In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

CA High-Capacity Magazine Ban is Unconstitutional

WranglerWrangler Member Posts: 5,788
edited April 2019 in General Discussion
It won't let me C&P the article.

https://mol.im/a/6866617

Comments

  • wpageabcwpageabc Member Posts: 8,968
    edited November -1
    The NRA sued and won against this victory. This could be a landmark for other states that have followed Cali...

    Good news !
    "What is truth?'
  • yoshmysteryoshmyster Member Posts: 19,954 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    We know that won't mean squat to newsome and the dems of California. They'll say something silly like hi-caps are dangerous to health and keep them in the closet. Or they'll demonstrate it by dropping them around at another shooting to prove their point.
  • remingtonoaksremingtonoaks Member Posts: 27,192
    edited November -1
    I was reading that just last night. Good thing to my opinion
  • Smitty500magSmitty500mag Member Posts: 13,597 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    wpageabc wrote:
    The NRA sued and won against this victory. This could be a landmark for other states that have followed Cali...

    Good news !

    Well that can't be right. All the suck * liberals on this forum say the NRA is doing nothing.
  • wpageabcwpageabc Member Posts: 8,968
    edited November -1
    Agree since 1871 doing nothing. Some folks dont get it!
    "What is truth?'
  • yoshmysteryoshmyster Member Posts: 19,954 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well that can't be right. All the suck * liberals on this forum say the NRA is doing nothing.

    To my recent memory they done nothing for Californians other than take the cash and spent it on nice things for themselves since clintons were in office. 25 years of do nothing for California and pay. Hey that sounds like folks on the government teat. Now only if we could get rid of newsome for a gun nut.
  • sxsnufsxsnuf Member Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The headline;
    " Federal judge BLOCKS California's move to ban high-capacity ammunition"

    I'm sorta guessin' the folks writing for The Daily Mail aren't really gun savvy.
    Arrivederci gigi
  • dfletcherdfletcher Member Posts: 8,154 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are ?arms.? California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds ? magazines that law-abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home."

    Happy to report that a whole bunch of on line sellers are now shipping standard capacity magazines to California.

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1521211

    Will any GB sellers do the same?
  • shilowarshilowar Member Posts: 38,807 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • ProceramicProceramic Member Posts: 392 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    wpageabc wrote:
    Agree since 1871 doing nothing. Some folks dont get it!

    That's odd,we had more gun rights before the NRA/ILA even existed.🤔
  • mark christianmark christian Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 24,511 ******
    edited November -1
    My understanding is that the Court's ruling overturned the portion of Section 32310 which bans possession and forces the surrender of high capacity magazines lawfully owned prior to 01 January, 2000. On that date, Californians who were in possession of hi-cap magazines could keep them but no more magazines over 10 rounds could be brought into the state. Proposition 63 banned total possession of hi-caps and was supposed to go into force in July 2017 but was blocked by an injunction. Does this ruling wipe away the entire law dealing with hi-caps, or only the portion enacted in 2017 which bans possession?
  • nmyersnmyers Member Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don't get excited.

    The District Attorney will appeal that decision to the 9th circuit court, which is packed with liberals. It will be overturned.

    Neal
  • lt496lt496 Member Posts: 128
    edited November -1
    Well, yeah...just as it was when it was proposed and when it became 'law' and just as it was before the black-robed collectivist courts 'ruled' so.

    A bit of ol' TJ wisdom seems in order here....

    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." --Thomas Jefferson
    "Freedom is not for the timid" III% BFYTW
  • dfletcherdfletcher Member Posts: 8,154 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    My understanding is that the Court's ruling overturned the portion of Section 32310 which bans possession and forces the surrender of high capacity magazines lawfully owned prior to 01 January, 2000. On that date, Californians who were in possession of hi-cap magazines could keep them but no more magazines over 10 rounds could be brought into the state. Proposition 63 banned total possession of hi-caps and was supposed to go into force in July 2017 but was blocked by an injunction. Does this ruling wipe away the entire law dealing with hi-caps, or only the portion enacted in 2017 which bans possession?

    The conventional wisdom of jurist types is it wipes out 32310 in its entirety, not just the Prop 63 add on. The conclusion should be read as "32310, to include the Prop 63 revisions, is unconstitutional" rather than "Prop 63 revision of 32310 is unconstitutional". The reference to Prop 63 would be a subordinate conjunction, IIRC my college English class correctly.

