Fraudulent "Pre Ban" Magazines

[Palladan44]

I pretty much know for surr that there are Phony magazines out there for sale claiming to be "pre-ban". They are for sale in ample amounts and all shiny like new, for prices...well, just above "too good to be true" level. My guess would be that these are made overseas and supplied to certain people here in the states. I see a ceratain seller making tens of thousands of dollars on these things.

1) If a moderator PMs me ill give them the information on where I saw this to have a look themselves.

2) This seller is claiming these are pre-ban and legal to possess in states where "pre ban" articles still apply. My main question is how much "fire" are these guys playing with in this game?

What's worse is people are falling for this gag by the bus load.

 

[Spats McGee]

Honestly, this isn’t really a “Legal” question, and as written, it’s way too broad to formulate a solid answer. There is no indication about the seller’s location, which statutes he or she might be violating, etc.

Still, it’s not an unreasonable discussion, so I’ll move this to General Discussions.

 

[rust collector]

As with any other merchandise, caveat emptor. If it sounds too good to be true, you know the rest. How does one prove date of manufacture?

 

[hso]

As with any other merchandise, caveat emptor. If it sounds too good to be true, you know the rest. How does one prove date of manufacture?

There are markings on the inside of Colt/ O'Kay magazines that are bracketing years of production and there's the switch from .223 to 5.56 marking on the floor plates all before Colt started marking the outside of the body. Then there is follower color and material that changes in certain years. Any external marking may be faked (including floor plates), but the internal markings are not likely to be faked and followers are troublesome to fake.

These are real Colt mid '60s. https://thecoltar15resource.com/1966-colt-military-20-round-magazine-4-pack/

 

[unspellable]

Why would I care if it's pre-ban vs post-ban?

 

[Elkins45]

Why would I care if it's pre-ban vs post-ban?

You wouldn’t, living in Iowa, but there are states where you are forbidden to purchase or posess magazines made after a certain date.

 

[dodo bird]

You wouldn’t, living in Iowa, but there are states where you are forbidden to purchase or posess magazines made after a certain date.

I really didn’t know much about this stuff. So I started to search for pre ban magazines. I found this. I don’t want to link to the website as it may be fake. Even if it wasn’t I can’t imagine people buying stuff like this for the price.

 

[LiveLife]

Why would I care if it's pre-ban vs post-ban?

there are states where you are forbidden to purchase or posess magazines made after a certain date.

Yes, it would matter to people in states that have "grandfather" laws for pre-ban magazines.

From CA DOJ/AG page on magazines - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9

Are large-capacity magazines legal?​

• Generally, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine (able to accept more than 10 rounds) in California. However, continued possession of large-capacity magazines that you owned in California prior to January 1, 2000, is legal provided you are not otherwise prohibited.

California went through "grandfathering" with initial larger than 10 round capacity magazine ban which drove the price of factory 15-17 round Glock magazines from then $39 to $59-$89 overnight as "pre-ban" magazines were legal to own.

Then when people of CA insisted that magazine/parts were "consummable" to warrant replacement, including magazine body/tube, "magazine parts kits" were sold, essentially complete magazines that were just disassembled. So if questioned why "post-ban" parts were on "pre-ban" magazines, answer would be "You are allowed to replace worn barrels and parts on firearms and magazines are arms as ruled by various federal court cases" (But the burden would fall on the magazine owner to provide proof with receipts).

After CA put a stop to "magazine parts kit", judge Benitez ruled in Duncan V Becerra/Now Bonta that CA's ban on larger than 10 round capacity law was unconstitutional triggering a "Freedom Week" in April of 2019 when several hundred thousand magazines (And likely more) flowed into CA for "legal sales" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-4#post-11102503

When CA approached various magazine manufacturers to put date stamp on magazine body/tubes so CA could identify magazines manufactured after the "Freedom Week", CA was told to kick rocks and after much hand wringing, CA ultimately faced the reality of burden of determining date of manufacture would fall on the state post "Freedom Week" and quietly dropped enforcement of POSSESSION of larger than 10 round capacity magazine and pursued IMPORTATION/MANUFACTURE/SALES/PURCHASE/TRANSFER of larger than 10 round capacity magazine.

all shiny like new, for prices...well, just above "too good to be true" level.

I have many "shiny new" pre-ban magazines inside original packaging and "shiny new" magazines purchased during "Freedom Week" inside original packaging.

So some people could be trying to circumvent magazine ban laws by obtaining "pre-ban" or "Freedom Week" magazines but if caught, would face prosecution for violating state laws. And it's possible such "deals" could be sting operations set up to catch people violating PURCHASE laws.

Be careful.

 

[jmr40]

Even during the 1994-2004 AWB when any NEW magazine holding more than 10 rounds were illegal to sell to anyone but LE or Military there were PLENTY of Pre-Ban magazines available for MOST firearms.

For whatever reason (I think it was planned) there was 2-3 months between congress voting for the bill and when Clinton signed it into law. Every gun and magazine manufacturer were working 24/7 to produce as many Pre-Ban guns and magazines as possible during this time. I read at the time they produced a ten-year supply in just those 2-3 months.

Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Glock, and every other manufacturer reached out to LE agencies and offered to swap them one free LE and Military marked magazine for every pre-ban mag they returned. Those were then sold for inflated prices.

Importers searched the world for surplus AR magazines. It took a few months, but you could buy 30 round AR magazines by the truckload after those made their way back into the US. And prices weren't too bad. Some looked rough cosmetically, but most worked just fine.

There were only 2 guns that were really affected. The Glock 10mm and 40 S&W pistols were introduced shortly before the ban. Not enough time for a supply of pre-ban magazines to be available. Most other magazines were available at slightly inflated prices, but I saw some of those magazines go for $150 in the 1990's.

Those are still out there, and it shouldn't be hard to find them. But you have to own a type of gun that was available pre-1994. Guns introduced after that wouldn't have pre-ban mags available.

 

[Kyle911]

You wouldn’t, living in Iowa, but there are states where you are forbidden to purchase or posess magazines made after a certain date.

How would anyone really know though? Let's say you skipped over to another state and just got a new full load magazine....no one is checking you at the state line. How would such a thing be enforceable much less a deterrent? Unless you put yourself on someones radar that is.

 

[LiveLife]

How would anyone really know though? Let's say you skipped over to another state and just got a new full load magazine....no one is checking you at the state line. How would such a thing be enforceable much less a deterrent? Unless you put yourself on someones radar that is.

That's it.

These laws are "enforcable" only when you get caught (Hence why CA stopped enforcing "possession" of larger than 10 round capacity magazines).

So either don't get "caught" or in the spirit of "High Road", don't violate such state laws.

 

[Kyle911]

That's it.

These laws are "enforcable" only when you get caught (Hence why CA stopped enforcing "possession" of larger than 10 round capacity magazines).

So either don't get "caught" or in the spirit of "High Road", don't violate such state laws.

Luckily, it's no concern for me. Virginia is still safe...for now at least. No such restrictions here.

 

[RickD427]

That's it.

These laws are "enforcable" only when you get caught (Hence why CA stopped enforcing "possession" of larger than 10 round capacity magazines).

So either don't get "caught" or in the spirit of "High Road", don't violate such state laws.

California did not stop enforcing the "Large-Capacity" magazine statute for the reasons that you stated.

California stopped enforcing the statute because the federal District Court ordered it to do so.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Even during the 1994-2004 AWB when any NEW magazine holding more than 10 rounds were illegal to sell to anyone but LE or Military there were PLENTY of Pre-Ban magazines available for MOST firearms.

For whatever reason (I think it was planned) there was 2-3 months between congress voting for the bill and when Clinton signed it into law. Every gun and magazine manufacturer were working 24/7 to produce as many Pre-Ban guns and magazines as possible during this time. I read at the time they produced a ten-year supply in just those 2-3 months.

Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Glock, and every other manufacturer reached out to LE agencies and offered to swap them one free LE and Military marked magazine for every pre-ban mag they returned. Those were then sold for inflated prices.

Importers searched the world for surplus AR magazines. It took a few months, but you could buy 30 round AR magazines by the truckload after those made their way back into the US. And prices weren't too bad. Some looked rough cosmetically, but most worked just fine.

There were only 2 guns that were really affected. The Glock 10mm and 40 S&W pistols were introduced shortly before the ban. Not enough time for a supply of pre-ban magazines to be available. Most other magazines were available at slightly inflated prices, but I saw some of those magazines go for $150 in the 1990's.

