Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[oak18]

I’m not sure I am going to drill out ALL of my riveted mags, I have a feeling Ca govt won’t go down without a fight.

I will be buying pistol mags for my G19 and Sig though.

What are you guys doing?

As long as the mags I purchased ship and get here, I probably won’t drill out any of my 10/30 mags. I’d rather not have to re-rivet them or replace them in the future if California gets its way.

The only way I’ll drill them out is if we somehow get to legally keep our standard cap mags.

[ar15barrels]

Who came up with 10 rounds anyway ? It is an arbitrary number. If the courts allow a 10 round restriction, then why not 5 rounds or one ?

The federal government limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds in the 1994 assault weapons bill.
The bill expired in 2004.
No mags could be imported or manufactured in the USA from 1994 to 2004.
All the mags over 10 rounds sold to civilians during that time had been imported before September 13th 1994.
As part of the negotiations to get it passed, a 10 year sunset clause was added.

I had half a dozen barrels in my shop in September of 2004 waiting to see if the bill would actually sunset or not.
Those barrels all got threaded on September 14th.

The federal law also banned semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and TWO or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

From this wording, CA then wrote it's ban on semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and ONE or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Flash hider
Grenade launcher

[tuna quesadilla]

Got to love it.

YES

[Adeodatus]

So reading over everything it sounds like currently all CA businesses are still stuck with needing the Hi Cap Mag Permit in order to sell >10 mags. Any objections to that?

Private person to private person is good to go, along with biz outside CA to private person, but if a business within CA doesn't have that permit they are cut out of the market.

Bumping this question.

[wpod]

Guess I snoozed and losed (lost).
I've been meaning to post my 10 round mags to sell since moving to AZ last year.
Maybe I can still sell my snow skis & surf board.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Chewy65]

I’m not sure I am going to drill out ALL of my riveted mags, I have a feeling Ca govt won’t go down without a fight.

I will be buying pistol mags for my G19 and Sig though.

What are you guys doing?

I ordered a standard mag for my Sig from GunsMidwest and it took my order and sent me a confirmation invoice by email, but I cancelled the order since I cannot risk the ramifications of being charged with importation when the dust settles. Not just that, but I am planning to leave the state soon and will then be able to forget all this California rubbish. I am also considering how difficult it would be to modify my 10 round Sig magazines to accept 15 rounds, after the dust settles.

[M60A1Rise]

Got to love it.

[Mesa Defense]

Just fyi. An interesting article reviewing the decision by law professor Eugene Volokh.

Hope you guys don't mind my placing it here.

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/29...-enjoins-calif

Good read, thanks for posting it Jarrod.

[Yuba]

Great point. Going to purchase.

Yes I am featureless for this wondering

[BryMan92]

That article is not authored by E. Volokh, but by David Kopel who is a strong supporter of the right. Volokh too is a strong supporter but he did come out with an article back in 2014 stating that Mag restriction laws do pass constitutional review. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.059cf8f29020

I was hoping to see if he had changed his mind as I highly respect his writing on 2A issues

I think his point, then was, that local ordinances are more tailored than state bans. In Duncan, the Judge Benitez talks about Fyock which was the Sunnyvale case.

[Chewy65]

I think his point, then was, that local ordinances are more tailored than state bans. In Duncan, the Judge Benitez talks about Fyock which was the Sunnyvale case.

Good point and, as Kopel's article notes, Benitez considered that the state statute was poorly "tailored".

Under heightened scrutiny, laws restricting constitutional rights must be "tailored"--in strict scrutiny, "narrow tailoring"; in intermediate scrutiny, "a reasonable fit." But the confiscation statute "is not tailored at all. It fits like a burlap bag. It is a single-dimensional, prophylactic, blanket thrown across the population of the state.

"

[seabee1]

Been busy following several different threads on this case, does anyone have a link to judge Benitez' entire ruling?

[menancyandsam]

I think his point, then was, that local ordinances are more tailored than state bans. In Duncan, the Judge Benitez talks about Fyock which was the Sunnyvale case.

[Guninator]

BTW, Trump is packing the 9th Circuit and DiFi ain't happy about it, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha!

[John Browning]

Now that the Honorable Judge Benitez (AKA Constututional MAGAzine Warrior), with actual purview over the issue, has issued a crystal clear opinion that these bans are NOT Constitutional, I'm going to bet that he's changed his opinion.