Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[Discogodfather]

Keep in mind that most of these orders have been placed over the weekend. I'd expect a flood of shipments tomorrow.

It's going to be interesting to see how all this plays out this week.

I'd be ready for "emergency actions" as early as tomorrow morning. They are going to have a field day with this, expect a huge media barrage too.

This is a hay-maker right in the face of the anti-gun movement in CA, they are going to go NUTZ.

[seabee1]

I'd be ready for "emergency actions" as early as tomorrow morning.

poor libtards will have to work on their communist holiday...and I use the term "work" lightly, they probably will pay themselves triple time to continue pushing their anti Constitution agenda.

[MissiontoMars]

Some stores are taking orders, but I believe most are not and more and more that took them are cancelling. I am no ordering because I don't want to be disbarred if found guilty of a felony, which I fear could be the result if Benitez's ruling is vacated, which has a high probability given any appeal will be to the 9th. I don't think we will have a final ruling on this for at least a year and a half and I hope to be out of this state by then.

I think this is a valid thought process.

[Jarrod]

I think this is a valid thought process.

[viet4lifeOC]

Just got an email that https://gunmagwarehouse.com is now shipping to CA.

Can you post it?

I can't find anything on the site that arts they'll ship to CA.

Read that grabagun was good to go...Placed an order...and now some are saying otherwise.

Thanks

[tenemae]

Due process prohibits states from charging you with a crime that was enjoined or held unconstitutional for acts committed after that time, even if that determination is reversed by a higher court - unless you continue to break it after it's been upheld.

I'd love to believe that, but can you back up your assertion with a reference?

Ex post facto enforcement of an enjoined law? See Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution for comment.

[oak18]

Can you post it?

I can't find anything on the site that arts they'll ship to CA.

Read that grabagun was good to go...Placed an order...and now some are saying otherwise.

Thanks

I hope GrabAGun is good to go. I spent a lot of money yesterday but forgot to get a 33 round Glock mag and ended up ordering one from there.

[asymmetricalwarfar3]

We have any ideas on how long we get this one freedom? Hope it's not order mags on Saturday. Then hurry and order mag blocks on Wednesday?

Haha

[Kokopelli]

[Whiskey_Tango]

Can you post it?

I can't find anything on the site that arts they'll ship to CA.

Read that grabagun was good to go...Placed an order...and now some are saying otherwise.

Thanks

[MissiontoMars]

lol

[tenemae]

Until it's declared constitutional by a higher court. The law didn't go away.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." ( Marbury vs. Madison , 1803.)

I'm surprised you didn't follow that up with "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?"

[pistol3]

32310 is not established law. How are you going to say a law that was partially injuncted (I don't know if that is a word) and then fully enjoined is "established"? CA would have to write some sort of new ex post facto law criminalizing everyone who bought magazines while it was enjoined. And what about people who continued to possess their pre-ban standard capacity magazines while the injunction was in effect? Would they instantly be felons? It is after July 1, 2017 after all. CA isn't going to convince the Feds to make a joke of their power to issue injunctions or enjoin laws, even if the judges they appeal to support the law that was enjoined.

[RickD427]

32310 is not established law. How are you going to say a law that was partially injuncted (I don't know if that is a word) and then fully enjoined is "established"? CA would have to write some sort of new ex post facto law criminalizing everyone who bought magazines while it was enjoined. And what about people who continued to possess their pre-ban standard capacity magazines while the injunction was in effect? Would they instantly be felons? It is after July 1, 2017 after all. CA isn't going to convince the Feds to make a joke of their power to issue injunctions or enjoin laws, even if the judges they appeal to support the law that was enjoined.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of "enjoined."

Penal Code section 32310 remains law and it remains "on the books." It's pretty much useless because the federal court has found it to be unconstitutional. The judge did nothing to remove Penal Code section 32310 from the law. He only ordered that it not be enforced.

The reason is simple. The Ninth Circuit can overrule the trial court and find that section 32310 is constitutional (I'm not saying they will do that. I'm saying they can do that.) If the Ninth Circuit does find 32310 to be constitutional, then the injunction against enforcement is lifted. Should that occur there is no need to enact a "new" section 32310 because the "old" one never went away.

[tenemae]

And what about people who continued to possess their pre-ban standard capacity magazines while the injunction was in effect? Would they instantly be felons?

32310.

(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
[...]
(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:

they will need to re-write only part d). Part d) has been made unenforceable by the injunction (and later, enjoinder). Nothing about a) needs to change and can be enforced today if the ruling is overturned.

Therefore, continued posession of grandfathered mags is kosher (due to the injunction being in effect as the deadline passed). Violating subsection a) has nothing to do with that injunction or deadline- only the enjoinder (which can be overturned)