California's ten round magazine ban struck down by Federal District Court (UPDATE: Reinstated)

Originally Posted by Sharkbite
That is completely RIDICULOUS.

So, my buddy comes over and i want to show him a new pistol i just bought. I cant let him hold it? How do i handle guns at a gun show or store?
Click to expand...

The big problem with the law (passed by the population of the I-5 corridor after being defeated several times in the legislature) is that it is so badly written that it doesn't clearly define what is, and isn't a prohibited "transfer".

Prior laws generally didn't consider just holding someone else's gun a legal transfer. Most of the time they only covered transfers of ownership, not just physical possession. There are several places in the law that specify EXEMPTED "transfers", such as at a "certified" range or while hunting. BUT, while there are a very few specified exemptions, that implies all else is not exempted, and yes, that would include handing a friend a pistol to look at, in your own home. And, it also covers him handing it BACK to you!!!

Because of this (and some other) ambiguities, virtually ALL LE groups in the state have refused to enforce the law, absent clarification from the State about what is, and isn't a covered "transfer". Its going on 3 years now, and no such clarification has been provided.

Most of the people I know in WA are voluntarily complying with the background check requirement for sales and I know more than a few who are totally ignoring it when it comes to potential "transfers" inside their own homes.

The law is a piece of CRAP, but until it gets enforced, no one is "harmed" and therefore no one has standing to challenge it on those grounds.

It is being challenged on other grounds, and that/those case(s) are Slooowly working their way through the system. We might get a judgement on them in a decade or so...perhaps..
 
Sharkbite said:
That is completely RIDICULOUS.

So, my buddy comes over and i want to show him a new pistol i just bought. I cant let him hold it? How do i handle guns at a gun show or store?
Click to expand...

Is it an assault weapon?

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s66/BILLS-116s66is.xml

There are exemptions to transfer provisions for "assault" weapons

(t) (1) Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession for the purpose of participating in target shooting in a licensed target facility or established range if—

“(A) the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is, at all times, kept within the premises of the target facility or range; and

“(B) the transferee is not known to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.

“(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘transfer’—

“(A) shall include a sale, gift, or loan; and

“(B) does not include temporary custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee.
Click to expand...

So you can let your friend hold it IF he has in mind buying it. Without that thought on his mind, it's not OK.

Similarly, you can transfer such a weapon for target shooting at a licensed target facility or established range. We shoot in my back yard sometimes. I doubt that makes it an established range for this purpose. That means that if that bill were to pass, we could not let friends shoot my wife's assault weapon (a Ruger 10-22 with the scary telescoping stock) in our back yard without going to town for a background check.

Common sense gun control, in other words.
 
The injunction is stayed at 5PM today.
Click to expand...
Note that the preliminary injunction remains in effect. Also, those purchasing magazines during the time the court issued the permanent injunction and April 5th at 5:00 p.m. are protected.

In layman’s terms, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies therein will be free to re-start the enforcement of Calif. Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) which currently prohibits, among other things, any person in the state from manufacturing, importing into the state, offering for sale, giving, lending, buying, or receiving a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds (as defined by Calif. Penal Code § 16740). This will continue until the appeal proceedings conclude or the stay is modified or lifted.

At the same time, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies therein will remain enjoined (or prevented) from enforcing Calif. Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) which would have criminalized the simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds and required disposing of such magazines. This will also continue until the appeal proceedings conclude or the stay is modified or lifted.

Both parties indicate in briefing that persons and business entities in California may have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds since the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and in reliance on the injunction. Indeed, it is the reason that the Attorney General seeks urgent relief in the form of a stay pending appeal. Both parties suggest that it is appropriate to fashion protection for these law-abiding persons.

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.
Click to expand...
Order at pp. 5-6. This seemed to appease the California AG and presumably avoids the 9th Circuit from intervening while the appeal is pending.
 
ok, correct me if I get this wrong...
as of 5pm 4/5/19 the state can go back to enforcing the law prohibiting getting mags more than 10rnds but are held from enforcing criminal penalties on people who got them between 3/29 and 4/5, until the appeal process is completed.

is that right?
 
Yep , I've been having a fun conversation about this over on calguns . I asked if anyone was making sure to save there receipts to prove when they bought them and everyone comes back with " why it's the states burden to prove you didn't buy them with in that window " . What happens when ( IF ) the final ruling is the mags can be banned but you can keep the ones you have from that time frame . At this time there is no way to prove when they were bought so that pretty much means we all get to have as many as we want because the state must prove when we came into possession of them .

In theory for those that never turned them in or sold out of state the ones they had . They now can just say " I bought them between 3-29-19 and 4-5-19 " and there's nothing anyone can do ????

