Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[Elgatodeacero]

Just keep in mind that original OEM factory limited 10 round magazines will someday be worth a fortune on the collectors market.......

[tonyxcom]

At the very least, UNBLOCK all of your limited magazines right meow.

[aBrowningfan]

I wonder how long before we can bring our 10+ round magazines to ranges and use them?

[tonyxcom]

I wonder how long before we can bring our 10+ round magazines to ranges and use them?

There is always one.

[RickD427]

Folks - I know everyone has a LOT of questions about the practical effects of this ruling. Please give us time to study it and we will put out a bulletin on the practical effects next week. We will review the questions posted here, and all the others we are getting, and try to answer them all. Meanwhile, have a beer tonight and be thankful that there are still judges who "get it" and respect the 2A! Oh, and join the NRA and CRPA. They they are funding this and a whole bunch of other 2A cases. They aren't perfect, but they are the best there is. And wha da ya want for $35 bucks anyway?!

Link to the Court's Order: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ntiffs-MSJ.pdf

Sean,

Congratulations. It looks like your firm did an outstanding job here. I know that there are going to be a lot of questions flowing from the decision.

But one question that really troubles me is that your firm focused exclusively on Penal Code section 32310 which provided criminal penalties for acts relating to large capacity magazines.

Judge Benitez wrote very specifically to the constitutional rights of those possessing such magazines, and to the level of scrutiny the courts must apply in considering constitutional claims.

I didn't see your firm make any issue with Penal Code section 32390 permitting the non-criminal seizure of such magazines, nor did I see PC 32390 addressed by Judge Benitez.

Are Californian's still at risk of having their lawfully possessed large capacity magazines subject to civil seizure?

[UberPatriot]

Congratulations from Washington state

[weaselfire]

Okay, who is going to be the test case on this one?

Jeff

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[wilderness medic]

Okay, who is going to be the test case on this one?

Jeff

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Well someone already ordered hi cap Glock mags from PSA. Order went through so far

[aBrowningfan]

Sean,

Congratulations. It looks like your firm did an outstanding job here. I know that there are going to be a lot of questions flowing from the decision.

But one question that really troubles me is that your firm focused exclusively on Penal Code section 32310 which provided criminal penalties for acts relating to large capacity magazines.

Judge Benitez wrote very specifically to the constitutional rights of those possessing such magazines, and to the level of scrutiny the courts must apply in considering constitutional claims.

I didn't see your firm make any issue with Penal Code section 32390 permitting the non-criminal seizure of such magazines, nor did I see PC 32390 addressed by Judge Benitez.

Are Californian's still at risk of having their lawfully possessed large capacity magazines subject to civil seizure?

This may be where Xavier gets too cute by half and goes ahead and certifies that people found to be in possession of magazines with a capacity of 10+ rounds will not be prosecuted for possession, but will nonetheless have the magazines seized as a nuisance.

[JWHuey]

You must work at Optics Planet.

Bwaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa

[tonyxcom]

This may be where Xavier gets too cute by half and goes ahead and certifies that people found to be in possession of magazines with a capacity of 10+ rounds will not be prosecuted for possession, but will nonetheless have the magazines seized as a nuisance.

Then you just go buy a new one.

[aBrowningfan]

Then you just go buy a new one.

Or, keep them in the closet so to speak.

[Chatterbox]

I didn't see your firm make any issue with Penal Code section 32390 permitting the non-criminal seizure of such magazines, nor did I see PC 32390 addressed by Judge Benitez.

Are Californian's still at risk of having their lawfully possessed large capacity magazines subject to civil seizure?

I (personally) would feel quite comfortable rolling the dice on having my high capacity magazines non-criminally confiscated. That would be a nuisance indeed...but nothing beyond that.

[tonyxcom]

Or, keep them in the closet so to speak.

That aspect is no different then where we were yesterday. For those of us who legally own these mags... you just gotta have a little street smarts where you use them.

[RickD427]

This may be where Xavier gets too cute by half and goes ahead and certifies that people found to be in possession of magazines with a capacity of 10+ rounds will not be prosecuted for possession, but will nonetheless have the magazines seized as a nuisance.

That's precisely the point of my question to Mr. Brady.

The text of Judge Benitez' decision seems to indicate that civil seizure of large capacity magazines is just as constitutionally impermissible as are criminal sanctions, but yet neither Michel and Associates, nor Judge Benitez appear to have addressed the question.

Is that battle being left for another day?