Status of Magazine Capacity as of Nov. 2024?

[jarhead714]

So long as the federal court injunction remains in place, there ain't no burden of proof on anybody because enforcement of the possession clause of PC 32310 is enjoined.

As to the potential for Large-Capacity Magazine to be seized as "Nuisances", there ain't no burden of proof, because their ain't no court process involved under PC 18010(b).

You must be into some good scotch because I have never read such coarse language from the likes of you.🫵🏻 If your mother could read that many uses of the word, “ain’t” by her boy what do you think she might have to say? For shame!🧐

[RickD427]

You must be into some good scotch because I have never read such coarse language from the likes of you.🫵🏻 If your mother could read that many uses of the word, “ain’t” by her boy what do you think she might have to say? For shame!🧐

Guilty as charged. But mother was an Army Officer, so much for the "Coarse Language" thing.

[Sgt Raven]

You must be into some good scotch because I have never read such coarse language from the likes of you.🫵🏻 If your mother could read that many uses of the word, “ain’t” by her boy what do you think she might have to say? For shame!🧐

You can't have no idea how little I care.

[painkiller]

Were still good to rock the freedom
week mags yes?

[foothillman]

^^^^^^^
As long as you say "I purchased during freedom week"

Nothing stops LEO from taking them.
Most likely if you get to this point the Freedom Week Magazine are the least of your problems.

[RickD427]

^^^^^^^
As long as you say "I purchased during freedom week"

Nothing stops LEO from taking them.
Most likely if you get to this point the Freedom Week Magazine are the least of your problems.

There is no remaining legal significance to the so-called "Freedom Week."

There is no need for anyone to say "I bought them during "Freedom Week"". (I was gonna say that "There ain't no need to say nothing about "Freedom Week", but thought better about it. 😄😄😄)

Mr. Yang's case was one of the two that I mentioned in Post #36. Because his potential charges included the purchase of a large-capacity magazine, his case went beyond the scope of the federal court order that prevented prosecution of folks for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines.

But that significance of "Freedom Week" no longer exists. It remains a felony for non-exempt folks to purchase large-capacity magazines. "Freedom Week" created a condition where that statute was likely constitutionally infirm during "Freedom Week" (I use the weasel word "Likely" because there never was a final court decision on the point), and that prevented prosecutions for such purchases as described in Mr. Underwood's letter. It's important to note that Mr. Yang was fanged prior to the Statute of Limitations running out. But, as of today, the Statue of Limitations prevents prosecution for any large-capacity magazines purchased during "Freedom Week." There is no need to rely on "Freedom Week" to protect against prosecution.

The federal court injunction prohibits enforcement of the possession clause of the Large-Capacity Magazine clause in all cases, and without regard to when the magazines were acquired. There is no need to rely on "Freedom Week" to protect against prosecution.

So what is the value in saying anything about "Freedom Week?"

But it's also worth noting that none of the above affects the nuisance seizure status. Mr. Underwood could have taken the position "We're not going to prosecute Mr. Yang, but we are going to destroy his magazines as nuisances." He would have invited the wrath of the federal court by doing so, but he could have taken that path.

[EM2]

^^^^^^^
As long as you say "I purchased during freedom week"

Nothing stops LEO from taking them.
Most likely if you get to this point the Freedom Week Magazine are the least of your problems.

I would like to add, that you are under no obligation to "say" anything, and most attorneys I figure would prefer for their defendant to not say anything.
The burden to prove you did anything wrong in on the gov, not the defendant to prove otherwise.
If the police are going to confiscate them as a nuisance they are going to do it regardless of when or under what legal circumstances they would acquired.

[Palmaris]

There is no remaining legal significance to the so-called "Freedom Week."

There is no need for anyone to say "I bought them during "Freedom Week"". (I was gonna say that "There ain't no need to say nothing about "Freedom Week", but thought better about it. 😄😄😄)

Mr. Yang's case was one of the two that I mentioned in Post #36. Because his potential charges included the purchase of a large-capacity magazine, his case went beyond the scope of the federal court order that prevented prosecution of folks for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines.

But that significance of "Freedom Week" no longer exists. It remains a felony for non-exempt folks to purchase large-capacity magazines. "Freedom Week" created a condition where that statute was likely constitutionally infirm during "Freedom Week" (I use the weasel word "Likely" because there never was a final court decision on the point), and that prevented prosecutions for such purchases as described in Mr. Underwood's letter. It's important to note that Mr. Yang was fanged prior to the Statute of Limitations running out. But, as of today, the Statue of Limitations prevents prosecution for any large-capacity magazines purchased during "Freedom Week." There is no need to rely on "Freedom Week" to protect against prosecution.

The federal court injunction prohibits enforcement of the possession clause of the Large-Capacity Magazine clause in all cases, and without regard to when the magazines were acquired. There is no need to rely on "Freedom Week" to protect against prosecution.

So what is the value in saying anything about "Freedom Week?"

But it's also worth noting that none of the above affects the nuisance seizure status. Mr. Underwood could have taken the position "We're not going to prosecute Mr. Yang, but we are going to destroy his magazines as nuisances." He would have invited the wrath of the federal court by doing so, but he could have taken that path.

How long is statue of limitation for this?

[RickD427]

How long is statue of limitation for this?

Three Years. Please refer to Penal Code section 801.

.

[Palmaris]

Three Years. Please refer to Penal Code section 801.

.

Thx a lot.
it is hard for me due to language barrier specially when it comes to “legal language”

[RickD427]

Thx a lot.
it is hard for me due to language barrier specially when it comes to “legal language”

Mr. Palmaris,

This "Legal Language" stuff is really hard for a lot of us. Some of that has to do with the complexity of the law, and I have to think that some of it is intentionally done by our lawmakers. Here's a couple of things that I learned along the way, and mostly learned the "Hard Way":

When you first read a statue, or a case law decision, read it for the meaning. But don't stop there. Read it a second time, and break it down into the "Building Blocks" of its element and clauses. The consider how that "Building Blocks" fit together, and how those building blocks interact with the "Building Blocks" of other statutes. As to how the blocks interact, pay particular attention to the conjunctives "and", "or" and the use of commas. For a criminal statute make a shopping list of what has to be shown for there to be a violation. Let's use the crime of Robbery (Penal Code section 211) as an example. Here's the "Shopping List": 1) Felonious Taking, 2) Personal Property, 3) From the Person of Another, 4) Against Their Will, 5) By Means Force or Fear.

When you read that for meaning, it makes a lot of sense.

But when you break that down to building blocks, it gets a little screwy. Suppose your landlord is towing your car away from your parking space, you threaten to harm him if he doesn't return your car. Have you committed a "Robbery"? In formulating your answer, please note that the ownership of the property being taken isn't one of the "Building Blocks."

More than once, when serving as a Watch Commander, I've had folks come to the station complaining that a Traffic Deputy had wrongly cited them for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and showing me photos of the intersection clearly showing that there were no crosswalk markings. Do the "Building Block" analysis of Vehicle Code section 275 and you'll see why the citations were proper.

I've also had folks, and more than once, attempt to make a criminal report that they were being "Stalked" in violation of Penal Code section 646.9, and where they provided detailed information the activity of "Stalking", but where the crime of "Stalking" was not present. The plain meaning of terms would likely leave you confused, but the "Building Block" analysis can make clear why this is the case.

[jarhead714]

Bill it out, Rick.🫵🏻👌🏻.

[RickD427]

Bill it out, Rick.🫵🏻👌🏻.

Mr. Palmaris sounds like good people, let's help him out........

[jarhead714]

Mr. Palmaris sounds like good people, let's help him out........

A good natured man to be sure.

[Wherryj]

I want to be able to buy ammo from out of state. I rather do my shopping online.

Yep, better prices, more availability, greater convenience...too bad our overlords disagree.