Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Temp Post-Duncan Mag Forum (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=438)
-   -   CA Mag Ban STAYED News Thread (Updated April 5th 5pm) BAN IN EFFECT (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1522071)

Discogodfather 04-01-2019 5:03 PM

CA Mag Ban STAYED News Thread (Updated April 5th 5pm) BAN IN EFFECT
 
This was a news thread for informational purposes to help people understand what happened in California in the first week of April 2019 regarding the LCM (Large Capacity Magazine) ban. It shows the progression of events and establishes a narrative so as to help people understand what happened. The discussion thread is HERE and the list of retailers sending magazines is HERE.

Thanks to everyone that participated, we got the word out to people on CG and gave them valuable information not available anywhere else. There was a short window and we made it possible for people to KNOW that.

Master File of Duncan V Bercerra @ Michel & Associates Lists all documents from the lawsuit.

Timeline of Events:

1) On Friday March 29th 2019 Southern District Court Judge Robert T. Benitez issued a Judgement and a Order that basically declared that the California State ban on magazines that can accept larger than 10 rounds of capacity was unconstitutional in that it violated the 2nd Amendment. Read the actual JUDGEMENT here, and the accompanying ORDER here.

2) Online retailers and local gun stores and retail outlets began to sell larger than 10 round magazines as soon as the Judgement and Order was made public on Friday afternoon of March 29th

3) Between Saturday March 30th and Monday, April 1st many online retailers sent messages via social media and email declaring that they would ship to CA. On the morning of April 1st Brownell's and PSA (Palmetto State Armory) announced that they would be shipping to CA, becoming the first large online firearms and accessories dealers to allow sales and shipment.

4) On Monday afternoon, April 1st CA Attorney General Javier Bercerra asked for a stay on the decision Friday, an DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL. Bercerra also filed the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL which is a much more comprehensive 10 page document outlining the actual arguments for the stay. This stay would need to be granted as early as April 2nd and as late as April 5th, 2019.

5) On April 2nd Michel and associates has issued a response to the application for a stay: PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF THE JUDGMENT

6) On April 2nd State AG Bercerra has issued a response to the plaintiffs response: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF THE JUDGMENT

7) On the afternoon of April 3rd Michel and Associates files PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAYJUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

8) On the afternoon of April 3rd Michel and Associates files two separate documents that include sworn statements from PSA (Palmetto State Armory) that they have accepted and shipped thousands of orders between March 29th and April 2nd 2019 to customers in California.

9) On the Afternoon of April the 4th AG Bercerra offers RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

10) AG Bercerra issues an ultimatum that the court issue a stay no later than 5:00pm Thursday, April 4th or Bercerra threatens Judge Benitez saying the AG will go to the 9th for an emergency decision immediately: (1:33 PM PDT April 4th)

"If a stay is not in place by that time, Defendant, due to the urgency of this
matter, will seek an emergency stay pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals."

11) AG Bercera files (to Judge Benitez's court) Notice of Appeal from the 9th District (2.48 PM PDT April 4th)

12) ORDER STAYING IN PART JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL Order Staying the Judgement has granted immunity for purchases and sales between March 29th and April 5th 2019.

BAN REINSTATED AS OF 5PM PST APRIL 5TH, 2019



Summary of the request for a stay:

Bercerra went with a public safety argument to preserve the status quo:

"To effectively preserve the status quo, and to prevent a sudden influx of large capacity magazines (LCMs) into the State of California (the “State”), Defendant respectfully requests that the Court issue an immediate, temporary stay pending its ruling on the application for a stay pending appeal. Even if this Court, or the Ninth Circuit, ultimately issues a stay pending appeal, the State will suffer irreparable injury if LCMs are permitted to flow into the State in the interim. Defendant respectfully requests that such a temporary stay be issued by no later than April 2,
2019."


Becerra is already making the argument that it's legal now, and the influx of mags will be difficult for the state to deal with:

"Defendant brings this ex parte application for good cause on the ground that the State will suffer irreparable and immediate injury until a stay pending appeal is issued. California has restricted the acquisition of LCMs for nearly two decades, and 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"


Major News stories:

Breitbart

Rolling Stone

Guns.com

NRA-ILA

SF Chronicle

USA Today

neal0124 04-01-2019 5:08 PM

Could Benitez just deny their request, or is he required to grant it?

SanDiego619 04-01-2019 5:10 PM

What happens to mags in the mail if a stay is granted?

Citadelgrad87 04-01-2019 5:11 PM

It's not automatic. That pleading appears to be a judicial admission that its presently legal to acquire these.

Difficulty removing them? Try impossible.

Citadelgrad87 04-01-2019 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiego619 (Post 22834483)
What happens to mags in the mail if a stay is granted?

Neither rain nor snow nor dark of night, nor an injunction can stop the us mail.

