#1
|
|||
|
|||
Letter from DOJ to all CA law enforcement stating possession is legal
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Print and laminate it, throw in the range bag.
My question would be will this have any effect on the ranges that said no SCM's will be allowed. Maybe they'll have a change of heart with this filing from DOJ or if you get questioned by the RO and show them this they'll leave you alone. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
It does not say that "possession is legal"! this is what it says in regard to possession of magazines
Quote:
More specifically, it states that the judgment of unconstitutionality is stayed pending appeal. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"During the appeal, California Penal Code § 3 2310 la) & (b) remains
in effect and is fully enforceable, except as to those persons and business entities who manufactured, imported, sold, or bopgflt large-capacit)' magazines between March 29, 2019 at 2:24 p.m. T an<i April 5, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. PDT" Again, supporting my theory that if you bought, imported, sold, or manufactured a single magazine during freedom week, PC 32310 (a, b) cannot be enforced against you, even for actions after freedom week.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
During the appeal, California Penal Code § 3 2310 (a) & (b) remains
in effect and is fully enforceable, except as to those persons and business entities who manufactured, imported, sold, or bought large-capacity magazines between March 29, 2019 at 2:24 p.m. PDT and April 5, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. PDT.
__________________
ATF Form 4473: If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver, not a handgun or long gun. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Yes. I imagine compliance rates will be sky-high.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Yep, and sent repeat notices 3 times per day, each day from the 15th - 18th
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I have no problems with what it say, but I do with posts that say possession is legal when what it says at best is that enforcement is enjoined pending appeal and that it may end up being held to be illegal.
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I’ve been using my mags with no issue, why is there a huge uproar that your breaking the law when it’s been a weeks worth of purchasing that will make banning possession non existent. Seeing as millions made it into the state I don’t see how it’s a problem in owning or using mags with more then 10 rounds. I don’t remember seeing any cases in the past few years about high cap mag being confiscated unless the person was involved in a crime like drugs/gang related type offenses.
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As a practical matter to answer your hypothetical, nobody has or will be prosecuted for bringing in magazines any time soon, regardless of the judge's order and its interpretation. You can go to Nevada, buy magazines at a gun shop, and bring them back. You can have your buddy in Texas ship it to you in the mail. You can take a mag rebuild kit and rebuild it. Nobody will ever know, unless you tell them. Nobody is going out there and investigating these things. And certainly, nobody is prosecuting these unless as a tack-on charge to something else (and I'm not seeing that either.) I'm not encouraging anybody to violate the law, but your hypothetical is just that. I'm not in the business of debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
9 states have pre-Roe abortion bans on the books. Nobody would argue that abortion in those 9 states is illegal. Because abortion today is legal in those states, unenforceable statutes notwithstanding. And if, God willing, Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortions performed prior to it being overturned will not suddenly become prosecutable offenses.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But, 'Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results'. Whether there are current prosecutions, whatever difficulty may be involved, does not negate that many post-April-5 magazine behaviors are crimes under current law, and could be prosecuted where an agency thought it would be successful. People need to be reminded of that before they might choose to accept the risk "imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170." Part of that choice requires estimation of the odds of detection and successful prosecution. Historically, magazine discussions at Calguns have brought out the more fantastical-minded among us to the detriment of actual risk assessment.
__________________
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. Last edited by Librarian; 04-25-2019 at 8:18 PM.. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think your comparison to Roe v Wade is misplaced. Roe v Wade was a U.S. Supreme Court decision - at the end of the appellate trial. Marbury v Madison established that the courts can find a law to be unconstitutional quoting from that case "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Your argument that a if Roe v Wade were overturned, that folks who performed abortions during the period it was in effect is sound. Laws prohibiting the practice were void. But there is a different fact setting here, and Chewy has recognized it. We are the very beginning of the appellate process, a fact that Judge Benitez well recognized in his decision. Although he described PC section 32310 in the dicta of his decision as being unconstitutional, he did not include such a finding in his holding. Unlike the Supreme Courts treatment of abortion laws, Judge Benitez took no action to render PC 32310 void, he only enjoined enforcement. I know of no case law supporting your position that folks could not be prosecuted for violation of PC 32310 in the event that future appellate decisions uphold PC 32310 and the injunction is dissolved. You make very good argument why such prosecutions would be unwise, and would likely fail. But it's not a settled issue as you present it to be. If you can cite case law on the point, please do, we'd all benefit, but your references to Roe v Wade are misplaced, at least until Duncan v Becerra is ruled on by the Supreme Court.
__________________
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:
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In addition to the Oklahoma Operating v. Love case, the doctrine of fair warning to criminal defendants is well-developed at the highest level. See, e.g. Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313, 315-16 (1972) (holding that a defendant had no fair warning that his actions were proscribed when they would not have fallen within a statute's prohibitory ambit prior to an unexpected judicial construction).
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Califpatriot. You are flat wrong. Are you some kind of jailhouse lawyer, because your arguments are no only far off the mark, the one regarding Oklahoma Operating is contemptible. Since you chose to misquote Justice Brandeis, I have copied the entire sentence, placing the part you hid in bold.
Quote:
Moving on to Rabe, even you should be able to gather that it has nothing to do with the language of PC 32310 or the doctrine of fair warning. Rabe considered whether a Washington state statue failed to give fair warning as applied to an accused on account of the statute being susceptible to more than one construction. The issue here has nothing to due with an ambiguous statute. At best, you can argue that a United States District Court's order is ambiguous, which it isn't, but that is no where near to challenging 32310 for vagueness as applied or on its face. Last edited by Chewy65; 04-26-2019 at 2:13 AM.. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As a practical matter, the odds of getting charged with SOLELY one of those laws is basically zero. They're always just tacked on to actual criminal charges for actual crimes. But that is an entirely different topic.
__________________
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 |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yes, it is sacrilege among lawyers to assert such a thing - they're taught from the start that judges don't err. If there is something vague, it is only vague because you're insufficiently So instead, that is the only thing you'll hear from them: "you're an idiot!" over, and over, ad nauseum. It is best if you just nod and smile when they do that. They live in their own world with it's own special language and "logic" that has very little in common with reality... except that when you end up in court, expect to see their alternate reality get warped at will sufficiently to screw you.
__________________
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; 04-26-2019 at 2:36 AM.. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
The Case of the Ambiguous Stay
Quote:
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"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).
__________________
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined" http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ntiffs-MSJ.pdf Also filed the same day as the Judgment was the order. Look at the last sentence on page 85. "California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined." http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ntiffs-MSJ.pdf (Keeping in mind that this judgment is now partially stayed pending appeal....) Last edited by Christopher761; 04-26-2019 at 9:19 AM.. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
All I know is that I was at the range last weekend and 8 of the 13 people at their bays (I counted on purpose for my own curiousity) were using SCMs...two of which (including myself had D60s). None of the RO's cared and it was basically standard quo.
Ya'll can sit here and debate on parsing words and opinions...or you can go outside, breathe some fresh air and pewpew. We're all on the same team guys. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Let's look at that final sentence again. Here it is: "California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined." Please note that the order did not invalidate section 32310 or remove it from the statutes (which was my point going back to Marbury v Madison - I found it odd that Judge Benitez determined the section to be unconstitutional, but took no action to invalidate it) all that Judge Benitez did in his order was to enjoin enforcement of section 32310. It's a distinction in the details. The bottom line still remains that no one is going to be prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, and while it is technically possible that someone could later be prosecuted for conduct while the injunction was in place if later lifted, that course of action is unlikely, and even if undertaken, would likely fail for the reasons pointed out by Califpatriot and others.
__________________
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. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/unconst.pdf
Judges enjoin unconstitutional laws, prevent them from being enforced. It up to the legislature to remove the law from the books. "...no branch can order another branch to perform its lawmaking function in a particular way. The courts cannot order the governor to veto legislation, and they cannot order the legislature to pass a bill that amends or repeals a law." |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It makes absolutely no sense for you to ramble on about how unlikely or difficult a prosecution may be, when you were asked to assume that a LEA is enforcing and has the evidence. Should that be the case, your lawyers will get an opportunity to argue your theory as to why persons are permitted immunity from prosecution, should they have participated in Freedom Week. Let them try to convince a judge of the California Superior Court that the order of a United States District Court Judge meant as you say, when it is clear upon reading the entire order that was not Benitez's intent. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think PACMA_MFG is correct that the Court cannot order a government to re-write the law in a particular way, or to erase it entirely. But if the Legislature wants to re-write the law, because they feel they can save it while applying the Court's reasoning on the constitutional issues, they they may do so (but are not required to). You are 100% correct that we are early in the appeal process, and the 9th Dist Appellate Court may over-rule the trial Court. And maybe the SCOTUS will hear the case. Whatever the final word, that is what we will have to live with. Last edited by Christopher761; 04-26-2019 at 10:37 AM.. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/19/u...iate-bias.html
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think you might be, in good faith, conjuring a distinction that does not exist.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|