|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Ninth Circuit Magazine Decision
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ts-california/
Can any lawyers here tell me what this decision means? The 9th 'affirmed' the lower court injunction of the Calif magazine law, which banned 30 round magazines. So, does this mean that I may purchase some of these magazines? If not, am I allowed to keep any that I might have in my possession? Last edited by Slater1; 07-20-2018 at 8:41 AM.. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
1A - 2A = -1A Quote:
--- Dan Bongino |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the injunction put in place by a lower court was upheld and nothing more. So you can keep pre importation/manufacture ban magazines while the trial continues in the lower court concerning the ban on possession. Many of the titles of articles and posts are misleading
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You cannot purchase mags with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. You are allowed to keep mags with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds if you acquired them before the 2000. All the court did was uphold an injunction against Prop 63 (2016) that retroactively banned legally acquired mags holding in excess of ten rounds. Stay tuned the actual case has not been heard (Duncan vs Becerra). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you, CalBar. Please tell me that Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Because you posted this in National politics, not CA. This is not national. Because there's already a thread on it, had you just searched... with all the answers to the question you asked.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I have more than enough pre 2000 magazines but I did find 2 left over magazines at a shared LE-Company owned used by employees range. I could not find finding a magazine as verboten. Buy, sell, manufacture, import, offer to sell, blah, blah, blah, but no fell off the truck stipulation. I do not recommend anyone claiming to have found the magazines they possess, just sayin, ya know! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
32310. (a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
"You cannot purchase mags with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. You are allowed to keep mags with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds if you acquired them before the 2000. All the court did was uphold an injunction against Prop 63 (2016) that retroactively banned legally acquired mags holding in excess of ten rounds. Stay tuned the actual case has not been heard (Duncan vs Becerra)."
And so..just how does the "state" intend to determine the point in time when a particular "over 10 round capacity" magazine was acquired by the owner? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Have you ever heard the phrase "play stupid games, win stupid prizes?"
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
The gun that the magazine was designed to fit wasn't in production until 2011?
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ Paul Confirmed Domestic Terrorist & NRA Member tiocfaidh ár lá Bobby Sands |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
No, our prisons are too full. Jail as well. But you might lose your job over it and if you keep it up you might end up in a reeducation camp.
__________________
https://thedeplorablepatriot.com/ "A Holocaust survivor dies of old age, when he gets to heaven he tells God a Holocaust joke. God says, That isn't funny. The Old man tells God, well, I guess you had to be there." |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
so if you illegally imported/manufactured/bought a +10 magazine in July 26 2015 you would be free and clear today, July 27 2018 since it is now past 3 years since the commission of your crime. but some may argue that the ongoing possession of the magazine means you are breaking the law on a continuous basis, thus you can be arrested and charged until the end of time as long as you kept the magazine that was acquired illegally. so it really boils down to, how much money you have to pay for the best lawyer, and what other charges are being bought against you.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Nothing has changed. Still pending.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Understood. I meant, "has anyone been arrested and used this as a defense"? I guess I should have just typed that... Was chatting with my friend & neighbor, a San Jose officer and I mentioned this. He looked at me and as good advice said, "you better keep a copy of that on you man, there's plenty of guys that would just jam you up- they aren't going to chase that down order".
Last edited by NorCalBusa; 02-06-2019 at 2:33 PM.. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The trial court issued an injunction to specific LEOs to prevent enforcement of the possession clause of the new law. When that happens, it's pretty much a universal practice for even non-named LE agencies to respect the terms of the injunction and withhold enforcement pending resolution of the trial issues.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Sadly, I believe him to be right on the money on that prediction. All you have to do is look at history. That exact thing has happened over half a dozen times in connection with firearms cases and the 9th cir.
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I would say he is posting what he (and many others, including myself) see for the reality that they are, directly based on what has happened in the past.
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The fact that an injunction even exists is proof that the past is not a good predictor. I would also take exception to the casual dismissal of what the Supreme Court may do, seeing as again, that courts make up has changed. I don't expect (or want) people running around saying we will all have Class III's and concealed carry in two weeks, but this kind of mopey defeatism is getting old. Keep an open mind.
Last edited by mit31; 02-07-2019 at 10:35 AM.. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Main thread on this is Duncan V Becerra, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1335810
__________________
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|