TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.reuters.com/article/californ ... SL1N1JR0BY

"If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one's self of lawfully acquired property," Benitez wrote in his 66-page order.

I wonder how long this will stand up in California? We all know they have lost their way out there.

Here's another article.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol- ... story.html

Quote from the CA Lt. Governor.

“Large-capacity magazines serve only one purpose: efficient and effective mass murder,” Newsom said. “Used in almost every mass shooting in the U.S. since the 1990s, large-capacity magazines enable murderers to unleash dozens of rounds without having to stop and reload. They belong in theaters of war, not peaceful communities.”

Here's why I NEED a large capacity magazine.

I'm guessing that this decision will be overturned (and the ban reinstated) by the 9th circuit if it even gets that far. I think it might be a good thing if this gets to the current SCOTUS. If that happens, there is a decent chance that we could see some limits on the ability of states to regulate legally owned guns out of existence.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm guessing that this decision will be overturned (and the ban reinstated) by the 9th circuit if it even gets that far. I think it might be a good thing if this gets to the current SCOTUS. If that happens, there is a decent chance that we could see some limits on the ability of states to regulate legally owned guns out of existence.

If anyone knows the answer to this, can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law? I thought that those types of laws were not Constitutional. In my thinking, that is why this law is different than the previous California magazine law saying that people couldn't buy any more greater-than-10-round-capacity magazines, but could keep their existing ones.

K.Mooneyham wrote:If anyone knows the answer to this, can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law? I thought that those types of laws were not Constitutional. In my thinking, that is why this law is different than the previous California magazine law saying that people couldn't buy any more greater-than-10-round-capacity magazines, but could keep their existing ones.

It's for the children so it must be constitutional.

Here is most likely why the State of California wants to ban them out right, since magazines have no serial numbers and no way to prove when they were bought then there is no way to disprove that you didn't have it before the ban, so they are laying down a blanket prohibition!
I have 4 14rd mags for my 1911 bought in the 90's
20 30rd mags for the AR given to me by my nephew when he returned from Afghanistan
one 13 rd and two 29rd mags for my .45 carbine
None have any serial numbers so no way to prove when they were acquired

crazy2medic wrote:Here is most likely why the State of California wants to ban them out right, since magazines have no serial numbers and no way to prove when they were bought then there is no way to disprove that you didn't have it before the ban, so they are laying down a blanket prohibition!
I have 4 14rd mags for my 1911 bought in the 90's
20 30rd mags for the AR given to me by my nephew when he returned from Afghanistan
one 13 rd and two 29rd mags for my .45 carbine
None have any serial numbers so no way to prove when they were acquired

I think you are being a bit naïve. Personally, I believe that the folks who lead the government of the state of California would like to make all gun ownership illegal. They can't do that completely, but they are doing what they can.

I also don't think the leadership is dumb enough to actually believe this is for increased safety. That is something they tell the rank and file of their party. The real reason is that they see government as a paternal force that is needed to keep the commoners in line, for their own good. They do not believe that people are fundamentally good, or that government should serve only at the behest of the governed. "Common" people having the means to provide for their own security is not consistent with this world view. So guns should only be possessed by the enlightened elite, or by agents of the state.

K.Mooneyham wrote:can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law?

It's not an ex post facto law unless someone can be punished for having possessed such a magazine before the law's effective date. I assume that is not the case with this law.

KLB wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law?

It's not an ex post facto law unless someone can be punished for having possessed such a magazine before the law's effective date. I assume that is not the case with this law.

That's my point, though. If you live in California, and already owned the magazines, then you are being penalized for something that happened prior to the date of the bill becoming law. Also, where is the just compensation for what amounts to the taking of peoples' possessions, unless they could sell them out-of-state?

K.Mooneyham wrote:

KLB wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law?

It's not an ex post facto law unless someone can be punished for having possessed such a magazine before the law's effective date. I assume that is not the case with this law.

That's my point, though. If you live in California, and already owned the magazines, then you are being penalized for something that happened prior to the date of the bill becoming law.

No. You would be penalized for possessing them after the date of the bill becoming law.

Are they gonna send in brown shirt brigades into every household checking mags? Some filthy bum will come in and tell on you, with a notepad and ketchup stain on his wrinkled up shirt he bought 40 years ago...for a good deal mind you, with bold spot to land an airplane and a little 2mm thin pony tail, glasses as crooked as his soul

Here is the NRA link to the injunction.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017062 ... gazine-ban

I have no faith in the ninth circus and believe they will overturn the judge's injunction.

At some point the Scotus will have to elaborate on Heller--something it appears it does not want to do at this time given its refusal to accept other cases we have discussed in the forum.

this judge sounds reasonable, smart even....what on earth is he doing on the bench in CA?

SewTexas wrote:this judge sounds reasonable, smart even....what on earth is he doing on the bench in CA?

Perhaps he's a transplant?

K.Mooneyham wrote:

KLB wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law?

It's not an ex post facto law unless someone can be punished for having possessed such a magazine before the law's effective date. I assume that is not the case with this law.

That's my point, though. If you live in California, and already owned the magazines, then you are being penalized for something that happened prior to the date of the bill becoming law. Also, where is the just compensation for what amounts to the taking of peoples' possessions, unless they could sell them out-of-state?

Ex-post facto is if they made it illegal to buy and then punished you for buying them before they were illegal (even if you had gotten rid of them)

Ex-post facto is if they made it retroactively illegal to possess, you got rid of them, but they prosecuted you for possessing them while they originally had been legal.

If they make them illegal now, and you continue to keep them, you are now breaking the law because it is your current action, not a historical action.