The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 3, 2019, 01:32 PM   #51
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,680
44amp , I thought this suite was challenging the NEW law that was put in place in 2016. Wouldn't status quo mean going back to what ever the law was in lets say 2015 and not 1991 ??
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 4, 2019, 06:32 AM   #52
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
. . . . My point is , If we here in CA have not been allowed to buy slandered cap mags locally for 25+ years and never been allowed to buy standard cap mags off the internet because it didn't exist back when we could buy them . How has this ruling returned us to the status quo ? If the ruling had just allowed possession again maybe but we can now buy and import them , that's a huge change is it not ? . . . .
When a court puts a stay on enforcement of a law (or bars enforcement, as when a law is found unconstitutional), ordinarily, what that would do is "hold things in place" as they were immediately before the challenged (or newly found to be unconstitutional) law took effect. There's really no reason for the court to worry about the federal AWB from the 1990s, much less women having the right to vote. Neither of those is being challenged. (Unless I really missed a major point of the lawsuit. ) In all fairness, though, I don't know much about the laws surrounding CA magazines. And I'll have to go back and re-read the Complaint. Was the provision barring importation of "high capacity" magazines challenged? If so, and if the court has barred enforcement, then it has returned things to their status quo right before that law was enacted. If that statute was not challenged, then it has also not been overturned. Again, I'll have to go back and re-read the Complaint. If it opens up (previously illegal) local purchase of 10+ round magazines, that's awesome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
. . . . slandered cap mags . . . .
Now that's funny. It's probably a typo, but we should have started calling them slandered cap mags as soon as the antis started calling them high capacity mags.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 4, 2019, 07:26 AM   #53
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,908
So I went back and did a little research in actual CA law. (Go me!) It looks to me like Section 32310 and its predecessor, Section 12020, prohibited importation, sales, transfers, etc. of mags over 10 rounds, with a variety of exceptions not relevant to this discussion. The CA General Assembly amended Section 32310 in 2016 to ban possession, which hadn't been included before. The judgment in Duncan v. Becerra states that Section 32310 is unconstitutional in its entirety. Thus, importation is now allowed. Palmetto State Armory has filed a declaration that PSA has gotten thousands of orders since the decision came down.

Metal god, in answer to your question, if it's a return to the status quo, it's a return to the status quo before some of the predecessors to 32310 was enacted. My apologies for not being very clear on that, but in this case 'status quo' may be a little squishy.

In other news, why in the world did movie props get an exemption?!? I get it that Hollywood generates billions of dollars, but if there's anywhere in the world that they really should not be using real magazines, it's a movie set, where someone is actually told to point a gun at someone who they know to only be play-acting at threatening the holder of the gun . . . . Sheesh. I thought that's what props were for.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 4, 2019, 10:33 AM   #54
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
In other news, why in the world did movie props get an exemption?!? I get it that Hollywood generates billions of dollars, but if there's anywhere in the world that they really should not be using real magazines, it's a movie set, where someone is actually told to point a gun at someone who they know to only be play-acting at threatening the holder of the gun . . . . Sheesh. I thought that's what props were for.
__________________
There reasoning was authenticity . I don't believe it was mags only but rather included most firearms that are banned in CA and the mags just got lumped in with everything else . I don't remember the year they were exempted but to a point it's understandable . It would be kind of lame if the guns in movies did not look like the real thing . How ever now with the advancement of CGI I'm not sure how important it is the actors are actually holding a real MP5 with high cap mag , they can edit that in later .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 4, 2019, 12:20 PM   #55
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,805
Quote:
How ever now with the advancement of CGI I'm not sure how important it is the actors are actually holding a real MP5 with high cap mag , they can edit that in later .
Sure, they could, but at what cost?? CGI is wonderful, when done well, and pretty good even when it isn't, but it is something that costs money and takes an amount of time.

Why bother with it (and its costs) if the "real" thing is available?? It used to be Stembridge Rentals was the biggest legal machine gun owner in the US. I heard they broke up into other companies now, but there are people still doing the same thing, RENTING real guns, and prop guns (blank firing only) to the movie industry.

Actor needs an MP5 for the role? Rent one (and the mags, harness, etc, film your actor with it, and you're good to go. Since there's no sale or actual transfer, its not covered under the "ban" laws, generally, and there are (I believe) exceptions allowing it in the law, where it would otherwise be covered.


To me, and admittedly I'm a total outsider with no detailed info on how movies get made these days, but to me, it seems that the rental cost of a "banned" gun or magazine would be lower than having the CGI staff create it and put it in the actors hands in editing.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 4, 2019, 01:28 PM   #56
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
To me, and admittedly I'm a total outsider with no detailed info on how movies get made these days, but to me, it seems that the rental cost of a "banned" gun or magazine would be lower than having the CGI staff create it and put it in the actors hands in editing.
Agreed but my overall point was there is no actual need for the exemption anymore . Wouldn't be nice if in my good cause letter for my CA CCW my good cause could be , Well it's cheaper to carry a firearm for self defense then hire security ? Not sure cost is relevant to banning these full semi auto clips .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 4, 2019, 01:34 PM   #57
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44_AMP
Actor needs an MP5 for the role? Rent one (and the mags, harness, etc, film your actor with it, and you're good to go. Since there's no sale or actual transfer, its not covered under the "ban" laws, generally, and there are (I believe) exceptions allowing it in the law, where it would otherwise be covered.
Except that transfer generally refers to possession, not ownership. Under the laws of some states (and the way they are intended, and enforced), a transfer would take place when the rental company turns over the gun(s) to the prop master for a particular film, and another transfer would take place when the prop master turns the weapon over to the actor.

Arguably, when the [cinematic] bad guy frisks the [cinematic] cop and removes the cop's Detective Special from the shoulder holster ... another transfer has occurred.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 4, 2019, 01:57 PM   #58
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,680
Likely part of the cost of renting is having someone from the rental company on set to "lend" the firearms .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 4, 2019, 03:41 PM   #59
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
Likely part of the cost of renting is having someone from the rental company on set to "lend" the firearms .
But according to the recently-enacted law in Washington (or is it Oregon?), even then each time a firearm is physically handed from one person to another constitutes a "transfer."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 4, 2019, 04:16 PM   #60
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,191
Quote:
But according to the recently-enacted law in Washington (or is it Oregon?), even then each time a firearm is physically handed from one person to another constitutes a "transfer."
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?
Sharkbite is online now  
Old April 4, 2019, 05:58 PM   #61
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,242
Quote:
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?
Read it and weep (for the citizens of the state of Washington):

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 4, 2019, 10:34 PM   #62
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,805
Quote:
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?
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..
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 5, 2019, 05:41 AM   #63
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,473
The injunction is stayed at 5PM today.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ing-Appeal.pdf
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 5, 2019, 08:03 AM   #64
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkbite View Post
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?
Is it an assault weapon?

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s...S-116s66is.xml

There are exemptions to transfer provisions for "assault" weapons

Quote:
(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.
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.
publius42 is offline  
Old April 5, 2019, 10:26 AM   #65
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,727
Quote:
The injunction is stayed at 5PM today.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 6, 2019, 03:35 AM   #66
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,805
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?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 6, 2019, 06:22 AM   #67
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 333
that is how I read it here. someone correct me if I am wrong


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...of-5pm-friday/
__________________
L2R
L2R is offline  
Old April 6, 2019, 12:17 PM   #68
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,680
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 .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 6, 2019, 12:28 PM   #69
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,242
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.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 6, 2019, 08:26 PM   #70
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,805
Quote:
They now can just say " I bought them between 3-29-19 and 4-5-19 " and there's nothing anyone can do ????
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 8, 2019, 10:55 AM   #71
BBarn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2015
Posts: 729
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.
BBarn is offline  
Old April 8, 2019, 11:06 AM   #72
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
If the law ends up standing
If the ruling is reversed or the law stands , you will no longer be able to posses them in CA so the receipt does little good regardless .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 8, 2019, 02:30 PM   #73
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 854
Just move to Florida.
davidsog is offline  
Old April 8, 2019, 09:45 PM   #74
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 533
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.
riffraff is offline  
Old April 9, 2019, 10:44 AM   #75
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,908
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.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09747 seconds with 8 queries