Large-capacity gun magazine possession law on pause while Supreme Court petitioned

[Aim1]

This isn't the case we want.


We want a 2nd Amendment case that considers both so-called Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines.


The court only takes so many cases a year and hoping for them to take 2 Second Amendment cases ( one pertaining to High Capacity Magazines and another pertaining to Assault Weapons) after they just took the NY 2nd Amendment case is unlikely.






https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2021-12-21/gun-magazine-supreme-court

 

[Airborne Falcon]

So they are taking-on the California mag capacity case?

I'm confused.

 

[Riomouse911]

It looks like it’ll be appealed. Since the en banc review and ruling was in response to an appeal of the Benitez ruling that the law was unconstitutional, the panel stayed enforcement of the ban for 150 days to see if the appeal will be accepted.
If it isn’t accepted by USSC, then their ruling that it is legal for CA to ban possession of 11+ round gun mags will go into full effect.

Stay safe.

 

[armoredman]

Then the next logical question is, is it legal for CA residents to buy these magazines during this stay, or not? I'm guessing not.

 

[armydog]

I love liberals. Criminals, mostly felons unloading full mags, one after the other in their gang wars... that is acceptable... no public outrage. A lady in her home defending her children in a home invasion, by law she has to reload, giving criminals a better fighting chance against her. lol They even made a law to inhibit her... lots of public outrage against the law abiding citizens.

But then again, the liberals have worked tirelessly to get the crimewave ridden states they have right now... so give them some credit for their efforts. lol

Why isn't this a case we want? If I lived in a blue state with the restrictions, I would want it taken up. I think at worst the case will not be taken up by SCOTUS. That would leave it to the states. I highly doubt they would take the case with the current majority we have and come to a ruling that supports the ban, giving the go ahead for Joey B. to shoot himself in the foot some more. He'd unnecessarily piss off the 41 states that don't have magazine restrictions. There isn't even a state law restricting magazine capacity in Illinois.

 

[1942bull]

I will be shocked (happily) if SCOTUS takes the case. They have turned down several cases over the past 2 years that involve the same issues. It seems like they want to leave it up to states to set limits.

 

[kwguy]

Maybe they should preemptively take up a case for the battery capacity of energy weapons, so when that tech becomes viable, it’ll be relevant. Oh! And we forgot to make a case for the number of arrows held in a quiver!

Ridiculous waste of the courts time. Such a shame.

 

[Aim1]

I will be shocked (happily) if SCOTUS takes the case. They have turned down several cases over the past 2 years that involve the same issues. It seems like they want to leave it up to states to set limits.

This isn't the case we want taken, we want a case that requires a ruling on assault weapons AND high capacity magazines since SCOTUS takes so few cases a year and hadn't taken 2nd Amendment one for nearly a decade.

 

[kwguy]

Everyone keeps talking about cases we “want” the SC to take, about “assault weapons”
And “hi cap” mags. What happens if they rule against those things? What then? Will we sit back and say “well, that’s the way it goes…”? No, we’ll revert to the fact that the 2A is about “arms” and “not be infringed”, and try from that angle. So let’s just do that now. Go Macro, not Micro.

I feel for the oppressed states that infringe on their citizens, but this is chasing the bouncing ball, and playing into the anti’s hands, because we are letting them frame the issue for us.

 

[LaneP]

I will be shocked (happily) if SCOTUS takes the case. They have turned down several cases over the past 2 years that involve the same issues. It seems like they want to leave it up to states to set limits.

That's my view as well. No legal scholar here, but I would think they would consider capacity to be irrelevant to the central issue of RKBA so long as such restrictions don't create a defacto ban in and of itself.

 

[Pat Riot]

This is all a game. Like a cat toying with a mouse.

 

[LiveLife]

So they are taking-on the California mag capacity case?

I'm confused.

It is now up to the SCOTUS - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ersal-14-aug-2020.873302/page-4#post-12151852

"Plaintiffs, including CRPA, acted quickly and filed a Motion to Stay Mandate which would keep the status quo in place while a Writ of Certiorari is filed with the Supreme Court to appeal the decision of the en banc panel."
​

Then the next logical question is, is it legal for CA residents to buy these magazines during this stay, or not? I'm guessing not.

