Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[Psychbiker]

So if a officer who isn’t versed on the law is ok arresting you BUT a citizen who’s doesn’t have internet and not knowledgeable of the ever changing laws is more responsible?

[Chewy65]

I agree. Local LEO enforcing state law are acting in concert with the AG.



According to other posters upthread who sound like they know what they're talking about, that's exactly what it means. Although it seems unlikely that anyone would be convicted, an officer who hadn't gotten official notice and arrested you wouldn't have done anything wrong. You could conceivably have a lot of legal wrangling to deal with.

If anyone may find themselves in a position where they are at risk of being arrested for violation of 32310, it may not hurt to have a copy of the first and last two pages of the decision with you in case you run into an officer who has yet to receive notice of it.

What RickD posted about politics and the administration ordering street cops to wrongfully enforce laws makes a lot of practical sense.

It just so happens that my wife is in a free state for now and could pick up some standard magazines before returning home tomorrow, but there is no way I would have her risk running afoul of our crazy gun laws just so I can carry a few more rounds in my Sig.

[DRM6000]

Does the words "shall be" imply that 32310 is not yet enjoined but shall be in the future? Perhaps it only means that its enforcement shall be enjoined upon receipt of notice of injunction.

Shall means to command. I believe this is the correct definition given the context.

[Guninator]

Welcome to the wonderful world of qualified immunity. Want to reform police abuses? Start there.

[tonyxcom]

How come it doesnt apply to maglocked pistols/rifles? Any one have the pc?

Because putting anything over 10rnds in a mag locked gun creates an AW.

Nothing about being able to legally own or buy these magazines changes AW law.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Welcome to the wonderful world of qualified immunity. Want to reform police abuses? Start there.

Qualified immunity is a necessity. Courts have ruled that police officers do not have to act... do you really want a police officer who is charged with protecting you to have to worry about being sued personally by a rich dirt bag?

If a police officer steps outside his purview as a police officer by doing something not commensurate with his job, there is no qualified immunity.

[Elgatodeacero]

Qualified immunity is a necessity. Courts have ruled that police officers do not have to act... do you really want a police officer who is charged with protecting you to have to worry about being sued personally by a rich dirt bag?

If a police officer steps outside his purview as a police officer by doing something not commensurate with his job, there is no qualified immunity.

this is a complete misunderstanding of what qualified immunity is and where the concept came from. please do not spread this misinformation.

[chuck44]

Sounds like some have issues with certain laws. Qualified immunity does not protect law enforcement from being held liable for violating laws or individuals rights.

[Elgatodeacero]

Sounds like some have issues with certain laws. Qualified immunity does not protect law enforcement from being held liable for violating laws or individuals rights.

The horrible, totally made up doctrine of qualified immunity does in fact block claims against police officers for violating rights and laws.

see this discussion:

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/22/the-timing-of-qualified-immunity

see also this case for a fairly standard example of how courts use this made up legal shield to block very valid claims based upon the most twisted and ridiculous "logic" possible.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/03/20/17-16756.pdf

[blubullett]

If anyone may find themselves in a position where they are at risk of being arrested for violation of 32310, it may not hurt to have a copy of the first and last two pages of the decision with you in case you run into an officer who has yet to receive notice of it.

What RickD posted about politics and the administration ordering street cops to wrongfully enforce laws makes a lot of practical sense.

It just so happens that my wife is in a free state for now and could pick up some standard magazines before returning home tomorrow, but there is no way I would have her risk running afoul of our crazy gun laws just so I can carry a few more rounds in my Sig.

Have her throw them in a flat rate box from the post office and ship them back. That way she doesn't have them on her.

[WartHog]

Have her throw them in a flat rate box from the post office and ship them back. That way she doesn't have them on her.

I believe if the Postal Service ran said box thru a x-ray scanner or otherwise discovered the magazines, it would be no bueno.

[jcwatchdog]

I believe if the Postal Service ran said box thru a x-ray scanner or otherwise discovered the magazines, it would be no bueno.

[Chewy65]

Have her throw them in a flat rate box from the post office and ship them back. That way she doesn't have them on her.

Thanks, but I would never ask my wife to do anything that might possibly subject her to criminal liability.

[stylett9]

[davefromca]

I believe if the Postal Service ran said box thru a x-ray scanner or otherwise discovered the magazines, it would be no bueno.