Quantcast

Stay issued for the injunction against 32310(a) and (b) in CA

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Dudedog, Apr 4, 2019.

  1. Dudedog
    • Contributing Member

    Dudedog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,787
    Location:
    Southern CA
    The injunction for 32310(c) and 32310(d) remanins in effect.
    Stay on A+B takes effect 4/5/19 at 17:00 (I would assume PST the courts time zone)

    Sad but not unexpected.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,482
    Location:
    TX
    That sucks...
     
  3. Dudedog
    • Contributing Member

    Dudedog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,787
    Location:
    Southern CA
    Interesting that the Judge say the first factor was in favor of the stay, the second factor was against, thus amounts to a draw
    and the last two weigh against. The first two are the most critical so the results of all four are in favor:confused:
    1 for the stay 1 against, then whatever fraction for the two against would seem to add up to an against but.....


    Not a lawyer but I sort of understand the reason, let the Appeals court decide. (even if I don't like the result)

    So from a legal standpoint does issuing the stay make the Plaintiffs case in less likely to succeed or really have no bearing?
    (which is why I put this in legal, if it does not belong here can it be moved to general discussions please)
     
  4. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,065
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    Email received from Ruger today.....Just FYI:
    https%3A%2F%2Fmlsvc01-prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F04e6568c001%2Fd7bc4916-d9f1-460f-9186-ea026c942396.jpg
     
    Dunross and carpboy like this.
  5. F-111 John

    F-111 John Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,044
    Location:
    Holt, MI
    The fact that a stay is in place should not affect the appellate court's decision one way or the other. The defendant said that if the judge did not issue a stay of his order by 5 PM today, that the state was going to make an emergency appeal to the 9th Circuit. I'm sure the judge made the calculation that the 9th was more likely than not to issue such a stay anyway, so he instead crafted his own stay that carved out those who bought magazines over the weekend.

    So while we wait another two years for the 9th Circuit to hear arguments and make a ruling, the situation in California is: if you owned magazines prior to Jan 1, 2000, you can still possess it. If you purchased a magazine between March 29, 2019, and April 5th, 2019, you can still possess it. Otherwise, you cannot purchase or import standard capacity magazines into the state of California until the appeals process has run its course.

    Someone here has the tagline "well, that was fun while it lasted." That is very appropriate here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2019
  6. carpboy

    carpboy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Messages:
    142
    Bill Ruger must be spinning in his grave!
     
    <*(((>< likes this.
  7. RickD427

    RickD427 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2010
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    King County
    A very good analysis above. However, Judge Benitez did carefully craft the order such that folks who purchased large-capacity magazines by April 5th, may receive those magazines at a later date. Here is the relevant portion of the order:

    "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."
    Please note that the felony penalty for importing magazines is contained in section 32310(a) which remains enjoined for folks who bought the magazines between March 29th and April 5th at 5:00pm
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  8. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,649
    Location:
    Virginia
    Yes, it looks like the transit time (for shipment) is tacked on to the one-week window from Mar. 29 - Apr. 5. If you order a magazine by the 5 p.m. deadline and the seller processes the order by that time (meaning that you "bought" the magazine), it could be in the mail for a week and you would still be OK.
     
  9. Jeff22

    Jeff22 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    326
    Location:
    Madison, Wisconsin
    I hope people in California bought TENS OF THOUSANDS of magazines in that time
     
    Neo-Luddite likes this.
  10. CWL

    CWL Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,521
    Californians have purchased MILLIONS of magazines in the past week!

    If anyone doubts me, see if you can find any AR mags, AK mags, drums, Glock mags or any other common standard-capacity magazines online right now. CA peeps have pretty-much wiped-out the existing magazine supply in the entire USA.

    For example, Brownells said that they had already sold 350,000 magazines to CA by last Tuesday!
     
  11. bds

    bds Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,523
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    More likely tens of millions and a few more millions by 5:00 PM today.

    I have a feeling many will be taking a road trip out to neighboring states to buy.
     
    Neo-Luddite likes this.
  12. pdsmith505

    pdsmith505 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    643
    This a is a silly, pie in the sky, hope, but maybe one of the legal experts can clarify things for me.

    With respect to the injunction against CPC 32310 remaining in effect for "persons and business entities" who obtained magazines in the "window," is there anything barring such a person who is covered by the injunction from continuing to manufacture, import, sell, or buy said magazines?

    For example, could Joe Schmuckatelli, who purchased a magazine inside the window and is covered by the injunction, now go to a neighboring state and buy additional magazines and bring them back to CA with him?
     
    Pelo801 likes this.
  13. Dudedog
    • Contributing Member

    Dudedog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,787
    Location:
    Southern CA
    I am not a lawyer but I don't think so. (what I think does not matter however) Seems like the window ends at 17:00 today.
    But I suppose it could be read to say that if you bought any in the window then the injunction applies to you but I don't believe that is the intention.
    (That is an interesting way of reading it however, and an interesting twist if that is the case)
    It does say shall remain in effect for..... however
    I would be curious what Frank or Spats think.
    I would not want to be making an argument in court against a felony charge saying that was what was intended.
     
  14. bds

    bds Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,523
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    That's why Rick Travis from CRPA said it would be difficult for the State of CA to prove when the magazine was purchased (and nearly impossible to enforce). ;) https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-3#post-11098789

     
  15. <*(((><
    • Contributing Member

    <*(((>< Luke

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,778
    I think there has been a file created in every California gun owners home titled, "Magazine Purchase 2019" to hold all those precious receipts. Just a tip photocopy the receipt.

    But as was said before it will be very difficult for the State of California to prove someone purchased a magazine outside the legal timeframes.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and JTHunter like this.
  16. pdsmith505

    pdsmith505 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    643
    Whether something would be "difficult to prove" or not doesnt have bearing on the legal question though.
     
  17. bds

    bds Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,523
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    But the burden of proof falls on the state of CA.

    Ultimately our discussion won't matter if the case goes to the SCOTUS (likely unless a new panel of 9th Circuit judges nominated by President Trump rules magazine ban unconstitutional).
     
    JTHunter likes this.
  18. pdsmith505

    pdsmith505 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    643
    I'll be a little less subtle.

    Regardless of where the burden of proof falls, if the injunction doesn't allow for the protected class to continue engaging in the trade of 10+ mags (and it very likely doesn't), and someone does, it is still illegal.

    One of the quickest ways to get a thread shut down on THR, especially in the legal section, is to advocate, even tacitly, illegal activity.

    I'd like to be able to continue to discuss the topic.
     
  19. bds

    bds Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,523
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    From another thread discussing similar issue - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-3#post-11099029

    "There was talk of stamping magazines with date of manufacture to prevent purchase past the legal deadline. Thing is that magazine parts wear such as follower, spring, base and even tube/lips can be damaged (some people drove over their magazines by accident and flattened them). So CA magazine owners raised the issue that parts of the magazine had to be replaced over use/time and that's where magazine kits came into being and was legal to purchase.

    So even if magazine parts were stamped with date of manufacture, all the tens of millions of new magazines Californians bought between 3/29/19 and 4/5/19 (My birthday, interestingly) over time would wear and need to be replaced by date stamped magazine parts. Which makes date stamping of magazine parts moot."

    Yes, this is THR and I do not endorse anyone breaking the law. But there will be people who will buy and import large capacity magazines into CA after the deadline and the burden of proof will fall on the state to prove that they were purchased after the deadline.
     
  20. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,822
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    This is a excellent example of the importance of packing the Federal Courts with Conservative / Pro 2A Judges. Mitch McConnell has invoked the "nuclear option" to limit debate to speed up the approval of nominations for the Courts. While Trump remains controversial he is living up to his pledge to pack the Courts with Conservative Judges. He has nominated 4 Judges for the 9th in CA. and there is still one vacancy. A second term might give Trump the opportunity to permanently shift the balance of 9th along with other Courts to being more Conservative Pro-2A.

    WOW! Wouldn't that be something?

    https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/current-judicial-vacancies
     
    Dudedog and bds like this.
  21. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,649
    Location:
    Virginia
    I think the Supreme Court taking the case is more likely if the 9th Circuit upholds Judge Benitez' ruling on the merits (ruling that magazine bans are unconstitutional). That would create a conflict among the Circuits. It's more or less expected that the 9th Circuit would reverse Judge Benitez, bringing it in line with other Circuits. The Supreme Court is likely to let that stand, given Chief Justice Roberts' hesitancy to get into the gun issue.
     
  22. bds

    bds Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,523
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Attorney Chuck Michel of CRPA/NRA just twitted - https://twitter.com/CRPAPresident/status/1114222299429752833
    Recap and what will happen next - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...capacity-gun-magazine-purchases-during-appeal

    "A San Diego federal judge last week knocked down a state law banning high-capacity gun magazines, but in a new ruling Thursday held that sales and manufacturing of such parts will remain against the law until the case has exhausted all appeals.

    U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez’s latest order essentially returns the situation surrounding magazines holding more than 10 bullets to the status quo that has been in place since the summer of 2017, when the judge granted a preliminary injunction. According to the terms, gun owners can’t acquire new magazines, but they aren’t barred from owning them.

    The state Attorney General’s Office petitioned the judge for a stay to his final decision on the lawsuit, Duncan v. Beccera, until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal can weigh in.

    Benitez, while very clear in his March 29 opinion that the state’s ban is unconstitutional, agreed Thursday that 'strong and thoughtful views may be found on both sides of the important legal questions presented by this case.'

    The judge said that while he is not convinced of the state’s likelihood to succeed on appeal, he recognizes other courts have arrived at contrasting views on this issue.

    'This Court’s decision cuts a less-traveled path and the outcome is very important to all citizens,' Benitez said.

    The stay also protects anyone who acquired a large-capacity magazine between the judge’s March 29 decision and 5 p.m. Friday."
     
  23. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,465
    Location:
    Florida
    What to you folks need to do??. Do you have to carry around a dated receipt for every darn mag you own?? How the heck is this law/restriction enforceable??
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  24. Basura Blanca

    Basura Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    139
    Nothing, no and for the most part, it's never been.

    When SB23 went into effect, it was painfully obvious that it would be on the state to prove a person violated the import/manufacture/etc. of a +10 magazine in a hypothetical case. Ignoring prop 63 for a moment, it's safe to assume that over the course of nearly twenty years, people (or at least one guy) had at times ignored that law. So the small window of opportunity that opened up between 3/29 and 4/5 or whatever, added a new layer of plausible deniability for those folks. That's what's this is all about.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
    Rule3 likes this.
  25. pdsmith505

    pdsmith505 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    643
    CRPA has put out an explanation of what the current status is in California due to the stay.

    One of the explanations answers my hypothetical above (the answer is no, big surprise ;)).

    Another interesting twist is that they suggest you may not travel out of state with your new magazines and return with them :what:.

    Additionally, they suggest that, while mags could still be confiscated under 32390, the law is unenforaceable against legally acquired mags.

    Presumably all this advice comes with the blessing of CPRA's lawyers (Michel and Assc.)

    https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpa-al...h-large-capacity-magazine-court-ordered-stay/
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice