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

One part of what 44AMP wrote is incorrect, but may not be what 44AMP meant. He said that,
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
Click to expand...

California law need not go back to prohibiting anything. It presently prohibits and since 1 January 2000 has prohibited getting more 10+ magazines, but enforcement of that law was enjoined util the stay pending appeal took effect at 5 PM of April 5. That stay remains in effect for the manufacturing, importing, selling, or receiving of magazines during what is commonly called Freedom Week.
 
Last edited:
That stay remains in effect for the manufacturing, importing, selling, or receiving of magazines during what is commonly called Freedom Week.
Click to expand...

44Amp is correctly describing the future of the temporary relief that ended up carving out a short period during which people could legally obtain and possess normal magazines. If the district court's decision isn't upheld on appeal, the state can return to enforcing its prohibitions on magazines whenever they were purchased.
 
Last edited:
UPDATE and likely need a title change ?

9 circuit court of appeals upholds California gun control law limiting high-capacity magazines . This was an en-banc panel that overturned the 3 judge panels decision finding the law unconstitutional . The 9th circuit is starting to show a pattern of en-banc panels overturning favorable gun rights 3 judge decisions lately . It's my understanding en-banc panels are not very common but seem to come up disproportionately in gun rights cases as of late .

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-11-30-Opinion.pdf

From the decent , Read this after my OP . At least one person agrees with me lol

Judge Hurwitz has penned a short concurrence
respectfully characterizing as inappropriate and hyperbolic
my observations regarding how my colleague’s personal
views influence our court’s Second Amendment cases. I
agree that it is a troubling charge to posit personal views as
a driving force behind judicial decision-making, and not one
I make lightly. But whatever else it may be, my claim is
hardly hyperbolic. Here are the facts: We are a monstrosity
of a court exercising jurisdiction over 20% of the U.S.
population and almost one-fifth of the states—including
states pushing the most aggressive gun-control restrictions
in the nation. By my count, we have had at least 50 Second
Amendment challenges since Heller—significantly more
than any other circuit—all of which we have ultimately
denied.

In those few instances where a panel of our court
has granted Second Amendment relief, we have without fail
taken the case en banc to reverse that ruling. This is true
regardless of the diverse regulations that have come before
us—from storage restrictions to waiting periods to
ammunition restrictions to conceal carry bans to open carry
bans to magazine capacity prohibitions—the common thread
is our court’s ready willingness to bless any restriction
related to guns. Respectfully, Judge Hurwitz’s claim that
our judges’ personal views about the Second Amendment
and guns have not affected our jurisprudence is simply not
plausible. Res ipsa loquitur.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Metal god said:
"Read this after my OP . At least one person agrees with me lol

Quote:
Judge Hurwitz has penned a short concurrence
respectfully characterizing as inappropriate and hyperbolic
my observations regarding how my colleague’s personal
views influence our court’s Second Amendment cases. I
agree that it is a troubling charge to posit personal views as
a driving force behind judicial decision-making, and not one
I make lightly. But whatever else it may be, my claim is
hardly hyperbolic. Here are the facts: We are a monstrosity
of a court exercising jurisdiction over 20% of the U.S.
population and almost one-fifth of the states—including
states pushing the most aggressive gun-control restrictions
in the nation. By my count, we have had at least 50 Second
Amendment challenges since Heller—significantly more
than any other circuit—all of which we have ultimately
denied.

In those few instances where a panel of our court
has granted Second Amendment relief, we have without fail
taken the case en banc to reverse that ruling. This is true
regardless of the diverse regulations that have come before
us—from storage restrictions to waiting periods to
ammunition restrictions to conceal carry bans to open carry
bans to magazine capacity prohibitions—the common thread
is our court’s ready willingness to bless any restriction
related to guns. Respectfully, Judge Hurwitz’s claim that
our judges’ personal views about the Second Amendment
and guns have not affected our jurisprudence is simply not
plausible. Res ipsa loquitur."
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting that.

The paradigm holding that courts should regard cases from an entirely objective perspective - the blindfold on the figure holding the scales of justice, if it ever was valid, appears valid no longer. It's pretty to think so, but it clearly isn't true.

The 9th Circuit Court in particular has consistently demonstrated a liberal bias, and with respect to 2nd Amendment cases in particular has utterly ignored the definition of the words "shall not be infringed".

Their iniquity is exceeded only by their piety, the reverence they extoll for the 'justice' they deliver while treading on Constitutional rights.

Clearly matters have reached a point where the Court itself recognizes its own hypocrisy.
 
If we could teleport the good folks out of CA, I'd say run a chop saw around the state line and kick it out to sea.
 
Indeed it is

I was a resident of California from 94-08.
I dearly loved the weather, N. San Diego county hardly a better place on earth for comfy. Tgiving on the patio.

I left, traffic and crime finally pushed me North. I still visit Ca. frequently, all I can say is glad I left.

I'm tasked with setting up another facility for our company, I've made it really clear that our West coast branch will not be in California.

That's a sad commentary. By far most of our customers are in Ca. and it would be a logical choice, just for that reason.

It's the entire business climate, the inmates have taken over the asylum.

California's loss will be Or. or Wa. gain, but Ca. has already been eliminated do to the business climate in general, nothing like feeling there is a constant target on your back.

Here's the thing, I or "we" are far from the only ones, Ca. won't maintain it's economy without business's locating there. They have got to notice the exit of business's, like Weatherby who was Ca. through and through from the start. Not any more.
 
California's loss will be Or. or Wa. gain
Click to expand...
Before you rush into OR or WA, you had better take another look at the firearms laws. I would reccomend ID or NV over either of the two you mentioned.
I'd say run a chop saw around the state line and kick it out to sea.
Click to expand...
No need to get mean about it, the folks in CA have been brainwashed just like you have, only more so. Besides, the majority of the land area of CA contains a small percentage of the population, like many other states. If you let LA and SF fall into the ocean, you would get pretty much the same effect as throwing the whole state in but lose the pro-gun people.

All these anti-gun Californians (and New Yorkers and Chicagoans and whatever you call people from Detroit and St Louis) are the product of the TV shows for the past 50-60 years spewing fear and anti-gun rhetoric. The people don't know any better, they've been brainwashed.
 
Last edited:
We seem to be straying off the topic. This is Law & Civil Rights. We discuss laws affecting civil rights here, not politics.

Bottom line: Until further notice, the California magazine capacity law is back in force.
 
UPDATE on the update

9th circuit puts a stay on there ruling pending appeal to the SCOTUS .

From link below said:
Yesterday, a stay was granted in the case of Duncan v. Bonta after an en banc panel upheld California’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. With this stay, the Ninth Circuit has decided to allow Californians to continue possession of any magazines that were acquired during “Freedom Week” or prior to the ban taking effect—for the time being.

The court agreed to stay the mandate from its decision for 150 days, to May 19, 2022. The court’s order further stays the mandate until the U.S. Supreme Court disposes of a petition for certiorari, should one be filed.
Click to expand...

https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...nue-possession-of-lawfully-acquired-magazines
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top