Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[Lanejsl]

In federal court, where state laws don't apply and this law will easily be found to not be constitutional.

Not in your lifetime.

[bruss01]

In federal court, where state laws don't apply and this law will easily be found to not be constitutional.

My gut says this is a no-go but I'm not able to pinpoint the actual mechanics of how that is arrived at. Thought someone might be able to point it out. Due process?

[TruOil]

Your analysis is wrong RickD247.

Because the law is currently enjoined from enforcement there is no way to violate the enjoined law. It is a logical impossibility.

Utter nonsense. There is a difference between a violation of a statute and a prosecution of the violation, just as there is a difference bet ween a temporary injunction and a permanent injunction. If there is a temporary injunction in place barring enforcement of the law, and the injunction is lifted, a violator can be prosecuted for violations occurring during the stay as long as the applicable statute of limitations has not run. An injunction is not a final determination on the merits that a law is unconstitutional unless the injunct9ion so declares it. The injunction on the mag ban merely prevents prosecution; but if it is subsequently upheld, you will not be able to defend on the basis that your acquisition was lawful at the time. You are not being prosecuted for legally obtaining the item, but for continuing to possess it after the constitutionality of the aw is aff8irmed, so there is no ex post facto violation either.

[Bhobbs]

which dept? county sheriff? I assume LAPD et al will still bust you.

Apparently, it was LAPD that will no longer enforce the magazine ban.

https://armedamericannews.org/breaking-lapd-stops-enforcing-californias-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

[champu]

Apparently, it was LAPD that will no longer enforce the magazine ban.

https://armedamericannews.org/breaki...-magazine-ban/

[curtisfong]

Apologies, I'm now up to date. It is distressing that there is so much confusion on this topic; it's pretty clear this isn't a change at all, of any kind, from the existing situation.

[RickD427]

Champu,

You're right. The recent announcement by the LAPD Commander doesn't really change much after five years.

But I earlier made the observation that many senior executives of the LAPD are sometimes "Situationally Unaware" and this looks to be one of those cases.

The recent announcement provided that LAPD folks were not to make arrests for violation of PC 32310 (c) of (d) unless there was evidence that the person to be arrested was prohibited from possessing ammunition.

It's probably worth noting that the federal court order makes no allowance for that exception.

[EM2]

Champu,

You're right. The recent announcement by the LAPD Commander doesn't really change much after five years.

But I earlier made the observation that many senior executives of the LAPD are sometimes "Situationally Unaware" and this looks to be one of those cases.

The recent announcement provided that LAPD folks were not to make arrests for violation of PC 32310 (c) of (d) unless there was evidence that the person to be arrested was prohibited from possessing ammunition.

It's probably worth noting that the federal court order makes no allowance for that exception.

Well that is encouraging.

[Librarian]

Bee on topic for the thread, please.

[dmcag69]

Let's hope this is heard today in appeals court, meeting today, 3 courtrooms, 9am Pasadena, 930 am San Francisco and 3pm San Francisco.

[Dano2467]

Let's hope this is heard today in appeals court, meeting today, 3 courtrooms, 9am Pasadena, 930 am San Francisco and 3pm San Francisco.

where or how could we find out how this went?

[FreemanG]

where or how could we find out how this went?

They usually have live streams listed on the main page that you can sift through. The 9AM San Francisco one seems to be broken but the other ones work.
I can also save you the trouble as they did not cover this case today.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/

[lastinline]

I can also save you the trouble as they did not cover this case today.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/

Of course not. They are hoping that as many 2A supporters will die off of old age as possible, without ever having their rights restored.

[IVC]

You're missing the nuances here.

While it's true that IF the court finds the law to be unconstitutional in the end, the law had indeed been unconstitutional all the time it had been in effect, but we first must get to the POINT IN TIME where the court makes such determination. WHEN we get the final decision, and assuming it goes our way, then we can look back and say that the law was unconstitutional all the time.

But we cannot say that AT THIS TIME because the court has not yet said so. That's where the technicalities about injunctions, violations and prosecutions come to play. But they do not affect the TIMELINE of how the question of whether a law is constitutional is resolved.

[FirearmFino]

Supreme Court: JUDGMENT ISSUED