Those are still out there, and it shouldn't be hard to find them. But you have to own a type of gun that was available pre-1994. Guns introduced after that wouldn't have pre-ban mags available.

I purchased a NIB CZ-85B (1994 manufacture) in 1999 that came with one 10 rounder. In Shotgun News, there would be multiple listings for "new old stock" 15 round mags from companies like USA and other Pro-Mag wanna bees. I bought a few, and yes, they were new in the package. If you believe they were actually over 5 years old, and not a few months, I have good ocean front property in CO to sell you. Of course, these were some of the worst mags I have ever owned, and fully took a set and being loaded for a year- not even capable of lifting the shell stack. They were quickly replaced with Mec-Gars after 2004.

 

[goon]

Many magazines overseas literally are pre-ban. They might have been in military inventories for decades, then imported to the US. All the FAL and AK mags I’ve owned were pre-ban, as were many Browning hi-power and SIG mags. Many of them were also in excellent condition, sometimes still in the original packaging. I was given an excellent G3 mag a couple years ago dated 1963 (I have never owned a G3 variant). Millions of AR / M-16 magazines were also in circulation before the bans of the 1990’s and early 2000’s. Many current magazines like the D&H and Pmags have date codes, so you can easily compare a “preban” to one made last year.

 

[LiveLife]

California stopped enforcing the statute because the federal District Court ordered it to do so.

But judge Benitez's ruling has been stayed a week after final ruling with judgement and continues to be stayed while the case is making its way through the 9th Circuit as we speak - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12861093

At 42:50 minute of video, CRPA counsel makes a compelling argument:

"11 round magazine must be banned by CA because it is simply larger than 10 round magazine therefore dangerous." ​

BTW, lead counsel for CRPA Anna Barvir breaks down the argument made to 9th Circuit point-by-point on this post - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12861093

 

[Elkins45]

How would anyone really know though? Let's say you skipped over to another state and just got a new full load magazine....no one is checking you at the state line. How would such a thing be enforceable much less a deterrent? Unless you put yourself on someones radar that is.

If the magazine were stamped with a manufacture date after the ban it could be proven.

A tangential discussion, but one I think about sometimes, is the legal status of the 11+ round LEO marked magazines made between 1994-2004. When the AWB expired in 2004 those magazines lost their ‘verboten to the serfs’ status, at least federally, and people were selling them freely on the civilian market. I own a handful myself. I wonder what would happen should a new federal magazine ban occur. Would they need a new marking scheme to distinguish between the ‘used to be restricted but became OK’ old mags and the new ‘currently still restricted’ ones?

 

[LiveLife]

If the magazine were stamped with a manufacture date after the ban it could be proven.

IIRC, only some magazines manufactured under contract were date stamped to determine inventory/lot # for rotation/replacement schedule.

I believe for civilian/retail market, magazines are not date stamped rather production run/lot #.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Similar to the Magpul P-Mags, many of the Brownell's GI-style metal AR mags have a date code, like 2/13 (the ones I keep in my emergency kit).

 

[hso]

More magazine info -

AR15 / M16 Magazine FAQ

AR15 Manufacturer Information

Troy's Mag FAQ

>>> AR15 Magazine FAQ <<<

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.

www.ar15.com

In the 1970’s Okay / Colt stamped there mags for the year with the K1 - K2 - K3 - K4 - K5 code.
1971 - 1972 - 1973 - 1974 - 1975 - ect, ect - This ( K ) code stamp is only on 1 side of the mags in the
1970s, and it is only stamped 1 time. On the other side of the mag is the month code - 01 - 02
03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - ect, ect. And again it to is also only stamped 1 time.

K5 / 04 which = April of 1975
k5 = the year of production
04 = the month of production
This is a typical 2 stamp code from the 1970's

 

[RickD427]

But judge Benitez's ruling has been stayed a week after final ruling with judgement and continues to be stayed while the case is making its way through the 9th Circuit as we speak - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12861093

At 42:50 minute of video, CRPA counsel makes a compelling argument:

"11 round magazine must be banned by CA because it is simply larger than 10 round magazine therefore dangerous." ​

BTW, lead counsel for CRPA Anna Barvir breaks down the argument made to 9th Circuit point-by-point on this post - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12861093

I think that you may be confused as to the current state of the enforcement ban.

