California standard-capacity mag ban challenge--Duncan v. Bonta

1
Previous title: "California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged"

Duncan v. Becerra
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/upl ... plaint.pdf
56. Section 32310 makes it a crime for individuals to continue to possess
magazines that they lawfully acquired and presently lawfully possess.
57. By forcing individuals who would otherwise keep their lawfully acquired
property to instead physically surrender that property without government compensation,
Section 32310 effects a per se unconstitutional taking. See Horne, 135 S. Ct. at 2427.
58. In the alternative, to the extent that Section 32310 does not constitute a physical
taking, it is an unconstitutional regulatory taking.
Different California case:
Amicus brief filed in Garcia v. Becerra
Last edited by DispositionMatrix on Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

4
Interesting country we live in, where you buy something legally, own it legally.
And because a group of men and women sit in a room and choose to say you can't have them.
That gives them the right to take possession of your property just because they passes a draconian law.

Thats like having guest over your house and taking everyone wallet to keep for your own just cause
you don't allow wallets in your house anymore. If I did it though it would be theft.
If California does it, its business as usual move along nothing to see here.

Sometimes I just hang my head and go wow, just wow.

In closing this is important to watch, because if ever a firearms confiscation ever was entertained such laws would show how it might go down.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights, are our civil rights, for all people.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

5
Honestly I think this one will go like Connecticut's restrictions: there will be a good degree of non-compliance but very little to no pursuit of enforcement unless it practically falls into law enforcement's lap. Anyone who doesn't register won't take them out to the range any more for fear of arrest, and they'll stay somewhere gathering dust until their owners are either arrested for something else (in which case the firearms will be destroyed), the owners move out of state and take the firearms with them, or the owners die of old age/illness in which case their surviving relatives won't want to deal with the hassle involved with those firearms and turn them over to law enforcement (in which case the firearms will be destroyed).

The only confiscation efforts we may see will most likely occur in impoverished and/or mostly POC neighborhoods. SWAT isn't going to roll up to some McMansion in the Hollywood hills or any of the swanky homes that keep getting built on the still-cooling ashes of last year's wildfires; the optics of that would suck and everybody knows it. If they're going to go after guns, they're going to go after people the public sees as inherently inclined to criminality. But for the most part they're going to sit back and let things take their course even though like Connecticut there will be thousands upon thousands of people out there that they've told us are inevitably going to snap and shoot up an elementary school, and they're going to sit back and do that because it's never been about stopping the next big mass murder. It's about de-incentivizing firearms ownership through onerous regulations and gradually whittling down the overall number of firearms owners.
My official title is Doctor Mister Hunter Of Skullyness. Don't ask me, ask Fukshot.

The moral certainty of the crusader is as much a comfort to them as it is a burden to those in the path of their crusade.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

7
TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:Honestly I think this one will go like Connecticut's restrictions: there will be a good degree of non-compliance but very little to no pursuit of enforcement unless it practically falls into law enforcement's lap. Anyone who doesn't register won't take them out to the range any more for fear of arrest, and they'll stay somewhere gathering dust until their owners are either arrested for something else (in which case the firearms will be destroyed), the owners move out of state and take the firearms with them, or the owners die of old age/illness in which case their surviving relatives won't want to deal with the hassle involved with those firearms and turn them over to law enforcement (in which case the firearms will be destroyed).

The only confiscation efforts we may see will most likely occur in impoverished and/or mostly POC neighborhoods. SWAT isn't going to roll up to some McMansion in the Hollywood hills or any of the swanky homes that keep getting built on the still-cooling ashes of last year's wildfires; the optics of that would suck and everybody knows it. If they're going to go after guns, they're going to go after people the public sees as inherently inclined to criminality. But for the most part they're going to sit back and let things take their course even though like Connecticut there will be thousands upon thousands of people out there that they've told us are inevitably going to snap and shoot up an elementary school, and they're going to sit back and do that because it's never been about stopping the next big mass murder. It's about de-incentivizing firearms ownership through onerous regulations and gradually whittling down the overall number of firearms owners.
Y'all have been doing that in California ever since the Black Pathers and St.Ronnie was Governor.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

9
Attorneys general unite in support of California magazine ban
In response to a federal lawsuit by several California residents in conjunction with the state’s National Rifle Association affiliate who argue the state’s prohibition against “high-capacity magazines” violates their Second Amendment rights, Washington D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and attorneys general from a dozen other states are siding with California.

“The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment is not a blank check allowing the use of any kind of gun at any time or in any fashion,” Racine said in a statement from his office. “States like California are within their rights to enact reasonable gun laws, and courts shouldn’t overrule sensible, evidence-based policy decisions that enhance public safety and can save lives.”
Racine, in his 26-page friend of the court brief, contends nothing in the Second Amendment prevents states and the District from enacting gun regulations and the injunction ordered earlier this summer “unnecessarily hobbles California’s ability to enact public safety legislation.”
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

10
courts shouldn’t overrule sensible, evidence-based policy decisions that enhance public safety and can save lives.”
Care to share that evidence, Mr. Attorney General? I support evidence-based policy also, but so far haven't seen such.

The "evidence" provided by California was generally interpreted by the court as hogwash and actually proving the need for high capacity magazines, per the injunction opinion.
The State’s preliminary theoretical and empirical evidence is inconclusive. In fact,
it would be reasonable to infer, based on the State’s evidence, that a right to possess
magazines that hold more than 10 rounds may promote self-defense – especially in the
home – and would be ordinarily useful for a citizen’s militia use. California must provide
more than a rational basis to justify its sweeping ban on mere possession.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/upl ... nction.pdf

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

11
From Duncan v. Becerra. This is worth a read for the questions Judge Benitez asks Echeverria, the attorney with the California AG's office. Part of Benitez's closing statement is below.
https://www.scribd.com/document/3799966 ... l-Argument
MY CONCERN, MY CONCERN IS THIS: THE BILL OF RIGHTS WASN'T ADOPTED BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME PEOPLE SITTING IN SOME THEORETICAL ROOM SOMEWHERE STROKING THEIR CHIN AND GOING: WELL, I'M GOING TO THINK BIG THOUGHTS TODAY. AND YEAH, I GOT AN IDEA. HEY, I TELL YOU WHAT. LET'S DO THIS. LET'S PASS AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT DISARM THE POPULATION. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. THAT'S NOT WHY IT HAPPENED AT ALL. IT HAPPENED BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HAD JUST LIVED, THEY HAD JUST LIVED THROUGH AN EXPERIENCE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT, THE VERY GOVERNMENT -- MR. ECHEVERRIA, YOU'RE HERE REPRESENTING THE STATE -- THE VERY GOVERNMENT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS WAS IN FACT ABUSING ITS CITIZENS, AND IT WAS DOING IT ALL UNDER THE PRETENSE OF LAW.

TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THEY WERE USING SOMETHING CALLED THE WRIT OF ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO COME INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND TO SEARCH AND ARREST AND HAUL PEOPLE AWAY. PEOPLE VERY OFTEN FORGET THAT THE FIRST BATTLE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR WAS FOUGHT ON APRIL -- I BELIEVE IT WAS APRIL 19TH, 1775. AND IT WAS FOUGHT, WHY? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED IT WAS GOING TO DISARM, IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, IT WAS GOING TO DISARM THE PUBLIC, THE COLONISTS. AND THEY MARCHED UPON LEXINGTON AND CONCORD TO DISARMTHE POPULATION. AND SO WHEN THEY WERE DRAFTING THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THESE PEOPLE WHO HAD JUST LIVED THROUGH THIS EXPERIENCE -- THIS WASN'T THEORETICAL. IT WASN'T HYPOTHETICAL. IT WASN'T SOME BIG THINK TANK MOVEMENT. THEY LIVED THROUGH THIS, AND THEY DECIDED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE WANT TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY CANNOT DO. YOU CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS. YOU CAN TELL PEOPLE YOU CAN'T DRIVE CARS WITH TINTED WINDOWS. YOU CAN TELL PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GFCI IN YOUR BATHROOM AND EVERY OTHER 20 FEET. YOU CAN TELL ME YOU MUST WEAR A SEATBELT. NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. BUT THE PEOPLE WHO FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY -- WHO IN MY OPINION WERE SOME OF THE SMARTEST PEOPLE EVER ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET -- CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA, CAME UP WITH THIS EXPERIMENT, AND THEY WERE VERY MUCH AFRAID, VERY MUCH AFRAID THAT THEY MIGHT PERHAPS BE FACING IN THE FUTURE THE VERY SAME THING THEY JUST LIVED THROUGH, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. THEY DID NOT WANT TO THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY COULD DO AND WHAT THEY COULD NOT DO WITH REGARDS TO CERTAIN THINGS.

NOW WE UNDERSTAND, REALLY, WE UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE, THAT IN THE REAL WORLD, YOU CAN'T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. BUT JUST THINK ABOUT HOW MANY LIVES COULD BE SAVED IF WE SIMPLY SAID: FOURTH AMENDMENT, THAT'S A NICE THOUGHT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO. THERE'S A GREATER PUBLIC INTEREST IN ALLOWING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BARGE INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSE AND SEARCH THEIR HOUSES WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. FIFTH AMENDMENT. THINK OF HOW MANY MORE CRIMES COULD BE SOLVED, HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD BE SAVED IF WE COULD COERCE CONFESSIONS FROM PEOPLE. YEAH, FIFTH AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OUTWEIGHS PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO NOT INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES. SO I THINK THIS IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO SEE CHILDREN BEING SHOT AND KILLED OR OTHER PEOPLE BEING SHOT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING SHOT. BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATE GETS TO HAVE ITS WAY HOWEVER IT WANTS, WHENEVER IT WANTS, UNDER SOME RUBRIC THAT, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S A REASONABLE FIT. BECAUSE, AS I ASKED MR. ECHEVERRIA OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHEN IS IT NOT A REASONABLE FIT? HOW DO WE MAKE THAT DECISION? AND MY QUESTION IS: ARE WE NOT THERE? LOOK AT ALL OF THE LAWS, ALL OF THE REGULATIONS. I'VE LOOKED AT ALL THIS EVIDENCE, AND FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THE GUN LAWS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, HAVE WE REALLY DONE ANYTHING AT ALL TO SOLVE THE GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. NO. WE JUST KEEP WHITTLING AWAY AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, KEEP WHITTLING AWAY, WHITTLING AWAY UNTIL EVENTUALLY WE'LL GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'LL BE WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO OWN ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND OF AMMUNITION BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THAT WILL BE A REASONABLE FIT.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

12
FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THE GUN LAWS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, HAVE WE REALLY DONE ANYTHING AT ALL TO SOLVE THE GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. NO. WE JUST KEEP WHITTLING AWAY AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, KEEP WHITTLING AWAY, WHITTLING AWAY UNTIL EVENTUALLY WE'LL GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'LL BE WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO OWN ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND OF AMMUNITION BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THAT WILL BE A REASONABLE FIT.
That's it right there. A "reasonable fit" would be to mess with age laws with respect to firearms ownership. That fit would include universal back ground checks. And that fit would include ways family, friends, coworkers, and health professionals could TEMPORARILY remove guns to safe keeping if the owner were adjudicated to be a danger to self and others.

An "unreasonable fit" would be to impose magazine size requirements, to outlaw ammunition that is not toxic, to outlaw features on weapons, and all the other idiotic stuff we've seen.

Whether requiring classes and/or training in order to own guns is a very good topic of discussion. I would not mind taking a required class and taking refresher course every like five years. But that is open to discussion.

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
They say that Cain caught Abel rollin' loaded dice
Ace of Spades behind his ear and him not thinkin' twice

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

13
I read that yesterday. It's so refreshing to see a judge that understands that the incremental approach does indeed rise to infringement at some point. I'd say California passed that mile marker some time ago. A reasonable fit must include conclusive evidence that the restriction benefits the public good--otherwise, we're in the realm of conjecture, as the judge notes. The state has yet to provide such evidence in this case, preferring to argue that reasonable fit means side with the state because it knows best. His order from last year on the preliminary injunction is great--he trashes the state's evidence (link in post #10 above).

