2wheelwander
New member
karrisguns.cim announced via email they are now shipping high capacity magazines to CA.
we now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
we now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
California's ten round magazine ban struck down by Federal District Court (UPDATE: Reinstated)
- Thread starter 4V50 Gary
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The California AG has applied to the Ninth District for an emergency stay of the ruling pending appeal.Metal god said:
Stay tuned.
Don't disagree with anything you said..but 'Coloradistan'? Denveristan? Hardly..
You need to mention other 'local municipalities' who are the opposite of the above to be 'objective'..like Colorado Springs and Pueblo.
Like
-the 15 round mag limit is grand fathered..not an outright felony to possess.
-ANY local business can declare itself a 'gun free zone'..not just in Aurora..like in say Memphis or Biloxi...
-Again, if I have a greater than 15 round magazine(and I have 4), it is NOT a felony to own if purchased prior to the ban.
So not exactly '-istan'..anything. Colorado has been "Leaning left" for decades..in the eastern slope cities like Denver but certainly not Pueblo or Colorado Springs.
Some locations businesses can’t outright ban carry on the premises, some have a process they have to follow to do so. Some “No Guns” signs carry no legal weight, in other jurisdictions they do have legal weight. But I believe private entities can do whatever they want with thier businesses. The constitution and BOR have been applied to private businesses even though I think that’s beyond the scope of the constitution and BOR.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Rickyrick is correct. Any property owner can prohibit firearms in/on his/her property, but unless there's a law making violation a criminal offense, the worst that can happen is that the owner asks you to leave. If you refuse, you can then be charged with criminal trespass, but that's still not a firearms violation.
But ... some jurisdictions have decided to give no guns signs on private property legal force. In that case, ignoring the sign IS a criminal violation, and it is a firearms offense.
But ... some jurisdictions have decided to give no guns signs on private property legal force. In that case, ignoring the sign IS a criminal violation, and it is a firearms offense.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I'll be a little surprised if the 9th stays this ruling pending appeal. If the 9th stays it, enforcement goes forward, causing (potentially) prosecutions under a law that has already been held unconstitutional at the trial court level and/or Takings. If it allows the trial court's bar on enforcement to stand while the appeal (that we all know is coming) is considered, what happens as a practical matter? Lots of magazines get shipped into the state, the possession of which only becomes a crime if the the trial court's decision is overturned. Maybe law enforcement's job gets a little larger because of the additional magazines, but that's not hear the upheaval that allowing enforcement of the law would. Besides, the trial court's bar to enforcement essentially preserves the status quo from before the law was passed. Courts like preserving the status quo.
Please correct me if I'm wrong . If you include the Federal assault weapons ban in the early 90's . We in CA have not been allowed to purchase mags that hold more then 10 rounds ( standard capacity ) for 25years-ish . During this time if you had already owned standard capacity mags they were grandfathered in and you could keep them but you could not buy assembled functioning standard capacity mags here in CA since the early 90's . Now there was a time when you could buy "repair" kits to fix your grandfathered standard capacity mags . These were simply disassembled standard capacity mags in a bag . However those were made illegal as well .
My point is , If we here in CA have not been allowed to buy slandered cap mags locally for 25+ years and never been allowed to buy standard cap mags off the internet because it didn't exist back when we could buy them . How has this ruling returned us to the status quo ? If the ruling had just allowed possession again maybe but we can now buy and import them , that's a huge change is it not ?
Or how far can you go back and it still be returning to the status quo ? Can we take away the right for women to vote and just say we are returning to the status quo ? Not being snarky , it was the first example that came to mind .
Last edited:
For me, the concept of status quo involves the idea of "what you had before".
This means two things have to be there, YOU and what you had before. So I think that means "a return to status quo" has to be within living memory, and also something you had then, not something you got as a result of the change you are going "back" before.
otherwise, it's a misuse of the phrase. So, in this case, I don't think going back before women had the vote to be a correct use of "return to the status quo". Women got the vote in 1920, and there are only a bare handful of people still alive who were alive then, and I doubt any of them personally remembers the event. Therefore, that event has passed out of living memory.
Going back a mere 25 years means there are still A LOT of people who not only remember those days but remember living in them, as adults.
Buying things off the internet is no different than buying them mail order. The only difference is modern tech allows instant ordering and your catalog is online, not a book in your hands.
For those of us old enough to remember those pre-ban days, striking down the ban IS a return to our status quo. For those younger, who never knew a time before the ban, it isn't a return to your personal status quo.
that's how I see it, anyway..others might see it differently.
I know that's a typo, but that's the greatest description I've ever seen: Not "high-capacity" or "standard capacity," but "slandered capacity"!
Awesome! I'm stealing, and using that!
Spats McGee
Administrator
When a court puts a stay on enforcement of a law (or bars enforcement, as when a law is found unconstitutional), ordinarily, what that would do is "hold things in place" as they were immediately before the challenged (or newly found to be unconstitutional) law took effect. There's really no reason for the court to worry about the federal AWB from the 1990s, much less women having the right to vote. Neither of those is being challenged. (Unless I really missed a major point of the lawsuit.
) In all fairness, though, I don't know much about the laws surrounding CA magazines. And I'll have to go back and re-read the Complaint. Was the provision barring importation of "high capacity" magazines challenged? If so, and if the court has barred enforcement, then it has returned things to their status quo right before that law was enacted. If that statute was not challenged, then it has also not been overturned. Again, I'll have to go back and re-read the Complaint. If it opens up (previously illegal) local purchase of 10+ round magazines, that's awesome. Now that's funny. It's probably a typo, but we should have started calling them slandered cap mags as soon as the antis started calling them high capacity mags.
Spats McGee
Administrator
So I went back and did a little research in actual CA law. (Go me!) It looks to me like Section 32310 and its predecessor, Section 12020, prohibited importation, sales, transfers, etc. of mags over 10 rounds, with a variety of exceptions not relevant to this discussion. The CA General Assembly amended Section 32310 in 2016 to ban possession, which hadn't been included before. The judgment in Duncan v. Becerra states that Section 32310 is unconstitutional in its entirety. Thus, importation is now allowed. Palmetto State Armory has filed a declaration that PSA has gotten thousands of orders since the decision came down.
Metal god, in answer to your question, if it's a return to the status quo, it's a return to the status quo before some of the predecessors to 32310 was enacted. My apologies for not being very clear on that, but in this case 'status quo' may be a little squishy.
In other news, why in the world did movie props get an exemption?!? I get it that Hollywood generates billions of dollars, but if there's anywhere in the world that they really should not be using real magazines, it's a movie set, where someone is actually told to point a gun at someone who they know to only be play-acting at threatening the holder of the gun . . . . Sheesh. I thought that's what props were for.
Metal god, in answer to your question, if it's a return to the status quo, it's a return to the status quo before some of the predecessors to 32310 was enacted. My apologies for not being very clear on that, but in this case 'status quo' may be a little squishy.
In other news, why in the world did movie props get an exemption?!? I get it that Hollywood generates billions of dollars, but if there's anywhere in the world that they really should not be using real magazines, it's a movie set, where someone is actually told to point a gun at someone who they know to only be play-acting at threatening the holder of the gun . . . . Sheesh. I thought that's what props were for.
There reasoning was authenticity . I don't believe it was mags only but rather included most firearms that are banned in CA and the mags just got lumped in with everything else . I don't remember the year they were exempted but to a point it's understandable . It would be kind of lame if the guns in movies did not look like the real thing . How ever now with the advancement of CGI I'm not sure how important it is the actors are actually holding a real MP5 with high cap mag , they can edit that in later .
Sure, they could, but at what cost?? CGI is wonderful, when done well, and pretty good even when it isn't, but it is something that costs money and takes an amount of time.
Why bother with it (and its costs) if the "real" thing is available?? It used to be Stembridge Rentals was the biggest legal machine gun owner in the US. I heard they broke up into other companies now, but there are people still doing the same thing, RENTING real guns, and prop guns (blank firing only) to the movie industry.
Actor needs an MP5 for the role? Rent one (and the mags, harness, etc, film your actor with it, and you're good to go. Since there's no sale or actual transfer, its not covered under the "ban" laws, generally, and there are (I believe) exceptions allowing it in the law, where it would otherwise be covered.
To me, and admittedly I'm a total outsider with no detailed info on how movies get made these days, but to me, it seems that the rental cost of a "banned" gun or magazine would be lower than having the CGI staff create it and put it in the actors hands in editing.
Agreed but my overall point was there is no actual need for the exemption anymore . Wouldn't be nice if in my good cause letter for my CA CCW my good cause could be , Well it's cheaper to carry a firearm for self defense then hire security ? Not sure cost is relevant to banning these full semi auto clips .
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Except that transfer generally refers to possession, not ownership. Under the laws of some states (and the way they are intended, and enforced), a transfer would take place when the rental company turns over the gun(s) to the prop master for a particular film, and another transfer would take place when the prop master turns the weapon over to the actor.44_AMP said:
Arguably, when the [cinematic] bad guy frisks the [cinematic] cop and removes the cop's Detective Special from the shoulder holster ... another transfer has occurred.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
But according to the recently-enacted law in Washington (or is it Oregon?), even then each time a firearm is physically handed from one person to another constitutes a "transfer."Metal god said: