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/