View Full Version : Federal judge rules CA magazine ban violates 2A
I'm sure CA can't appeal fast enough . . . but this ruling is an amazing takedown. Hopefully it's the start to something larger scale on mag bans
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190329/breaking-federal-court-finds-california-magazine-ban-violates-the-second-amendment
https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1111756700179144704
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf
Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms." California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.
The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds ? magazines that law abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home.
It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored ? it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits law abiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties.
Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of ? 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds. Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs? motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code ? 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.
ChadAmberg
03-29-2019, 17:11
Damn I was just coming in here to post that. I've read most of the decision, and it's well written, easy to read, and pretty darn thorough. Looks like something we would have written.
vi. irony
Perhaps the irony of ? 32310 escapes notice. The reason for the adoption of the
Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an
oppressive state. The anti-federalists were worried about the risk of oppression by a
standing army. The colonies had witnessed the standing army of England marching
through Lexington to Concord, Massachusetts, on a mission to seize the arms and
gunpowder of the militia and the Minutemen—an attack that ignited the Revolutionary
war. With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment
guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors
foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its
citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
wctriumph
03-29-2019, 18:42
I guess I will not need that 10 round mag I bought just so I could shoot my Browning in CA when I visit my brother next year.
Oh well, it is still CO legal.
Just shoot three times as many rounds
Prediction: 9th will tailor an opinion in such a fashion to deprive the anti-magazine ban crowd from appealing it to the US Supreme Court, potentially sustaining the reversal of the law, but using such language as to make it possible to re-ban it once they recover the supreme court.
Judges aren't stupid, they won't let this fight go to SCOTUS even if they have to swallow their barf to temporarily let high capacity mags back into CA.... high capacity constituting 11, or 12 rounds, of course.
Who decided we were ruled by government, anyway?
It's better to assert individual rights, rather than rely on Government today.
-John
DenverGP
03-29-2019, 21:08
Holy shit this ruling is just one 2nd amendment quote after another. Amazing to read.
On the "lethality" argument:
Some say that the use of ?large capacity magazines? increases the lethality of gun violence. They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings,more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal.A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun?s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed. The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear downpillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous.
On the "2nd amendment protects the firearms not the magazines":
Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense. This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment. The simple test applies because a magazine is an essential mechanical part of a firearm. The size limit directly impairs one?s ability to defend one?s self.
Neither magazines, nor rounds of ammunition, nor triggers, nor barrels are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment. Neither are they mentioned in Heller.But without a right to keep and bear triggers, or barrels, or ammunition and the magazines that hold ammunition, the Second Amendment right would be meaningless.
Bailey Guns
03-29-2019, 21:12
...and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties.
Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of ? 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess...
Isn't that exactly what's happening with the bump-stock ban?
Reading this felt like a hoax, so I made sure to check the links. It's still hard for me to believe this wording. It feels fake, but there is no evidence that it is.
DenverGP
03-29-2019, 21:28
On the "Historical Prohibitions Exception":
To sum up, then, while detachable firearm magazines have been common for a
century, government regulation of the size of a magazine is a recent phenomenon and still
unregulated in four-fifths of the states. The record is empty of the persuasive historical
evidence needed to place a magazine ban outside the ambit of the Second Amendment.
Thus, it can be seen that California?s prohibition on detachable ammunition magazines
larger than 10 rounds is a type of prohibition that has not been historically accommodated
by the Second Amendment.
Faced with a dearth of magazine capacity restrictions older than 1990, the Attorney
General pivots and tries a different route. He argues that the historical prohibition question
is not one of detachable magazine size, but instead is a question of firearm 'firing
capacity.' With this change of terms and shift of direction, the Attorney General contends
that firearm firing-capacity restrictions have been subject to longstanding regulation dating
back to the 1920s. Yet, even his new focus falters under a close look at the historical
record.
