted by riderr

I totally expect the fearless hardcore gun owner of California Kamala Harris to turn in her hi-caps on the same day. Well, probably that would be it till the end of the century

She will when she figures how to remove her hi-caps from her revolver.

[Citation650]

^^^^^^

[igs]

Originally Posted by Califpatriot

It's a wonder chewy was a lawyer, given his complete inability to read.

A failed lawyer.

[Cortelli]

Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG

Try this as an example of how laws are written in a "Newtons method of successive approximations" manner.

ARTICLE 2. Possession of Live Ammunition [29650 - 29655] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

29650.
A minor shall not possess live ammunition.

... but if you look at the next one. You find:-

29655.
Section 29650 shall not apply if one of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The minor has the written consent of a parent or legal guardian to possess live ammunition.
(b) The minor is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.
(c) The minor is actively engaged in, or is going to or from, a lawful, recreational sport, including, but not limited to, competitive shooting, or agricultural, ranching, or hunting activity, the nature of which involves the use of a firearm.

The subject here is not a statute or a series of related statutes. It is an opinion and orders re the stay he issued.

The "any person" language is in reference to the first order of the stay in part.

It's a creative argument; but one I don't buy, and one I feel pretty strongly that a court wouldn't buy - but hey, I've been wrong plenty of times in my life!

I believe it is erroneous to read the stay, including the paragraph I quoted, and the following 2 paragraphs immediately preceding the orders, together with the orders, and draw the conclusion you and some others appear to have reached that the stay creates a class of people in CA that are free (even today) of the restrictions from 32310 (a) and (b).

But as noted previously, we're all free to believe what we like about the stay - we just owe it to ourselves to dig a bit to form a view that informs our risk tolerance.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Califpatriot

In fact, I have never seen a court excise a statute from the code books.

Same. The system is a joke. The law grows ever longer and it is literally impossible for the average person to know what is illegal and what isn't, let alone what laws are enforced and which are not.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

This thread got closed within a minute after CalAlumnus posted that anyone who made a purchase during Freedom Week should afterwards be able to make additional purchases.

That sort of heavy handed ridiculousness only stokes the fires. It as astounding that people have trouble understanding human nature.

[Librarian]

My goodness, we're having some fun here!

But, since neither side is going to sway the other, let us pursue our fun someplace else.

I'll just repeat what has already been suggested a few times - if you want to do anything with magazines that you think might be 'iffy', you should hire your own lawyer, and decide whether you care to take that worthy's advice.