A California Law Doesn't Stand!

Status
Not open for further replies.
More importantly, that order includes an injunction. Does this mean Californians can buy fully featured autoloading rifles and standard capacity magazines for them (until a stay on the injunction is issued), similar to how Freedom Week happened?
 
Ok this is what's happening...

Basic summary...
A 30 day stay was issued with the ruling.
During that 30 day window, CA DOJ can appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
If CA DOJ does appeal, then the stay remains in place until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals makes a ruling, which can take 2-5 years.
If CA DOJ does not appeal, then after the 30 day stay is up, CA assault weapons laws will no longer be legal.
^This is when it will be legal to no longer abide by CA assault weapons laws.
 
I'm not too savy with all the CA gun laws, just they generally suck. This would only apply to the features of rifles, they would still have the magazine limit until THAT appeal is sorted out?
 
I was just reading this...I was floored at the comments the judge made and perhaps even feel some hope too.

but as was stated...still a long road.
 
From an NRA source:

1. There's no window of opportunity because of the appeal and the order won't go into effect (if it is supported) unless the appeals process is finished.
2. The 9th en banc will not support the decision
3. It won't automatically go to SCOTUS unless there is a circuit split or the state government appealing an en banc decision. There's no guarantee the court will take the case anyway. BTW, congress folks still put the SAGA act forward but fat chance Mitch or Chuck would ever let that come up for discussion, let alone a vote.

So while a good thing, it is just a start of a very long process. It's not a real time, let's buy 'em go signal.
 
^This is when it will be legal to no longer abide by CA assault weapons laws.
Sadly CA sets the standard for dilution of respect for law. At this rate even stop signs may just be a "suggestion"
 
Assault Weapon" as defined by California!

https://law.onecle.com/california/penal/30515.html

California Penal Code Section 30515

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=30510.&lawCode=PEN


CA Penal Code § 30515 (2017)
(a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

(B) A thumbhole stock.

(C) A folding or telescoping stock.

(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

(E) A flash suppressor.

(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.

(B) A second handgrip.

(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.

(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

(A) A folding or telescoping stock.

(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

(c) The Legislature finds a significant public purpose in exempting from the definition of “assault weapon” pistols that are designed expressly for use in Olympic target shooting events. Therefore, those pistols that are sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body for international shooting competition in the United States, and that were used for Olympic target shooting purposes as of January 1, 2001, and that would otherwise fall within the definition of “assault weapon” pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in subdivision (d).

(d) “Assault weapon” does not include either of the following:

(1) Any antique firearm.

(2) Any of the following pistols, because they are consistent with the significant public purpose expressed in subdivision (c):

MANUFACTURER MODEL CALIBER



BENELLI MP90 .22LR
BENELLI MP90 .32 S&W LONG
BENELLI MP95 .22LR
BENELLI MP95 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI 280 .22LR
HAMMERLI 280 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI SP20 .22LR
HAMMERLI SP20 .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI GPO .22 SHORT
PARDINI GP-SCHUMANN .22 SHORT
PARDINI HP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI MP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI SP .22LR
PARDINI SPE .22LR
WALTHER GSP .22LR
WALTHER GSP .32 S&W LONG
WALTHER OSP .22 SHORT
WALTHER OSP-2000 .22 SHORT
(3) The Department of Justice shall create a program that is consistent with the purposes stated in subdivision (c) to exempt new models of competitive pistols that would otherwise fall within the definition of “assault weapon” pursuant to this section from being classified as an assault weapon. The exempt competitive pistols may be based on recommendations by USA Shooting consistent with the regulations contained in the USA Shooting Official Rules or may be based on the recommendation or rules of any other organization that the department deems relevant.

(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 48, Sec. 1. (SB 880) Effective January 1, 2017.)
 
The first page of text:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN
A JAMES MILLER, et al.,Plaintiffs,v.ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, et al.,Defendants. Case No.: 3:19-cv-1537-BEN-JLB

JUDGMENT Following a bench trial and the Court’s Decision in this matter dated June 4, 2021,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs.2.California Penal Code § 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features), 30800 (deeming certain “assault weapons” a public nuisance), 30915 (regulating “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance), 30925 (restricting importation of “assault weapons” by new residents), 30945 (restricting use of registered “assault weapons”), and 30950 (prohibiting possession of “assault weapons” by minors), and the penalty provisions § 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code § 30515(a)(1) through (8) are hereby declared unconstitutional and shall be enjoined.

2. Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, 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 implementing or enforcing the California Penal Code § 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features), 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance), 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance), 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents), 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”), and 30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors),and the penalty provisions § 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code § 30515(a)(1) through (8).

3. Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta shall provide forthwith, 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. Within 10 days, the government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice. Alternatively, the parties may file a stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.Date: June 4, 2021
__________________________________
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge
 
Judge Benitez did the same thing in 2019 regarding California's ban on magazine capacity greater than 10.
To my knowledge, those mags are still illegal to purchase in CA.
 
To my knowledge, those mags are still illegal to purchase in CA
But, during the Stay, until the Appeal was filed (invalidating the Stay) there was a glorious week for our CA brethren, when sales were legal. All of the legally purchased & owned magazines are still legal in CA.

9th Circuit is to the rest of the Nation.
The 9th Circus is no longer the unified juggernaut it once was. En banc, it has some semblance of its old self, but even that is fading. The ability to confirm and seat Federal judges is a powerful one.
 
From an NRA source:

1. There's no window of opportunity because of the appeal and the order won't go into effect (if it is supported) unless the appeals process is finished.
2. The 9th en banc will not support the decision
3. It won't automatically go to SCOTUS unless there is a circuit split or the state government appealing an en banc decision. There's no guarantee the court will take the case anyway. BTW, congress folks still put the SAGA act forward but fat chance Mitch or Chuck would ever let that come up for discussion, let alone a vote.

So while a good thing, it is just a start of a very long process. It's not a real time, let's buy 'em go signal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there has not been a circuit split in regards to AWB, but the 1st thru 4th Circuit all have states in them with an AWB, so it's possible it could happen, but it likely won't within the next 5 years.

SCOTUS is so tepid with 2A that I don't see them taking on a major 2A case like AWB's, mag capacity limits, or ATF re-defining semi automatics as machine guns under the 1934 NFA Act willingly. They'll take on the Constitutionality of may issue states denying people seeking a carry permit for no expresses reason other than "cuz we said so", but that doesn't automatically mean NY state or NYC will become a shall issue, they'll pile on so much red tape that it will be just as difficult to get a permit as it was before the SCOTUS case.

The Trump conservatives on SCOTUS seem less interested in actually doing anything and more interested in just looking like they are doing something to keep up appearances. I don't put much faith in SCOTUS as they're constantly looking over their shoulder to see if Chuck Schumer has rallied a mob on the front steps and is demanding the court be packed. So long as Democrats control Congress and the White House, that heavily touted conservative majority is in all actuality a paper tiger being spearheaded by two 70 year olds.

I expect this case to be forgotten about in the next couple years.
 
Both cases will not be forgotten about, you can be sure of that. To much has happened on both sides for either to let it go.

On top of that, plenty of people in other states are paying attention to what the outcome is. If it falls through here in CA, it will fall through in other states.

This case is HUGE and no one is going to forget about it.
 
For people in other states, its a good read with a lot of helpful information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top