Jump to content
voyager9

CA 10-Round mag limit struck down

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ray Ray said:

From that link:

...."Becerra said in a statement that California leads the nation when it comes to gun safety and refuses to go backward.

The state has prohibited such magazines since 2000, though people who had such magazines before then were allowed to keep them.

Benitez threw out both the 2000 law and then 2016 law and ballot measure banning possession."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SJG said:

2. No posting of random news articles without at least a paragraph about what made you post it or your opinion.
No one cares to see a post with a link. If anyone wants to see whats going on in the news, we will go to a news sites. NJGF is not Drudge Report. I opened the post to see why it inspired you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 67gtonut said:

2. No posting of random news articles without at least a paragraph about what made you post it or your opinion.
No one cares to see a post with a link. If anyone wants to see whats going on in the news, we will go to a news sites. NJGF is not Drudge Report. I opened the post to see why it inspired you.

Maybe you should look at my comment above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, SJG said:

Maybe you are too quick. 

 

That's what she said!

But seriously, this is a massive win for freedom. These people who are now trying to fight this decision under their misguided belief that lives are at stake. It always brings me back to the fundamentals of liberty vs security. All they focus on is security using control as a method and not blinking at the cost of freedom. This does give me hope because of all those brothers and sisters in California never thought thted get their hands on 30 rounders. I genuinely believe it is within our reach. Patience paid off for Cali. Even if this is temporary (in the worst case). Atleast more people will have higher capacity mags, which is a win for freedom.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, nondisclosure said:

When does NJ get freedom? :facepalm:

When every politician in NJ is dead, but the people of NJ were not big supporters of The American revolution neither. They will never flood Trenton for guns or the tyrannical taxation. We are the whiner state.

Acta Non verba was never even an idea in NJ!

It's easier to simply take it or leave it.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone clarify as to whether the CA District court judge had the latitude or jurisdiction to rule on the basic question of the constitutionality of the ban on mags >10 rds, or was he only ruling on the issue of invalidating the ballot initiative that reversed the grandfathering of possessing them? I'm not convinced that the news outlets understand the situation completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fring Spield said:

Can anyone clarify as to whether the CA District court judge had the latitude or jurisdiction to rule on the basic question of the constitutionality of the ban on mags >10 rds, or was he only ruling on the issue of invalidating the ballot initiative that reversed the grandfathering of possessing them? I'm not convinced that the news outlets understand the situation completely.

Yes, he has complete jurisdiction to address all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 7:26 PM, Maksim said:

Nothing yet.

It would mean someone needs to file a mag capacity case in NJ and have it go through our court system.  They would be able to use the Cali decision as case law.

Case law is set by am appeallate court.  This is "law of the case".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PSA may know something we don't! They keep sending me "California Freedom Specials" on normal cap mags. I tried and it let me go all the way to place order button with no warnings!   I think I could have placed the order.  Who knows? OOPS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is NOW back in effect at 5pm today - the same judge issued a stay on his own order - I wonder who got to him?

 

He will probably end up with a mysterious heart attack like Scalia........

 

In response to a motion from the California Department of Justice, US District Court Judge Roger Benitez, who issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of California’s “high capacity” magazine ban, has just issued a stay of his own injunction. That means that the window for ordering standard capacity magazines is closing.

 

His order goes into effect at 5:00pm Pacific time on Friday, April 5. You can read the full order here, but this is the relevant portion:

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310(a) and (b) is hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310 (c) and (d) shall remain in effect.

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. Dated: April 4, 2019.

The ban on possession of “high capacity” magazines will not be enforced while the case is argued and decided, but California residents will not be able to buy them after 5:00pm tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its one of those Great cases that in the end might mean nothing for anyone outside of that courts jurisdiction.

If the 9th circuit agree with this being unconstitutional it will end there... California will not challenge that ruling and it will never goto the supreme court..  The left has gotten smart and realized they may lose in a certain court but its better to lose locally then challenge it nationally and risk losing and making it law of the land every where.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s unusual for judges to stay their own ruling while it goes through appeal. It’s done fairly often from what I can tell. 

