The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 12, 2019, 11:28 AM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,836
Legal Cases Involving Magazine Bans and AR15 Magazines

I’m trying to locate cases where someone possessing a standard 30rd AR15 magazine has been arrested and charged for violating a state or local magazine ban. I’m particularly interested in any cases involving .450 Bushmaster, .458 SOCOM, or any of the other bigbore AR calibers that typically use 30 round AR15 magazines for feeding.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 12, 2019, 11:45 AM   #2
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,777
Strictly criminal cases? Or are you also looking for civil challenges, like s1983 cases?
__________________
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 January 12, 2019, 12:38 PM   #3
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
There's some mentioned in these pieces:

https://www.cato.org/publications/le...e-restrictions

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/new...imer/74887236/
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 12, 2019, 07:44 PM   #4
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,836
At this point, I’m still searching very broadly and civil or criminal is useful.

Thanks for the links, Glenn!
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 22, 2019, 07:15 PM   #5
unclejack37
Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2014
Location: Delaware
Posts: 97
Hey Glenn I enjoyed reading the links you posted especially the Cato.org. Thanks. I'll keep it for when it comes time to do battle at legislature hall here in Delaware.
__________________
Blessed by the BEST
unclejack37 is offline  
Old January 23, 2019, 06:02 AM   #6
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,777
BR, my apologies. I meant to do some digging on this, but it fell off of my radar. I'll see if I can turn up anything in Westlaw.
__________________
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 January 23, 2019, 01:32 PM   #7
Schlitz 45
Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2018
Location: Colorado
Posts: 94
Here in Colorado the only times the “high capacity” magazine law has been inforced it was an add on to other offenses that were prosecuted-never a stand alone offense as far as I know. This almost two year old article claims it has been added onto charges 40 times & sites some examples.
https://www.krdo.com/news/colorado-s...-ban/323772960
Schlitz 45 is offline  
Old January 24, 2019, 09:54 AM   #8
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
Here's a Glock mag case - https://buffalonews.com/2017/04/23/n...apons-charges/

I have a suggestion, Bart, that you look at the state gun forums for ban states such as NY - https://nygunforum.com/threads/veter...8/#post-157079

I searched on SAFE and found this one. There may be more.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com...sing/81416444/
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 17, 2019, 08:15 AM   #9
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,777
Habeas case: James v. Woodford, United States District Court, C.D. California, Docket No. No. CV 06-2882-AHM(E), just popped up in my automated searches: 2007 WL 9733801.

See also Duncan v. Becerra, also out of CA:
"The State of California (“California”), through its Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, appeals the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining California from enforcing California Penal Code §§ 32310(c) & (d) [prohibiting 'high capacity' magazines] . . . . . The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Second Amendment grounds. Thalheimer, 645 F.3d 1109 at 1115. . . . .
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. . . . Second, it did not exceed its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon “that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” . . . . ; and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the magazine for a weapon, Jackson, 746 F.3d at 967 (“ ‘[T]he right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right’ to obtain the bullets necessary to use them.” (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) ) ).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the incorrect level of scrutiny. The district court applied both intermediate scrutiny and what it coined the “simple test” of Heller. The district court found Plaintiffs were likely to succeed under either analysis. Although the district court applied two different tests, there is no reversible error if one of those tests follows the applicable legal principles and the district court ultimately reaches the same conclusion in both analyses.

Here, in its intermediate scrutiny analysis, the district court correctly applied the two-part test outlined in Jackson. The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a “historical pedigree.” Next, the district court concluded, citing Fyock, that section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment right, but, citing Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816 . . . . that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate scrutiny level. The district court concluded that California had identified four “important” interests and reasoned that the proper question was “whether the dispossession and criminalization components of [section] 32310’s ban on firearm magazines holding any more than 10 rounds is a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals.”

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that sections 32310(c) and (d) did not survive intermediate scrutiny. The district court’s review of the evidence included numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence, as well as repeated credibility determinations. Ultimately, the district court concluded that section 32310 is “not likely to be a reasonable fit.” California articulates no actual error made by the district court, but, rather, multiple instances where it disagrees with the district court’s conclusion or analysis regarding certain pieces of evidence. This is insufficient to establish that the district court’s findings of fact and its application of the legal standard to those facts were “illogical, *222 implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.” . . . .

2 The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Takings Clause grounds. Thalheimer, 645 F.3d at 1115. First, the district court, . . . . outlined the correct legal principles. Second, the district court did not exceed its discretion by concluding (1) that the three options provided in section 32310(d) (surrender, removal, or sale) fundamentally “deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of property rights”; and (2) that California could not use the police power to avoid compensation, . . . .

AFFIRMED."

Duncan v. Becerra, 742 F. App'x 218, 220–22 (9th Cir. 2018)

On the other hand, see Wiese v. Becerra, from the E.D. of CA:
"This case concerns a challenge to California's prohibition on the possession of gun magazines that can hold more than ten bullets, or “large capacity” magazines (“LCM”). Although California had banned the purchase, sale, transfer, receipt, or manufacture of such magazines since 2000, it did not ban the possession of these magazines. Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2015). In effect, Californians were allowed to keep large capacity magazines they had obtained prior to 2000, but no one, with a few exceptions such as law enforcement officers, has been allowed to obtain new large capacity magazines since 2000.: Wiese v. Becerra, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1194 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

"Here, as discussed in the court's prior order, intermediate scrutiny is appropriate because “the prohibition of ...large capacity magazines does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.” See Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1262; Fyock, 779 F.3d at 999 (quoting Heller II). The ban may implicate the core of the Second Amendment because it restricts the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess large capacity magazines within their homes for self-defense. See Fyock, 779 F.3d at 999. However, the ban “does not affect the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess the ‘quintessential self-defense weapon’—the handgun. Rather, [it] restricts possession of only a subset of magazines that are over a certain capacity.” Id. . . . ."Wiese v. Becerra, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1196 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

"Thus, notwithstanding plaintiffs' allegations that the ban will not in fact reduce the incidence and harm of mass shootings, California's stated interest of reducing the incidence and harm of mass shootings “would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation,” Fyock, 779 F.3d at 1000, and there is a reasonable fit between the ban and California's important objectives. Because of this reasonable fit, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the large capacity magazine ban fails intermediate scrutiny, and the court will dismiss the Second Amendment claim. . . . ." Wiese v. Becerra, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1197 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

(Clearly, I got a bee in my bonnet about this thread today.)
__________________
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 February 20, 2019, 09:30 AM   #10
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,802
i've done some serious googling.

Can't find one stand alone case of illegal possession of high (normal) capacity magazines. In every case there were other charges such as terroristic threatening, DUI, dope charges, firearms possession charges, etc.

The first Colorado case involved a guy who planned to kill a security guard and burn a college campus building:

https://www.cpr.org/news/newsbeat/co...ine-possession

A CT case:

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/News/...rom-rifle.html

Boston:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...HyL/story.html

Think about it: Illegal possession of high (normal) capacity magazines makes a great add on charge for the prosecutor.
thallub is online now  
Old February 20, 2019, 12:18 PM   #11
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
From the Boston case:

Quote:
A 70-year-old man was arrested for possession of an assault rifle and high-capacity magazines containing more than 350 rounds of ammunition
That describes thousands of potential 70 or older felons in TX. Come to a carbine match and you could net about 30 felons.

Don't want to divert coming up with cases for a general discussion of bans though. I'm bad.

Here's another report:
https://www.inquisitr.com/475217/105...y-one-of-them/

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/...es-into-state/
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer 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 12:39 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 0.06237 seconds with 10 queries