Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Angel Eyes on March 29, 2019, 07:27:34 PM
-
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019/03/29/siren-federal-judge-in-california-rules-states-10-round-limit-on-magazines-is-unconstitutional-ag-becerra-and-mother-jones-hardest-hit/
Federal judge in CA grants summary judgment to plaintiffs in case challenging the state's 10-round limit on firearms magazines. Law is declared unconstitutional and is permanently enjoined from being enforced.
=D
(apologies for the typo in the subject line. I guess I got too excited)
-
[popcorn]
-
(apologies for the typo in the subject line. I guess I got too excited)
It's better that way. If you add an l at the end, it makes it a racial slur.
-
Well, that's ONE for the Second Amendment. Now let's see how it goes when challenged .... [popcorn]
-
See! I leave and CA starts to turn pro-gun! :laugh:
-
It's not all good news out of CA
Life in a ‘May Issue’ State: Los Angeles Moves to Cancel Remaining Concealed Carry Permits
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/daniel-zimmerman/life-in-a-may-issue-state-la-moves-to-cancel-concealed-remaining-carry-permits/
-
See! I leave and CA starts to turn pro-gun! :laugh:
You should have left years ago. ;)
-
You should have left years ago. ;)
=D
-
[ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15]
To be clear, PC 32310 is dead in it's entirety:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order,or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise,actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
DATED: March 29, 2019
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge
-
ny might pressure CA to just accept it to keep it from going to scotus.
-
So if the law has been declared unconstitutional - what happens to those who have already been convicted of violating it?
-
To be clear, PC 32310 is dead in it's entirety:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order,or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise,actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
DATED: March 29, 2019
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge
How long has it been in effect, and what does it say?
Also, will it be appealed to the 9th Circus?
-
Also, will it be appealed to the 9th Circus?
The 9th is not what it once was. Though they have a ways to go yet, conservative judges have gained ground over the last two years.
We're gonna get tired of stealth winning. :laugh:
-
It had already been to the 9th. The 9th then kicked it back to Judge Benitez
The NRA-supported case had already been up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the question of whether the law’s enforcement should be suspended during proceedings on its constitutionality. Last July, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s suspension of enforcement and sent the case back to him for further proceedings on the merits of the law itself.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/ttag-contributor/nra-ilas-statement-on-duncan-v-becerra/
-
I’m not tired of winning.
-
Living in the 9th Circuit, this warms the cockles of my heart. Just a month ago, the latest magazine ban legislation in Washington did not make it out of committee, and I am sure our AG and the Dem legislators will study this case closely in terms of future attempts at legislation.
-
The decision: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf
-
It had already been to the 9th. The 9th then kicked it back to Judge Benitez
Problem is the 9th likes to convene panels or en banc sessions with multiple judges to re-hear pro-gun opinions specifically to kill them. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happens here. =|
-
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019/03/29/siren-federal-judge-in-california-rules-states-10-round-limit-on-magazines-is-unconstitutional-ag-becerra-and-mother-jones-hardest-hit/
=D
(apologies for the typo in the subject line. I guess I got too excited)
In general, since you're the OP, you can change it with the "Modify" button, just like as in the rest of your post. It's pretty rare that a title is too long; I don't think yours is. IIRC, sometimes it takes a while for the correction to propagate throughout the entire thread.
Very glad to hear that news. I do believe that the radical crazy notion that the founders meant what they said is kind of soaking slowly through the judicial system. Even in California.
I wonder what effect this might have in Hawaii, but I haven't been on their site* for almost a year.
Of course, it is bound to be appealed by the Communists, but this was good to hear.
Terry, 230RN
*
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?action=refferals;refferedby=23
-
I don't know much, but I just read that California's 10 day waiting period has been spanked twice in court and they're still doing that, so how exactly is this going to work?
-
I don't know much, but I just read that California's 10 day waiting period has been spanked twice in court and they're still doing that, so how exactly is this going to work?
Also, and I might argue it's worse than the mag limit or the waiting period, is the "CA handgun list". Nothing has been done about that (though the pro-gun side constantly works on it), but it's basically just extortion in the name of safety, and IMO, a long term plan to incrementally remove most handguns from CA.
https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns
-
Also, and I might argue it's worse than the mag limit or the waiting period, is the "CA handgun list". Nothing has been done about that (though the pro-gun side constantly works on it), but it's basically just extortion in the name of safety, and IMO, a long term plan to incrementally remove most handguns from CA.
https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns
Oh, I knew about that one. I remember reading an article about how a lot of companies hate dealing with CA over that, since they have to get individual approval for each gun over stupid stuff like different finishes.