    Two points up for discussion thus far are whether local ordinances such as Sunnyvale and LA, SF are still in effect and a concern for the "public nuisance" law allowing PD to confiscate standard capacity magazines.
  • mark christianmark christian Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 24,511 ******
    edited November -1
    dfletcher wrote:
    My understanding is that the Court's ruling overturned the portion of Section 32310 which bans possession and forces the surrender of high capacity magazines lawfully owned prior to 01 January, 2000. On that date, Californians who were in possession of hi-cap magazines could keep them but no more magazines over 10 rounds could be brought into the state. Proposition 63 banned total possession of hi-caps and was supposed to go into force in July 2017 but was blocked by an injunction. Does this ruling wipe away the entire law dealing with hi-caps, or only the portion enacted in 2017 which bans possession?

    The conventional wisdom of jurist types is it wipes out 32310 in its entirety, not just the Prop 63 add on. The conclusion should be read as "32310, to include the Prop 63 revisions, is unconstitutional" rather than "Prop 63 revision of 32310 is unconstitutional". The reference to Prop 63 would be a subordinate conjunction, IIRC my college English class correctly.

    Two points up for discussion thus far are whether local ordinances such as Sunnyvale and LA, SF are still in effect and a concern for the "public nuisance" law allowing PD to confiscate standard capacity magazines.

    You are right there in the thick of it, so thank you for the clarification. The ruling was a victory, now it is a triumph which could lead to overturning magazine bans in other states.

    Based on what I'm reading on the CalGuns site, come Monday there may not be a hi-cap magazine left for sale anywhere...California buyers appear to be snapping them up by the truckload.
  • dfletcherdfletcher Member Posts: 8,154 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    dfletcher wrote:
    My understanding is that the Court's ruling overturned the portion of Section 32310 which bans possession and forces the surrender of high capacity magazines lawfully owned prior to 01 January, 2000. On that date, Californians who were in possession of hi-cap magazines could keep them but no more magazines over 10 rounds could be brought into the state. Proposition 63 banned total possession of hi-caps and was supposed to go into force in July 2017 but was blocked by an injunction. Does this ruling wipe away the entire law dealing with hi-caps, or only the portion enacted in 2017 which bans possession?

    The conventional wisdom of jurist types is it wipes out 32310 in its entirety, not just the Prop 63 add on. The conclusion should be read as "32310, to include the Prop 63 revisions, is unconstitutional" rather than "Prop 63 revision of 32310 is unconstitutional". The reference to Prop 63 would be a subordinate conjunction, IIRC my college English class correctly.

    Two points up for discussion thus far are whether local ordinances such as Sunnyvale and LA, SF are still in effect and a concern for the "public nuisance" law allowing PD to confiscate standard capacity magazines.

    You are right there in the thick of it, so thank you for the clarification. The ruling was a victory, now it is a triumph which could lead to overturning magazine bans in other states.

    Based on what I'm reading on the CalGuns site, come Monday there may not be a hi-cap magazine left for sale anywhere...California buyers appear to be snapping them up by the truckload.

    While this may be short lived, because I believe the AG, CA legislature or 9th Circuit Court or all three will move to do something, a window has been opened by which it may be plausibly asserted that magazines for guns which didn't exist prior to 2000, can be said to have been acquired within the law. Assuming of course we're not required by court decision or the legislature to eventually turn them all in. There are also millions of magazines blocked to 10 rounds which could immediately be reverted to full capacity, but with a caveat.

    The written decision instructs the AG to "suspend enforcement" rather than vacating the law. That's important because it means the laws may still in effect. Which could open up a whole can of worms regarding folks converting, buying on line. I'm not sufficiently versed in law to offer an opinion on that point. Will have to wait and see,
  • Ditch-RunnerDitch-Runner Member Posts: 22,343 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If I lived in Kaliforina ( never will or even visit ) I be ordering every magazine my budget ( or CC :shock: ) would allow before the door is slammed shut again
  • gruntled2gruntled2 Member Posts: 565 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    And leave a record? Better to visit Arizona or Nevada & buy them there. I am going to Laughlin shortly for the River Run & I will check to see what is available in Bullhead City. Of course I won't buy any but I will see what is there.
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 63,788 ******
    edited November -1
    wpageabc wrote:
    The NRA sued and won against this victory. This could be a landmark for other states that have followed Cali...

    Good news !

    Well that can't be right. All the suck * liberals on this forum say the NRA is doing nothing.

    Well, that is a common way to misrepresent the folks on this forum for whom the NRA has fallen out of favor over the years. The correct version however is that the NRA (and the NRAILA in particular) does more harm than good. But I imagine since this drip onto the opposite side of the scale still does not outweigh the bad, your version is going to continue to be the mantra of the typical NRA sycophant.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
Sign In or Register to comment.