It is interesting to note that during the Nation?s founding era, states enacted
regulations for the formation and maintenance of citizen militias. Three such statutes are
described in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Rather than restricting firing
capacity, they required firing capacity. These statutes required citizens to equip themselves
with arms and a minimum quantity of ammunition for those arms. None placed an upper
limit of 10-rounds, as ? 32310 does. Far from it. Each imposed a floor of at least 20-
rounds. Id. at 180-83 (Massachusetts law of 1649 required carrying ?twenty bullets,? while
New York 1786 law required ?a Box therein to contain no less than Twenty-four
Cartridges,? and Virginia law of 1785 required a cartridge box and ?four pounds of lead,
including twenty blind cartridges?). In 1776, Paul Revere?s Minutemen (a special group
of the Massachusetts militia) were required to have ready 30 bullets and gunpowder. These
early American citizen militia laws suggest that, contrary to the idea of a firing-capacity
upper limit on the number of rounds a citizen was permitted to keep with one?s arms, there
was an obligation that citizens would have at least 20 rounds available for immediate use.
Simply put, there were no upper limits; there were floors and the floors were well above
10 rounds.
DenverGP
03-29-2019, 21:31
Section 32310 runs afoul of the Second Amendment under the simple Heller test.
It fails the Heller test because it criminalizes a law-abiding citizen’s possession of a
common magazine that is used for lawful purposes and prohibits its use for self-defense
in and around the home. It strikes at the core of the inalienable Constitutional right and
disenfranchises approximately 39 million state residents.
This conclusion should not be considered groundbreaking. It is simply a
straightforward application of constitutional law to an experimental governmental
overreach that goes far beyond traditional boundaries of reasonable gun regulation.
DenverGP
03-29-2019, 21:36
If a law-abiding, responsible citizen in California decides that a handgun or rifle
with a magazine larger than 10 rounds is the best choice for defending her hearth and
home, may the State deny the choice, declare the magazine a “nuisance,” and jail the
citizen for the crime of possession? The Attorney General says that is what voters want
in hopes of preventing a rare, but horrible, mass shooting. The plaintiffs, who are also
citizens and residents of California, say that while the goal of preventing mass shootings
is laudable, banning the acquisition and possession of magazines holding more than 10
rounds is an unconstitutional experiment that poorly fits the goal.
Regardless of current popularity, neither a
legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights. 'An unconstitutional statute
adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity.'
DenverGP
03-29-2019, 21:38
When they occur, mass shootings are tragic. Innocent lives are senselessly lost
while other lives are scarred forever. Communities are left shaken, frightened, and
grieving. The timeline of the tragedy, the events leading up to the shooting, and the
repercussions on family and friends after the incident, fill the national media news cycle
for days, weeks and years. Who has not heard about the Newtown, Connecticut, mass
shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or the one at a high school in Parkland,
Florida? But an individual victim gets little, if any, media attention, and the attention he
or she gets is local and short-lived. For example, who has heard about the home invasion
attack on Melinda Herman and her twin nine-year old daughters in Georgia only one
month after the Sandy Hook incident?15 Who has heard of the attacks on Ms. Zhu Chen
or Ms. Gonzalez and her husband?16 Are the lives of these victims worth any less than
those lost in a mass shooting? Would their deaths be any less tragic? Unless there are a
lot of individual victims together, the tragedy goes largely unnoticed.
That is why mass shootings can seem to be a common problem, but in fact, are
exceedingly rare. At the same time robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals are
common, but draw little public notice. As in the year 2017, in 2016 there were numerous
robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals in California and no mass shootings.
DenverGP
03-29-2019, 21:39
Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is
a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the
everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes,
and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a
firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With
rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a
chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or
traumatized.
DenverGP
03-29-2019, 21:42
A couple more and I'll stop....
Saying that large capacity magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a
tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning.
See Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015)
“Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly used. A law’s existence can’t be the source of its own constitutional validity."
Since the 1980s, one of the most popular handguns in America has been the Glock
17 pistol, which is designed for, and typically sold with, a 17-round magazine. One of
the most popular youth rifles in America over the last 60 years has been the Ruger 10/22.
Six million have been sold since it was introduced in 1964. It is designed to use
magazines manufactured by Ruger in a variety of sizes: 10-round, 15-round, and 25-
round. Over the last three decades, one of the most popular civilian rifles in America is
the much maligned AR-15 style rifle. Manufactured with various characteristics by
numerous companies, it is estimated that more than five million have been bought since
the 1980s. These rifles are typically sold with 30-round magazines. These commonly-
owned guns with commonly-sized magazines are protected by the Second Amendment
and Heller’s simple test for responsible, law-abiding citizens to use for target practice,
hunting, and defense.
DenverGP
03-29-2019, 21:47
Reading this felt like a hoax, so I made sure to check the links. It's still hard for me to believe this wording. It feels fake, but there is no evidence that it is.
I completely agree....
DenverGP
03-29-2019, 21:50
On "no one needs more than 10 rounds":
In a peaceful society, a 10-round limit may not be severe.
When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more
recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a
severe burden.
When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and
the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a
telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe.
When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be
able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.
When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges
and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.
When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run
rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.
Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s
litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in
Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.
This judge is my fucking hero!
BushMasterBoy
03-29-2019, 22:28
Media statement in link below...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-blocks-california-s-ban-high-capacity-magazines-over-2nd-n989136
avandelay
03-29-2019, 23:20
Now if we could only get this ruling to apply in all of the other states where standard capacity magazines have been banned. I read somewhere that our mag ban case was going to the state supreme court. Is that correct? I thought our case had been tossed many years ago.
So I think the order of events goes like this:
1. 9th circus overturns this ruling.
2. SCOTUS gets case and overturns all mag bans in the US
Anyone know if you can buy a 30 rounder in Cali tomorrow at a gun store? Sell them while you can, right?
Why do I get the feeling that liberals are prepping their next nut to shoot up some soft target in the next few days?
Most likely:
1. 9th overturns ruling.
2. SCOTUS declines to hear it.
Maybe less likely:
1. Or, more likely, 9th retains technical ruling (some reason why the specific magazine ban should be overturned, but not because of what the judge opined), and guts the opinion, so that SCOTUS can't reliably be petitioned - CA won't pursue it, and the petitioner will still have won.
2. CA comes back fixing the technicality and re-bans magazines.
Quite unlikely:
1. 9th Overturns
2. SCOTUS decides to hear the case. They traditionally don't touch 2A or controversial cases, and they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.
Now if we could only get this ruling to apply in all of the other states where standard capacity magazines have been banned. I read somewhere that our mag ban case was going to the state supreme court. Is that correct? I thought our case had been tossed many years ago.
It's my understanding that this decision in CA will likely go to SCOTUS now and a ruling in our favor would then be beneficial here & other non-free states as well.
Great-Kazoo
03-30-2019, 08:33
Most likely:
1. 9th overturns ruling.
2. SCOTUS declines to hear it.
Maybe less likely:
1. Or, more likely, 9th retains technical ruling (some reason why the specific magazine ban should be overturned, but not because of what the judge opined), and guts the opinion, so that SCOTUS can't reliably be petitioned - CA won't pursue it, and the petitioner will still have won.
2. CA comes back fixing the technicality and re-bans magazines.
Quite unlikely:
1. 9th Overturns
2. SCOTUS decides to hear the case. They traditionally don't touch 2A or controversial cases, and they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.
They then rule to refer it back to the lower courts, citing states rights.
They then rule to refer it back to the lower courts, citing states rights.
"powers not delegated" seems to be dismissed.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, or even smart enough to stay in a Holiday Inn, but it's my understanding that states may "enhance" the Constitution but not diminish it.
Unfortunately, with 2A, it seems the courts have allowed the states rights to "regulate" certain things to come to bear. Regulating away our rights via excessive fees, egregious taxes (ammo), wait times, and other barriers to exercising our rights is one of their tactics and they're largely getting away with it. Hopefully this ruling gains momentum and stands as a precedent to return some of those rights to the people.
Rucker61
03-30-2019, 09:02
So I think the order of events goes like this:
1. 9th circus overturns this ruling.
2. SCOTUS gets case and overturns all mag bans in the US
Anyone know if you can buy a 30 rounder in Cali tomorrow at a gun store? Sell them while you can, right?
Why do I get the feeling that liberals are prepping their next nut to shoot up some soft target in the next few days?
The 9th just recently upheld the 2nd in Young v Hawaii with regards with the right to keep and bear arms in public. Sometimes you can't guess which way they'll swing.
They then rule to refer it back to the lower courts, citing states rights.
Protecting individual rights from states who would unconstitutionally rule to infringe on them is one of the chief responsibilities of the Federal Government. That and protecting our borders are the two primary purposes of the .gov even though they seem to forget this from time to time.
Finally some common sense!
The obsession with number of rounds are arbitrary limits has never been the way to frame this. It's the effectiveness of the weapon and the parts (magazines) that determine the capabilities. If citizens can't have weapons in common use, with common capabilities, there is no 2A.
So I think the order of events goes like this:
1. 9th circus overturns this ruling.
2. SCOTUS gets case and overturns all mag bans in the US
Anyone know if you can buy a 30 rounder in Cali tomorrow at a gun store? Sell them while you can, right?
Why do I get the feeling that liberals are prepping their next nut to shoot up some soft target in the next few days?
I hope (on #1 and 2)!
I'm not a CA expert other than studying their laws to see what they would try here in CaliforniaWest but I think there's a stack of other laws that limit the ability to have a detachable magazine in an "unregistered assault weapon" or some other nonsense. Hence the bullet button and now the quick take-down solutions.
All of it's unconstitutional and at odds with UBCs being the solution to everything.
ETA: Now would be a good time for Judge Benitez to stop sleeping with a pillow.
SouthPaw
03-30-2019, 10:06
Plenty of online retailers have opened their doors to CA.
Clarence Thomas has come out strongly against the SCOTUS not taking 2A cases in such a long time. If there was any time to take one . . . the tie would seem to be ripe with Kavanaugh & Gorsuch in place. I think Thomas is itching to hear a case like this.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clarence-thomas-rips-high-courts-decision-not-to-hear-case-challenging-california-gun-law-second-amendment-is-disfavored-right
Thomas went on to note that the appeals court's "deviation from ordinary principles of law is unfortunate, though not surprising," and said he has observed a trend among the lower courts to resist the Supreme Court's decision in the cases Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
The justice said that in resisting the high court's decisions in each of those cases, the lower courts are "failing to protect the Second Amendment to the same extent that they protect other constitutional rights."
"In the Ninth Circuit, it seems, rights that have no basis in the Constitution receive greater protection than the Second Amendment, which is enumerated in our text,?"Thomas wrote.
Thomas went on to note that the high court hasn't heard a Second Amendment case in eight years, but has agreed to consider a number of cases involving the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment this term.
The justice said he believed four members of the court would have agreed to consider cases involving a 10-day waiting period for abortions, a 10-day waiting period for the publication of racist speech, and a 10-minute delay of a traffic stop.
"The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights," Thomas wrote. "The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message."
I'm in favor of states rights, but this is an issue I wish the fed would come down and eliminate all local and state regulations on firearms/firearm accessories and licensing/ permits.
What strikes me is the paradox for the state support of marijuana legalization that is illegal at the federal level. On the other hand they diminish the rights to keep and bear arms which is Constitutionally protected.
Sounds like websites are already starting to allow orders and shipping of standard capacity mags to Cali.
kidicarus13
03-30-2019, 13:45
Sounds like websites are already starting to allow orders and shipping of standard capacity mags to Cali.It should be a big online sales weekend for mags if those in California are smart. ... if those in California are smart.
I'm in favor of states rights, but this is an issue I wish the fed would come down and eliminate all local and state regulations on firearms/firearm accessories and licensing/ permits.
I'm in favor of states rights too save for where it's used to unconstitutionally strip rights of it's residents. That's when the fed can and should step in. This is a clear case of that if it's carried out the way it should. It's just horseshit that it took so long to correct this injustice. Now, if you want to make a law at the Federal level regarding "assault weapons" or anything else for that matter that removes my rights and overrides the state's ability to govern... no. I'm not for that. That's the job of individual states and should be protected as such.
The framework was designed to make it easier to give rights as advancements are made and difficult to restrict rights by design. This has been abused far too long now to where generations think that the way to go is to create restrictions at the federal level to have the most impact for their "fight" when it's simply wrong. These sorts of things should all be handled at the state level so that if I don't agree I can simply move to a state that aligns more with my political beliefs but I'm still an American. You start restricting rights at the federal level and you'll lose a lot of people to foreign countries who think they don't have any other choice if that particular right or set of rights is that important to them.
It amazes me how many people consider themselves American and refuse to acknowledge other people's beliefs and rights and genuinely want them to be able to live their life how they wish w/o the encumbrances of having someone else's beliefs shoved down their throat. Where so many people get off thinking they know what is best for every man, woman and child in this nation is beyond me.
It's a long read but totally worth it. Definitely some LOL comments from the judge. This is a Paul Harrell-level takedown of the attorney's general (past, present, and future).
Reading this felt like a hoax, so I made sure to check the links. It's still hard for me to believe this wording. It feels fake, but there is no evidence that it is.
I had the same reaction
ChadAmberg
03-31-2019, 08:25
Ok so I'm hearing that places like PSA, etc., are out of stock on large cap magazines as CA buyers are going crazy purchasing already. Got to love it!
Great-Kazoo
03-31-2019, 08:43
Now's the time for me to take a short drive to de western border.
That?s rather capitalistic of you Kazoo.
kidicarus13
03-31-2019, 08:51
Ok so I'm hearing that places like PSA, etc., are out of stock on large cap magazines as CA buyers are going crazy purchasing already. Got to love it!Magpul, Hexmag and OKAY 30rd mags are still in stock PSA.
Great-Kazoo
03-31-2019, 10:01
That?s rather capitalistic of you Kazoo.
OH Hell yeah! #capitalist4profit
3 phone calls, 150 mags SOLD!
OH Hell yeah! #capitalist4profit
3 phone calls, 150 mags SOLD!
I've got a couple extra cases if you run low on inventory. I'll make you a real fair deal on them of course. ;-)
I've got a couple extra cases if you run low on inventory. I'll make you a real fair deal on them of course. ;-)
I've got a case of 100 here from 2013.
Bailey Guns
03-31-2019, 13:16
I just read the ruling by Judge Benitez. It's a pretty remarkable piece of legal writing and I found it pretty fascinating that a federal judge issued a ruling based on modern day problems in society and one aspect of how best for law-abiding people to deal with them. Not to mention the Constitutional basis.
If you haven't read the whole thing you should.
ETA: I was especially astounded at the language after reading his opening...a quote from Ted Kennedy about liberty and individual freedoms.
Great-Kazoo
03-31-2019, 17:03
I've got a couple extra cases if you run low on inventory. I'll make you a real fair deal on them of course. ;-)
I've got a case of 100 here from 2013.
You guys should put them on armslist or some other gun friendly forum.
You guys should put them on armslist or some other gun friendly forum.
Calguns. Period.
You guys should put them on armslist or some other gun friendly forum.
Can we per CO nonsense laws?
It's nice that there is finally a way for Colorado criminals to get rid of their mags.
Great-Kazoo
03-31-2019, 20:09
Can we per CO nonsense laws?
You're an adult. What you do as one is up to you. My question is. Since you're not selling in CO, why not?
kidicarus13
03-31-2019, 21:15
I've got a couple extra cases
I've got a case of 100 here from 2013.
Sicking, just sickening. Morse will NOT be happy with you guys.
Great-Kazoo
04-01-2019, 00:01
Sicking, just sickening. Morse will NOT be happy with you guys.
Way things are going in CO, they'd best hold on to them.
Fentonite
04-01-2019, 00:39
Way things are going in CO, they'd best hold on to them.
