Quoted:
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.

Quoted:

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.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:

David05111 is Mr contradictory in this thread. I wouldn't absolutely rely on anything he wrote.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:

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".

Quoted:

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".

Quoted:
Know most people are up to speed, but just sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHOTsk_fe8

Quoted:

I believe he specifically wrote parts of his ruling to give points of arguments in a higher court.

Example the way he stated that a magazine is the same as a firearm and is protected. Also brought in "common use". I think he was prepping the battlefield.

Quoted:

Agreed.  I love his writings on 2a stuff.  He attempts to address and counter every opposing argument.  They're well-reasoned.

Trouble is, opposing Judges don't always agree on these things.  And this will be a de novo review, so they'll review everything themselves and make up their own minds.

Man, I'd love him on SCOTUS though

Quoted:

I emailed calguns admins and offered free mags, and included other opportunities to get mags. I'm not a member there but I've seen jack and shit on my offer.

Quoted:
Very simple people. You buy mags until 5:00pm PST your golden. Done.

Quoted:

hard to argue that thousands and thousands of mags that at SCMs aren't " common use" as well as then hit at the enforcfement NIGHTMARE that things just became, oh that magpul is obviously post 94, but that metal unlabeled magazine...

Quoted:

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....

Quoted:

Don't want it to go to SCOTUS until RBG is taken off life support.

Quoted:

Don't want it to go to SCOTUS until RBG is taken off life support.

Quoted:

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.

Quoted:

They did. in lower quantities and in less variety, but they did. But magazines are not something that people "wanted one" of. They want bulk mags at PSA prices. That's what has been different the last week. Greater options, greater variety at lower prices. Thats obvious to nearly everyone in this thread, but you.

Quoted:

LOL. You might want to look at the work "or" in the stay.

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

Quoted:
Any and all Arfcommers in my view have officially placed their orders through me before April5, 2019; 8pm Eastern. If I just ny chance didn't check my IM inbox. You guys are still considered the official owners. As such, when time allows. Your mags will be mailed out.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:

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?  

Quoted:

That's no lie.  Never know what Roberts would do at this point.  Trump's window, assuming he's not going to get a second term, is closing during which he can appoint someone without controversy though.  We held the dems off on Garland for like 8 months or something during the election year.  I'd say that Trump has about a year left before there would be a lot of political flak from him trying to appoint a replacement for her during an election season.

Quoted:

Thats unfortunate. Haven't logged in there in a while, but I can't imagine why you haven't been bombarded with PMs. I hate to think they're too afraid of the next 24 hours being considered a grey area legally. As far as I'm concerned, we're good to order or obtain mags by any means until 5pm PST tomorrow. I just walked my brother in law (he's new to the AR thing) through ordering 10 pmags via Primary Arms.

Also.. anyone here in CA need a 32 round P226 mag in what could be 9mm or 40mm? As far as I know the 9mm and 40mm are interchangeable for the P226. I don't own a Sig, but was given the mag as a rebuild when buying rebuild kits was still legal in CA... since the ruling, its been assembled and is now protected. Don't know the brand, but it appears to be functional. I can send it out tomorrow morning before work to the first person to PM me.

Quoted:
At what number do you guys think would be considered “common use”?

I wonder if the legal team would work with the big distributors during this window to get an estimate of mags sold and then push more for common use?

What is the next step? Appeal to 9th Circuit? Then if they shut it do it goes to US Surpreme Court? Just trying to wrap my brain around the entire process.

Quoted:
At what number do you guys think would be considered “common use”?

I wonder if the legal team would work with the big distributors during this window to get an estimate of mags sold and then push more for common use?

What is the next step? Appeal to 9th Circuit? Then if they shut it do it goes to US Surpreme Court? Just trying to wrap my brain around the entire process.

Quoted:

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

Quoted:
How do you confirm magazine purchase date?

Quoted:
How do you confirm magazine purchase date?

Quoted:

Lawful to possess. in fact they were never unlawful to buy. The legislature made it illegal to sell, give, offer for sale, import or manufacture. But buying and finding were technically legal. if you sold me a standard capacity mag in California you were breaking the law as the seller, but as the buyer i was not committing a crime.

Repairing magazines was allowed, to include replacing all of the parts. As long as the number of mags remained the same, you were pretty much unlimited in how creative your repair was. beat to hell USGI surplus mags got "repaired" into PMAGs with the blessing or DOJ for many years.

There was a 3-statute of limitations on importation. if a cop wanted to bust you for importing mags he either had to catch you in the act, or he had some really high hurdles. Location of violation to start with. Date and Time of violation as well. The LA county DA cannot prosecute you for the unlawful importation of magazines that occurred in Riverside county as you crossed in from Nevada, for example.

As such, there have been practically zero stand alone charges for magazine law violations.

Quoted:

I emailed calguns admins and offered free mags, and included other opportunities to get mags. I'm not a member there but I've seen jack and shit on my offer.