Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[Offwidth]

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).
.

As I read it removing means personally removing, without changing possession.
Returning a purchase would be, would not it?

Frankly, I do not care. I ordered a few 15rd Glock magazines, if they take it away, I will be mad a little, but comply. Will just keep donating to good lawsuits.

As far as lawyers vs non lawyer debate, I appreciate professional opinion here. But I also think any such opinion should be possible to express in plain English terms that a normal person can understand. My counsel at work certainly can do that.

How professional judges can read Benitez reasoning and overturn it is beyond me. They must be rotten to the core to disrespect constitution that much. Liberalism does that to people.

[nedro]

Per Chuck's post of 2 minutes ago on FB:

Any updates?

[chrish4ku]

Good point above - If you think you might be "gifted" an off roster pistol (which is legal in CA, check other threads intra-familial transfer out of state) and said pistol takes +10 feeding devices, you may want to receive the feeding devices now, and hold on to them for the ride. Things pan out, yer good - things don't - you block/pin up the mags, or send them elsewhere.

My dad is in a free state and has had some gifts for me - I just haven't wanted them because of these unconstitutional mag laws.

[Xrslug]

http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

Opp to temporary stay filed.

[Ishooter]

You are absolutely wrong. It baffles me why some non-lawyers are so anxious to dispense legal opinions and analysis.

I'm not surprised to see lawyers screw up cases.

This forum is a place where we come in and share what we think as the general public. If you think only lawyers are supposed to dispense their so-called legal opinions in this thread, then you maybe in the wrong forum.

[CalAlumnus]

http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

Opp to temporary stay filed.

Heh. Looks like about 10 minutes of work to me (not that it needed to be any more). I'm guessing the plaintiffs are slow walking things--I don't see why they couldn't have submitted this reply yesterday if they really wanted to. Good for them (and us).

[Kokopelli]

"should the judgment be stayed immediately, even if only temporarily, countless otherwise law-abiding Californians who have already ordered LCMs in reliance on the Court's order but have not received them would unjustly be subjected to severe criminal penalties without notice

So, to stay the order would cause injury.

[LVSox]

I'm not surprised to see lawyers screw up cases.

This forum is a place where we come in and share what we think as the general public. If you think only lawyers are supposed to dispense their so-called legal opinions in this thread, then you maybe in the wrong forum.

[SimpleCountryActuary]

Also states that round 2 will be coming shortly.

Exactly. There's no way the court could possibly not let plaintiffs have their complete say.

Defendants haven't made any new arguments anyway except "we don't like it, Daddy."

[champu]

I'm not surprised to see lawyers screw up cases.

This forum is a place where we come in and share what we think as the general public. If you think only lawyers are supposed to dispense their so-called legal opinions in this thread, then you maybe in the wrong forum.

[tenemae]

(or demand we submit points and authorities as if we were on retainer)

Only a fool blindly trusts some idiot on the internet claiming to be this-or-that. Not requesting supporting material for a blind assertion is evidence of stupidity. Trust me: I'm a clinical psychologist.

[Balrog23]

I wonder if Chuck Michel and team has any input about people who reside in cities with local ordinances that ban high caps, like Oakland, San Francisco and Sunnyvale. There hasn't been much information about those particular cities and if this federal ruling has any effect. Wikipedia states that those bans are not enforceable due to federal ruling, but anyone can write on wikipedia and may not be accurate. Anyone got any info on this issue? Thanks!

[heyasiankid]

I wonder if Chuck Michel and team has any input about people who reside in cities with local ordinances that ban high caps, like Oakland, San Francisco and Sunnyvale. There hasn't been much information about those particular cities and if this federal ruling has any effect. Wikipedia states that those bans are not enforceable due to federal ruling, but anyone can write on wikipedia and may not be accurate. Anyone got any info on this issue? Thanks!

[Featureless]

Exactly. There's no way the court could possibly not let plaintiffs have their complete say.

Defendants haven't made any new arguments anyway except "we don't like it, Daddy."

Hopefully they'll keep dicking around with it back and forth while we're ordering mags.......

[LVSox]

I wonder if Chuck Michel and team has any input about people who reside in cities with local ordinances that ban high caps, like Oakland, San Francisco and Sunnyvale. There hasn't been much information about those particular cities and if this federal ruling has any effect. Wikipedia states that those bans are not enforceable due to federal ruling, but anyone can write on wikipedia and may not be accurate. Anyone got any info on this issue? Thanks!