Seized magazines

[Timthetwin]

https://youtu.be/1r5jUlr5MXg

[Timthetwin]

I am sure there is more to this guys case, but I thought I would share anyway.

[Featureless]

OK to steal 'em. Not ok to give them back. They're probably in some Sacramento cop's personal safe. Score!

[hermosabeach]

We have very poorly crafted laws....

Claiming illegally seized mags are the same as illegally seized cocaine- sorry we cannot return them to you....

[CheapBloke]

There was an Asian in Ventura? County who got mags seized, but after some numerous procedures he was able to get them back. Youtube video somewhere.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Uncivil Engineer]

The easy way out here is to just to have the world's best Easter egg hunt.

But a better question is if you lose this what do you value them on your tax deductions? I mean they are irreplaceable, the government even says so.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Tango_Down]

The easy way out here is to just to have the world's best Easter egg hunt.

But a better question is if you lose this what do you value them on your tax deductions? I mean they are irreplaceable, the government even says so.

[Librarian]

From June; I know I've seen this here but cannot locate the earlier thread.

[NorCalBusa]

Here it is;

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1725875

[Strykeback]

The easy way out here is to just to have the world's best Easter egg hunt.

But a better question is if you lose this what do you value them on your tax deductions? I mean they are irreplaceable, the government even says so.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Now I like this idea. Its priceless and you can trace date of purchase sounds like the state is losing all your income tax for the year

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

[Uncivil Engineer]

Now I like this idea. Its priceless and you can trace date of purchase sounds like the state is losing all your income tax for the year

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Loss carry forward. If they take a priceless magazine you don't need to pay any income tax ever again.

I'm sure the IRS and state tax board will try and fight you on the value of the loss but it would be a nice suit to file.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

https://youtu.be/1r5jUlr5MXg

There was an Asian in Ventura? County who got mags seized, but after some numerous procedures he was able to get them back. Youtube video somewhere.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

This is going to be an interesting one to follow.

It's worth noting that Large-Capacity Magazines remain illegal to possess. Judge Benitez' order only prevents prosecution for possession. It did nothing to remove the law against possession from the statutes. At the same time Judge Benitez' order did nothing to affect the statute permitting the non-criminal seizure of such magazines as "Nuisances."

The Ventura case was a pretty classic example of the application of Penal Code section 4. That section is the classic "It's the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law that counts." But the Ventura County case only reflected the judgement of the agency. It didn't create any legal precedent, and Sacramento is free to proceed according to their view of the law.

The Sacramento position is a classic "Letter of the Law" position. When the Marijuana laws were just beginning to ease, there was case in Orange County where a police agency seized a quantity of marijuana that the defendant maintained was legally possessed on medical grounds. The court agreed and ordered the marijuana returned. The agency noted that the order to return it would place the agency in violation of federal law. The arguments are very similar to Sacramento's position here. The court didn't accept the argument and ordered the marijuana returned.

Let's see how this plays out. Sacramento has a least three options:

1) Defend the seizure as a non-criminal "Nuisance" seizure. That does a nice "end-run" around the letter of Judge Benitez' order, but does kinda offend the spirit of the order.

2) Stick to the "letter of the law" prohibiting return.

3) Follow the example of Ventura.

[ohsmily]

This is going to be an interesting one to follow.

It's worth noting that Large-Capacity Magazines remain illegal to possess. Judge Benitez' order only prevents prosecution for possession. It did nothing to remove the law against possession from the statutes. At the same time Judge Benitez' order did nothing to affect the statute permitting the non-criminal seizure of such magazines as "Nuisances."

The Ventura case was a pretty classic example of the application of Penal Code section 4. That section is the classic "It's the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law that counts." But the Ventura County case only reflected the judgement of the agency. It didn't create any legal precedent, and Sacramento is free to proceed according to their view of the law.

The Sacramento position is a classic "Letter of the Law" position. When the Marijuana laws were just beginning to ease, there was case in Orange County where a police agency seized a quantity of marijuana that the defendant maintained was legally possessed on medical grounds. The court agreed and ordered the marijuana returned. The agency noted that the order to return it would place the agency in violation of federal law. The arguments are very similar to Sacramento's position here. The court didn't accept the argument and ordered the marijuana returned.

Let's see how this plays out. Sacramento has a least three options:

1) Defend the seizure as a non-criminal "Nuisance" seizure. That does a nice "end-run" around the letter of Judge Benitez' order, but does kinda offend the spirit of the order.

2) Stick to the "letter of the law" prohibiting return.

3) Follow the example of Ventura.

They better return the mags or be prepared to bear the burden of defending a lengthy and substantial case. Their choice, which they will need to make in the next two weeks.

[elSquid]

They better return the mags or be prepared to bear the burden of defending a lengthy and substantial case. Their choice, which they will need to make in the next two weeks.

-- Michael

[RickD427]

They better return the mags or be prepared to bear the burden of defending a lengthy and substantial case. Their choice, which they will need to make in the next two weeks.

We'll see what they do. I'm a believer in the concept of PC 4 and was pleased by the Ventura response to the same issue.

But if Sacramento hangs their hat on the "Nuisance" seizure, they're on pretty solid ground. It's fully outta the scope of Judge Benitez' injunction, and the seizure statute remains facially valid (Brown v Maryland) until there is a successful challenge. That ain't happened yet.

If they attempt to move forward with a criminal prosecution, I'd expect to see them get slammed, due to the injunction.

Where are you seeing a "Two Week" deadline for them to select a course of action?