Anyway, I don't really see how this is any kind of win for the pro gun side if California is just ignoring court rulings on the subject. It will be a win when they actually get their state to comply with these court rulings.
-
I don't think they can ignore this one. The ruling says that, "Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order,or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310 [the law]." That means they cannot enforce it, per court order. If any police officer does enforce it, it will open up that officer, his/her department, and the state AG to a slam dunk lawsuit for deprivation of rights under color of law. That's a federal offense.
-
In general, since you're the OP, you can change it with the "Modify" button, just like as in the rest of your post. It's pretty rare that a title is too long; I don't think yours is. IIRC, sometimes it takes a while for the correction to propagate throughout the entire thread.
Actually it is too long. Oh well.
-
Oh, I knew about that one. I remember reading an article about how a lot of companies hate dealing with CA over that, since they have to get individual approval for each gun over stupid stuff like different finishes.
... and the manufacturer has to pay a fee for each model certified. So it's really just a shakedown by the state.
-
Judge Benitez:
This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.
-
How long has it been in effect, and what does it say?
Most of it has been in effect since 1/1/2000. The original legislation banned manufacturing, importing into California, selling, giving or lending normal-capacity magazines. Possession remained legal.
A loophole in the wording still permitted buying and receiving such mags. That was closed in 2014.
A ballot initiative in 2016 amended the section to prohibit possession, but that was never enforced due to an injunction.
Regarding what it says: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=32310.
-
Courtesy of the good folks at Calguns, here is a list of vendors now willing to sell normal-capacity mags to California residents:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LP1NCp0MjBoeDp6tc6ddb2dKKIAdqxU0qubnEANW4dc/edit#gid=0
-
I saw a couple of emails from companies now shipping mags to Cali. I wonder if this will create a short term buying spree?
-
On budsgunshop.com
Unfortunately, we are still unable to sell high capacity magazines to our CA customers. The recent court ruling only blocked a 2016 law that would have made high capacity magazines already owned by CA residents illegal to possess or sell.
Correct or not?
-
On budsgunshop.com
Correct or not?
IANAL, but I believe not correct.
The court ruling declared section 32310 in its entirety unconstitutional. I posted a link to that section a few posts back.
Primary Arms, keepshooting.com, and grabagun.com are shipping, as are quite a few others.
-
According to Facebook, several retailers are now reporting that their stocks of standard capacity mags for just about everything is depleted or nearly so. =D
-
IANAL, but I believe not correct.
The court ruling declared section 32310 in its entirety unconstitutional. I posted a link to that section a few posts back.
Primary Arms, keepshooting.com, and grabagun.com are shipping, as are quite a few others.
I saw an email from Gunmagwarehouse saying they would ship to Cali also.
-
On budsgunshop.com
Correct or not?
Probably not the interpretation of a lawyer, or if a lawyer, an excessively conservative one.
However, I can certainly understand some businesses waiting a bit. Both because they can raise prices during the "shortage" after other business stock is done, plus it gives a short time period to see if it shakes out different legally anyways.
-
Just got an email from Brownells stating they will also ship to California.
-
(https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Regular-Capacity-Mags.jpg)
-
How many year's supply do you figure is flowing into California at the moment?
I figure about 30. 20 years of pent up demand, plus 10 years or so for "fear that they'll get banned again."
-
Was just in my local gun store and the owner was pissed off because she couldn't found AR mags anywhere. Said all the distributors were cleaned out.
-
Just checked a couple of online vendors and they're cleaned out of most AR type mags over 10rds.
-
Sorry about that. Pent-up demand.
-
To no one's surprise, California's attorney general has asked for a stay while he appeals the matter to the 9th Circuit.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of California (“Defendant”), hereby does apply to this Court for an order, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62, staying the Judgment entered in this action on March 29, 2019 (Dkt. No. 88) pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court stay the Judgment which declares California Penal Code section 32310 unconstitutional and enjoined from enforcement to preserve the status quo pending appeal as it existed prior to entry
of the Judgment, whereby, during the pendency of the appeal, section 32310(a) and (b) will remain in effect and section 32310(c) and (d) will remain subject to the preliminary injunction issued on June 29, 2017 (Dkt. No. 28). Defendant respectfully requests that this Court rule on this stay application by April 5, 2019.
-
I didn't notice mags out of stock, but I did notice mags that were previously on sale were no longer on sale.
-
To no one's surprise, California's attorney general has asked for a stay while he appeals the matter to the 9th Circuit.
oh, they always take forever and ever to rule in favor of 2A - this however must be heard right away
-
I stopped by LGS yesterday to pick up a couple of things I needed...cleaning supplies. Owner said he's had several inquiries on his web page about selling/shipping mags to Cali. He said he's going to wait a bit longer to see what happens before diving in. Wants to avoid any legal issues.
-
I noticed that PSA is out of stock on most standard capacity AR-15 and Glock Pmags. They still had Gen-1 Pmags left though...
-
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=22838733
Was just on the phone with Brownells costumer service regarding an RMR glock 19 slide. She apologized for the long wait times and said it has been crazy with the magazine orders from CA.
She then says they have sold 350,000!!!! MAGAZINES!!!
-
Hey, can somebody let me know what a "normal" price for 5.56 30 round Pmags should be? I'm assuming the prices just went up from demand, so when I get my first M4gery in a couple of weeks I'll know if I can buy a bunch of mags, or just get a few and wait for CA demand to drop, along with price.
-
9 or 10 bucks.... usually. IIRC
bob
-
9 or 10 bucks.... usually. IIRC
bob
I wish
Gen 2
Non-windowed: $11-14
Windowed: $13-15
Gen 3 add $2-3
-
I wish
Gen 2
Non-windowed: $11-14
Windowed: $13-15
Gen 3 add $2-3
I guess its been a while since I did one of those buy 10 for this price buys from Brownell's. I still have a bunch of them still in the plastic.
bob
-
Every once in awhile you will see those 10 pack specials. Think the cheapest I recall seeing recently they were $100 for 10 for non-windowed Gen 2s IIRC
-
Getting off-topic a bit: what is the difference between Gen 2 and Gen 3?
-
Getting off-topic a bit: what is the difference between Gen 2 and Gen 3?
https://www.magpul.com/products/pmag-30-ar-m4-gen-m3-window?ProductColor=VO343
In a nutshell
Supposedly better/tougher plastic. Hard to judge that one.
Redesigned bolt catch notch
Over travel stop
Suppose to be more compatible with non AR rifles. Some non ARs type rifles apparently had issues with the Gen 2s
Few other minor changes, check the link
-
One annoying change they made with the Gen 3s is that with the Gen 2s you could clip the dust covers onto the bottom of the mag for safe keeping. On the gen 3s, nope.
Edit: Forgot, the Gen 2s no longer come with the covers, the gen 3s do though.
-
Looks like Brownells has 10 packs of Gen2 non-windowed P-mags for $99.99. Currently shows in stock.
https://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/magazines/ar-15-pmag-gen-m2-moe-mag-223-5-56-30rd-blk-sku100006987-24192-79235.aspx
-
Single mag price....12-15 bucks more or less depending on retailer.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Update: Judge Benitez has issued a partial stay on his ruling:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=796757584037198&id=100011088912909
BREAKING ON DUNCAN CASE: Partial Stay Issued, Judge Protects Those Who Acquired Since Friday:
"THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued
on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) shall remain in effect.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019."
So California residents have until 5:00 pm April 5th to purchase normal-capacity mags. Then we wait and see how the appeals play out.
-
Update: Judge Benitez has issued a partial stay on his ruling:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=796757584037198&id=100011088912909
So California residents have until 5:00 pm April 5th to purchase normal-capacity mags. Then we wait and see how the appeals play out.
Does "bought" mean having placed the order, or does "bought" mean having received?
-
Does "bought" mean having placed the order, or does "bought" mean having received?
Not sure. There is a discussion in this thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1523211
-
More
In response to a motion from the California Department of Justice, US District Court Judge Roger Benitez, who issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of California’s “high capacity” magazine ban, has just issued a stay of his own injunction. That means that the window for ordering standard capacity magazines is closing.
His order goes into effect at 5:00pm Pacific time on Friday, April 5. You can read the full order here, but this is the relevant portion:
The ban on possession of “high capacity” magazines will not be enforced while the case is argued and decided, but California residents will not be able to buy them after 5:00pm tomorrow.
BREAKING: California Judge Reinstates ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban As of 5pm Friday
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/04/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-california-judge-reinstates-high-capacity-magazine-ban-as-of-5pm-friday/
-
pdf of the order:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-04-Order-Staying-in-Part-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf
-
Where do I go to find the final body count for the brief period in which murder magazines were legal?
-
You won't, but according to our AG, making them legal for just a week has already done "irreparable harm" to the state.
(the actual irreparable harm continues to be done by the *expletive deleted*ers in Sacramento)