Here is a slight glimmer of hope that some 2nd A challenge might succeed.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

15
shinzen wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 11:17 am I'm sure it will be appealed and go to the 9th, we'll see what happens there.
Unfortunately, I think we already know.

I wonder though, since the judge cites Miller and Heller so often and what the 2nd does and doesn't protect, is he setting up for the appeal to the US Supreme Court? I'm not familiar enough with the process to know if it has any bearing or not. It was a refreshing read, nonetheless.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

16
Judge Benitez issued an injunction last year in Duncan vs Becerra and the state appealed to the 9th Circuit.
http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

The judge, Roger Benitez is Cuban-American appointed to the federal bench by George W Bush.

Interesting quote.
THE COURT [Judge Benitez]: SO AS I WAS READING THIS, IT DAWNED ON ME THAT THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY NEEDS THE LARGER CAPACITY MAGAZINES FOR SELF-DEFENSE IS THE CIVILIAN WHO DOESN'T GET TO GO TO THE FIRING RANGE, YOU KNOW, THREE TIMES A YEAR OR FOUR TIMES A YEAR; WHO DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE PROGRAMS, FOR EXAMPLE, DOWNSTAIRS AT THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE WHERE THEY HAVE THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS YOU GO THROUGH AND YOU GET TO IDENTIFY "DO I SHOOT OR NOT SHOOT," RIGHT? SO LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS FEWER ROUNDS BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE TRAINING THAN THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN WHO IS AT HOME AND DOESN'T HAVE THAT CONSTANT KIND OF TRAINING. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

17
highdesert wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 12:18 pm Judge Benitez issued an injunction last year in Duncan vs Becerra and the state appealed to the 9th Circuit.
http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

The judge, Roger Benitez is Cuban-American appointed to the federal bench by George W Bush.

Interesting quote.
THE COURT [Judge Benitez]: SO AS I WAS READING THIS, IT DAWNED ON ME THAT THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY NEEDS THE LARGER CAPACITY MAGAZINES FOR SELF-DEFENSE IS THE CIVILIAN WHO DOESN'T GET TO GO TO THE FIRING RANGE, YOU KNOW, THREE TIMES A YEAR OR FOUR TIMES A YEAR; WHO DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE PROGRAMS, FOR EXAMPLE, DOWNSTAIRS AT THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE WHERE THEY HAVE THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS YOU GO THROUGH AND YOU GET TO IDENTIFY "DO I SHOOT OR NOT SHOOT," RIGHT? SO LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS FEWER ROUNDS BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE TRAINING THAN THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN WHO IS AT HOME AND DOESN'T HAVE THAT CONSTANT KIND OF TRAINING. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?
That is a substantial quote there. Poor marksmen need more rounds. True, that.

This reminds folks to practice, practice, practice.

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
They say that Cain caught Abel rollin' loaded dice
Ace of Spades behind his ear and him not thinkin' twice

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

18
On magazine capacity bans being a form of disarmament:
THE COURT: ... AND YOU HAVE YOUR GLOCK 17 WITH A PERMANENTLY MODIFIED MAGAZINE THAT ONLY HOLDS 10 ROUNDS, AND YOU FIRED ALL 10 ROUNDS BECAUSE YOU'RE SCARED. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TRAINED TO HIT WHAT YOU'RE SHOOTING AT, BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT YOURSELF OR YOUR DAUGHTER, AND YOU FIRE ALL 10 ROUNDS, AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE STILL COMING AT YOU. ARE YOU OR ARE YOU NOT DISARMED AT THAT POINT IN TIME?

MR. ECHEVERRIA: YOU CAN HAVE ANY NUMBER OF MAGAZINES ON YOUR POSSESSION.

THE COURT: WHAT IS SHE GOING TO DO, COUNSEL, REALISTICALLY? REALISTICALLY. LET'S BE REAL
Last edited by awshoot on Sat May 26, 2018 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

19
Also, search for "Seal Team 6" where the judge is giving the AAG a hard time about why it is that a movie studio and a retired sherrif who is 80 with macular degeneration living in a podunk town can have the mags, but anyone in the Army, Navy, Marines, etc. would be a criminal for having one. The theory is that the police are trained. Echeverria basically dodged the question of whether this was rational by saying it is part of the legislative process. It starts around page 77. Here's a sweet part:
... SO MY QUESTION IS WHEN IN THE STACK OF EVIDENCE THAT I SEE HERE THEY SAY, WELL, OFFICERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THESE BECAUSE THEY HAVE GREATER TRAINING, I ASK MYSELF: GREATER TRAINING THEN, ARE YOU KIDDING ME, THAN A MEMBER OF THE SEAL TEAM6 GROUP? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? GREATER TRAINING THAN A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER HAS BETTER SKILLS, BETTER TRAINING THAN A RETIRED SEAL TEAMSIX MEMBER? ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT BECAUSE OF THIS SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER ALL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE HONORABLY SERVED THIS COUNTRY AND PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE -- MANY OF THEM HAVE LOST LEGS, ARMS, SO ON -- BUT YOU CAN'T POSSESS A MAGAZINE THAT HAS MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS. BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS EXCEPTION. THE EXCEPTION IS THAT IF YOU WORK FOR THE MOVIE INDUSTRY, YOU CAN HAVE IT. IF YOU'RE A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, YOU CAN HAVE IT. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT -- YOU USED THE WORD COMMON SENSE EARLIER ON, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE IN THAT ONE. ...

***

MR. ECHEVERRIA: ... THE STATE IS SAYING THAT LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES ARE DANGEROUS AND PEOPLE CAN --

THE COURT: BUT NOT IF THEY'RE POSSESSED BY RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICE OFFICERS, 80-YEAR-OLD POLICE OFFICERS WHO MAY BE SUFFERING FROM MACULAR DEGENERATION AND WHO --
As an aside, I despise scribd -- anyone know where the PDF can just be downloaded?

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

20
awshoot wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 11:10 am On magazine capacity bans being a form of disarmament:
THE COURT: OR TRY. AND YOU HAVE YOUR GLOCK 17 WITH A PERMANENTLY MODIFIED MAGAZINE THAT ONLY HOLDS 10 ROUNDS, AND YOU FIRED ALL 10 ROUNDS BECAUSE YOU'RE SCARED. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TRAINED TO HIT WHAT YOU'RE SHOOTING AT, BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT YOURSELF OR YOUR DAUGHTER, AND YOU FIRE ALL 10 ROUNDS, AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE STILL COMING AT YOU. ARE YOU OR ARE YOU NOT DISARMED AT THAT POINT IN TIME?

MR. ECHEVERRIA: YOU CAN HAVE ANY NUMBER OF MAGAZINES ON YOUR POSSESSION.

THE COURT: WHAT IS SHE GOING TO DO, COUNSEL, REALISTICALLY? REALISTICALLY. LET'S BE REAL
Yep. The idea that you can have multiple 10 round magazines is great until you can't. The same idea that a reload gives a victim a chance to escape is also a chance for your attacker to finish you off. How about root cause instead of a magazine limit.

Yes, BS on the exemptions as well. The unsaid argument the police have is "but the criminals have them". Yet the state wants the average person to face a criminal with less rounds, no common sense there for sure.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

23
awshoot wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 11:24 am Also, search for "Seal Team 6" where the judge is giving the AAG a hard time about why it is that a movie studio and a retired sherrif who is 80 with macular degeneration living in a podunk town can have the mags, but anyone in the Army, Navy, Marines, etc. would be a criminal for having one. The theory is that the police are trained. Echeverria basically dodged the question of whether this was rational by saying it is part of the legislative process. It starts around page 77. Here's a sweet part:
... SO MY QUESTION IS WHEN IN THE STACK OF EVIDENCE THAT I SEE HERE THEY SAY, WELL, OFFICERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THESE BECAUSE THEY HAVE GREATER TRAINING, I ASK MYSELF: GREATER TRAINING THEN, ARE YOU KIDDING ME, THAN A MEMBER OF THE SEAL TEAM6 GROUP? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? GREATER TRAINING THAN A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER HAS BETTER SKILLS, BETTER TRAINING THAN A RETIRED SEAL TEAMSIX MEMBER? ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT BECAUSE OF THIS SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER ALL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE HONORABLY SERVED THIS COUNTRY AND PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE -- MANY OF THEM HAVE LOST LEGS, ARMS, SO ON -- BUT YOU CAN'T POSSESS A MAGAZINE THAT HAS MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS. BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS EXCEPTION. THE EXCEPTION IS THAT IF YOU WORK FOR THE MOVIE INDUSTRY, YOU CAN HAVE IT. IF YOU'RE A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, YOU CAN HAVE IT. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT -- YOU USED THE WORD COMMON SENSE EARLIER ON, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE IN THAT ONE. ...

