Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[Strykeback]

But, are they holding it or cancelling?

Well **** I thought my order was good to go last night from grabagun. Looks like the guys near border towns can enjoy a drive.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[gobler]

Jestice has factory Berreta for $24.95:



http://jesticearms.com/Beretta-PX4-9...search=beretta

[emoji1786] I get "This account has been suspended" when I click the link..

[dinamael]

So... I'm sorta hoping some of my orders get cancelled at this point. I ordered so many mags from all the companies that are/were supposedly shipping to CA that, if they all go through, my wife might smother me in my sleep.

[Strykeback]

If millions of new mags make it in, then if an enbanc or hold goes on for another couple years, how do they tell what's already here and what someone brought back from Vegas or Oregon later on? It's not as easy as the new mags that didnt exist before the previous ban being a dead give away

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[559BearDown]

Robertrtg.com is shipping orders to California while supplies last. (As of now, anyway)

[XD40Kyle]

I'm sure it's been answered somewhere but after drilling out the rivets in my 30 round pmags, could I use it in a maglocked ar? Or would I need to switch it to featureless? I was planning on going to the range tomorrow

[M60A1Rise]

The prohibition on acquisition is specifically mentioned and struck down. I'm very confused as to why people are unsure about this and why we are waiting until next week to hear more. This reads to me, as a non-lawyer who tries to understand and follow the law, as a crystal clear end to the ban on 10 round mags. The below is from the actual ruling in the Conclusion on Page 83, which it seems many people opining on this haven't actually read. Most of the decision is a take down of the ban on 10 round magazines, NOT on the forced taking of ones already legally owned.

burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."

"When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds

The issue of legally owned pre-2000 magazines is almost an afterthought in the decision:

32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."

How does this NOT legally allow for the purchase of new standard capacity magazines? Someone care to give an informed legal opinion? If the entire section is declared unconstitutional, how can anything within it still be illegal?

Gun laws are so overly complex, that even well-meaning citizens with every intent of trying to follow the law have become fearful of some technical violation of some unknown law, which is a shame. I've had the personal experience of trying to figure out the law to gift a firearm across state lines, calling CA DOJ, and being told that by several different people that you just pay $19 and send in a CA DOJ form. If it wasn't for more leg work on my part and conversations with helpful people, I'd have taken very bad advice from DOJ despite my best efforts to be honest.

As an educated person and non-lawyer, I read this decision as a plain as day green light on the acquisition of new <10 round mags. If this decision can go through some kind of legal mental gymnastics to reach any other conclusion, then I don't think there is any hope for good people to wade the legal minefield that has apparently been created for legal gun owners.

GREAT post and my feelings as well. Thanks.

[M60A1Rise]

nmnmnmnmnmnm

[butlers]

I know this might be futile, but I'm trying to get a list going of places that will sell:

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1521211

[Subotai]

Well **** I thought my order was good to go last night from grabagun. Looks like the guys near border towns can enjoy a drive.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

That's a bummer, my SD9VE will not be pleased.

[Thordo]

I just finished reading aloud to my wife THE ENTIRE 86 page ruling buy Justice Benitez with gusto!! He completely destroys EVERY argument that Baccera and DOJ had arguing the validity of PC 32310.

The state's argument rested almost solely on "opinions" from so called "experts", magazine articles, and "studies" based on little to no factual information. He picks every single one of them apart and goes even further to accuse the state AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT that much of the testimony and reference to previous 9C rulings were conducted under made up standards and tests to determine the level of scrutiny that the cases were decided under.

BULLY!! For NRA, CRPA, CGF, FPC, and all other advocacy groups who contributed to this significant victory.

BULLY!! To all of us law abiding, freedom loving citizens that contributed to the organizations that fought and won this battle FOR US!!

As I personally read and understand Justice Benitez' order, PC 32310 is hereby nullified and standard capacity magazines, no matter when they were acquired, are legal in CA again.

He did however, leave room for exceptions, like 50 or 100 rd mags as they are recent offerings to the market and not necessarily in common use.

He also left the door open for other regulations that he says would not burden 2A such as requiring magazines to be serialized. This would be futile IMHO because there are already MILLIONS of 10+ rd mags already in the state. But we know our overlords. If they can get away with it THEY WILL!!

I'm sure the AG and DOJ are gonna drag their collective arses in notifying LE statewide and will surely seek an appeal, but this ruling is so strong it will be tough, even for the most liberal court, to overturn.

Again, A GREAT VICTORY FOR FREE CALIFORNIANS!!!

Thordo

[DRM6000]

I'm sure it's been answered somewhere but after drilling out the rivets in my 30 round pmags, could I use it in a maglocked ar? Or would I need to switch it to featureless? I was planning on going to the range tomorrow

Not legal to use mags with a capacity greater than 10rds in a maglocked rifle. That creates an AW.

GTG in a featureless.

[Guninator]

I'm sure the AG and DOJ are gonna drag their collective arses in notifying LE statewide and will surely seek an appeal, but this ruling is so strong it will be tough, even for the most liberal court, to overturn.

Not to be a buzzkill, but it will be very easy for a liberal Ninth Circuit court to overturn. The only hope is somehow a Republican-appointed majority 3-judge panel gets the case and the Circuit does not vote to review it en banc (the entire Circuit) as they did in Peruta.

Or, or, Ruth Bader Ginsberg runs out of virgin blood to drink and dies and we get a SCOTUS writ.

[retired]

Here is something that may put a damper on things:

Its a start, but its not over. From AO Sword Firearms in San Diego:

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 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, nor does it prevent the COURTS from convicting you of a violation of this 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 were temporarily banned from charging you. You still broke the law (which was not struck down), they just were prohibited from charging you at the time.

They can also prosecute all the gun shops who (valiantly but foolishly) 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.

[DRM6000]

Here is something that may put a damper on things:

Its a start, but its not over. From AO Sword Firearms in San Diego:

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 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, nor does it prevent the COURTS from convicting you of a violation of this 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 were temporarily banned from charging you. You still broke the law (which was not struck down), they just were prohibited from charging you at the time.

They can also prosecute all the gun shops who (valiantly but foolishly) 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.

Interesting interpretation.

In the judge's conclusion he wrote:

Doesn't that nullify the law?

Local LE are sworn state peace officers. They are enjoined.