Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[Elgatodeacero]

That is not fair and not really accurate.

Any similar magazine ban in the state of California is now very suspect, very likely unconstitutional, and would be very imprudent to enforce.

Are these municipal and county laws enforceable? Technically yes, but they are on thin ice.

However, this ruling in Duncan will be frozen in a block of legal ice once the 9th gets its hands on it.

[LVSox]

That is not fair and not really accurate.

Any similar magazine ban in the state of California is now very suspect, very likely unconstitutional, and would be very imprudent to enforce.

Are these municipal and county laws enforceable? Technically yes, but they are on thin ice.

That is absolutely untrue. Those cities have had no opportunity to litigate their cases (one of the essential elements of res judicata), and any challenge to their bans would be brought in the ND Cal, before a completely different judge who is under ABSOLUTELY no obligation to follow his reasoning or ruling.

A district court judge does not get to make sweeping holdings like you imagine; he can only rule on the constitutionality of the specific statute before him. Another judge, considering an identical statute imposed by a different party, is wholly capable of making a completely different ruling.

[Mesa Defense]

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

Sweet, thanks Kes.

[Geofois]

This was probably asked but since high cap mags were legal until a possible 9C judgement, does that mean any mag received now should be grandfathered in should the 9C re-instate the law? Plainly, if I bought some 15 rnd mags then I'm cool or not if the 9C makes them illegal again.

[LVSox]

To LVSox, Your combative responses and arrogance are very off putting.

no where have I suggested it is binding.

stop.

To Elgatodeacero, yes you have.

There is simply no question that municipal laws banning the possession of SCMs remain enforceable, and that any challenge to such law would need to be brought entirely anew, all the factual background developed from scratch, and the legal standard applied according to the views of the new DC judge, the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court. This ruling has absolutely no impact beyond what a future judge (in NDCA, extraordinarily likely to be a liberal) wants to give it.

[wchutt]

LVSox, thank you for the commentary, especially the working/ standard operating procedures of the courts.

[SkyHawk]

.

I get it... in a theoretical sense. However, in a practical sense... who wants to put themselves in the position to be the crash-test dummy? There are potentially serious consequences involved... loss of rights... lots of cash spent? Name in the news... "So-and-so found with CACHE of weapons and illegal magazines! Report at 11!" No one wants to be that person. I get it.

.

The same could be asked of city prosecutors. Which one of them want to jam up a citizen found with a 12rd magazine, when a federal circuit judge just called baloney on the whole sham? Does that seem like a winner of a case, a good use of taxpayer dollars?

[SteelPastor]

The same could be asked of city prosecutors. Which one of them want to jam up a citizen found with a 12rd magazine, when a federal circuit judge just called baloney on the whole sham?

.

LOL. I agree. However, only one of the parties involved will be spending OTHER PEOPLE'S money to figure that out.
.

[SkyHawk]

.

LOL. I agree. However, only one of the parties involved will be spending OTHER PEOPLE'S money to figure that out.
.

You never know when CRPA/NRA will step in for the defendant. Duncan v. Becerra probably didn't drain Ms. Duncan's life savings. Any city wanting to push this now has to assume it could go the same way for them. So I'd expect charges only as add-ons to more egregious acts committed by real criminals. And don't forget city laws can only result in misdemeanor charges. Not fun for sure, but also probably not worth going to the mattresses for if you are a city with Duncan hanging over your head.

[Librarian]

That is not fair and not really accurate.

Any similar magazine ban in the state of California is now very suspect, very likely unconstitutional, and would be very imprudent to enforce.

Are these municipal and county laws enforceable? Technically yes, but they are on thin ice.

However, this ruling in Duncan will be frozen in a block of legal ice once the 9th gets its hands on it.

That is absolutely untrue. Those cities have had no opportunity to litigate their cases (one of the essential elements of res judicata), and any challenge to their bans would be brought in the ND Cal, before a completely different judge who is under ABSOLUTELY no obligation to follow his reasoning or ruling.

A district court judge does not get to make sweeping holdings like you imagine; he can only rule on the constitutionality of the specific statute before him. Another judge, considering an identical statute imposed by a different party, is wholly capable of making a completely different ruling.

LVSox is entirely correct here.

Laws must be individually challenged - there's no way to address a law not before the court in the suit.

Now, knock it off.

[Cortelli]

Sorry, but what you are promoting is untrue. you are pretending that the the Duncan case is just some slapdash decision.

if a state law criminalizing 20th week abortion is struck down, a similar or identical city law is not simultaneously struck down, but all the reasoning and legal analysis remains the same.

While I agree that if the district court's ruling stands, it makes defending a municipal statute much more difficult, it in no way makes all the reasoning and legal analysis the same.

I would expect that cities who want to defend their municipal ordinances even in the face of a final judgment in Duncan favorable to plaintiffs will argue things like population density, zoning, other special circumstances, etc. makes the constitutional analysis different.

I am not saying I put much stock in this example, but to conclude that the reasoning and analysis must necessarily be the same is to be blind to what an advocate for the other side might argue and what a different court with different parties might find persuasive.

[Chewy65]

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.

Careful that you do not get into a straw purchase situation. The parent can purchase a gun as a gift for you, but if you are the actual buyer (the funds come from you either before or after the purchase) you are each chargeable with a federal felony.

[familyfarm]

Thanks to LVSox and other attorneys who are educating us and and keeping our expectations realistic. We need this info to make good decisions on this topic and to not become felons unknowingly.

Often anyone on CG who dares to express caution with regard to our legal prospects is summarily executed on here without a trial. It takes some determination to keep posting despite the discouragement.

Lets not discourage the attorneys from giving their opinions while all us laymen pontificate and gesticulate confidently (which is surely part of the fun of this forum until the inmates start running the asylum).

[unclerandy]

I appreciate the dialog. Thanks

[Chewy65]

The excellent work by Sean and Michell & Associates is much appreciated, but do not forget that even if PC 32310 is unenforceable you may not want to take your LCMs to the range. They could be seized as nuisances under P C 18010, as has been discussed pages ago.