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

[jdc1244]

Something else to consider: even if the Court agreed to hear the case, will the justices determine to narrowly consider only the possession provision of the law, leaving in place the prohibition to sell, manufacture, or buy large-capacity magazines, similar to the narrow determination in the New York may issue carry permit provision now under review.

 

[LiveLife]

No. 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 ... In this statement you put in the "legally" qualifier.

My original reply was for armoredman which included a CRPA quote that addressed the qualifier "lawfully" in post #12.

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 ... "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."

Anyways, I am not in disagreement with you and do not want to hijack the thread.

 

[Basura Blanca]

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.

People are putting too many eggs in the judicial basket and besides that, the SC doesn't typically 'do' broad rulings. On top of that, we're already living in the 2A's own Jim Crow era post-Heller, so it's a bit naive to think a grandiose decision from the top court is going to automatically make states like California capitulate on the issue. I certainly want the SC to weigh in on more of this than they're willing to do, but realistically, I don't see a resolution in the broader sense happening in my lifetime.

I say all this as someone with a lot of skin in the game too. But I'm no stranger to this either. I've been exiling guns to live with relatives out of state since 1990, with some repeat performances along the way. If not for this stay while the SC decides to take the case in question, I'd already be sending off a whole crop of magazines to join them.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Something else to consider: even if the Court agreed to hear the case, will the justices determine to narrowly consider only the possession provision of the law, leaving in place the prohibition to sell, manufacture, or buy large-capacity magazines, similar to the narrow determination in the New York may issue carry permit provision now under review.

Maybe, but here's what the 9th said re: takings clause:

"The court held that section 32310 does not, on its face, effect a taking. The government acquires nothing by virtue of the limitation on the capacity of magazines, and because owners may modify or sell their nonconforming magazines, the law does not deprive owners of all economic use. Plaintiffs’ due process claim essentially restated the takings claim, and it failed for the same reasons."

Obviously, that's the opposition's spin on it but that's where we're currently at with respect to any grandfathering of existing magazines.

 

[CapnMac]

The SC operates at its own rhythm. Several sources have pointed out that the SC has considered more 2A cases in the last three years than in the last thirty. It has not taken up so many of those, for better or for worse. But i has sopped disregarding them entire, which however slim it is, is a victory of sorts for our cause.

 

[LiveLife]

Something else to consider: even if the Court agreed to hear the case, will the justices determine to narrowly consider only the possession provision of the law, leaving in place the prohibition to sell, manufacture, or buy large-capacity magazines, similar to the narrow determination in the New York may issue carry permit provision now under review.

With DC v Heller, the Supreme Court has already ruled "that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And just as First Amendment has expanded to include modern/improved means of free speech (Emails, texts, etc.), now we get to address the "Common Use" issue that includes auto loading firearms such as AR15 and double-stack pistols along with larger than 10 round capacity magazines originally and currently "commonly used" for self-defense.

Here's Cornell Law School explanation of 2A "bearing arms" post DC v Heller (As with US Constitution being "updated" with amendments to reflect modern times, so should our "arms" be updated to reflect modern/improved technologies as expressed in Caetano v Massachusetts) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2

"The Second Amendment ... civilians ... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time... the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals ... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.​

... Subsequently, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers."​

And to me, this means, for self defense against multiple armed intruders, the protection of 2A extends to firearms in common use that use 10+ capacity magazines to reduce/eliminate the "lethal pause" that judge Benitez pointed out in Duncan v Becerra.

