Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

State vs Local Mag Ban

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • FourT6and2
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2012
    • 1928

    State vs Local Mag Ban

    So... at least for the time being, the State can not ban standard capacity and high capacity magazines. Because it is unconstitutional to do so. But how does that affect local bans? This judge's summary judgement states that a specific State Law banning mags is unconstitutional. But some local municipalities have laws in place banning them. This judgement has nothing to do with those local laws.
  • #2
    Librarian
    Admin and Poltergeist
    CGN Contributor - Lifetime
    • Oct 2005
    • 44650

    No effect - each local law must be challenged individually, there is no way a suit against a bit of Penal Code applies to laws in any other jurisdiction.
    ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

    Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

    Comment

    • #3
      Uncivil Engineer
      Senior Member
      • Nov 2016
      • 1101

      Originally posted by FourT6and2
      So... at least for the time being, the State can not ban standard capacity and high capacity magazines. Because it is unconstitutional to do so. But how does that affect local bans? This judge's summary judgement states that a specific State Law banning mags is unconstitutional. But some local municipalities have laws in place banning them. This judgement has nothing to do with those local laws.
      They will need specific challenges but if the state ban is tossed they will likely be tossed as well.the local bans will need to prove how they are different, they aren't so its an easy win.

      Comment

      • #4
        Soginator
        Senior Member
        • Mar 2013
        • 1696

        Question, now that we have 30 rounders again, what does this mean for actually using them in RAW's? I'm guessing that needs to be challenged separately, but dare I hope that since banning their sale was deemed unconstitutional, banning their use would be as well?
        WTS HK USP45c http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1304283

        Comment

        • #5
          Librarian
          Admin and Poltergeist
          CGN Contributor - Lifetime
          • Oct 2005
          • 44650

          Originally posted by Soginator
          Question, now that we have 30 rounders again, what does this mean for actually using them in RAW's? I'm guessing that needs to be challenged separately, but dare I hope that since banning their sale was deemed unconstitutional, banning their use would be as well?
          FAQ - see the first post in 'Do not use LCMS in mag locked guns' thread.
          ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

          Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

          Comment

          • #6
            phrogg111
            Senior Member
            • Jan 2012
            • 750

            If you violate the unconstitutional local law, your defense is given in an 8th circuit decision. You'll still have to hire a lawyer if you get arrested.
            Hunting is a loophole in the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

            There is no privilege to keep and bear arms.

            Arms are for killing people. All other uses of an arm are illegitimate uses.

            Comment

            • #7
              curtisfong
              Calguns Addict
              • Jan 2009
              • 6893

              In particular, as I understand it, Los Angeles (for example) only allowed its possession ban to sunset.

              As far as I know. LA still has a selling, manufacturing, importing, and transferring ban.

              I could be wrong; I would love to get more details on this.

              Back in 2015, before the statewide ban on the possession of +10rd magazines, the City of Los Angeles passed its own possession ban. All of 0% of people within LA complied with this ban, leaving the un


              While we should all be happy there is movement on the state level, let us never forget most of the population lives in cities/counties that have their own plethora of unchallenged laws.
              The Rifle on the WallKamala Harris

              Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

              Comment

              • #8
                scootle
                CGN/CGSSA Contributor
                CGN Contributor
                • Oct 2010
                • 2702

                I have to read the context again, but Benitez specifically called out the Sunnyvale ordinance (and related lawsuit Fyock et al.) in his judgement. Someone more astute than I can comment on how that fits into things.
                SCC CCW *326 Days, $1051.29*
                Application: 2/27/2023 ($72.33)
                Original Interview: 12/21@1030|Actual: 4/13@0900
                'Informal" email Background complete: 9/19
                Email to schedule Psych: 10/27@1539 ($150)
                Psych Test: 11/3@0800|Psych Interview: 11/9@0900 (Dr.McKenzie)
                LiveScan: 11/9 (UPS Store $93+$25)|Livescan cleared: CA/FBI 11/9, Firearms 11/20
                LiveScan Email: 11/17@0842
                Training Email: 11/29@1007|Instructor: 1/10/2024 SaberTactics ($399+40)|Docs: 1/12
                Approval: 1/17@1346 ($264+$7.96)|Pickup: 1/19@1030

                Comment

                • #9
                  DustyAR
                  Junior Member
                  • Jun 2013
                  • 50



                  Like a stubborn child

                  Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    curtisfong
                    Calguns Addict
                    • Jan 2009
                    • 6893

                    Becerra's response is boilerplate, dude.
                    The Rifle on the WallKamala Harris

                    Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      mrvaudo
                      Member
                      • Nov 2013
                      • 407

                      So Us in la city would still be in violation of some local law it sounds like?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        curtisfong
                        Calguns Addict
                        • Jan 2009
                        • 6893

                        Originally posted by mrvaudo
                        So Us in la city would still be in violation of some local law it sounds like?
                        I'm still unclear on which of LA's magazine laws were sunset and which weren't

                        The nuisance regulation (banning possession) was definitely sunsetted.

                        I am having difficulty finding conclusive information on import/sales/manufacture/transfer etc.
                        The Rifle on the WallKamala Harris

                        Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          randomBytes
                          Senior Member
                          • Jan 2012
                          • 1607

                          so I just looked at Sunnyvale's code re LCM's
                          it says possession is not lawful - but makes no mention of what penalties might be - other than perhaps confiscation...

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Uncivil Engineer
                            Senior Member
                            • Nov 2016
                            • 1101

                            Originally posted by randomBytes
                            so I just looked at Sunnyvale's code re LCM's
                            it says possession is not lawful - but makes no mention of what penalties might be - other than perhaps confiscation...
                            A stern talking to

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              boltstop
                              Senior Member
                              • Nov 2007
                              • 927

                              Originally posted by randomBytes
                              so I just looked at Sunnyvale's code re LCM's
                              it says possession is not lawful - but makes no mention of what penalties might be - other than perhaps confiscation...
                              Also, you would be in violation of the law just by driving through Sunnyvale on your way from Santa Clara to Mountain View. Shows you how stupid these laws are.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1