Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[MajorCaliber]

Some day, some really sharp lawyer may file a challenge to PC 32390 and win. My personal opinion is that a legal challenge would succeed in an objective court.

But that ain't happened yet.

If Chuck Michel thinks this ruling is going to be standing law for a while, this might be a fantastic time for such a challenge along with an immediate MSJ. It seems to me that if mags are legally protected arms under 2A at this time, they cannot be declared a nuisance and summarily confiscated any more than a bible, a koran, a yarmulke, or a printing press. I would think that would be a slam dunk.

This makes me wonder if anybody currently has standing for this. Perhaps somebody will order no more seizures under this law just to prevent somebody from gaining standing and launching such a challenge at this point.

[Elgatodeacero]

Majorcaliber is correct, but it is such a
non issue that no one will waste any time on it.

[Non Political Californian]

Now get a published Appellate Court ruling so holding, and hen you can do away with the nuisance statute.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Ink blotted paper's only good for shooting holes in.

I find it absolutely astounding the way so many are determined to lose, no wonder this state has gone to **** so fast.

[SimpleCountryActuary]

If Chuck Michel thinks this ruling is going to be standing law for a while, this might be a fantastic time for such a challenge along with an immediate MSJ. It seems to me that if mags are legally protected arms under 2A at this time, they cannot be declared a nuisance and summarily confiscated any more than a bible, a koran, a yarmulke, or a printing press. I would think that would be a slam dunk.

This makes me wonder if anybody currently has standing for this. Perhaps somebody will order no more seizures under this law just to prevent somebody from gaining standing and launching such a challenge at this point.

Which leads us to ammo being constitutionally protected and thereby legally protected from being a nuisance. After all, what good is a 30 round magazine if you can't buy ammo?

[92E2]

"Just one judge"? No, it's a federal judge.
Just one judge was all it took to strike 187, 22 and 8.
In fact, I would argue that striking 187, 22 and 8 has resulted in a higher need for that 100 round drum

The reversal of the citizen's vote of their own tax $$$ on 187 by a judge shopped SJW judge was the start of California's downfall to the tune of $25 BILLION / year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187

[SkyHawk]

Nice for them, they waited though, reward the shops which acted first. Cucking must never pay in any way, no matter how temporary.

LOL - when do we get to find out what your last banned username was?

[Non Political Californian]

Which leads us to ammo being constitutionally protected and thereby legally protected from being a nuisance. After all, what good is a 30 round magazine if you can't buy ammo?

Anarcho tyranny only exists when the law abiding abide. This mess isn't going to be fixed by begging the enemy to take their boot off your neck.

[SimpleCountryActuary]

Anarcho tyranny only exists when the law abiding abide. This mess isn't going to be fixed by begging the enemy to take their boot off your neck.

Um, not what I meant. If this ruling holds up, and the declaration of standard capacity magazines as a nuisance falls, then the ammo law restrictions can be attacked in the same way.

[Chewy65]

That didn't show on Brownells wab site an hour ago. Still, proceed with caution as discussed in several posts above.

[Chewy65]

And this is now up at Brownells

[1bulletBarney]

Dvrjon,

You're correct in that PC 32390 was not affected by Judge Benitez' decision.

That's kinda surprising considering his discussion of that section in his dicta, and his commentary that it also was unconstitutional.

Courts are loathe to award a plaintiff more relief than was sought in their pleadings, but given the strength of his commentary, I really expected that he would also enjoin enforcement of section 32390.

But having noted that, LE agencies tend to be very respectful of federal court decisions (both dicta and holding) while a case is working through the legal system.

Even though it's technically possible for officer to still seize large-capacity magazines, I would not expect that they will do so until there is a final ruling.

It's hard for me to believe, given the thorough attention to detail given by Judge Benitez in his Summary Judgement that he would overlook Section 32390. I wonder if the good judge omitted any reference to Section 32390 for a specific reason and what could that reason possibly be???

I suppose it is possible the judge was so focused on blowing up Section 32310 that he left 32390 fluttering in the wind...

[Elgatodeacero]

penal code 32390 is discussed at the top of pg. 82, lines 1-9, and the judge basically says its a stupid law that cannot be enforced.

[Bestpinoza]

For hk owners:


Just emailed hkparts and they are shipping all magazines to CA.

[SDM44]

My take on this is that the CA DOJ must file an appeal, otherwise they will also lose 30515(2) and 30515(5) which are definitions of AWs. I do not think that they will want to see part of their beloved AWCA start to be picked apart piece by piece.

My take on this is that the CA DOJ must file an appeal in order to save face with its lefty CA residents, especially those who voted for Prop 63 last year and are hardcore anti-gunners.

I'm sure they're also worried about losing those PC's, but being the self-proclaimed state with the strictest gun control laws and then this happens, is a slap in their (and Gavin's) face.

[mooner760HD]

Can anyone educate me on the role of the NRA, FPC, and CRPA in this victory? I was under the impression this effort was CRPA headed but now am seeing NRA claiming credit and FPC asking for donations.