As to nonsensical magazine capacity limit, with "common use" argument and CA failing to provide sufficient justification for "arbitrarily" picking a limiting number of 10 rounds (It could have been 7, 5, 3 or even 1, take your random pick. ) prompted judge Benitez to write,

"So, how did California arrive at the notion that any firearm magazine size greater than a 10-round magazine is unacceptable?​

It appears to be an arbitrary judgment ... The State does not ... say why California (or any jurisdiction, for that matter) place the limit at 10 ... The significance of 10 rounds, however, is not addressed​

... Federal law has no limit on permissible magazine size. In U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for firearm offenses ... a 'large capacity magazine' is defined for purposes of sentencing as a magazine 'that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition.'​

A reasoned explanation or a considered judgment would tend to demonstrate why the 'fit' of a total ban on magazines larger than 10- rounds is reasonable or how the ban is narrowly tailored ... Surly, Turner deference does not mean a federal court is relegated to rubber-stamping a broad-based arbitrary incursion on a constitutional right founded on speculative line-drawing and without any sign of tailoring for fit."​

And judge Benitez calling magazines "arms" throws a big wrench in the states' push to limit magazine capacity for law abiding citizens when he wrote:

"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 ... Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are 'arms.'"​

"... from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.​

In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are DISABLED, or who have ARTHRITIS, or who are trying to HOLD A PHONE IN THEIR OFF-HAND while attempting to call for police help.​

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show ... lack of reasonable fit."​

Just like First Amendment expanding to include modern types of communication, I think it's time for the SCOTUS to expand the Second Amendment to include modern types of arms to include magazine fed auto loading firearms.

 

[jdc1244]

But even when such a ban is in violation of the Bill of Rights?

It’s a matter of the consistent advocacy of states’ rights – or lack of consistency.

If a state exercises its rights in a manner one disagrees with, he must respect the right of the state to do so, out of deference for the will of the people.

And if the state acts contrary to the Bill of Rights, it’s the responsibility of the people to address that aberration through the political process – not judicial – again, consistent with the will of the people.

 

[danez71]

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)..

And if the state acts contrary to the Bill of Rights, it’s the responsibility of the people to address that aberration through the political process – not judicial

Does SCOTUS know they arent supposed to hear BOR cases?

 

[LiveLife]

But even when such a ban is in violation of the Bill of Rights?

And if the state acts contrary to the Bill of Rights, it’s the responsibility of the people to address that aberration through the political process – not judicial

But that's not what happened in DC v Heller.

Supreme Court ruled DC violated the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Does SCOTUS know they arent supposed to hear BOR cases?

Justice Gorsuch stated when executive and legislative branches fail to protect the Bill of Rights, it is the job of the judicial branch to protect the BOR - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"​

 

[kwguy]

But that's not what happened in DC v Heller.

Supreme Court ruled DC violated the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.


Justice Gorsuch stated when executive and legislative branches fail to protect the Bill of Rights, it is the job of the judicial branch to protect the BOR - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"​

“But that's not what happened in DC v Heller.

Supreme Court ruled DC violated the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.”

Exactly.

And when THEY fail to do so, here we are. Down the rabbit hole. This has been a long time in the making. The Judiciary was not supposed to be a “Star Chamber”, but it is now.

 

[DustyGmt]

I like how a few main distributors of magazines had a disclaimer on their website during freedom week that any orders placed by California residents would take priority over all others.....

 

[Insignificant bill]

The ruling we need is no infringement on magazine size ammo and types of firearms that law abiding people can possess. This garbage that we are constantly fighting needs to be put to rest.

 

[Gooseman69]

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.

They wont take eithier one up they wiLl kick it back to the states

 

[Gooseman69]

Don',t know what or how they will rule on it and i dont really follow.it as i do not own ,never have owned and never will own an ar15,,0r any of its variants nor any rifle /magazine that holds more then 4 rounds in the mag ( i own hunting rifles no use for an assault weapon)i have absalutely no desire or reason to own An ar 15/aka assault weapon or a high capacity mag never been a fan
Of asaault weapons Never will be

 

[LiveLife]

never will own ... any rifle /magazine that holds more then 4 rounds in the mag ( i own hunting rifles

This thread is about "Large-capacity gun magazine possession law" of California and the Supreme Court regarding Duncan v Becerra.

