Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
Lynyrd
Senior Member
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:20 am
Location: East Texas

Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby Lynyrd » Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:23 am

http://www.reuters.com/article/california-court-guns-idUSL1N1JR0BY

"If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one's self of lawfully acquired property," Benitez wrote in his 66-page order.


I wonder how long this will stand up in California? We all know they have lost their way out there.

Here's another article.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-large-capacity-magazines-gun-law-blocked-20170629-story.html

Quote from the CA Lt. Governor.
“Large-capacity magazines serve only one purpose: efficient and effective mass murder,” Newsom said. “Used in almost every mass shooting in the U.S. since the 1990s, large-capacity magazines enable murderers to unleash dozens of rounds without having to stop and reload. They belong in theaters of war, not peaceful communities.”


Here's why I NEED a large capacity magazine.
Image
Do what you say you're gonna do.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2460
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:14 am

I'm guessing that this decision will be overturned (and the ban reinstated) by the 9th circuit if it even gets that far. I think it might be a good thing if this gets to the current SCOTUS. If that happens, there is a decent chance that we could see some limits on the ability of states to regulate legally owned guns out of existence.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Topic author
Lynyrd
Senior Member
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:20 am
Location: East Texas

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby Lynyrd » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:26 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm guessing that this decision will be overturned (and the ban reinstated) by the 9th circuit if it even gets that far. I think it might be a good thing if this gets to the current SCOTUS. If that happens, there is a decent chance that we could see some limits on the ability of states to regulate legally owned guns out of existence.


:iagree:
Do what you say you're gonna do.


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby K.Mooneyham » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:34 am

If anyone knows the answer to this, can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law? I thought that those types of laws were not Constitutional. In my thinking, that is why this law is different than the previous California magazine law saying that people couldn't buy any more greater-than-10-round-capacity magazines, but could keep their existing ones.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2460
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:42 am

K.Mooneyham wrote:If anyone knows the answer to this, can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law? I thought that those types of laws were not Constitutional. In my thinking, that is why this law is different than the previous California magazine law saying that people couldn't buy any more greater-than-10-round-capacity magazines, but could keep their existing ones.


It's for the children so it must be constitutional.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby crazy2medic » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:49 am

Here is most likely why the State of California wants to ban them out right, since magazines have no serial numbers and no way to prove when they were bought then there is no way to disprove that you didn't have it before the ban, so they are laying down a blanket prohibition!
I have 4 14rd mags for my 1911 bought in the 90's
20 30rd mags for the AR given to me by my nephew when he returned from Afghanistan
one 13 rd and two 29rd mags for my .45 carbine
None have any serial numbers so no way to prove when they were acquired
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2460
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:47 am

crazy2medic wrote:Here is most likely why the State of California wants to ban them out right, since magazines have no serial numbers and no way to prove when they were bought then there is no way to disprove that you didn't have it before the ban, so they are laying down a blanket prohibition!
I have 4 14rd mags for my 1911 bought in the 90's
20 30rd mags for the AR given to me by my nephew when he returned from Afghanistan
one 13 rd and two 29rd mags for my .45 carbine
None have any serial numbers so no way to prove when they were acquired


I think you are being a bit naïve. Personally, I believe that the folks who lead the government of the state of California would like to make all gun ownership illegal. They can't do that completely, but they are doing what they can.

I also don't think the leadership is dumb enough to actually believe this is for increased safety. That is something they tell the rank and file of their party. The real reason is that they see government as a paternal force that is needed to keep the commoners in line, for their own good. They do not believe that people are fundamentally good, or that government should serve only at the behest of the governed. "Common" people having the means to provide for their own security is not consistent with this world view. So guns should only be possessed by the enlightened elite, or by agents of the state.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby KLB » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:06 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote:can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law?


It's not an ex post facto law unless someone can be punished for having possessed such a magazine before the law's effective date. I assume that is not the case with this law.


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby K.Mooneyham » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:19 pm

KLB wrote:
K.Mooneyham wrote:can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law?


It's not an ex post facto law unless someone can be punished for having possessed such a magazine before the law's effective date. I assume that is not the case with this law.


That's my point, though. If you live in California, and already owned the magazines, then you are being penalized for something that happened prior to the date of the bill becoming law. Also, where is the just compensation for what amounts to the taking of peoples' possessions, unless they could sell them out-of-state?

User avatar

hillfighter
Banned
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Hill Country

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby hillfighter » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:46 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote:
KLB wrote:
K.Mooneyham wrote:can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law?


It's not an ex post facto law unless someone can be punished for having possessed such a magazine before the law's effective date. I assume that is not the case with this law.


That's my point, though. If you live in California, and already owned the magazines, then you are being penalized for something that happened prior to the date of the bill becoming law.

No. You would be penalized for possessing them after the date of the bill becoming law.
"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

User avatar

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby parabelum » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:55 pm

Are they gonna send in brown shirt brigades into every household checking mags? Some filthy bum will come in and tell on you, with a notepad and ketchup stain on his wrinkled up shirt he bought 40 years ago...for a good deal mind you, with bold spot to land an airplane and a little 2mm thin pony tail, glasses as crooked as his soul :mrgreen:
III%


dlh
Senior Member
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby dlh » Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:43 pm

Here is the NRA link to the injunction.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017062 ... gazine-ban

I have no faith in the ninth circus and believe they will overturn the judge's injunction.

At some point the Scotus will have to elaborate on Heller--something it appears it does not want to do at this time given its refusal to accept other cases we have discussed in the forum.


SewTexas
Senior Member
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: San Antonio area

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby SewTexas » Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:53 pm

this judge sounds reasonable, smart even....what on earth is he doing on the bench in CA?
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir

User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts: 1333
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby Flightmare » Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:54 pm

SewTexas wrote:this judge sounds reasonable, smart even....what on earth is he doing on the bench in CA?


Perhaps he's a transplant?
Deplorable lunatic since 2016


txblackout
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:06 pm

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

Postby txblackout » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:06 am

K.Mooneyham wrote:
KLB wrote:
K.Mooneyham wrote:can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law?


It's not an ex post facto law unless someone can be punished for having possessed such a magazine before the law's effective date. I assume that is not the case with this law.


That's my point, though. If you live in California, and already owned the magazines, then you are being penalized for something that happened prior to the date of the bill becoming law. Also, where is the just compensation for what amounts to the taking of peoples' possessions, unless they could sell them out-of-state?


Ex-post facto is if they made it illegal to buy and then punished you for buying them before they were illegal (even if you had gotten rid of them)

Ex-post facto is if they made it retroactively illegal to possess, you got rid of them, but they prosecuted you for possessing them while they originally had been legal.

If they make them illegal now, and you continue to keep them, you are now breaking the law because it is your current action, not a historical action.


Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests