Judge rules 10 round limit unconstitutional

[The War Wagon]

So who could use some 30 rd. AR Hexmags? I already have 300+ AR mags here in America - may as well send 'em to someone who'd LIKE a taste of freedom!

[Kokopelli]

So who could use some 30 rd. AR Hexmags? I already have 300+ AR mags here in America - may as well send 'em to someone who'd LIKE a taste of freedom!

Me!

[Pocket Rocket]

So who could use some 30 rd. AR Hexmags? I already have 300+ AR mags here in America - may as well send 'em to someone who'd LIKE a taste of freedom!

Sure! Just tell me how much for shipping.

[223556]

Arms Unlimited is taking orders. Has a Ca special going on.

[glilon]

Can I bring in my stockpile from out of state?

[OleCuss]

It looks like the ruling was limited to purchasing, selling, importing, manufacturing, and possessing magazines with more than 10 rounds.

As best I can tell, this does not mean that you can now use the magazines in firearms in which you could not previously use them.


I sort of want Becerra and company to appeal because I think the case would get to SCOTUS and the ruling we'd get would probably effectively strike down the prohibition against the magazine use in certain classes of firearms. But right now I believe those prohibitions are still enforceable.

[tomrkba]

Does that trickle down to rifles that use a magazine? Perhaps void some language in the AWB laws?

Of course CA’s laws are unconstitutional. Requiring mods to make an AR-15–a gun in common use—NOT an AR-15, is unconstitutional.

Whether any of this will be stopped in the courts is not something we can predict.

[tsmithson]

If true that the planets align in CA, there is going to be boost to the CA economy.

[speedrrracer]

I'm a bit surprised the local news rags aren't covering this more. sfgate I can't even find the story. I would have thought they would be reporting this like CA was under nuclear bombardment.

they know it's meaningless
because Sidney Runyan Thomas told them not to worry, he'll overturn it en banc

[ogarcia_02]

One of my local shops is selling standard magazines today with a 2 mag per person limit. Another posted this

"SALE/TRANSFER OF 11+ ROUND MAGS IS STILL ILLEGAL IN CA.
This is not legal advise, only informed opinion.

As we are known to be careful students of the law, we are being inundated with calls and messages regarding this week's ruling by the Honorable Judge Roger Benitez on the Prop 63 magazine ban. His scholarly, Constitutionally sound and well-founded ruling strikes down the 2017 expansion of the so-called High Capacity Magazine Ban, which eliminated the right of Californians to keep the legally possessed magazines they had owned in the state prior to 2000.

Short Version: Even Chuck Michel, the NRA/CRPA attorney in this case, has cautioned that this ruling is not all-inclusive, and advises restraint. Nothing has changed since 2000; we simply kept the right to keep the mags we already have.

Long version: Some uninformed gun shops are now selling standard capacity (11+) magazines, effective immediately. This is illegal per CA Penal Code 32310, which bans the sale, transfer, manufacture, or (as of 2018) possession of "high capacity magazines." They believe that the ruling struck down the CA ban on mags in its entirety. They are not reading the ruling with a scholarly application of law and legal terms.

The landmark, brilliantly-written ruling states:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.

This means that STATE and FEDERAL LE are currently prohibited from enforcing this law. It doesn't strike down the law! It also doesn't appear to prevent LOCAL LE from enforcing the law! But isn't that enough? No.

When (not if) the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals inevitably overrules this ironclad judgement on En Banc appeal (in blatant violation of the Constitution), the CA DOJ will again be able to ENFORCE PC32310, which means they can then prosecute you for the magazines you purchased while they couldn't charge you. They can also prosecute all the gun shops who (valiantly) rushed to liberty and justice while the DOJ was enjoined, get all their camera footage and transaction records of your illegal purchases, and charge you with felonies or weapons misdemeanors which will cost you your gun rights for life. Local LE can run a sting at the exit of the parking lot, search your vehicle with probable cause, and arrest you for possession of magazines that didn't even exist in 1999.

Enjoined from enforcing is different than striking down and invalidating a law. Please don't go down with the ship at other gun stores; we won't be able to sell guns to you anymore after those shops take you down with them. Even the attorney who won the case is giving the same advice."

[ENTHUSIAST]

Anyone have a link to the new ruling?

[GUNNER45]

I just tried to order 2 19 round glock magazines from mag shack.. I used my California address, it was a no go..just a heads up

[Spartan301]

WooooooHoooooo!

Thank You, NRA!

[DevilDawgJJ]

Grabagun is accepting CA orders. I just ordered 10 standard caps for various guns!

I put mine in. Well see. Everyone needs a 75rd AK drum

[tuna quesadilla]

Anyone have a link to the new ruling?

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf