A Partial Loss In California Mag Ban Case

The opinion and ruling by US District Court Judge Roger Benitez in the California magazine ban case – Duncan et al v. Becerra – has garnered lots of attention this past week. His ruling was a permanent injunction on California’s ban on the sale of standard capacity magazines. The result has been that the major online retailers such as Palmetto State Armory, AIM Surplus, Brownells, and Midway USA have been inundated with orders for magazines by California residents.

As you might imagine, the State of California and Attorney General Xavier Becerra are not happy campers. They requested an immediate stay on the ruling while they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This afternoon, Judge Benitez granted a partial stay after weighing the arguments of both sides and trying to satisfy both sides.

From his order:

In layman’s terms, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies
therein will be free to re-start the enforcement of Calif. Penal Code § 32310 (a) and
(b) which currently prohibits, among other things, any person in the state from
manufacturing, importing into the state, offering for sale, giving, lending, buying,
or receiving a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds (as defined by
Calif. Penal Code § 16740). This will continue until the appeal proceedings
conclude or the stay is modified or lifted.

At the same time, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies
therein will remain enjoined (or prevented) from enforcing Calif. Penal Code
§ 32310 (c) and (d) which would have criminalized the simple possession of a
firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds and required disposing of such magazines. This will also continue until the appeal proceedings conclude or the
stay is modified or lifted.

Both parties indicate in briefing that persons and business entities in California
may have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more
than 10 rounds since the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and in
reliance on the injunction. Indeed, it is the reason that the Attorney General seeks
urgent relief in the form of a stay pending appeal. Both parties suggest that it is
appropriate to fashion protection for these law-abiding persons.


THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that the Judgment is stayed in part
pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent
injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is
hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.


IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED
that the preliminary injunction issued
on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and
(d) shall remain in effect.


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.

Dated: April 4, 2019

Translated this means that standard capacity magazines can’t be sold, made, imported, or given away after tomorrow, Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:00pm PDT. However, if you bought a magazine, sold a magazine, or otherwise transferred one into California between March 29th and April 5th at 5:00pm, you are still covered by the permanent injunction against the ban. This means you have until 5:00pm tomorrow to receive it. Or take a quick trip out of state – Nevada, Arizona, etc – and be back by 5:00pm with your new standard capacity magazines.

Moreover, further translating, the preliminary injunction prevents prosecution of those who possessed a standard capacity magazine prior to July 1, 2017. They will not be forced to dispose of their magazines to comply with subsection (d).

You can read the relevant penal code here.

Picture Of The Day

This past Thursday, US District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the State of California’s ban on the possession of standard capacity magazines which was set to go into effect on Saturday, July 1st. Legal scholar Dave Kopel does an excellent job in analyzing Judge Benitez’s decision in the case of Duncan et al v. Becerra.

In celebration of Judge Benitez’s injunction, one California gun owner, Archibald68 on Instagram, was pictured in front of the California State Capitol holding a 30-round magazine while wearing a “banana clip” t-shirt. Gotta love it!

Great pic from @firearms.unknown of @archibald68 celebrating the right to possess common magazines while repping BRD’s Banana Clip tee at the CA State Capitol🙌🏼 ______________________________________ Today, July 1st 2017, would have been the last day for Californians to transfer out of state, sell out of state, or turn over their 10+ mags to law enforcement for destruction without facing criminal charges that would have lead to a fine and suspension of their 2A Right as well seizure of all their firearms, in essence, a backdoor confiscation of weapons. This was via the passage of Prop 63, which was opposed by law enforcement. ______________________________________ U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday, June 29, that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 cartridges. ______________________________________ BLK RFL DIV called Judge Benitez’s office (619) 446 3589 and, while not personally available, left a message thanking him for protecting the Rights and property of Americans. If you wish to do the same, do it, thank those that stand between us and the statists who wish to criminalize law abiding folks, stand with those who honor their Oath.
A post shared by BLK RFL DIV (@blk.rfl.div) on Jul 1, 2017 at 9:34am PDT