Ambiguity in mag ruling?

[DanGunner]

While out of state vendors are flooding our mailboxes with offers for mags of more than 10 rounds after ruling, in-state dealers are reluctant to move, one told me today, because they are not certain the ruling allows sales. Waiting for lawyers to clarify, he said.

[Citadelgrad87]

While out of state vendors are flooding our mailboxes with offers for mags of more than 10 rounds after ruling, in-state dealers are reluctant to move, one told me today, because they are not certain the ruling allows sales. Waiting for lawyers to clarify, he said.

The difference, of course, is that the in state vendors care, understandably, very much what state law enforcement will do to them.

[the_tunaman]

A ton of previous posts on the subject... you may want to check the one containing a list of dealers selling them - it includes online retailers as well as LGS’ in State.

There is no ambiguity in the decision, and to this point no stay in effect (knock on wood).

[mit31]

This has been covered repeatedly in multiple threads. The ruling is the opposite of ambiguous. It struck the ENTIRE state penal code. Which includes possession, sales, importation, and gifting of mags.

It did not affect any city bans that may exist. As someone said above, venders that are still saying this are either unable to understand the ruling, or are playing it safe.

While out of state vendors are flooding our mailboxes with offers for mags of more than 10 rounds after ruling, in-state dealers are reluctant to move, one told me today, because they are not certain the ruling allows sales. Waiting for lawyers to clarify, he said.

[blubullett]

I think it is more along the lines of do they want to bring in a couple of pallets of mags that won't be delivered for a couple of days. What happens when they show up on Wed. and they grant a stay on the decision, sticking them with a pallet of mags that they can't sell? A pallet of mags at 100k is a bad mistake to make. Don't hate on them for watching their own asses when we can get them shipped in with almost no effort. Your *** isn't on the line.

[BobbyQuickdraw]

This has been covered repeatedly in multiple threads. The ruling is the opposite of ambiguous. It struck the ENTIRE state penal code. Which includes possession, sales, importation, and gifting of mags.

It did not affect any city bans that may exist. As someone said above, venders that are still saying this are either unable to understand the ruling, or are playing it safe.

In terms of city bans, what resources are there to see what is in effect? I believe the major cities that had/have bans we know of are San Francisco , Sunnyvale, and LOS ANGELES. However, many people have pointed out that the LOS ANGELES ban was sunsetted in 2017 when the state ban came into effect.

One person suggested that only possession was sunsetted, is there truth to this? The reason LA sunsetted the law was to avoid having a duplicate law on the books, it would seem to me if the LA law was sunsetted, it would have been in its entirety and thus LA would have no magazine restrictions.

Unless there was a different law on the books or someone knows otherwise or could direct research elsewhere?

[AtomicOrange]

The linked article quotes Michel saying something like they are still digesting the ruling, but it appears to cover the grandfathered mags and new purchases by everybody.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/30/california-judge-high-capacity-gun-ammunition-magazines/3318916002/

Is Michel's legal opinion now more definitive?

[phrogg111]

There is no ambiguity in the decision. Literally the entire penal code on "high capacity magazines" or "large capacity magazines" has been thrown out. All of CA PC 32310 is null and void right now.

I've bought mags from two local shops so far.

[caliguy93]

there's more penal codes at play for dealers. They have high cap magazine permits and the new ruling likely doesn't effect the statutory requirements that dealers are required to comply with while having that permit.

[Featureless]

The difference, of course, is that the in state vendors care, understandably, very much what state law enforcement will do to them.

Or, they currently don't have beaucoup inventory of "LCM" in stock right now an don't want to risk $$$$ for inventory that they can't sell in CA.

[CALI-gula]

FEAR....

UNCERTAINTY.....

DOUBT....

- "I wear the chain I forged in life," replied the Ghost. "I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?"

[stix213]

In state vendors didn't have stock to sell, and are hesitant to stock up on product which they could be banned from selling by the time it arrives. I'd be doing special orders on an individual customer basis until the request for stay has been answered by the 9th circuit.

[GuyFawkes]

Even the CA Attorney General recognizes that it’s legal right now. They clearly stated that point when requesting the court stay the judgement.

California has restricted the acquisition of LCMs for nearly two decades, and until the Judgment is stayed pending appeal, individuals will be free to acquire new LCMs, and there is evidence that sales have begun already. If Section 32310 is ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove these new LCMs. - Xavier Becerra, CA AG (April 1, 2019)

[Bigdog68]

The difference, of course, is that the in state vendors care, understandably, very much what state law enforcement will do to them.

Yeah, with a business in California that is dependent on the CAL DOJ to sign off on permits to stay in business, anyone would have to think very hard. I don't blame any of them from being careful. And remember, it wouldn't cost anything for the DOJ to roll the dice and try a criminal prosecution to test the legal waters.

[Quiet]

Issue with in-state dealers to consider...

They most likely have a valid CA DOJ large capacity magazine permit; which was required in order to legally be able to make, import, advertise for sale, transfer, and possess 11+ round magazines.

The regulations pertaining on how they operate are still in place and are still in effect.
^The ruling didn't make those go away.

Which means the in-state dealer still needs to log everyone who acquires a 11+ round magazine from them or, when they are auditied by CA DOJ BOF, they run the risk of being put out of business by CA DOJ for failing to maintain required paperwork.

So, in order to buy from an in-state dealer, they would still need to record:
1. Date of transfer.
2. Amount and type of magazines being transferred.
3. Name of transferee.
4. Address of transferee.
5. Tansferee's valid DL/ID.


None of the above would apply to an in-state dealer that never had a CA DOJ large capacity magazine permit.
After the ruling, they would be able to legally order from a manufacturer/distributor and start selling without needing to do any record keeping.