Well what about the uninformed cop that does not know the full extent of the ruling . What happens when he/she starts confiscating or giving out fines ? I'm sure that's going to cost you some money to resolve . I'd think having the receipt showing when you bought them legally would come in pretty handy right around then ??

There seems to be a lot of gun owners out there that are willing to throw away the receipts just to fall on there swords for the rest of us I guess . Thank you all for that but I'll keep my receipts thank you very much .
 
I would save my receipts.

If I were in California. Unfortunately, my state's magazine capacity limit has not had a challenge that resulted in even a temporary window of opportunity, so to me it's all academic.
 
They now can just say " I bought them between 3-29-19 and 4-5-19 " and there's nothing anyone can do ????
Click to expand...

While they can say that, and the way it ought to work is that the state would have to prove otherwise, in order for them to be guilty of something, that isn't automatically the way it will work, in the real world.

It doesn't have to be the under-informed cop, either, it could actually be the courts themselves.

The burden of proof required differs for different things. While the state may need one level to convict you of a crime and send you to jail, it COULD very well require a different level of proof to determine what "proves" your claim the magazines are legal.

Look at it this way, it might not be up to the state to prove you have banned magazines, its OBVIOUS they are, if they hold more than 10 rounds. Slam dunk, court rules it, its a done deal You claim, they are exempted, bought while the legal window was open. State says, "fine, PROVE IT!" Otherwise, they're banned now.

if that's the way it goes, and if you don't have any proof (receipts with date of purchase) then you're done. They are contraband.

Don't think that could happen in the real world? Wake up!
It can, and things like it have.
 
If the mags aren't serialized, a general receipt probably offers little in the way of protection. If the law ends up standing, I wouldn't count on being able to legally keep the mags purchased within the small time window.
 
Although short lived it's great to have witnessed a disruption to CA's communist rule, whether they are "legal" or not for a short time period the magazines flooded in and they will be floating around in the state for decades :)..

Hopefully sooner or later the law is permanently shot down.
 
One of the things that will be interesting will be a follow-up suit brought by someone who: (a) purchased magazines during the time when they were legal, but who (b) the State tries to prosecute.
 
The California AG was making loud noises about the "irreparable harm" done to the state's efforts to promote gun safety by allowing these instruments of mass death and destruction into the state. I'm waiting for all the reports of mass shootings and general carnage that must inevitably follow in the wake of the importation of so many heinous instruments of mayhem.
 
How do they reconcile the fact that other states with the same citizenry as the rest of the country has 30rd mags and total mayhem hasn’t happened? And why do people even support those politicians and leaders who’s messages and actions defy even the most common of logic?
 
The California AG was making loud noises about the "irreparable harm" done to the state's efforts to promote gun safety by allowing these instruments of mass death and destruction into the state.
Click to expand...

If the harm is "irreparable" that means it cannot be fixed, so there's no point in NOT letting people have their magazines.

Still trying to understand how magazine size has anything to do with gun safety... I can understand how repealing the ban affects the state's efforts to promote gun control, but not gun safety…

They are not the same thing, no matter what some political figure says....

And why do people even support those politicians and leaders who’s messages and actions defy even the most common of logic?
Click to expand...
Some people support them because they want no guns (or more often, no guns for other people..) the rest support them because they don't have guns, don't give a snit about gun rights, and believe the issue doesn't affect them. They look at the other things that politician does, things that they recognize as affecting them, and support those they agree with on those issues.
 
rickyrick said:
And why do people even support those politicians and leaders who’s messages and actions defy even the most common of logic?
Click to expand...
Because they (the people who support the gun grabbing politicians) don't understand that what the politicians are saying and promising isn't logical. Remember, the Second Amendment (and the Constitution in general) hasn't been taught in junior high Civics classes for a couple or three generations or more, so most people have heard of the Second Amendment, but they don't understand what a "right" really is or what it means.

Further, they don't understand anything about guns except that guns can kill people. The politicians say guns are bad because "guns" kill people, so the populace buys into the myth that banning guns will magically eliminate killing. It's all smoke and mirrors, but people do buy into it.
 
Last edited:
Its funny, im 40 and from grade school on we were taught that we had guns to protect ourselves from the government, about rights as a us citizen, even about how a search warrant is needed for the government to enter your home and all that. Even among those older than me from other places (ie not nh) they are surprised about the concept of that being taught to kids by teachers, even gun enthusiasts..

My girlfriend, who recently learned how fun AR rifles are, used to think "well we need a balance" and "nobody is going to take your guns away" - she would've voted for gun grabbers in the past and didn't get it until she had her turn with a 40 round mag :). Many non gun owners who are on the fence just aren't exposed enough to understand what the politicians are even talking about actually taking away and why we want to keep such things so badly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top