So from a legal standpoint does issuing the stay make the Plaintiffs case in less likely to succeed or really have no bearing?
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.<P>
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.
I hope people in California bought TENS OF THOUSANDS of magazines in that time
More likely tens of millions and a few more millions by 5:00 PM today.I hope people in California bought TENS OF THOUSANDS of magazines in that time
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
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?
It does say shall remain in effect for..... howevershall 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."
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-11098789With 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?
Podcast: California magazine ban update with Rick Travis of CRPA - https://gunguy.tv/vimeo-video/california-magazine-ban-update-with-rick-travis-of-crpa/
Rick advises (He disclaims he is not a lawyer):
- "Purchase" AND "Possession" of large capacity magazines (LCM) by start of stay (4/5/19 at 5:00 PM PST) is legal. Magazines ordered online but in transit after the start of stay may not be legal, especially dependent on local laws. But it will be difficult for the State of CA to prove when the magazine was purchased.
But the burden of proof falls on the state of CA.Whether something would be "difficult to prove" or not doesnt have bearing on the legal question though.
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).
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.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).
Chuck Michel said:Now we fight the appeal
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.
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??