***

MR. ECHEVERRIA: ... THE STATE IS SAYING THAT LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES ARE DANGEROUS AND PEOPLE CAN --

THE COURT: BUT NOT IF THEY'RE POSSESSED BY RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICE OFFICERS, 80-YEAR-OLD POLICE OFFICERS WHO MAY BE SUFFERING FROM MACULAR DEGENERATION AND WHO --
As an aside, I despise scribd -- anyone know where the PDF can just be downloaded?
I have wondered the same about former military personnel. Also with California having multiple active duty bases is there an exemption for active duty personnel and their dependents, many who live off base? They are transferred here and may be coming from a gun friendly state like Texas with assault rifles and large capacity magazines. What are they to do, sell it all before moving?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: California's standard-capacity mag ban challenged

24
TrueTexan wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:49 pm
awshoot wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 11:24 am Also, search for "Seal Team 6" where the judge is giving the AAG a hard time about why it is that a movie studio and a retired sherrif who is 80 with macular degeneration living in a podunk town can have the mags, but anyone in the Army, Navy, Marines, etc. would be a criminal for having one. The theory is that the police are trained. Echeverria basically dodged the question of whether this was rational by saying it is part of the legislative process. It starts around page 77. Here's a sweet part:
... SO MY QUESTION IS WHEN IN THE STACK OF EVIDENCE THAT I SEE HERE THEY SAY, WELL, OFFICERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THESE BECAUSE THEY HAVE GREATER TRAINING, I ASK MYSELF: GREATER TRAINING THEN, ARE YOU KIDDING ME, THAN A MEMBER OF THE SEAL TEAM6 GROUP? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? GREATER TRAINING THAN A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER HAS BETTER SKILLS, BETTER TRAINING THAN A RETIRED SEAL TEAMSIX MEMBER? ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT BECAUSE OF THIS SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER ALL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE HONORABLY SERVED THIS COUNTRY AND PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE -- MANY OF THEM HAVE LOST LEGS, ARMS, SO ON -- BUT YOU CAN'T POSSESS A MAGAZINE THAT HAS MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS. BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS EXCEPTION. THE EXCEPTION IS THAT IF YOU WORK FOR THE MOVIE INDUSTRY, YOU CAN HAVE IT. IF YOU'RE A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, YOU CAN HAVE IT. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT -- YOU USED THE WORD COMMON SENSE EARLIER ON, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE IN THAT ONE. ...

***

MR. ECHEVERRIA: ... THE STATE IS SAYING THAT LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES ARE DANGEROUS AND PEOPLE CAN --

THE COURT: BUT NOT IF THEY'RE POSSESSED BY RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICE OFFICERS, 80-YEAR-OLD POLICE OFFICERS WHO MAY BE SUFFERING FROM MACULAR DEGENERATION AND WHO --
As an aside, I despise scribd -- anyone know where the PDF can just be downloaded?
I have wondered the same about former military personnel. Also with California having multiple active duty bases is there an exemption for active duty personnel and their dependents, many who live off base? They are transferred here and may be coming from a gun friendly state like Texas with assault rifles and large capacity magazines. What are they to do, sell it all before moving?
As I mentioned on another thread, law enforcement lobbying groups are very strong in Sacramento among Republicans and Democrats. They seem to get whatever they want. We lost a lot of military installations in CA: March AFB, Norton AFB, George AFB, Hamilton AFB, Mather AFB, Castle AFB, The Presidio (SF) home of the 6th Army etc.

Looks like there is a permit that active duty must complete for assault weapons.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agwe ... awpapp.pdf

A discussion on Calguns.
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/sho ... ?t=1291160
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 0 guests

cron