Since Supreme Court already ruled in DC v Heller "that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms ... for ... lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...", topic of modern/improved firearms technology commonly used to hold/store ammunition for self-defense purpose is pertinent like First Amendment protection applying to modern/improved technology such as emails and texts commonly used for communication - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-court-petitioned.899215/page-2#post-12152592

And when modern/improved firearms originally and commonly were used with larger than 10 round capacity magazines for decades, as judge Benitez questioned, just how did the limiting number of "10" come about?

"So, how did California arrive at the notion that any firearm magazine size greater than a 10-round magazine is unacceptable? ... It appears to be an arbitrary judgment ... The State does not ... say why California (or any jurisdiction, for that matter) place the limit at 10 ... The significance of 10 rounds, however, is not addressed ... Federal law has no limit on permissible magazine size. In U.S."​

And adding to DC v Heller decision, does limiting round count help with the purpose of "self-defense"? As judge Benitez pointed out, limiting magazine capacity would create a "lethal pause" when victim runs out of ammunition or attempt to reload another magazine and there have been many examples of people having to defend themselves from multiple armed attackers.

"... from the perspective of a victim ... the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause' ... dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are DISABLED, or who have ARTHRITIS, or who are trying to HOLD A PHONE IN THEIR OFF-HAND while attempting to call for police help."​

So I do believe the topic of modern/improvement in firearms technology for self-defense is pertinent for the Supreme Court

 

[Insignificant bill]

Don',t know what or how they will rule on it and i dont really follow.it as i do not own ,never have owned and never will own an ar15,,0r any of its variants nor any rifle /magazine that holds more then 4 rounds in the mag ( i own hunting rifles no use for an assault weapon)i have absalutely no desire or reason to own An ar 15/aka assault weapon or a high capacity mag never been a fan
Of asaault weapons Never will be

But a lot of people do and all of our rights are important to fight for.

 

[CapnMac]

or a high capacity mag never been a fan

SO, you do not own--or wish to own--a Glock, Baretta, SIG, S&W, or such similar pistol, either?
Those magazines are also covered by the CA ban.

And also this (emphasis added):

But a lot of people do and all of our rights are important to fight for.

 

[redcon1]

Don',t know what or how they will rule on it and i dont really follow.it as i do not own ,never have owned and never will own an ar15,,0r any of its variants nor any rifle /magazine that holds more then 4 rounds in the mag ( i own hunting rifles no use for an assault weapon)i have absalutely no desire or reason to own An ar 15/aka assault weapon or a high capacity mag never been a fan
Of asaault weapons Never will be

I don't think the constitution says one word about the people's right to hunt. It looks to me like it says in so many words that any law the federal government passes that in any way infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is illegal.

 

[kwguy]

The technology of the weapon doesn’t matter. Anyone who actually thinks the founders didn’t realize that technology would improve as it pertains to arms is dreaming. They didn’t say “rifles” or “pistols” or whatever, they said “arms”.

so all this court involvement and jibber jabber about magazine capacity and whatever else is flawed and ridiculous from the get-go.

 

[Pudge]

Don',t know what or how they will rule on it and i dont really follow.it as i do not own ,never have owned and never will own an ar15,,0r any of its variants nor any rifle /magazine that holds more then 4 rounds in the mag ( i own hunting rifles no use for an assault weapon)i have absalutely no desire or reason to own An ar 15/aka assault weapon or a high capacity mag never been a fan
Of asaault weapons Never will be

Regardless of your stance on AR-15's, they are ruling on your civil rights. If you're cool with them stripping those rights away little by little, it's probably because you think they'll stop when they get to what's important to you. I just really don't think it is the government's place to tell you you can't own a magazine with a capacity of greater than 4, I don't care if you want to exercise that right.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Regardless of your stance on AR-15's, they are ruling on your civil rights. If you're cool with them stripping those rights away little by little, it's probably because you think they'll stop when they get to what's important to you. I just really don't think it is the government's place to tell you you can't own a magazine with a capacity of greater than 4, I don't care if you want to exercise that right.

It's the preverbial it isn't affecting me till it does.

 

[AK Hunter]

They don't want to take the 2md amendment to trial yet. They want to kill it by a thousand cuts.
They are trying to eliminate everything that makes guns fun or enjoyable first then they won't have anyone to fight them when they get rid of the 2nd.

 

[LiveLife]

They don't want to take the 2md amendment to trial yet. They want to kill it by a thousand cuts.
They are trying to eliminate everything that makes guns fun or enjoyable first then they won't have anyone to fight them when they get rid of the 2nd.

The trueness of "they" and "Bill of Rights" could be the very reason why the Supreme Court would consider Duncan v Becerra and other Second Amendment cases that has to do with our rights and liberties ... More specifically, the rights and liberties of minorities being imposed by the majority.

Consider that our "Constitutional Republic" was formed after thousands of years of rule by kings and tyrannical individuals who imposed on the people and even "Democracies" where people were supposed to rule instead of kings/tyrants, but it was found the will of the majority could be imposed on the rights and liberties of the minority. So our founders rejected the pure form of Democracy and instead, chose Constitutional Republic (To better protect interests of smaller rural states from imposition by larger city states) with Bill of Rights to better protect rights of "We the People", especially the minority.

Initially, our founders thought the separation of powers (Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches) provisioned in the Constitution was enough but in the end, to prevent "We the People" from being imposed on, Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and later amended to better ensure the rights and liberties of minority groups that included slaves and women. Now the will of the majority is being imposed on the latest minority group, the gun owners, of their right to self-defense. And for this reason, I believe the Supreme Court will work to fulfill their "job" in maintaining the separation of powers in protecting the rights and liberties of minority as intended by the founders when they added the Bill of Rights.

And this is why I have hope in the latest additions to the Supreme Court of "Originalist" justices to shift the focus back to original intent of the founders when they added the Bill of Rights.

At 0:40 second of the video, justice Gorsuch was asked why we have a Bill of Rights and at 3:40 minute of the video, he answers why the founders added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.



This video addresses how the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution



At 34:00 minute of video, justice Gorsuch explains how short-term "unpopular" rights issues with the majority could be protected for the minority as originally intended by the founders. And in 2021, that's where we are with our Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

 

[kwguy]

The trueness of "they" and "Bill of Rights" could be the very reason why the Supreme Court would consider Duncan v Becerra and other Second Amendment cases that has to do with our rights and liberties ... More specifically, the rights and liberties of minorities being imposed by the majority.

Consider that our "Constitutional Republic" was formed after thousands of years of rule by kings and tyrannical individuals who imposed on the people and even "Democracies" where people were supposed to rule instead of kings/tyrants, but it was found the will of the majority could be imposed on the rights and liberties of the minority. So our founders rejected the pure form of Democracy and instead, chose Constitutional Republic (To better protect interests of smaller rural states from imposition by larger city states) with Bill of Rights to better protect rights of "We the People", especially the minority.

Initially, our founders thought the separation of powers (Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches) provisioned in the Constitution was enough but in the end, to prevent "We the People" from being imposed on, Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and later amended to better ensure the rights and liberties of minority groups that included slaves and women. Now the will of the majority is being imposed on the latest minority group, the gun owners, of their right to self-defense. And for this reason, I believe the Supreme Court will work to fulfill their "job" in maintaining the separation of powers in protecting the rights and liberties of minority as intended by the founders when they added the Bill of Rights.

And this is why I have hope in the latest additions to the Supreme Court of "Originalist" justices to shift the focus back to original intent of the founders when they added the Bill of Rights.

At 0:40 second of the video, justice Gorsuch was asked why we have a Bill of Rights and at 3:40 minute of the video, he answers why the founders added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.



This video addresses how the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution



At 34:00 minute of video, justice Gorsuch explains how short-term "unpopular" rights issues with the majority could be protected for the minority as originally intended by the founders. And in 2021, that's where we are with our Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Very nice summation. I hope you are indeed correct. That would be awesome!

 

[LiveLife]

Very nice summation. I hope you are indeed correct. That would be awesome!

For the future sake of our Republic, I hope so.