SanDiego619 04-01-2019 5:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 (Post 22834507)
Neither rain nor snow nor dark of night, nor an injunction can stop the us mail.

Haha, I know, they are amazing. But I mean if they haven't been delivered yet, once they are delivered does that mean we acquired them after the stay?

MC06 04-01-2019 5:16 PM

Pftt, irreparable injury.

DAVO 04-01-2019 5:17 PM

Great to hear.

pratchett 04-01-2019 5:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 (Post 22834492)
That pleading appears to be a judicial admission that its presently legal to acquire these.

Oh, it's more than an appearance. It's an emphatic declaration of fact by the Attorney General. "Individuals WILL BE FREE" (emph added).

curtisfong 04-01-2019 5:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC06 (Post 22834546)
Pftt, irreparable injury.

Which Benitez said the magazine law did. And used to justify his judgement that struck down the law that was doing irreparable injury.

Becerrra is just phoning it in because he knows the 9th will eventually come to his rescue, even if it is too late to stop a (short term) influx of standard capacity magazines (no, I don't care that LCM[sic] is a legal term. I will not use a legal term if it is clearly doublespeak propaganda, no matter how proper. And neither should you. If you do use one, always signify your disgust with it with [sic]).

ambis 04-01-2019 5:20 PM

After the current buying spree large cap mags are 'now in common use' in California :)

FullMetalJacket 04-01-2019 5:20 PM

Quote:

If Section 32310 is ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove these new LCMs
GOOD.

SanDiego619 04-01-2019 5:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVO (Post 22834552)
Great to hear.

I think it's terrible.

He could have at least waited until all of our mags were delivered.

AnchorTactical 04-01-2019 5:21 PM

Keep buying!

F them

Nor*Cal 04-01-2019 5:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiego619 (Post 22834534)
Haha, I know, they are amazing. But I mean if they haven't been delivered yet, once they are delivered does that mean we acquired them after the stay?

Don't stress. The state has much bigger issues than if your order crosses state lines before a stay is issued. There's probably half a million mags on their way into the state right now.

Sousuke 04-01-2019 5:21 PM

So assuming the judge waits until the 5th and shoots it down, he would appeal to the 9th and could get a stay by the 9th of April? Does that sound about right?

curtisfong 04-01-2019 5:22 PM

Quote:

If Section 32310 is ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove these new LCMs
The problem is, Becerra knows that "if" is really "when" because the 9th is the legislature's (female dog).

df12 04-01-2019 5:22 PM

This idiot is filing lawsuits here and there and everywhere. He is a looser.

Discogodfather 04-01-2019 5:23 PM

Bercerra is making the argument, based on these cases:

"See Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A party seeking a stay must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that
he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, [3] that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and [4] that a stay is in the public interest.” (citing Winter
v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008))).
"

Love to hear what that means translated from legalise.

It seems almost laughable that he is asking Judge Benitez to grant a stay based on the idea that an influx of LCM's into CA will cause harm. Didn't the decision just make the opposite case, that NOT having LCM's cause the public harm?

AnchorTactical 04-01-2019 5:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nor*Cal (Post 22834583)
Don't stress. The state has much bigger issues than if your order crosses state lines before a stay is issued. There's probably half a million mags on their way into the state right now.

All I could think of was my younger days working in a warehouse around the holidays.

Visions of forklifts beeping in a big warehouse, loaded with thousands of mags and workers scrambling to fill orders and bosses telling everyone mandatory OT

FREEDOM!!!

baekacaek 04-01-2019 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discogodfather (Post 22834424)
Even if this Court, or the Ninth Circuit, ultimately issues a stay pending appeal, the State will suffer irreparable injury if LCMs are permitted to flow into the State in the interim.

So, is he basically accusing Judge Benitez for inflicting irreparable injury with his decision? What an insult. I hope Judge Benitez sees it for what it is, takes his time, and says no on 11:59PM on the 5th. Will give plenty of time for most of us to get our mags :)

SanDiego619 04-01-2019 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nor*Cal (Post 22834583)
Don't stress. The state has much bigger issues than if your order crosses state lines before a stay is issued. There's probably half a million mags on their way into the state right now.

Ok, thanks. I won't.

If that did happen, I'd just be happy with the ones that I already acquired, and I would dutifully destroy the others immediately upon receiving them.

curtisfong 04-01-2019 5:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baekacaek (Post 22834613)
So, is he basically accusing Judge Benitez for inflicting irreparable injury with his decision?

A decision which Benitez himself maintains he made to remediate (and prevent further) irreparable injury.

Becerra's phoning it in. He knows the 9th will bail him out.

Jess B. Guy 04-01-2019 5:29 PM

"...the State will suffer irreparable injury if LCMs are permitted to flow into the State in the interim."