Heck, I just bought a rifle, simply because I have a couple cases of AR10 mags (thanks to the Magpul Boulder Airlift) with nothing to use them in.
Sicking, just sickening. Morse will NOT be happy with you guys.
Thought they were lost in the boating accident last summer, but the damn things float.
Way things are going in CO, they'd best hold on to them.
Damn straight skippy.
I have given away a few parts kits over the years, so that one box of 100 might be shy a bit. Non window mags so Tier 1 operators don't want them.
Will1776
04-01-2019, 07:01
Palmetto is now shipping mags to CA
Ammo Supply Warehouse (https://www.ammosupplywarehouse.com/west/) sent out an email that they're shipping, too.
O2
I got emails from Primary Arms and Gun Mag Warehouse stating they were shipping to CA
I got an email from Top Gun Supply stating that CA shipping is ON. :)
SouthPaw
04-01-2019, 13:04
CA gets standard mags and we get the red bill.
UrbanWolf
04-02-2019, 09:14
CA gets standard mags and we get the red bill.
Maybe most of their tru-libs can’t take the living expense and moved here.
UrbanWolf
04-02-2019, 09:15
I feel like the Cali state government isn’t going to sit and do nothing, they will retaliate soon.
Posted this morning on Calguns. Fair to say, they're going batshit crazy on that forum.
Sounds like it's all hands on deck in the shipping department at PSA. FedEx is going to have to add more planes to their schedule. UPS be like "We're gonna need a bigger truck." Probably just a couple hours until a stay is ordered by the 9th.
All
Shipping these Freedom packages is our top priority right now. These orders are being put to the front of the line to ensure you get your Freedom ASAP.
Thanks,
Josiah
__________________
Palmetto State Armory
200 Business Park Blvd
Columbia, SC 29203
Web Sales: 803.788.9095
socialmedia.info@palmettostatearmory.com
sellersm
04-02-2019, 12:52
Excited for CA! When's our turn?
kidicarus13
04-02-2019, 13:26
Excited for CA! When's our turn?We'll get ours ...and not in a good way. The liberals in this state have grandiose plans for us.
newracer
04-03-2019, 08:47
https://live.staticflickr.com/7810/47473219992_466721f4ff_b.jpg
MileHighShooting
04-03-2019, 10:19
The mere thought that Californians can now buy Magpul drum mags, and Coloradoans cant buy a Glock 17 rd mag absolutely boggles the mind.
Never thought that CA would have better mag laws than CO
Un friggin real
Little Dutch
04-03-2019, 10:49
I feel like the Cali state government isn’t going to sit and do nothing, they will retaliate soon.
I'm surprised places like Palmetto haven't been bought completely out of mags for this very reason. If this is only a small window to get magazines, I imagine people would be ordering them by the case. That's probably projection on my part, if a window like that opened up in CO I would stock enough to keep my kids and all their friends in magazines for the rest of their lives...
colorider
04-03-2019, 11:21
A local store where I get magpul products said he has a big supply problem as of Monday. His distributors are sending their inventory to CA for the current sales rush.
Most likely:
1. 9th circuit en banc overturns ruling.
2. SCOTUS declines to hear it.
Added clarification, but this.
The 9th just recently upheld the 2nd in Young v Hawaii with regards with the right to keep and bear arms in public. Sometimes you can't guess which way they'll swing.
That was just the three-judge panel. It has already been appealed to the 9th circuit "en banc", where an 11-judge panel gets another crack at the case. That appeal has been stayed pending SCOTUS's opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. But they do this every time, and the en banc panel always overturns the pro-2A initial ruling. I sincerely doubt that the 9th Circuit is scared of SCOTUS overturning them, or even agreeing to take an appeal. SCOTUS is done with the 2nd Amendment, as Thomas laments. We ostensibly have a "conservative majority" on the bench but in reality conservatives are outnumbered 6-3.
The mere thought that Californians can now buy Magpul drum mags, and Coloradoans cant buy a Glock 17 rd mag absolutely boggles the mind.