Judge Benitez did find that California's Large-Capacity Magazine statute was unconstitutional. That ruling has been stayed, and the case is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Benitez also issued a Preliminary Injunction against the enforcement of that ban. That injunction remains in effect.

 

[herrwalther]

I really didn’t know much about this stuff. So I started to search for pre ban magazines. I found this. I don’t want to link to the website as it may be fake. Even if it wasn’t I can’t imagine people buying stuff like this for the price.

Something about fools, money, and easily departed. That being said, I did sell a handful of Beretta 92 magazines for more than retail because they were marked "Military/LE use only" on the side.

 

[JDeere]

I bought a bunch of 20 round Centerline Military AR mags several years ago for a good price. Those old mags run fine in my ARs. After the 94 ban they were selling those LEO marked AR mags and Glock mags for cheap and I bought a bunch. Those markings don't bother me a bit.

 

[LiveLife]

I think that you may be confused as to the current state of the enforcement ban.

Judge Benitez did find that California's Large-Capacity Magazine statute was unconstitutional. That ruling has been stayed, and the case is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Benitez also issued a Preliminary Injunction against the enforcement of that ban. That injunction remains in effect.

I don't think so.

Preliminary injunction issued by judge Benitez in 2017 was for "possession" of legally obtained larger than 10 round magazines (LCM) and only covers CA Penal Code sections (c) and (d), which addresses "possession"; not section (a) which addresses "manufacture, importation, sales, gifting/lending and transfer" of LCM, nor section (b) which addresses "magazine kits" - https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-32310/

Judge Benitez issued the preliminary injunction against sections (c) and (d) because state would fine or imprison owners of LCM who legally obtained them:

(c) 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.​

​

(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:​

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;​

(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or​

(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.​

From the preliminary injunction - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

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 implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 32310 (c) & (d), as enacted by Proposition 63, or from otherwise requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed.​

​

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.​

​

IT IS SO ORDERED.​

​

June 29, 2017​

Hon. Roger T. Benitez​

Judge Benitez gave final ruling with judgement on March 29, 2019 declaring entire CA Penal Code section 32310 unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

But the ruling was stayed IN PART week later on April 5, 2019 < I remember clearly as it's my birthday > as judge Benitez stayed only CA Penal Code sections 32310 (a) and (b) but continued the preliminary injunction for sections (c) and (d) and enjoined enforcement of sections (a) and (b) for "Freedom Week" of 3/29/2019 - 4/5/2019 - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...r-Staying-in-Part-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf

ORDER STAYING IN PART JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL ...​

​

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in partpending 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.​

​

April 4, 2019​

Hon. Roger T. Benitez​

After the stay in part order, CRPA (Lawyers representing plaintiff) issued the following clarification - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-4#post-11102503

... the court’s June 2017 injunction prohibiting California from enforcing its restriction against the “possession” of such magazines, remains in effect ...​

​

I. CAN I STILL PURCHASE MAGAZINES CAPABLE OF HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS IN CALIFORNIA?​

​

NO! As of 5:00 P.M. Friday, April 5, the decision granting the Duncan Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has been stayed pending appeal by the California Attorney General. As a result, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazines are once again in effect.​

​

​

II. CAN I CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED?​

​

YES! As of the date of this bulletin, California’s restrictions against “possession” have been unenforceable since June 29, 2017, when this same court issued a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect while the parties litigated the merits of the case.​

​

​

VI. I OWN “LARGE-CAPACITY” MAGAZINES THAT ARE CURRENTLY OUT OF STATE, CAN I STILL BRING THEM BACK INTO CALIFORNIA?​

​

NO! As noted above, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazine are currently in effect. Attempting to bring back magazines into California, despite already being owned by you, can be construed as “importation” which is currently prohibited.​

​

​

VII. CAN I TRAVEL WITH THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA?​

​

NO! Prior to the enactment of Proposition 63 in 2016, California law allowed individuals to travel with their lawfully acquired magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds outside of California and then return with them.2 But this provision was repealed with the enactment of Proposition 63. As a result, individuals can no longer travel outside of California with their lawfully acquired magazines unless they plan on leaving their magazines out of California.​

​

So since most magazines are not date stamped whether they were manufactured prior to 1/1/2000, 7/1/2017 or during the "Freedom Week" of 3/29/2019-4/5/2019 (And BTW "Freedom Week" legalized all previously obtained LCM since 1/1/2000 and enforcement against them was taken away FOREVER by judge Benitez's ruling with judgement) or later, CA tried to have magazine manufacturers date stamp magazines/bodies to identify magazines manufactured after the "Freedom Week" but thankfully were told to kick rocks by the magazine manufacturers (I heard this on talk show "GunTalk").

 

[RickD427]

I don't think so.

Preliminary injunction issued by judge Benitez in 2017 was for "possession" of legally obtained larger than 10 round magazines (LCM) and only covers CA Penal Code sections (c) and (d), which addresses "possession"; not section (a) which addresses "manufacture, importation, sales, gifting/lending and transfer" of LCM, nor section (b) which addresses "magazine kits" - https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-32310/

Judge Benitez issued the preliminary injunction against sections (c) and (d) because state would fine or imprison owners of LCM who legally obtained them:

(c) 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.​

​

(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:​

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;​

(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or​

(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.​

From the preliminary injunction - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

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 implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 32310 (c) & (d), as enacted by Proposition 63, or from otherwise requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed.​

​

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.​

​

IT IS SO ORDERED.​

​

June 29, 2017​

Hon. Roger T. Benitez​

Judge Benitez gave final ruling with judgement on March 29, 2019 declaring entire CA Penal Code section 32310 unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

But the ruling was stayed IN PART week later on April 5, 2019 < I remember clearly as it's my birthday > as judge Benitez stayed only CA Penal Code sections 32310 (a) and (b) but continued the preliminary injunction for sections (c) and (d) and enjoined enforcement of sections (a) and (b) for "Freedom Week" of 3/29/2019 - 4/5/2019 - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...r-Staying-in-Part-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf

ORDER STAYING IN PART JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL ...​

​

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in partpending 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.​

​

April 4, 2019​

Hon. Roger T. Benitez​

After the stay in part order, CRPA (Lawyers representing plaintiff) issued the following clarification - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-4#post-11102503

... the court’s June 2017 injunction prohibiting California from enforcing its restriction against the “possession” of such magazines, remains in effect ...​

​

I. CAN I STILL PURCHASE MAGAZINES CAPABLE OF HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS IN CALIFORNIA?​

​

NO! As of 5:00 P.M. Friday, April 5, the decision granting the Duncan Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has been stayed pending appeal by the California Attorney General. As a result, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazines are once again in effect.​

​

​

II. CAN I CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED?​

​

YES! As of the date of this bulletin, California’s restrictions against “possession” have been unenforceable since June 29, 2017, when this same court issued a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect while the parties litigated the merits of the case.​

​

​

VI. I OWN “LARGE-CAPACITY” MAGAZINES THAT ARE CURRENTLY OUT OF STATE, CAN I STILL BRING THEM BACK INTO CALIFORNIA?​

​

NO! As noted above, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazine are currently in effect. Attempting to bring back magazines into California, despite already being owned by you, can be construed as “importation” which is currently prohibited.​

​

​

VII. CAN I TRAVEL WITH THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA?​

​

NO! Prior to the enactment of Proposition 63 in 2016, California law allowed individuals to travel with their lawfully acquired magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds outside of California and then return with them.2 But this provision was repealed with the enactment of Proposition 63. As a result, individuals can no longer travel outside of California with their lawfully acquired magazines unless they plan on leaving their magazines out of California.​

​

So since most magazines are not date stamped whether they were manufactured prior to 1/1/2000, 7/1/2017 or during the "Freedom Week" of 3/29/2019-4/5/2019 (And BTW "Freedom Week" legalized all previously obtained LCM since 1/1/2000 and enforcement against them was taken away FOREVER by judge Benitez's ruling with judgement) or later, CA tried to have magazine manufacturers date stamp magazines/bodies to identify magazines manufactured after the "Freedom Week" but thankfully were told to kick rocks by the magazine manufacturers (I heard this on talk show "GunTalk").

You have correctly pointed out that Judge Benitez's Preliminary Injunction only covers subparagraphs (c) and (d) of California Penal Code section 32310, and does not cover subparagraphs (a) and (b)

I don't think so.

Preliminary injunction issued by judge Benitez in 2017 was for "possession" of legally obtained larger than 10 round magazines (LCM) and only covers CA Penal Code sections (c) and (d), which addresses "possession"; not section (a) which addresses "manufacture, importation, sales, gifting/lending and transfer" of LCM, nor section (b) which addresses "magazine kits" - https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-32310/

Judge Benitez issued the preliminary injunction against sections (c) and (d) because state would fine or imprison owners of LCM who legally obtained them:

(c) 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.​

​

(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:​

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;​

(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or​

(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.​

From the preliminary injunction - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

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 implementing or enforcing California Penal Code sections 32310 (c) & (d), as enacted by Proposition 63, or from otherwise requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed.​

​

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.​

​

IT IS SO ORDERED.​

​

June 29, 2017​

Hon. Roger T. Benitez​

Judge Benitez gave final ruling with judgement on March 29, 2019 declaring entire CA Penal Code section 32310 unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

But the ruling was stayed IN PART week later on April 5, 2019 < I remember clearly as it's my birthday > as judge Benitez stayed only CA Penal Code sections 32310 (a) and (b) but continued the preliminary injunction for sections (c) and (d) and enjoined enforcement of sections (a) and (b) for "Freedom Week" of 3/29/2019 - 4/5/2019 - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...r-Staying-in-Part-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf

ORDER STAYING IN PART JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL ...​

​

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in partpending 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.​

​

April 4, 2019​

Hon. Roger T. Benitez​

After the stay in part order, CRPA (Lawyers representing plaintiff) issued the following clarification - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-4#post-11102503

... the court’s June 2017 injunction prohibiting California from enforcing its restriction against the “possession” of such magazines, remains in effect ...​

​

I. CAN I STILL PURCHASE MAGAZINES CAPABLE OF HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS IN CALIFORNIA?​

​

NO! As of 5:00 P.M. Friday, April 5, the decision granting the Duncan Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has been stayed pending appeal by the California Attorney General. As a result, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazines are once again in effect.​

​

​

II. CAN I CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED?​

​

YES! As of the date of this bulletin, California’s restrictions against “possession” have been unenforceable since June 29, 2017, when this same court issued a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect while the parties litigated the merits of the case.​

​

​

VI. I OWN “LARGE-CAPACITY” MAGAZINES THAT ARE CURRENTLY OUT OF STATE, CAN I STILL BRING THEM BACK INTO CALIFORNIA?​

​

NO! As noted above, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazine are currently in effect. Attempting to bring back magazines into California, despite already being owned by you, can be construed as “importation” which is currently prohibited.​

​

​

VII. CAN I TRAVEL WITH THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA?​

​

NO! Prior to the enactment of Proposition 63 in 2016, California law allowed individuals to travel with their lawfully acquired magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds outside of California and then return with them.2 But this provision was repealed with the enactment of Proposition 63. As a result, individuals can no longer travel outside of California with their lawfully acquired magazines unless they plan on leaving their magazines out of California.​

​

So since most magazines are not date stamped whether they were manufactured prior to 1/1/2000, 7/1/2017 or during the "Freedom Week" of 3/29/2019-4/5/2019 (And BTW "Freedom Week" legalized all previously obtained LCM since 1/1/2000 and enforcement against them was taken away FOREVER by judge Benitez's ruling with judgement) or later, CA tried to have magazine manufacturers date stamp magazines/bodies to identify magazines manufactured after the "Freedom Week" but thankfully were told to kick rocks by the magazine manufacturers (I heard this on talk show "GunTalk").

WHOA - You really went off the rails here.

As to this posting, you're pretty much on point. It looks like you did a pretty good job of "Cutting and Pasting" the writings of knowledgable folks on the subject of Judge Benitez' Preliminary Injunction.

But that's all quite irrelevant to my posting which you seem to have issue with. Our discussion started when you asserted that California ceased enforcing the ban because it was unenforceable (Post #11). I replied that California ceased enforcement because of the federal court order that it do so (Post #13). In Post #16, you claimed that the "Ruling" had been stayed. Your word choice of "Ruling" was kinda awkward, but in the context of the conversation could only refer to the Preliminary Injunction issued by Judge Benitez on 9-26-2022, since it was the only order of the court being discussed at that point.

My point made previously was that you have confused the Trial Court Judgement in the Duncan case (which has been stayed) with the Order Granting Preliminary Injunction against the enforcement of Penal Code sections 32310, subparagraphs (c) and (d) (which has not been stayed). And that point still remains, and is not addressed, by the "wall of text" that you just posted.