California Penal Code 32310
On March 29th, 2019, a US District Court Judge for the Southern District of California issued an order striking down California Penal Code section 32310. This is the section of California law that relates to magazine capacity limits. Specifically, it makes it illegal to have any “large-capacity magazine”.
Punishments ranged from a $100 fine per magazine up to a year in county jail. Consequently, until another ruling countermands this one, it is currently no longer against California state law to possess magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Lawsuit Against CaliforniaThe plaintiffs for this suit submitted what is called a motion for summary judgment. Such a motion is exactly what it sounds like, it petitions the court to just issue a ruling.
Pc 32310 A
Such orders are rarely granted. In them, the petitioner asserts that the facts of the case are so evident that no further discovery or evidence needs be shown or discussed. The Honorable Roger T. Benitez agreed. In an 86 page judgment, the court viciously tore into California law and California’s attorney general. First Judge Benitez listed a variety of anecdotal cases in which the law directly harmed Californians. Most notably, a series of cases in which Californians were unable to stop a home invasion due to running out of ammunition.
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. California Penal Code 32310 makes it illegal to buy, sell, manufacture or possess large capacity magazines, except in limited circumstances. A violation of Penal Code 32310 can be a misdemeanor. If you violate this law with an assault weapon or.50 BMG rifle prohibited under Penal Code 30600 PC, prosecutors could charge you with this offense and possessing an assault weapon or.50 BMG rifle in violation of Penal Code 30600 PC. Innum konjam lyrics. 44 California Penal Code 245(a)(3) - Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a.
Secondly, and after hammering that point home, he laid out a thorough dissection of California’s reasoning behind the ban. Needless to say, he found it wanting.Additionally, the court discussed 5th Amendment implications, specifically the Takings Clause. The Takings Clause prevents the government from seizing private property for public use without just compensation. Previous case law has established the precedent that even private property being seized without the intention of public use can be subject to Takings Clause limitations.
As the court put it “the Takings Clause prevents California from compelling the physical dispossession of such lawfully-acquired private property without just compensation.”Furthermore, the Court declared that magazines constitute bearable arms, and are thus protected rights under the Second Amendment. While the total reasoning is too elaborate and lengthy to get into here, it is recommended reading. In the order, the Hon. Benitez waxed nearly poetic on the rights of Americans. Because of the rhetoric and fire, the opinion reminds me of the late Justice Scalia. The first full paragraph of page 40 is of particular interest. What Comes NextMany have been quick to celebrate this court order, lauding it as a victory. It is unfortunately not as big a deal as has been made of it. While the district court judge did indeed strike down the law as unconstitutional, California will appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit.
32310 Pc Felony
It is unknown how the 9th Circuit will rule, however in the intermission California is barred from enforcing its magazine ban. Cautious optimism is the word of the day.
Great news gentlemen! Now let’s take down the assault weapons ban and ridiculous ammo background check law!Update:State of California just filed for a stay on the order by April 2This part says it all.until the Judgment is stayed pending appeal, individuals will be free to acquire new LCMs, and there is evidence that sales have begun already. If Section 32310 is ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove these new LCMs.“For the State to remove these new LCMs.”Confiscation intention.NewGet your orders in before 5pm tonight boys in Cali!.UPDATE. A has been GRANTED. You have until Friday April 5th at 5pm PST to buy your magazines! Magazines bought before then will be protected and legal to use. The main focus of this lawsuit seems to be the 10 round max capacity magazines for guns that CA has implemented.
The ruling is a summary judgment for the plaintiffs. But expect this to be overturned by the 9th Circuit. If the summary judgment gets overturned, they may rule that an actual trial needs to take place. Assuming the Southern District of CA rules that the ban on higher capacity magazines is unconstitutional, expect the 9th to overturn the ruling. The question then is will the Supreme Court hear this case? If so, based on the Heller decision, will the Supreme Court consider a ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds unconstitutional? While there is something to be happy about, it's a long road ahead for California gun owners who want higher capacity magazines.