Duncan V Bonta - large cap mags: OLD THREAD

[Drivedabizness]

Why were Standard Capacity Magazines LCM not banned from possession from the start? Whatever reason they were not is still valid today.

Fixed it for you

[RECCE556]

Maybe we should use:

Standard Capacity Magazines = SCM

and

Restricted Capacity Magazines = RCM

Just a humble suggestion...

[Librarian]

Maybe we should use:

Standard Capacity Magazines = SCM

and

Restricted Capacity Magazines = RCM

Just a humble suggestion...

Not a useful one in legal discussions in CA.

We already have a legal definition - 'large-capacity magazine', reasonably abbreviated LCM.

[aBrowningfan]

Maybe we should use:

Standard Capacity Magazines = SCM

and

Restricted Capacity Magazines = RCM

Just a humble suggestion...

The problem is that there are a number of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. For example, Sig sold the P226 with 'standard' magazines having a 15 round (9 mm) capacity. Sig also sold accessory magazines for the P226 with a capacity of 20 (9 mm) rounds. Similar circumstances exist for Glock (if memory serves, Glock offers a magazine with a 30 round capacity ) ; I suspect the same applies to other manufacturers. What magazine capacity does your proposed SCM designation apply to (with the understanding that all magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds are banned)?

As Librarian posts above, the LCM designation seems to be a better one.

[RECCE556]

Not a useful one in legal discussions in CA.

We already have a legal definition - 'large-capacity magazine', reasonably abbreviated LCM.

Ok, I'll just go back to lurking...

[PMACA_MFG]

You would need to ask the legislature why they do what they do.

My guess is the know it is a 'taking' thus to be legal they would need to compensate everyone for each magazine. In short they didn't want to pay for it. People are happy to enact useless gun laws when they cost them nothing. If it wasn't going to cost the state several million to buy all these magazines it wouldn't be so popular.

Yup they do seem to like not giving money back.

Should be a record of discussion? SB23.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Yup they do seem to like not giving money back.

Should be a record of discussion? SB23.

Why would they discuss this in an open session knowing it would be recorded. It will be nothing but "we are doing this for the children"

[PMACA_MFG]

Why would they discuss this in an open session knowing it would be recorded. It will be nothing but "we are doing this for the children"

Was this passed on party lines? Found the vote records.

[heyjerr]

Yup they do seem to like not giving money back.

Should be a record of discussion? SB23.

It's not a buyback if I didn't buy from the government. It's a taking.
Like "gun buybacks", it's a misnomer meant to help subjects swallow subjugation.

[Califpatriot]

As I read this, the takings ground is largely superfluous because Benitez determined the statute violated the 2A. Therefore, if we get lucky with the merits panel and get Callahan and Bea or something to that effect and Benitez's ruling is upheld (and they refuse to take it up en banc), wouldn't this pave the road to a very strong challenge to the ban on sale and transfer of standard capacity mags? I know there's a lot of ifs to get to that point, but...

[Bogart]

What about all of us who converted our mags to 10 rounds or sold them prior to the law going into affect, and now cannot buy or convert back legally? Will there be any compensation for the loss?

What’s the possibility of some sort of class action lawsuit if this law gets repealed?

[aBrowningfan]

As I read this, the takings ground is largely superfluous because Benitez determined the statute violated the 2A. Therefore, if we get lucky with the merits panel and get Callahan and Bea or something to that effect and Benitez's ruling is upheld (and they refuse to take it up en banc), wouldn't this pave the road to a very strong challenge to the ban on sale and transfer of standard capacity mags? I know there's a lot of ifs to get to that point, but...

I suspect the pre-existing ban would remain in place because it applies to new magazine purchases; magazines with capacity >10 rounds were grandfathered. This litigation relates to the attempted overreach of revoking the grandfather clause.

[heyjerr]

I wouldn't hold your breath. They'll just take it as a "victory" and keep on trying to take even more.

[splithoof]

If it gets repealed, I'll start drilling out rivets.

[RRangel]

Why were LCM not banned from possession from the start? Whatever reason they were not is still valid today.

It was considered too extreme because it is. Pure appeasement directed at armed citizens, as it could have jeopardized, the passage of California's ban on "assault weapons." Where people were assured that they could keep them if they already owned them. It was very controversial to begin with. Imagine a time when California was more like normal America? That's why.

Consider this a teachable part of history. The gun control left, is not going to stop, because what they want is to ban gun ownership. Why there can be no compromise if citizens want to retain their constitutional rights.