Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[WoodTurner]

What if they never appeal it to the 9th?
Are you guys going to be saying two years from now that you are just waiting for the unconstitutional law to be ruled constitutional? What's the time limit you would give Becerra to appeal before deciding the current ruling is, in fact, the current ruling?

[sfpcservice]

What if they never appeal it to the 9th?
Are you guys going to be saying two years from now that you are just waiting for the unconstitutional law to be ruled constitutional? What's the time limit you would give Becerra to appeal before deciding the current ruling is, in fact, the current ruling?

You think the State won't have lawyers at the federal courthouse 8am tomorrow?

[Chewy65]

I think Guninator had a very valid point to the effect that it would be a violation of due process to enforce the section against a person for acts taken when a citizen has the right to rely on it being null for lack of constitutionality.

Along that line, if it is so ask yourself if it is enough that the order is placed and the magazine is shipped before district court judgment is stayed. You may want to read paragraph (a) of section 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.

Consider when an act of importing into the state occurs. Arguably it is not when you perform the last act needed to cause it to be imported, but when it actually enters the state. That may be a day or more after the date of shipment.

Even if the operative time for purposes of determining when an act of importation occurs is the time of buying from an out of state vendor or the time of shipment, will the act of "receiving" after a stay issues subject one to criminal charges?

Now I understand why some vendors are only selling face to face. At least one, UG Imports reportedly was doing such cash and carry. I don't know if it still is selling.

[tenemae]

will the act of "receiving" after a stay issues subject one to criminal charges?

You're assuming you're in the clear to violate the code until a stay is ordered. That's not been established yet. I've been googling all day and the closest thing I've found is a (hypothetical) 1st amendment challenge involving the KKK.

https://home.ubalt.edu/shapiro/rights_course/Chapter7text.htm

If the injunction is issued and city officials try to enforce the law, they may be found guilty of contempt of court, which may result in fines or a jail sentence.

If the enjoinder is lifted, there can be no charge of contempt of court. The state is free to prosecute at will

[Elgatodeacero]

No no no, the state cannot prosecute anyone under a law that has been enjoined for conduct engaged in during the period the law was enjoined from enforcement.

Now, if the district court decision is reversed then the state could begin enforcing the law, but only for violations that happen after the reversal order (and usually a compliance window, e.g. get all mags out of state withon 30 days of the reversal order becoming final).

The state has no duty to repeal an unconstitutional law, just a duty to refrain from enforcement.

[Guninator]

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

[WoodTurner]

You think the State won't have lawyers at the federal courthouse 8am tomorrow?

Oh, I would put money that they will. I'm just pointing out that the idea of not buying something today, because you think you may not be able to buy it tomorrow, doesn't make sense to me.
Ultimately everyone has to make their own decisions based on their comfort level and that's fine.

Then the law is permanently unenforceable. The legislature will eventually strike it or replace it with something that they believe passes "intermediate scrutiny" per the judge's hypothetical guidelines.



There's a deadline to appeal the ruling. Don't quote me, but I believe it's 90 days

I'm not sure the California legislature would ever strike it from the books, even if ruled unconstitutional. They very well may try to rewrite though.
So 90s days (or whatever the deadline may be) is the minimum amount of time you would wait.
What if it was appealed but without a stay on the current ruling? Still wait for the decision of the 9th?
What if the 9th rules it unconstitutional? Wait for them to take it to SCOTUS?

Serious questions, I'm far from an expert on the matter. Just seems to me always waiting for California to do what California always does will get you no where. Even if SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, they will always be re-introducing it into law with minor changes to the wording. We've seen them do it plenty of times before.

[Uxi]

Seems like almost everyone is already sold out. Want to order from PSA. At least 7 to 14 mags or so. Maybe 20 lol. And 10mm glock mags. And USGI 5.56 and 9mm.

[AggregatVier]

Not an issue for state courts. The next step is in the Ninth Circuit.

Federal courts are open on Monday.

As a retired Fed I get my annuity checks on the first of the month unless it falls on a Sunday or there's a Monday holiday. This time I got my check auto deposited on Saturday, March 30. Living in California (behind enemy lines) the state holiday on Monday was considered by them and did affect Federal timing. If there's no mail on Monday you still can't be sure as USPS is nationwide while the California district court is in the state (same as I am and my Saturday check).

[tony270]

As a retired Fed I get my annuity checks on the first of the month unless it falls on a Sunday or there's a Monday holiday. This time I got my check auto deposited on Saturday, March 30. Living in California (behind enemy lines) the state holiday on Monday was considered by them and did affect Federal timing. If there's no mail on Monday you still can't be sure as USPS is nationwide while the California district court is in the state (same as I am and my Saturday check).

I noticed that it was deposited today, that's why, what state holliday is it?

[butlers]

I noticed that it was deposited today, that's why, what state holliday is it?

Cesar Chavez Day (observed):

the timing of the holiday (CA is the only state that observes Cesar Chavez Day) to slow down the Liberals and give us more time to buy mags.

The Holiday is actually tomorrow (Cesar Chavez Day) but because it falls on a Sunday, the CA government will observe it on Monday April 1st.

[tony270]

Oh, thanks.

[pistol3]

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.

You are so far out in left field on this one. Let's take, for example, the KY fetal heartbeat abortion ban that was also enjoined last week. Are you telling me that KY abortion doctors are going to now stop doing abortions after a heartbeat is detected because the ruling will be appealed and potentially reversed? Are they worried they could be charged for abortions done while the law was enjoined? No, of course not. The KY abortion bill is "law" and in the "books" too, but they are going to keep aborting babies with heartbeats. If people who violate laws while they are enjoined can be retroactively prosecuted, then enjoining a law is meaningless.

[tenemae]

"I've got evidence but refuse to enlighten you" is the go-to way for someone incapable of winning an argument to attempt to do so.

If it was such a "basic" legal concept, you'd have no problem sliding it into the argument (a la "read heller") that you currently appear quite happy doing pro gratis

[Guninator]

"I've got evidence but refuse to enlighten you" is the go-to way for someone incapable of winning an argument to attempt to do so.



If it was such a "basic" legal concept, you'd have no problem sliding it into the argument (a la "read heller") that you currently appear quite happy doing pro gratis

I have better things to do than Google for you.