Purchased a legal high-cap handgun magazine, can I use it legally?

[SharedShots]

[johncage]

I don't foresee any LE agency seizing Large-Capacity Magazines under the "Nuisance" seizure authority while the federal court injunction is in effect.

It is quite interesting that Judge Benitez did not include the nuisance provision in his injunction. But he did address it in his original opinion. LE agencies tend to be very respectful of the federal courts, and are not going to act in a manner that would likely offend the court while an issue is before it.

There have only been two seizures of Large-Capacity Magazines that I am aware of following the issuance of the injunction. Neither case made it to trial (although one did go to a prelim). And I understand that magazines were returned in both cases.

In neither case did the LE agency pursue a "Nuisance" seizure of the involved magazines.

i believe this sums up the current state of enforcement. even date marks on plastic magazine tubes or base plates may not be sufficient proof anymore as the prosecution will need to prove these were not parts used for repair. the judge had tremendous foresight and legal knowledge and covered all the bases

[SharedShots]

News folks:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-appeals-court-reinstates-california-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/ar-AARjdrG?ocid=msedgntp

Appeals court reinstated the mag cap ban.

"(Reuters) - A divided U.S. appeals court on Tuesday reinstated California's ban on high-capacity magazines, calling it a reasonable means to support the state's effort to reduce gun violence, including mass shootings."

[Yetiultimate]

So does this mean Freedom Week mags go back into the closet?

[racerfox]

News folks:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-appeals-court-reinstates-california-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/ar-AARjdrG?ocid=msedgntp

Appeals court reinstated the mag cap ban.

"(Reuters) - A divided U.S. appeals court on Tuesday reinstated California's ban on high-capacity magazines, calling it a reasonable means to support the state's effort to reduce gun violence, including mass shootings."

How does this effect the Stay?
I am sure we will send it to the supreme court?
What does this mean for freedom week mags?

[RickD427]

How does this effect the Stay?
I am sure we will send it to the supreme court?
What does this mean for freedom week mags?

The case is now back in Judge Benitez' hands with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants.

The injunction against enforcement was issued pending the "Final Resolution" of the case. I would expect that to be when the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate in the case, but it would be good to hear from our JD members on this point.

Ms. Duncan cannot "send it" to the Supreme Court. There is no right to have one's case reviewed by the Supreme Court. One can only request Certiorari, and it's very rarely granted.

My best guess, and nothing more than a guess, is that Judge Benitez will dissolve the injunction upon issue of the mandate. But I have seen cases where a federal trial court has stayed actions pending a Supreme Court decision on a request for certiorari. That occurred in the criminal sentencing of former Sheriff Lee Baca.

If the injunction is dissolved, then it will be possible for local prosecutors to file charges for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines regardless of when they were acquired.

[racerfox]

If the injunction is dissolved, then it will be possible for local prosecutors to file charges for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines regardless of when they were acquired.[/QUOTE]

how can this be the case?
Those who got them before the original ban was grandfathered?

[RickD427]

If the injunction is dissolved, then it will be possible for local prosecutors to file charges for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines regardless of when they were acquired.

how can this be the case?
Those who got them before the original ban was grandfathered?

There was no "Grandfathering" in Penal Code section 32310. Here is the pertinent part of the statute:

"Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."

[racerfox]

There was no "Grandfathering" in Penal Code section 32310. Here is the pertinent part of the statute:

"Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."

I guess I will just stick with carrying what I want and they can have it after they suck my glock I guess.

No one in the 9th circuit will be coming to my aid when I need to use them so...

This is the time to put massive pressure on current elected sheriffs and demand they don't follow this.

If this is final stop and no further movement on this case moves I guess its time I do.

[downdiver2]

Here is what I do:

Purchased freedom week magazines: I use them, I dont advertise them, I wont resell them. I use them at the range, to qualify for my CCW and BLM/Fed lands. Basically I use them as people use 10 rounders. I've done this since I was 'legally' allowed to purchase them.

CCW: Depends on your IA and county.

Do I use them in my CCW = Yes

I am in Orange County.

[racerfox]

Here is what I do:

Purchased freedom week magazines: I use them, I dont advertise them, I wont resell them. I use them at the range, to qualify for my CCW and BLM/Fed lands. Basically I use them as people use 10 rounders. I've done this since I was 'legally' allowed to purchase them.

CCW: Depends on your IA and county.

Do I use them in my CCW = Yes

I am in Orange County.

Exactly what I do.
I am in a WAYYYY better county though so my LEO office for my CCW does not ask and does not have a stance on them.

Still this is most likely what makes me move.
pistol mags is the lowest of my worries.
Its all the bs I went through for "featureless" long guns to still use 10+ mags for my set ups.
I wont stop using them.

[downdiver2]

Exactly what I do.
I am in a WAYYYY better county though so my LEO office for my CCW does not ask and does not have a stance on them.

Still this is most likely what makes me move.
pistol mags is the lowest of my worries.
Its all the bs I went through for "featureless" long guns to still use 10+ mags for my set ups.
I wont stop using them.

And I will note or add: Todays verdict does not impact me as I purchased my "Freedom week magazines" when they were legal to purchase and I am now lawfully using them.


Here is my counties guidance:

MAGAZINE CAPACITY
The CCW license does not define magazine capacity, just the firearm model, serial number, and caliber. If the magazine and firearm are legal to possess in the State of California, and the firearm is approved to be listed on the license, a CCW permit holder may carry.

[RickD427]

And I will note or add: Todays verdict does not impact me as I purchased my "Freedom week magazines" when they were legal to purchase and I am now lawfully using them.


Here is my counties guidance:

Actually, today's ruling does affect you.

The simple use, and possession, of large capacity magazines is illegal regardless of when, or how, you acquired them.

At the moment, enforcement is enjoined for magazines that were acquired during "Freedom Week" and for the simple possession of such magazines.

That injunction has not yet been dissolved. We'll have to see what Judge Benitez does not that the case has been returned to him, but he doesn't have a lot of options. The Ninth Circuit didn't return the case to him so that he could decide the case according to their guidance. It returned the case to him to enter judgement for the defendant's. He's gonna have to "pull a rabbit outta the hat" in order to keep the injunction in place.

The policy statement from your IA doesn't appear to allow you to use illegally possessed magazines in your CCW weapon.

[racerfox]

Actually, today's ruling does affect you.

The simple use, and possession, of large capacity magazines is illegal regardless of when, or how, you acquired them.

At the moment, enforcement is enjoined for magazines that were acquired during "Freedom Week" and for the simple possession of such magazines.

That injunction has not yet been dissolved. We'll have to see what Judge Benitez does not that the case has been returned to him, but he doesn't have a lot of options. The Ninth Circuit didn't return the case to him so that he could decide the case according to their guidance. It returned the case to him to enter judgement for the defendant's. He's gonna have to "pull a rabbit outta the hat" in order to keep the injunction in place.

The policy statement from your IA doesn't appear to allow you to use illegally possessed magazines in your CCW weapon.

As of currently this is incorrect.
The stay is still active.

[RickD427]

As of currently this is incorrect.
The stay is still active.

Racerfox,

Please highlight what part of my post you believe to be incorrect.

It is correct as posted.

The injunction is still in effect, and I have said so in my posting ("The injunction has not yet been dissolved")

Please note that the injunction only prevents enforcement of parts of PC 32310. It never "Legalized" the conduct proscribed by PC 32310.