No. Only those larger than 10 round capacity magazines obtained prior to 5:00 PM Friday, April 5, 2019 would be "legal" for possession during this time - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ersal-14-aug-2020.873302/page-4#post-12132594

"With this Stay of Mandate granted by the court, it essentially means everything carries on as it has for the past several years. Those individual who lawfully own or possess magazines holding more than 10 rounds are allowed to keep them while the case is appealed."​

 

[Aim1]

Everyone keeps talking about cases we “want” the SC to take, about “assault weapons”
And “hi cap” mags. What happens if they rule against those things? What then? Will we sit back and say “well, that’s the way it goes…”? No, we’ll revert to the fact that the 2A is about “arms” and “not be infringed”, and try from that angle. So let’s just do that now. Go Macro, not Micro.

I feel for the oppressed states that infringe on their citizens, but this is chasing the bouncing ball, and playing into the anti’s hands, because we are letting them frame the issue for us.

You can't think like this hoping that SCOTUS only takes small cases.

We could go forever with SCOTUS taking small cases.

At some point the large cases have to be heard and with a potential 6-3 2nd Amendment supporting Supreme Court is potentially one of the best times to do it.


It could always go the other way and SCOTUS accepts a 2nd Amendment case with an anti-2nd Amendment majority.

 

[danez71]

No. Only those larger than 10 round capacity magazines obtained prior to 5:00 PM Friday, April 5, 2019 would be "legal" for possession during this time

I don't think that's quite right.

Only 11+ cap mags acquired during 'Freedom Week', which ended 04/05/19, and those acquired prior to AWB 94; not all 11+ cap mags mags acquired prior to 04/05/19

 

[kwguy]

You can't think like this hoping that SCOTUS only takes small cases.

We could go forever with SCOTUS taking small cases.

At some point the large cases have to be heard and with a potential 6-3 2nd Amendment supporting Supreme Court is potentially one of the best times to do it.


It could always go the other way and SCOTUS accepts a 2nd Amendment case with an anti-2nd Amendment majority.

That’s my point. These ARE “small cases”, except they’ve been allowed to become “large cases”. Having the SC involved in whether or not owning a rifle is allowed by the 2A is ridiculous. Obviously it’s allowed, yet citizens of oppressive states are having to go begging hat in hand for the SC to take a side against an obvious transgression of their rights, after having to wait until a perceived pro 2A court is in power. The politics of this is gross, and I have a feeling it will lead to a less than desirable answer, because they won’t want to offend anyone too badly, so their “ruling” will be some type of lukewarm compromise, that will be able to be interpreted by both “sides” differently, resulting in a net erosion of rights.

The SC should simply declare the case ridiculous, and dismiss it with prejudice, and just simply tell those states to quit being stupid.

But they won’t.

 

[LiveLife]

Only 11+ cap mags acquired during 'Freedom Week', which ended 04/05/19, and those acquired prior to AWB 94; not all 11+ cap mags mags acquired prior to 04/05/19

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson.

Since CA's ban in 1990s and 4/5/2019, larger capacity than 10 round magazines were allowed to be legally purchased by/transfer to those in the "exempted" groups such as Law Enforcement and Retired Law Enforcement, etc. Between Judge Benitez's ruling on Friday March 29, 2019 when he ruled CA's ban unconstitutional and 5 PM Friday April 5, 2019, during so called "Freedom Week"; manufacture/importation/sales/transfer of larger capacity than 10 round magazines were legal.

And so during the "Freedom Week", sale/transfer of these magazines could have taken place.

This from CRPA's website on Judge Benetiz's ruling and stay for Duncan v Becerra - https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpa-al...h-large-capacity-magazine-court-ordered-stay/

"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"​

 

[danez71]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson.

Since CA's ban in 1990s and 4/5/2019, larger capacity than 10 round magazines were allowed to be legally purchased by/transfer to those in the "exempted" groups such as Law Enforcement and Retired Law Enforcement, etc. Between Judge Benitez's ruling on Friday March 29, 2019 when he ruled CA's ban unconstitutional and 5 PM Friday April 5, 2019, during so called "Freedom Week"; manufacture/importation/sales/transfer of larger capacity than 10 round magazines were legal.

And so during the "Freedom Week", sale/transfer of these magazines could have taken place.

If I'm understanding you right, that's correct

However, from the AWB of 94 to 2019 Freedom Week, you could possess but not buy sell or mfg.

Any buying selling or mfg'ing in CA of 11+ cap mags between AWB94 & Freedom Week 2019 was illegal and since that wasn't addressed, still would be.


That seems to be the prevailing opinion of the lawyers involved, and many other lawyers.

One could argue that since Benitez struck down the ban as being unconstitutional that the illegal acts of buying selling mfg'ing during that time are free and clear, but he never ruled that (I think because this case was brought up as a result of CA passing a new law eliminating the grandfathered possession clause of the original law - he wasn't striking down the old law because that wasn't in front of him; the new law eliminating grandfathered possession was. In his ruling, it was worded as if buying and selling were ok and was debated hotly - some out of state sellers wouldn't sell 11+ mags into CA during freedom week because their lawyers weren't convinced it was ok).

Now, I do wonder, how they would be able to proved you illegally acquired it in 98 (for ex).

But it wouldn't be wise to actually say 'I bought it in 98'.

Obviously I could be wrong but that's my understanding based on the prevailing opinions the last time a read the butt load of pages on calguns of which the lawyers involved in the case are members of and post there.

 

[GEM]

Just a caution when one says that a restriction is 'obviously wrong' that is only your opinion. There certainly are judges, justices and legislators who don't think it is obvious and haven't in the past. You just cannot announce it is obvious. An alternate history composition Scotus might have blown 'your' view of the 2nd Amendment out of the water.

Evidence - when did concealed carry become accepted across the land? Was it in the Constitution? Was it the law in most places? NO, legislation had to be passed. Now Scotus is looking at the issue in the NYSPRA case.

It's easy to say the 2nd Amend is a universal law of the universe, established and clear in meaning, perhaps by a deity. It doesn't work that way and it's fun to say that here that is should be. However, that doesn't confirm the rights or overturn restrictions. That is a political/legal interaction.

 

[redcon1]

I will be shocked (happily) if SCOTUS takes the case. They have turned down several cases over the past 2 years that involve the same issues. It seems like they want to leave it up to states to set limits.

I feel like we worked pretty hard and spent quite a bit of money restructuring that court and it's payback time.

 

[redcon1]

That's my view as well. No legal scholar here, but I would think they would consider capacity to be irrelevant to the central issue of RKBA so long as such restrictions don't create a defacto ban in and of itself.

The 2A doesn't say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be de facto banned. We know what the political reality is but we know what the truth is too.

 

[LiveLife]

If I'm understanding you right, that's correct

... Now, I do wonder, how they would be able to proved you illegally acquired it in 98

Since this is "High Road", I addressed magazines acquired legally prior to Judge Benitez ruling on 3/29/19.

And as far as I know, when CA asked magazine manufacturers to date stamp after Judge Benitez stay order on 4/5/19 and they declined, CA stopped enforcement efforts for "possession" of larger than 10 round capacity magazines as burden of proof would fall on CA (Of course, unless you were caught in the act of manufacture/importation/purchase).

This isn't the case we want. We want a 2nd Amendment case that considers both so-called Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines.

The court only takes so many cases a year and hoping for them to take 2 Second Amendment cases ( one pertaining to High Capacity Magazines and another pertaining to Assault Weapons) after they just took the NY 2nd Amendment case is unlikely.

I do not believe "what we want" will dictate what cases SCOTUS chooses to hear.

There certainly are judges, justices and legislators who don't think it is obvious and haven't in the past. You just cannot announce it is obvious. An alternate history composition Scotus might have blown 'your' view of the 2nd Amendment out of the water.

... It's easy to say the 2nd Amend is a universal law of the universe, established and clear in meaning, perhaps by a deity. It doesn't work that way and it's fun to say that here that is should be. However, that doesn't confirm the rights or overturn restrictions. That is a political/legal interaction.

I agree.

As to what cases will go to SCOTUS for review depends on where they are in the litigation process. It took years for Duncan v Becerra to take CA ban on larger than 10 round capacity magazines to SCOTUS - https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

And it will take more time for Rupp v Becerra to take CA ban on "Assault Weapons" to SCOTUS - https://michellawyers.com/rupp-v-becerra/

And Duncan v Becerra may be the case "we want" because SCOTUS could rule that ammunition holding/storage devices we call "magazine" are arms to support the Second Amendment's "Right to keep and bear arms". During colonial times, keeping "arms" meant muskets/rifles along with ball and powder in quantities that averaged several hundred rounds. And even Justice Ginsburg defined "bear arms" as "carries a firearm" - https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/wearing-bearing-or-carrying-arms

And in Duncan v Becerra ruling, Judge Benitez wrote - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...lated-information.849620/page-7#post-11271902

"The district court in [Fyock v. Sunnyvale], found that 'magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in common use, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.' ... The district court found that the large capacity magazines qualify as 'arms' for purposes of the Second Amendment." and ruled with judgement concluding, "Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are 'arms.'"​

So if SCOTUS decides to hear Duncan v Becerra, we could get ruling not just on magazine capacity but clarifying interpretation on ammunition storage devices being "arms" for all 50 states.

And there are many 2A cases going through Federal District courts and may be headed to the SCOTUS - https://crpa.org/news/litigation/legal-update-january-2021/

 

[kwguy]

“There certainly are judges, justices and legislators who don't think it is obvious and haven't in the past. You just cannot announce it is obvious.”

Lawyer and politicians, driven by agendas will always skew words, but when the founders and drafters of the document use words like “self evident (meaning-obvious), and “shall not” (meaning-don’t do this), that’s pretty clear, despite what the word twisters and self serving authorities would have one believe.

Such specific words used in military regs or in a contractual agreement would sure be clear, but not when it comes to the potential to have arms in the hands of regular citizenry.

We have allowed ourselves to go really far down the rabbit hole when we have to pander to justices to determine it the 2A means we are allowed have a rifle. That may seem like an oversimplification, but it really is that simple.

 

[jdc1244]

Everyone keeps talking about cases we “want” the SC to take, about “assault weapons”
And “hi cap” mags. What happens if they rule against those things? What then?

It becomes a matter for the people of the state to address through the political process, the judicial process having been exhausted.

Of course, given its overwhelming conservative majority, the Court should rule to uphold the ban, consistent with conservatives’ advocacy of states’ rights, and their opposition to tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench contrary to the will of the people of the states.

 

[kwguy]

It becomes a matter for the people of the state to address through the political process, the judicial process having been exhausted.

Of course, given its overwhelming conservative majority, the Court should rule to uphold the ban, consistent with conservatives’ advocacy of states’ rights, and their opposition to tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench contrary to the will of the people of the states.

Interesting spin! ;-)

But even when such a ban is in violation of the Bill of Rights? If so, that’s a slippery slope (slavery?, any number of things)..

That’s the danger of legislating from the bench. It promotes tribalism and a revenge driven mentality.

 

[danez71]

Only those larger than 10 round capacity magazines obtained prior to 5:00 PM Friday, April 5, 2019 would be "legal"

This comment is what I was addressing. There no qualifiers in there addressing the fact that common people could not buy them during a 15 yr time period prior 04/19.

Between AWB94 and Freedom Week in 2019, it was not legal for common people to buy sell or make 11+ mags. They could only possess them under the grandfather clause.

Since this is "High Road", I addressed magazines acquired legally prior to Judge Benitez ruling on 3/29/19.

In this statement you put in the "legally" qualifier.

For common people, "legally" would include being prior to AWB94 or during Freedom Week 2019.

None of your posts indicated that there is a 15 yr period that common people could not buy sell or mfg 11+ mags (only possession was allowed) and nothing was ever ruled to over turn anything during that 15 yr period.


I'm just pointing out that in the 15 year period preceeding Freedom Week 2019, common people in CA couldn't legally get them, (possession was fine*) and nothing in the rulings changes that.

*LA did make a nuisance law against the use of them during that time; possibly other areas too. They specified 'use' as a way of skirting around the fact possession was grandfathered. I lost track of what happened with that law.