Not to my knowledge. But just bringing up the truth. Money talks. LOUDLY.

Typically a stay is asked for immediately after a ruling like this is handed down that overturns a statute, but in this case it wasn't.  More on that below.

The enforcement date of the law is the date which the legislature enacted it, not when a Court does something with it.  You have to think of the whole lawsuit process as one big cohesive event with multiple parts.  It comes down to the function of the different levels of the courts.

Typically, the District Court deals with the facts and applies relevant law to come to a conclusion on the case.

The Federal Court of Appeals has multiple ways of looking at a case, depending on what specifically the appealing party asks for.  For instance, most of the time an appeals court looks at errors in application of the law or case procedure.  So if something was misapplied and is obviously wrong or if some procedure wasn't followed correctly, that's one thing that the Court of Appeals can look at.  The other way it can look at a case is de novo which essentially means "as new".  In a de novo appeal, the Court of Appeals basically takes everything in the record and has a second look to come to its own conclusion.  De novo appeals are fairly common, and I'm sure that's what will be asked for in this case.

But what I'm getting at is that under de novo appeal, you can basically imagine that the first court never ruled.  The Appeals Court is going to make up its own mind as though its the first court to see it.  It doesn't go through a fact-finding mission again, but it looks at everything a second time.  When it looks at this case, it will look at it as though the District Court didn't rule in all liklihood.  Whatever its decision ultimately is, it will be as though its the decision the first Court made.  It will consider the enforcement date of the statute and that will likely be where it continues to see enforcement, should it uphold the statute and overturn Judge Benitez's decision.

If that doesn't go the way the State wants it to, it can ask for another review en banc I think, which basically means that instead of like a 3-judge panel looking at it and deciding what should be done, the entire Court of Appeals has a look at it.  The next step thereafter would be SCOTUS if it accepted the case, but it only accepts like 2% or less of cases appealed to it.

What makes this particular case interesting is that it seems that Plaintiffs and Judge Benitez caught the State of California with its pants down.  In almost every case I can remember, a defendant like the State of California which loses a case like this immediately requests and stay of the ruling pending appeal.  California was absolutely gobsmacked by this ruling and the attorneys representing the State weren't prepared to immediately ask for that stay.  Hell, in some cases, the Judge him or herself will stay their own ruling for 5-7 days to allow the losing side to appeal.  That didn't happen in this case, and people scrambled to buy up as many mags as they could before the stay was granted.

Now we see that Judge Benitez has stayed the ruling partly.  He's stopped the flow of mags into the State (or he thinks he has) and has allowed those who bought the mags that made it in to keep them.  But whenever that stay goes into effect, that's the mags they'll be contending with that are at issue.

I'm not sure if this sort of situation is unprecedented (it likely isn't, but I don't have the info in front of me), but its unusual.  My guess is that if the Court of Appeals overturns it, it'll be appealed again to an en banc review.  And then it'll be appealed again.  If ultimately the mag ban is upheld, I still believe a court is going to go back to the original enforcement date of the statute.

Just look at what happened with the bumpstock stuff.  For 5 years or whatever, bump stocks were legal in the eyes of the BATFE.  But when it reversed and declared them MGs, there was no grandfathering or amnesty by them or the Court.  In the minds of both of them, the relevant date of enforcement was May 1986.  Any machineguns manufactured after that date, under any circumstance, aren't permitted for civilian ownership.

The California mag ban had an enforcement date.  If the Court decides ultimately that the law is constitutional and always has been, it's not really at liberty to set a new date; the date has been set by the legislature passing it.  But as I say, these are unusual circumstances because the ruling wasn't stayed from the moment it was handed down and not only that, it will have been like a week or something before that stay ultimately goes into effect.  Someone mentioned it earlier; its a brilliant tactic by Judge Benitez if he's really thinking of "common use".

Guys if someone in Cali hasn't been able to get mags, I still have 5 aluminum 30 round mags up for grabs for FREE. I can get them sent tomorrow.

ETA: Mags have been claimed! God bless, guys and good luck!

Anyone have a Romy AK drum, PM me. I can't find one anywhere.

Me Ghost Gun DeLeon has illegal family members living with him, IIRC. These “lawmakers” & law “enforcers” are in fact committing felonious (or some type of illegal) acts!...

Let’s not forget Lee.

Good read and explanation.  Thank You

You mean the ones "a friend" gave to you in the last week?  Or the ones that floated up out of the lake from someone's freak boating accident years ago?  Or the ones left anonymously on your back porch last night from a secret admirer?  I've heard tell there are people from all over the country driving through CA in the past few days leaving gift boxes on doorsteps.

I'm sure the 100 PMags you recently came into possession of LEGALLY are from one of those sources, no?

Attached File

@CAScar, I've got 10 FDE if you need them.

You're both right; saying "returned" is awfully stupid, but only because the return window will be well and truly shut from any retailer by the time this winds its way through the process further.

Let's say I'm right though.  Ultimately, the law is upheld and they don't grandfather those mags that have been bought in the past few days.  Owners will have the same three options they've always had.

1)  Destroy them

2)  Keep them, keep their mouth shut, never use them, and risk prosecution.

3)  Sell them out of state.

or

4)  If one of the retailers would take them back, "return" them.

I'm betting 1000-1 right now that the vast majority of those who ordered mags in this window wouldn't keep them.  They'd either destroy them, take/sell them out of state, or give them back if they could.  Why?  Because anyone who has wanted one and doesn't care about the consequences should already have them by now.  And they aren't going to care about this narrow window to buy.  They can buy and store illegally whenever they want.  Some people might join them, but I'm betting that if this is upheld and there's no grandfathering, you're going to see alot of mags on the market and prices plummeting off a cliff.  You're in another world if you think otherwise.

What this has done is effectively grandfathered in a shit ton of magazines that were not possible to legally own before, in many cases to people who had no legal path to ownership.

Worst case if the law is fully upheld, these are only possession violations.

Has anyone else noticed that the news is not covering this, except Fox . But you would think this would be on the front of Yahoo
and Google news feeds but I've been watching all week and nothing. Odd right?

Dave

He's 1/2 Chinese and 1/2 Guatemalan but "strongly identifies with Mexican culture". It would be nice if the slack jawed fuck could identify with American culture.

Undated but more important pre 4/19 dated mags That leaves many, many, many mags haha!

Go CA go! Order the shit out of those mags! Eat ramen, max out the cards, sell your bodies, get those mags in the mail tomorrow!

I might be incorrect on what the law currently says, so please correct me if I'm wrong.  Isn't the current law in California essentially like NY Safe in that there is no grandfathering of mags, even if they were owned like 25 years ago?  I thought that they changed it so that no one could possess a mag over 10 rounds in the state, no matter when it was acquired.

In any case, I stand by what I say.  Just like a run on bumpstocks or post-86 machineguns, the date of enforcement set by the legislature is the relevant one.  That mags bought in this limited window are very grey area and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see them declared contraband if the statute is ultimately upheld.  If that happens, people who bought them will be given a limited window (probably 90 days) to come back into compliance and rid themselves of the magazines they acquired in the last week.  After that, enforcement will resume as it has since the statute was enacted.

I'm confused, so does this mean it's no longer legal to send magazines to California??

Without getting too deep into details, you are incorrect.

The compliance rate with all previous AWBs was ~10%. Entire truckloads of magazine “repair kits” were mail ordered and or sold on forums and at gun shows. And least we not forget about the millions that were purchased pre 2000.

CA was already awash in standard cap magazines long before this started.

Yeah,  I'm definitely getting that RPR now. Ive also got a ruger american 308. I work with a guy his wife works at ruger and gets crazy deals in guns and stuff like vortex.  He got a ffp vortex pst for 549. That's a thousand dollar scope!

The stay goes into effect tomorrow at 5PM PST (8PM EST).  If the recipient has the mags by then, they're fine under the terms of the stay.  But if they haven't received the mags by then, they're in violation of it.

The stay doesn't apply to possession; the enforcement of those relevant provisions is permanently enjoined for the moment.

The manufacture, import, sale, or receipt of mags is ok until 5PM tomorrow.  At that time, enforcement of those relevant provisions will no longer be enjoined pending appeal.

Sorry, so did he order a stay or still no ruling on the stay?

Sorry if repost...

Attached File

Damn.

The school shooter in Florida did not have a single magazine over 10rds. Let that sink in !

Hey that's fine, I knew I could be incorrect on exactly what the terms of the law were.  Someone answer me this.  A week ago, what was the situation with mags over 10 rounds?  No new imports, but those that had them before 2000 or something could keep them?  Just can't transfer them in-state or something?

The thing that always gets me about the compliance rate stuff is that its largely irrelevant.  Are the 90% of people who aren't in compliance regularly taking them to the range or out to shoot?  Or are they collecting dust in a hidden compartment beneath the stairs?  Ultimately with these laws, they're trying to prevent you from using the stuff.  If you have it and hide it, they're pretty happy about that.

So awash or not, if they're all underground and out of sight, they're not all that useful.

He has now; I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in the post you quoted.  It goes into effect 5PM PST tomorrow.  More detail a few posts above.

I respectfully disagree - the Order says "bought".  I'd be comfortable if my transaction was completed on an in stock item because my receipt would have a purchase date on it.

It specifically says bought?

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, 2019and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.Dated:  April 4, 2019

Wut? It reads that ordered mags are fine even if not yet received. Someone confirm???

^^^this. It says bought. Any order time stamped before the deadline is GTG.

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.

How do you confirm magazine purchase date?

That's true.  That is what the order says, now that I have a closer look.  But, the actual portions of the statute referenced [(a) and (b)] also reference "receive", do the not?  I'm trying to find the actual text of the statute to confirm.

Receipt ?

Yes

I also gave all my mags to my two kids who were born after 2000

The emailed purchase confirmation.

Kharn

If you ordered out of stock and paid for it, that sounds like everyone would be good to go.

Exactly!

They are plenty useful and used often.
Only a few areas referred to them as a nuisance item and all they could do is confiscate, no charges.

I see standard capacity magazines all the time where I live. There is little to no enforcement because grandfathered mags are/were not illegal prior to the new law that was stayed anyhow.

In before the 'shopped receipts!

Since ARF hates them now, anyone getting rid of CZ’s for cheap let me know and we can work something out. Cali discount since I don’t need any 10 round mags ??.

...

If this stay sticks around for awhile wouldn't it be impossible to prove that your pre 4/19 dated mags were purchased from 3/29/19 - 4/5/2019?

Some were gifts so no receipts. The law didn't state anywhere that a purchaser was required to keep a receipt of proof of purchase.

A Kali resident could have purchased used mags with any pre 4/19 date code it seems. So all those that were "discovered" pre 4/19 would theoretically be legal. Just a thought.

Yes I think I need to correct myself here, as others have pointed out.  If you buy them before 5PM PST tomorrow (8PM EST), you should be good to go for the moment.

The confusing part of this is that the order basically enforces provisions (a) and (b) of the statute, but doesn't enforce (c) and (d).

(a) reads

I didn't see the actual order text until I read a bit further back in the thread.  The order allows enforcement of only some parts of (a).  Those parts do not include "receipt".

Basically, as stated in the beginning, if you're in CA and get your order in before 5PM tomorrow, you're gtg.

A receipt from your FF Pay pal purchase off the EE

He is in prison though, no?...