Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[bv141]

Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan IS a RINO.

Ryan let 39 House seats go 'unopposed' helping to flip the House to Democrats.
Ryan is now on the Board of directors for Fox News.
Donna Brazil (NOT a Conservative) now works for Fox News also.

The Democrats and RINOs are the same same party.
Ryan-Care was warmed over Obama-Care (where the pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies win even more.)


Trump is not in full control YET....not by a long stretch.
Only when John McCain died, did Lindsey Graham start acting like a Republican.

[SlimBlundt]

Brownells is now shipping all plus 10 mags...

[LVSox]

The answer is probably buried somewhere in this thread, but...

Won't the appeal of this injunction go to a 3-judge panel that's the same panel that upheld the PI?

Yes

[liberty_head]

In the following situation, would the these actions be lawful and sensible?

A California resident is considering the legal purchase or acquisition of a semiautomatic pistol. They are familiar with California laws, and though knowledgeable and experienced with firearms they have not yet acquired their California FSC. They have been researching or shopping, though frustrated by the 10-round limit, partly because a parent living in another state could transfer to them a pistol that they are interested in but which has standard capacity magazines greater than 10-rounds.

The Duncan v. Bacerra order appears to make legal, at least for now, the purchase, importing, transferring, and possession of standard or large capacity magazines. Although judge Benitez refers to magazines as an "essential mechanical part" of a firearm, and further states that magazines are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment, a California resident does not require a FSC to purchase legal magazines and they need not be shipped to/through an FLL.

Thus, in consideration of the Duncan v. Bacerra order, and the possible future lawful transfer of the pistol from the parent in another state to the California resident, would it be lawful and sensible for the parent to mail the pistol's standard capacity magazines directly to the person now, with a signed note indicating the date and circumstances, since this may be a limited window of opportunity to lawfully acquire and possess them? The person could then wait to see how things play out, whether or not they acquire the pistol as well (through lawful transfer). If judge Benitez's order is reversed, they could simply mail the magazines back to the parent or otherwise lawfully relinquish them.

[Syntax Error]

Is it not the same 3-judge panel that decided on maintaining the PI pending final order like last time? Please correct me if I'm misinformed.

[Red-Osier]

There are a number of other non-Cali member forums where private individuals are not only shipping to CA, but shipping ONLY to CA. (Just in case y’all have been living under a rock. In a cave. On Mars.) It’s poor form to promote other sites on this one, so I’ll not post links, just a little screen shot I took to memorialize the occasion:



[ATTACH]792149[/ATTACH]

Well, guess I haven’t figured out posting images yet. Oh well, the point remains.

Fixed it for ya.

[NapaPlinker]

That was a bit much. Until they say we aren't free to acquire them, you are free to acquire them.

Is anyone even reading the posts anymore??

In the following situation, would the these actions be lawful and sensible?

A California resident is considering the legal purchase or acquisition of a semiautomatic pistol. They are familiar with California laws, and though knowledgeable and experienced with firearms they have not yet acquired their California FSC. They have been researching or shopping, though frustrated by the 10-round limit, partly because a parent living in another state could transfer to them a pistol that they are interested in but which has standard capacity magazines greater than 10-rounds.

The Duncan v. Bacerra order appears to make legal, at least for now, the purchase, importing, transferring, and possession of standard or large capacity magazines. Although judge Benitez refers to magazines as an "essential mechanical part" of a firearm, and further states that magazines are "arms" within the meaning of the meaning of the Second Amendment, a California resident does not require a FSC to purchase legal magazines and they need not be shipped to/through an FLL.

Thus, in consideration of the Duncan v. Bacerra order, and the possible future lawful transfer of the pistol from the parent in another state to the California resident, would it be lawful and sensible for the parent to mail the pistol's standard capacity magazines directly to the person now, with a signed note indicating the date and circumstances, since this may be a limited window of opportunity to lawfully acquire and possess them? The person could then wait to see how things play out, whether or not they acquire the pistol as well (through lawful transfer). If judge Benitez's order is reversed, they could simply mail the magazines back to the parent or otherwise lawfully relinquish them.

[SlimBlundt]

Fixed it for ya.

Thanks!

[Red-Osier]

Thanks!

[Balrog23]

Hi everyone, does anyone have any updates or information for how this Federal Ruling applies (if at all) to people who live in municipalities like Oakland, San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have local Hi Cap Ban ordinances? Wikipedia was the only place that mentions that the enforcement of those local bans are currently unenforceable due to this Federal Ruling. Are residents in those Cities still a no go? Thanks all!

[Cummins_Powered]

Hi everyone, does anyone have any updates or information for how this Federal Ruling applies (if at all) to people who live in municipalities like Oakland, San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have local Hi Cap Ban ordinances? Wikipedia was the only place that mentions that the enforcement of those local bans are currently unenforceable due to this Federal Ruling. Are residents in those Cities still a no go? Thanks all!

It seems these local ordinances are unaffected by the current ruling. They would need to be challenged separately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christopher761]

In the following situation, would the these actions be lawful and sensible?

would it be lawful and sensible for the parent to mail the pistol's standard capacity magazines directly to the person now, with a signed note indicating the date and circumstances, since this may be a limited window of opportunity to lawfully acquire and possess them? The person could then wait to see how things play out, whether or not they acquire the pistol as well (through lawful transfer). If judge Benitez's order is reversed, they could simply mail the magazines back to the parent or otherwise lawfully relinquish them.

Lawful to mail right now? yes
Lawful to receive right now? yes
Lawful to receive next week? not sure, depends on further court or appellate court orders/stays.

If the order is stayed, that might make possession illegal. Depends on the order/stay.

Yes, if they are no longer legal, you can mail them back.

Is it sensible? No comment

As far as to whether you can import the firearm itself, is a whole other discussion, and should be in a separate threat, as it is not related to the magazine. Short answer: if it is on roster, no problem to transfer through California FFL. Off Roster is more complicated.

[Offwidth]

Would not mailing it back constitute an illegal transfer?

[liberty_head]

Would not mailing it back constitute an illegal transfer?

The original law, cited on page 9 of the judge's order, states:

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;
(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or
(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for
destruction.

So, mailing it back would be (1).


Christopher761: Well the firearm itself is most certainly related to the magazine, hence my carefully worded question. The pistol is on the CA DOJ Handgun Roster, but it's immediate family, so even less complicated.

NapaPlinker: Yes, people are reading these posts, and I mentioned a couple of things that haven't been noted anywhere in this thread.

[Ishooter]

Hi everyone, does anyone have any updates or information for how this Federal Ruling applies (if at all) to people who live in municipalities like Oakland, San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have local Hi Cap Ban ordinances? Wikipedia was the only place that mentions that the enforcement of those local bans are currently unenforceable due to this Federal Ruling. Are residents in those Cities still a no go? Thanks all!

From my understanding, those cities are also affected by the ruling, since the ruling is for the entire state. However, they can be stubborn enough to enforce their own laws and go against the state & the judicial system. And if they prosecute you, they'll have to file it with the local DA and then the local court. What are their chances that the local DA and the local court will go against their big bosses (Becerra) and the higher court?

I don't know of their chances, but if they prosecute you, then I'd think your opportunity to win them in court is very high. You may make some money out of it, too.

Your situation is kind of similar like when the first few AR owners with bullet buttons got prosecuted years ago by local cops after the higher court ruled the bullet button is legal. The local cities lost.