PDSmith, Judge Benitez authored an outstanding opinion. He went to great lengths to document his reasoning for his holding, and to best ensure that the decision holds up to the inevitable appeal. California law is kinda unique in that it authorizes the civil seizure of large-capacity magazines with no corresponding charges bought against the possessor of the magazines (CPC 32390). California Penal Code section 32310 contains the criminal statute for the possession, manufacture and importation of large-capacity magazines. The judge appears to have dealt with CPC 32390 in the dicta of the decision because it helped to "bulletproof" the decision against appeal. But the holding of the decision only held that CPC 32310 was constitutionally infirm. He failure to similarly hold CGC 32390 to be infirm is notable, particularly given his treatment of that section in the dicta. But it's also a pretty well ingrained principle in the law that the court doesn't award a plaintiff more relief than was requested. Ms. Duncan was represented by Chuck Michel of Michel and Associates. They're probably the leading practitioner in California firearms law. My layman's view is that either the case was not fully pled, or that Michel had a strategic purpose for not pleading for relief from CPC 32390.