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

If this ruling stands ( not likely where it's headed ) what does that mean to the assault weapon definition . Not just here in CA but through out the US . Many definitions use wording like " capable of using a detachable magazine capable of holding more then ten rounds"

If it's unconstitutional to restrict the standard mag capacity and is declared just a arbitrary number made up by lawmakers . How can you have that wording describing or in the definition of something else you are restricting ?
 
The state of California needs to be damned careful here if they want to keep their position. As I've attempted to read the decision multiple times and am still digesting, it sounds like the judge covers many bases for potential appeal avenues. I'd like to hear from an expert what the state might come up with to base their appeal on.

As it is, California does not want this case to go to SCOTUS, neither does any other ban-state. If Cali screws up and lose at the 9th, they take the other Western States down with them... might want to cut their losses there. If Cali wins at the 9th, then the plaintiff appeals to SCOTUS. And the longer it takes, the more likely President Trump will get another nominee.

Anyways, just thinking out loud.
 
If it's unconstitutional to restrict the standard mag capacity and is declared just a arbitrary number made up by lawmakers . How can you have that wording describing or in the definition of something else you are restricting ?
Click to expand...

The devil is always in the details (unless you are a design engineer, then its God in the details :D)

A ban is certainly a restriction, but a restriction may not be a ban. It may amount to a practical ban (making something expensive and hard to get) but unless its a legal ban (may not possess at all) there is a difference.

What we have here is a CA ban on possession of mags over 10 rounds. Similar to the Supreme Court Heller ruling, a complete ban was declared unconstitutional. Various restrictions, short of a complete ban, have not been ruled on, and until then are presumed legal.
 
The struggle will finally come down to banning all semi automatic weapons with detachable magazines or fixed magazines with over a certain capacity.

Look to NZ for a model as was done in Australia. In NZ, the prime minister's ban was passed by a 119 to 1 vote.

The country seems to think that there is no need for those types of weapons compared to the risk.

They don't see them as needed for self-defense or defense against tyranny. The risk of foreign invasion in any foreseeable future is not there. WWII is long gone and a future invasion not likely. They are the country that got rid of all their fighter planes.

In the USA, with so many folks bleating that 5 is enough, the self-defense argument is undercut every day on the gun world internet and press.
 
The existing state of affairs

The purpose of a stay of a order or judgment is to return the state of affairs to where it was just before the issuance of the order or entry of judgment. This was impossible to do by simply staying the order enjoining (barring) enforcement of the California 10+ capacity magazine ban that had issued as a result of Judge Benitez's Judgment of 3/29, since thousands of law abiding persons had bought them in reliance on the Federal Judgment. Balancing the equities of the arguable irreparable injury to the state against turning good citizens into instant felons, until the validity of his judgment is finally determined by the appellate process, the judge stayed the injunction against enforcement of the law, except for those who got their magazines between Friday, March 29 and Friday, April 5 at 5 P.M.

The third part of the stay continues the previously issued, and upheld on an earlier appeal, "preliminary injunction" against enforcement of subsections of the law criminalizing the possession of large cap magazines.

Hopefully the Duncan case is the right vehicle to focus the Supremes on the protection of second amendment rights, which so far have been treated as second class constitutional rights by the application, some say the misapplication, of intermediate scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
“In the USA, with so many folks bleating that 5 is enough, the self-defense argument is undercut every day on the gun world internet and press.”

That is a vast oversimplification of a nuanced position many of us have. Bigger bullets, faster bullets, and more bullets are usually better. Yet most of us find semi-auto shotguns with hundred round magazines to be a little unwieldy to carry and even harder to conceal.
 
Judge Benitez completely shreds the 5 or 10 is enough argument in the 80+ page order granting summary judgment in Duncan v Becerra. There he illustrates the plight of three three women each and the additional danger faced should their 10 round magazine run dry. I.e.: their may be multiple attackers. He gives the example of where 5 hits failed to put incapacitate an intruder. They may not have both hands available so they can change magazines, as in the case where a woman had to keep firing with one hand while trying to call police with the other. A woman wakened by an attacker in the middle of the night may not have ready access to an extra magazine. Should you care to read it here is a link to the order granting summary judgment.

What is somewhat astonishing about the five is enough argument sung by the "common sense" crowd is how often a trained LEO finds a single 17 round magazine isn't enough to put down a single bad guy. If 17 is not enough for skilled law enforcement, how is 5, 7, or ten supposed to be enough for a defense of home and family by an ordinary citizen? It's only "common sense" that it is not!
 
Last edited:
Wag said:
Here's an officer who carries 145 rounds on duty:
Click to expand...
Because there's no such thing as a one-shot stop in the real world, and a hit from a .45 doesn't pick you up and throw you ten feet through the air.

I've read that officer's story before. It was ... sobering.
 
Because there's no such thing as a one-shot stop in the real world,...
Click to expand...


There absolutely is such a thing as a one-shot stop in the real world. There is even a "no-shot" stop. They absolutely exist.

What doesn't exist is the one shot stop that results in total instantaneous incapacitation of every attacker 100% of the time.

On the other hand, you can look at it another way, and find that every stop is a one shot stop, one bullet did the job. So, one shot stop, right? Let the ME figure out which one of the multiple hits was THE one...:rolleyes:
 
Interesting. He switched from 45ACP to 9mm.
Click to expand...

Not all that strange. Once the reality that the wounds produced by defensive handgun rounds are so close to each other there is no practical difference, the additional rounds and lesser recoil of a 9mm pistol makes perfect sense.

The real take home from that event is the fact that the vaunted 45acp didnt do what a lot of people think it will...aka “one shot stop”
 
Consider the weight difference between 145 rounds of .45 ACP compared to 145 rounds of 9mm.

I'm sure that wasn't the only factor that led to the switch, but I'm also certain that is was A factor.
 
You can carry an ammo load out suitable for house clearing in Beruit if you feel like it. I don't.

One thing to remember, the private citizen doesn't have a police dept,city, county, state agency with lawyers and deep pockets behind them.

The individual officer may well be exonerated, excused, forgiven, or some other phrase holding him blameless for firing off 2 dozen rounds and hitting an innocent person in the course of stopping a bad guy. DO you think you would be??

I doubt it.
 
I need clarification on something . I was under the impression that the stay the judge put in place stopped the importation , sale and manufacturing of 10+ round mags in CA but did not make/keep them illegal . Or he said the old law can't be enforced , is that correct ?

Meaning you can posses and use them now but can't buy more or make more in CA , is that correct ? I was at my local gun store today and the sales guy said the state can still enforce the old ban ? If so that's pretty messed up for those that same judge allowed to buy the mags in the first place .

Can someone give me the exact situation we are in in CA . Can I own , use or even posses the mags I bought during that one week period the law was struck down ?
 
Last edited:
If I read correctly, the judge blocked enforcement of the ban for magazines bought/transferred during the specified period. That would mean they are legal to possess/use (until the case gets decided/forever if we win).

Edit: perhaps "legal" is not the best term, but you cannot be prosecuted for them, due to the injunction.
 
Last edited:
Can I own , use or even posses the mags I bought during that one week period the law was struck down ?
Click to expand...

IF my understanding is correct, the old law (10+ = illegal) was struck down, then that strike down was struck down. partially.

During that week period, after the old law was struck down, 10+ mags were presumptively legal again, and a bunch of people got them (or ordered them) during that time. The most recent "stay" that I heard of, on the striking down of the older law, allows for those mags bought during that week to have been done in good faith, with no intent to violate the law.

SO, what they ruled was essentially, that, until the issue is fully resolved, the state could go back to prohibiting getting any MORE 10+ mags in the state, but those bought during that week may be kept (and used) and are not subject to the 10+ ban law UNTIL the issue is resolved by a future court ruling.

So, if you got yours during that week, you can keep them for now, but if the future court rules the old law gets to stand intact, then they will become contraband. If the ruling striking down the 10+ law is upheld, that law goes away and they stay legal, and you'll be able to get more.

If the future court rules something else, then all bets might be off...
and we'll have to see exactly what is ruled legal and what isn't, then.
 
Gun store clerks are generally not lawyers, or even paralegals. They are usually not the most authoritative source for good information about what court rulings say or mean.

Let's face it. There are lawyers and judges who maintain that the Heller ruling says that the Second Amendment only applies to handguns in the home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top