Never thought that CA would have better mag laws than CO
Un friggin real
It's cheaper to plate a car in California too.
Will1776
04-04-2019, 11:41
A local store where I get magpul products said he has a big supply problem as of Monday. His distributors are sending their inventory to CA for the current sales rush.
Probably best the rest of the country goes a bit without magpul so CA can stock up while they can.
Brownells reported they had sold 300,000 mags . . . and that was a day or so ago. The flooding of CA with mags is pretty epic. I wonder what the final count will be?
Great-Kazoo
04-04-2019, 14:11
It's cheaper to plate a car in California too.
No it's not. Those plates you buy when registering a vehicle, cost $X. While it may be cheaper up front. That cost never goes down, you paid $675 to plate / register your caravan. Next year and every year after, until you either sell of take it off the road. Still $675.
What's nice about AZ is you have a choice of 1,2,3 or 5 year when you plate a vehicle. Trailers are a 1 time cost and has PERMANENT in stead of an expiration date. I plated 2 trailers for under $200. Never have to renew again ;)
AND, bonus points for no emissions test.
Bailey Guns
04-04-2019, 14:56
^^ Here, too. 2 years registration on my new Cruze, title fee and 2 years unlimited state parks pass...$134. My 18' car hauler trailer was $27 for 10 years ($7 was title fee). It's just stupid cheap to register a car here.
Sales tax is a different story.... I only paid 2.9% when I lived in Bailey on a car. ID sales tax is a flat 6% statewide...so cities don't get to add more taxes.
ETA: First time I registered my truck here I asked if they required emissions testing. Clerk looked at me and said, "Emissions testing? Why would you need that?"
^^ Here, too. 2 years registration on my new Cruze, title fee and 2 years unlimited state parks pass...$134. My 18' car hauler trailer was $27 for 10 years ($7 was title fee). It's just stupid cheap to register a car here.
Sales tax is a different story.... I only paid 2.9% when I lived in Bailey on a car. ID sales tax is a flat 6% statewide...so cities don't get to add more taxes.
ETA: First time I registered my truck here I asked if they required emissions testing. Clerk looked at me and said, "Emissions testing? Why would you need that?"
I just paid $80 for an annual state park pass.
My (2018 MY) RV tag renewal is $766.
Electric only (shared water) Sites at Pueblo Reservoir are $32/night and don't include park access.
Fukn thieves.
Don'cha kno?? CO is basically a third-world country because our taxes are so low, thanks to that damn Tabor. We need more money for schools*, roads**, clean air and water***!!
-Every liberal in this state
* For administrators and to be siphoned off for pet projects. Teachers can sit and spin.
** To be spent on toll roads owned by private companies run by relatives of CO DOT admins
*** To be used to drive oil and gas industry out of the state
Doesn't a non-US company own the major toll roads in our state? Thought I heard that somewhere, but never verified.
avandelay
04-04-2019, 17:43
Looks like they got their stay toot sweet -
From Armed Equality
Mag ban stay has been issued and goes effective as of 5pm tomorrow.
The judge protected anyone who 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.
--
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.
Bailey Guns
04-04-2019, 18:36
That didn't take long.
I can't even begin to imagine how many magazines will be delivered after the stay order takes effect. There has to be 10s of thousands in the pipeline already.
Bailey Guns
04-04-2019, 18:39
That short, but sweet, taste of freedom might be just the thing to motivate some people in CA. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking. Probably not nearly enough people affected, who really care about their gun rights, to make a difference.
Will1776
04-04-2019, 19:03
Keep in mind this basically makes their ban unenforceable for a long time. Cop asks how someone has the mag legally, Californians can just say they bought it during the week they were legal lol.
whitewalrus
04-04-2019, 19:17
That short, but sweet, taste of freedom might be just the thing to motivate some people in CA. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking. Probably not nearly enough people affected, who really care about their gun rights, to make a difference.
Wishful thinking, sadly.
Not according to post #81. Read the last paragraph.
(Responding to post #84)
Seems like Benitez stayed it himself and in a manner where he could protect those who purchased in the rush . . . knowing that the 9th Circus would stay the whole thing?
Agree about the effect basically being flooding the market with mags and probably being unenforceable.
*waits for the next mass shooting in CA the includes these mags to strengthen Libs stance on how evil these sorts of items are*
avandelay
04-04-2019, 21:43
So what now? SCOTUS?
I believe the 9th Circus is the next stop
(We have a lot of these mag ban threads going so sorry if I'm crossing streams)
Look who's concerned about CA's mag ban!
https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1153679537152114688
https://imgur.com/4cNGILK.jpg
I keep saying/thinking this has to go to USSC eventually. The litany of "gun bans that aren't directly banning guns" is increasing. CA's ammo laws are another good example.
Lots to unpack here. It's perfectly fine for states to band together in defense of their citizens' shared interests, but here we have two mega-states going to court to advocate against their citizens' civil rights. Is this not why we have Federalism and the Bill of Rights in the first place?
Second they are using their taxpayers' resources against their citizens which is always nice to see because it confirms government is incorporated against the people. A Democrat can always argue they have a plurality and direct representation mandates because they won an election but those wins are never 100%--there is always a minority who has not consented to this! Where is the minority's AG?
Last, this is a Confederacy of sorts against the Constitution and there's no hiding it. Modern gun control is at odds with 2A and the proper thing to do is repeal 2A in US Congress if states want to infringe. Of course that's not happening so for now the Confederacy is peacefully petitioning the courts and hoping for activism. Maybe this is why USSC is denying cert on these gun cases? If USSC takes a case, and honors originalism, consistent with precedent, the conclusion is obvious. Does the Confederacy respect that? They are already in open rebellion on immigration law.
The only legal wiggle room is Heller's "dangerous and unusual" standard which invoked Miller. Miller specifically excludes firearms in common use from the classification of "dangerous and unusual." Oops.
Rucker61
07-23-2019, 20:17
(We have a lot of these mag ban threads going so sorry if I'm crossing streams)
Look who's concerned about CA's mag ban!
https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1153679537152114688
https://imgur.com/4cNGILK.jpg
I keep saying/thinking this has to go to USSC eventually. The litany of "gun bans that aren't directly banning guns" is increasing. CA's ammo laws are another good example.
Lots to unpack here. It's perfectly fine for states to band together in defense of their citizens' shared interests, but here we have two mega-states going to court to advocate against their citizens' civil rights. Is this not why we have Federalism and the Bill of Rights in the first place?
Second they are using their taxpayers' resources against their citizens which is always nice to see because it confirms government is incorporated against the people. A Democrat can always argue they have a plurality and direct representation mandates because they won an election but those wins are never 100%--there is always a minority who has not consented to this! Where is the minority's AG?
Last, this is a Confederacy of sorts against the Constitution and there's no hiding it. Modern gun control is at odds with 2A and the proper thing to do is repeal 2A in US Congress if states want to infringe. Of course that's not happening so for now the Confederacy is peacefully petitioning the courts and hoping for activism. Maybe this is why USSC is denying cert on these gun cases? If USSC takes a case, and honors originalism, consistent with precedent, the conclusion is obvious. Does the Confederacy respect that? They are already in open rebellion on immigration law.
The only legal wiggle room is Heller's "dangerous and unusual" standard which invoked Miller. Miller specifically excludes firearms in common use from the classification of "dangerous and unusual." Oops.
As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’ ” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “ ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’ ”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “ ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.”
Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.
"As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. "
Caetano v Massachusetts.
[snip]
Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.
"As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. "
Caetano v Massachusetts.
I think this makes bans, and defacto bans, even harder to defend.
ARs are ubiquitous as are semi-auto rifles as a class of weapons. As are their components (magazines).
DenverGP
04-23-2020, 21:12
Another ruling from US District Court Judge Roger Benitez:
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/178312-US-District-Court-Grants-Preliminary-Injunction-Blocking-California-s-Ammo-Background-Check-Law
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.