He means his panties will get wet.

Bigdog68 04-01-2019 5:29 PM

I love this, um ok, we lost on merits on the TRO, now we lost on merits in the district court, but let's preserve what you have clearly stated as an unconstitutional law until we can be bothered to write up an appeal to a court that we are totally sure will side with us. Ignoring all the reasoning you put into your judgement in this case. And oh, by the way, we know that we are asking you to endanger all the people you were worried about in writing your opinion. Because we are afraid of law abiding citizens with guns.

SanDiego619 04-01-2019 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jess B. Guy (Post 22834644)
"...the State will suffer irreparable injury if LCMs are permitted to flow into the State in the interim."

He means his panties will get wet.

Him and Newsom are probably going to meet up to "console" each other later.

curtisfong 04-01-2019 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 (Post 22834492)
It's not automatic. That pleading appears to be a judicial admission that its presently legal to acquire these.

Difficulty removing them? Try impossible.

More importantly, it is a legal admission that the (ex)law doesn't do what Becerra claims it does - if the law doesn't remove the magazines, what is it good for?

glilon 04-01-2019 5:33 PM

" and there is evidence that sales have begun already."
Really? What gives him that impression?

SmallShark 04-01-2019 5:36 PM

this is like slapping the judge's face.

mrrobot 04-01-2019 5:37 PM

I read the request for stay and was dissapointed it did not end with, "April Fools."

Smedkcuf 04-01-2019 5:38 PM

Does anyone know the outcome of this discussion?

"6. Mr. Brady also indicated that Plaintiffs will be opposing Defendant’s request for an immediate, temporary stay pending the Court’s consideration of the application to stay pending appeal. We discussed Mr. Brady’s concern that, if the immediate stay is issued, individuals who may have ordered LCMs over the weekend following entry of the Judgment may be in violation of the law if they receive the LCMs during the stay. Given that Defendant is requesting that the Court issue the temporary stay by April 2, 2019, Mr. Brady stated that Plaintiffs anticipate filing their opposition to the request for a temporary stay as early as this evening."

metalman4051 04-01-2019 5:40 PM

I could not be more happy to hear that turd worry about the 20 years of pent up demand exploding in sales as we speak. Good luck removing the newly acquired mags, traitor.

SanDiego619 04-01-2019 5:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smedkcuf (Post 22834685)
Does anyone know the outcome of this discussion?

"6. Mr. Brady also indicated that Plaintiffs will be opposing Defendantís request for an immediate, temporary stay pending the Courtís consideration of the application to stay pending appeal. We discussed Mr. Bradyís concern that, if the immediate stay is issued, individuals who may have ordered LCMs over the weekend following entry of the Judgment may be in violation of the law if they receive the LCMs during the stay. Given that Defendant is requesting that the Court issue the temporary stay by April 2, 2019, Mr. Brady stated that Plaintiffs anticipate filing their opposition to the request for a temporary stay as early as this evening."

Exactly what I was wondering... Since thousands of Californians are probably in that very situation.

bergmen 04-01-2019 5:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVO (Post 22834552)
Great to hear.

Great avatar.

Dragginpanda 04-01-2019 5:43 PM

There’s enough sales tax from standard magazine sales pumped into the state to pay for

A) Speed rail
B) EBT
C) San Francisco poop patrol
D) All of the above

The answer is D, and that’s how Becerra knows magazines are flowing in.

phrogg111 04-01-2019 5:46 PM

"If Section 32310 is
ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove
these new LCMs"

No, it won't be difficult. It will be impossible. That's already happened, thankfully.

Now, we need to talk about the irreparable harm to enumerated human rights, and the safety of people in California. California's politicians need to suffer for their wrongful termination of rights.

mrrobot 04-01-2019 5:46 PM

"California has restricted the acquisition of LCMs for nearly two decades, and until the Judgment is stayed pending appeal, individuals will be free to acquire new LCMs,and there is evidence that sales have begun already"

So we are free to aquire new LCM'S. Sweet.

LVSox 04-01-2019 5:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baekacaek (Post 22834613)
So, is he basically accusing Judge Benitez for inflicting irreparable injury with his decision? What an insult. I hope Judge Benitez sees it for what it is, takes his time, and says no on 11:59PM on the 5th. Will give plenty of time for most of us to get our mags :)

There is no deadline of April 5th. California is the defendant; Benitez is the judge. Benitez sets the timetables, not California. He could sit on it for weeks, or until CA goes over his head to the Ninth Circuit if he so chose.

SmallShark 04-01-2019 5:51 PM

what about receiving the items after the "stay" is granted?

DevilDawgJJ 04-01-2019 5:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC06 (Post 22834546)
Pftt, irreparable injury.

Thought that was only for my pitbull, and trampoline.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.