It allows the judge to craft the order on their own terms and makes sure that’s a factor in the appeal. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, remixer said:

Its one of those Great cases that in the end might mean nothing for anyone outside of that courts jurisdiction.

If the 9th circuit agree with this being unconstitutional it will end there... California will not challenge that ruling and it will never goto the supreme court..  The left has gotten smart and realized they may lose in a certain court but its better to lose locally then challenge it nationally and risk losing and making it law of the land every where.

 

I see your point, but the libs know a mag capacity restriction does nothing to save lives. They might actually prefer this gets national/SCOTUS attention coming into the 2020 election. And who knows what SCOTUS would do with wobbly kneed Roberts on the bench. It could be win-win for the Dems. If the CA ban is upheld, the libs could push for a nationwide ban. If the ban is tossed, they have another red-meat issue for their rabid base. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SIGMan Freud said:

I see your point, but the libs know a mag capacity restriction does nothing to save lives. They might actually prefer this gets national/SCOTUS attention coming into the 2020 election. And who knows what SCOTUS would do with wobbly kneed Roberts on the bench. It could be win-win for the Dems. If the CA ban is upheld, the libs could push for a nationwide ban. If the ban is tossed, they have another red-meat issue for their rabid base. 

When did the libs think mag restrictions save lives? Gun laws are NOT to save lives..... They are to put gun owners in a box.

I doubt this case will leave CA... they might win or lose. regardless i think it stay in CA... if the supreme court took the case and ruled mag limits as unconstitutional it would pretty much devastate and demoralize the left.

I do not trust roberts as far as i can throw him.

If the Supreme court ended up taking the CA and ruled in the gun owners favor, it would kill plans for a nationwide ban as it would be illegal to ban something the SC already ruled as a right.

 

 

 

whats up with the time limit on buying the mags... is that strange..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in seeing what evidence the lawmakers relied on in passing these 10-round limits in states like NJ and CA. I mean, there must be SOMETHING out there that shows 10 rounds is better/safer than 15 right???....I could just imagine how these hearings went down. It's all an opinion game and we're all at the short end of it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, remixer said:

When did the libs think mag restrictions save lives? Gun laws are NOT to save lives..... They are to put gun owners in a box.

I doubt this case will leave CA... they might win or lose. regardless i think it stay in CA... if the supreme court took the case and ruled mag limits as unconstitutional it would pretty much devastate and demoralize the left.

I do not trust roberts as far as i can throw him.

If the Supreme court ended up taking the CA and ruled in the gun owners favor, it would kill plans for a nationwide ban as it would be illegal to ban something the SC already ruled as a right.

 

 

 

whats up with the time limit on buying the mags... is that strange..

 

If ca loses it stays jus like dc. If we the people lose it gets appealed. Think about that, a national agenda, So much for local representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mreal75 said:

I'd be interested in seeing what evidence the lawmakers relied on in passing these 10-round limits in states like NJ and CA. I mean, there must be SOMETHING out there that shows 10 rounds is better/safer than 15 right???....I could just imagine how these hearings went down. It's all an opinion game and we're all at the short end of it 

There is no evidence....  "Feelings" are not Evidence.

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

If ca loses it stays jus like dc. If we the people lose it gets appealed. Think about that, a national agenda, So much for local representation.

if CA loses they can bring to the next step which is the SC... they wont do that.

If CA Wins the people can bring it to the SC.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, remixer said:

There is no evidence....  "Feelings" are not Evidence.

if CA loses they can bring to the next step which is the SC... they wont do that.

If CA Wins the people can bring it to the SC.

 

That’s what I’m sayen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike Jones said:

Just consider these 30 round mags “undocumented” or “refugees” looking for Sanctuary... problem solved. 

Illegals are protected, but Constitutional Rights are trampled... yeah, makes total sense. 

Apparently, its not a "right" anymore unless the head honchos say so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information