Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism > Temp Post-Duncan Mag Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 04-08-2019, 6:14 PM
AtlasPRK's Avatar
AtlasPRK AtlasPRK is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
Hopefully the DOJ doesn't look at Calguns and determine that people like you are 5150's and get a search warrant to determine your identity, show up at your home, commit you and take your guns.
Although said in jest, I find this more plausible than OP's scenario.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 04-08-2019, 6:15 PM
Nor*Cal Nor*Cal is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,687
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
And what makes you say I didn't participate? I am not saying that I did, but I am not saying that I did not. I will say that I do not think it very prudent for those that did to post such on a public message board known to be watched by the DOJ.
What makes me say that....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I err on the side of caution when it comes to my personal life and decided not to risk importing any 10+ magazines until the 9th speaks.
That's only one of several times I recall you stating that you were playing it safe.

No big deal either way. Your choice.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 04-08-2019, 6:24 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Palomino Vally, Pah-Rah Mountains, NV
Posts: 12,438
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
And what makes you say I didn't participate? I am not saying that I did, but I am not saying that I did not. I will say that I do not think it very prudent for those that did to post such on a public message board known to be watched by the DOJ.
Maybe this......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Guninator, You seem to know your stuff. I err on the side of caution when it comes to my personal life and decided not to risk importing any 10+ magazines until the 9th speaks.

Dang Nor*Cal beat me to it.
__________________


Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-08-2019, 6:34 PM
Redhead45 Redhead45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 638
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Y’all overthink this ****, read too deep and freak out. No one is coming for ****. My god.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:02 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor*Cal View Post
What makes me say that....



That's only one of several times I recall you stating that you were playing it safe.

No big deal either way. Your choice.
I can see why that one post would lead you to believe that I didn't participate. Check the date. I don't recall [after posting this I see there was one) any others but feel free to refresh my memory.

Last edited by Chewy65; 04-08-2019 at 7:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:05 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,658
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

There’s nothing wrong with being cautious, but sometimes it’s better to have strength in numbers and throw caution to the wind. None of us knew we would be granted protection. Buyers and sellers. And many businesses and people said a big FU to the AG.

Honestly I don’t think they want to do anything now to undermine things further after this fiasco. In fact, I’m sure the AG is more pissed at good old Gavin than he is at us. He used the proposition to run for office, not because he really cared about what was going to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:09 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco75a View Post
Just keep giving the State ideas and do the groundwork for them.
We're our own worst enemies.
No one needs to do groundwork for the DOJ, but those of you posting about how much you had spent, where, and on what ought to receive thank you notes from the gun grabbers.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:16 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Attachment 794280

“They’re coming to take them away!”
__________________
Anchors Aweigh


Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 09-03-2019 at 5:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:22 PM
DrjonesUSA's Avatar
DrjonesUSA DrjonesUSA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,599
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
There are at least two strategies that CADOJ may employ to go after "upstarts" who acquired LCMs between issuance of Benitez’s Order of enjoinder on March 29 and 5 PM on April 5. Both are based on the seizure of LCM’s as nuisances pursuant to Penal Code §32390. While Michel & Associates may be of the opinion that the code section is unconstitutional and they may well prove to be correct, a court has yet to hold that 32390 is unconstitutional and/or enjoin its enforcement. Many posts and threads have discussed the problem of LCM seizures in public places such as the range, but none or few appear to be concerned with seizures at one’s home. This post is concerned with the later of the two; seizures at your home.

Let’s first take a look at the Penal Code sections governing the confiscation and summary destruction of a LCM. 32390 provides that,




The relevant parts of 18010 declare that:



While it is well settled that the State cannot search your home without a search warrant, absent exigent circumstances or consent, it wouldn’t be past CA DOJ to seek a warrant for which. Of course they will have to be able to convince a (friendly) judge of facts supporting the issuance of that warrant, but they will get those facts and what facts do they need? All they need is to articulate reliable evidence demonstrating a probable cause that search of the home will locate LCMs or documents and things enable the DOJ to locate LCMs subject to32390. Documents such as emails confirming orders and tracking shipments or sales receipts. Places to be searched must be included in the warrant and expect one such place to be computers.

Where is the law enforcement officer applying for a warrant going to get the reliable information needed to obtain a warrant? From CalGuns.net for one. As the site warns users time and time again, the DOJ regularly monitors the site and one expects it was monitored more thoroughly over the last week, when members rushed to regale other members and lurkers regarding the magazines they had bought, from where, and even the quantity and cost of the magazines. While many, many members may have given phony names and addresses when joining the site, some did not. For those that use aliases and made up addresses, I am not convinced that the DOJ will find it that difficult to trace your messages to your computer. But what if it can’t get a member’s identifying information from CalGuns or its internet host?

The DOJ can also go to the vendors. Many of their web sites loudly proclaimed that they were shipping to Calilfornia and that alone should go a long way to establishing probable cause for issuance of a subpoena for their sales and shipping information.

You might think that this would be too much work at too great an expense for the DOJ to do this stuff. Given the political climate and how badly bruised the Attorney General and other top liberals are from the thrashing they got from Judge Benitez, they won’t hesitate to do it and more. This is not to say that everyone that bought a magazine or two is going to have their home raided ala the Special Counsel, but those who so proudly posted about their purchases of thousands of dollars worth of LCM’s could be prime for making an example of and garnering some press.

A brief word about the first path the DOJ can take to seize magazines in public places such as the range, the problem I said I wouldn’t talk of here. Though very few LEOs have any interest in seizing LCMs, it would be surprising if the DOJ didn’t have officers assigned to drop in on a few gun ranges with instructions for confiscating LCMs.

Are you being paid by the CA DOJ to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt?
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:23 PM
DrjonesUSA's Avatar
DrjonesUSA DrjonesUSA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,599
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco75a View Post
Just keep giving the State ideas and do the groundwork for them.
We're our own worst enemies.

This.

Exactly this.

I again reiterate my very serious question if this "Chewy" poster isn't actually being paid by the DOJ to entrap people....
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:24 PM
DrjonesUSA's Avatar
DrjonesUSA DrjonesUSA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,599
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post

I don't know what you are smoking, but you really need to stop.

As an agent of the CA DOJ, I'm sure Chewy has access to pretty much any psychotropic substance one could dream of....
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:27 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Palomino Vally, Pah-Rah Mountains, NV
Posts: 12,438
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
No one needs to do groundwork for the DOJ, but those of you posting about how much you had spent, where, and on what ought to receive thank you notes from the gun grabbers.
Yes, they should all be terrified for doing a perfectly legal act endorsed by a federal court ruling.
You give new meaning to the phrase Gun Nut.
__________________


Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:28 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco75a View Post
Just keep giving the State ideas and do the groundwork for them.
We're our own worst enemies.
The DOJ doesn't need any help as long as bright guys and gals run their mouths off on public message boards. As for giving it ideas, anyone who does their homework would consider this one. The problem is it is too easy to dismiss the strategy unless you consider the political implications of not going after the scary magazines.

Last edited by Chewy65; 04-08-2019 at 7:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:29 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
The DOJ doesn't need any help as long as bright guys and gals run their mouths off on public message boards.
Attachment 794284
__________________
Anchors Aweigh


Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 09-03-2019 at 5:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:33 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,026
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Chewy,

I am also concerned that DOJ seems inclined to push the legal envelope with regard to our weapons statutes.

But even with that agenda, I doubt that they would be able to secure a search warrant to search for items that are classified as "Nuisances."

Penal Code section 1524 sets forth 18 different conditions under which a search warrant may be issued. I can't see where any of these 18 conditions would apply where the sole reason for a search was to recover a "Nuisance" magazine.

Prior to the Federal Trial Court decision in Duncan, it was pretty obvious that DOJ strategists were working the "Nuisance" avenue.

But now that there is decision, albeit only in dicta, that the nuisance statute is unconstitutional, I don't see the DOJ proceeding in this direction until the case is fully concluded, or at least until an appellate court revises that finding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
To apply for a search warrant, (and yes, I know so much because I use to write and serve them along with taking a class on what is needed to obtain one) one must have legal grounds do do so. Even after being asked, you refuse to explain what those legal grounds would be. Your imagination does not count as legal grounds.

Hopefully the DOJ doesn't look at Calguns and determine that people like you are 5150's and get a search warrant to determine your identity, show up at your home, commit you and take your guns.
See, I can make up ridiculous, unfounded scenarios too.

But, But, Stone Dossier.



J/K

OP, whatever your own have your Doctor check your dosage.
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Americans vs. Democrats
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.


What doesn't kill me, better run
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 04-08-2019, 7:54 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
Yes, they should all be terrified for doing a perfectly legal act endorsed by a federal court ruling.
You give new meaning to the phrase Gun Nut.
Assume the Judgment is vacated on December 1, 2019, and a panel decision holding the section constitutional issues. No one requests a rehearing or a hearing en banc. No one petitions SCOTUS or, if they do, the Petition is denied July 1, 2020.

Are you saying that should the 9th Circuit disagree with the District Court and vacate the Judgment a person cannot be prosecuted for violating PC 32310(a) for purchasing a LCM on April 3, 2019? That calls for a yes or no.

[After posting this I see where RickD's earlier post was brought up; the one where he says he doesn't "see the DOJ proceeding in this direction until the case is fully concluded, or at least until an appellate court revises that finding."

Last edited by Chewy65; 04-08-2019 at 7:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 04-08-2019, 8:07 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Assume the Judgment is vacated on December 1, 2019, and a panel decision holding the section constitutional issues. No one requests a rehearing or a hearing en banc. No one petitions SCOTUS or, if they do, the Petition is denied July 1, 2020.

Are you saying that should the 9th Circuit disagree with the District Court and vacate the Judgment a person cannot be prosecuted for violating PC 32310(a) for purchasing a LCM on April 3, 2019? That calls for a yes or no.

[After posting this I see where RickD's earlier post was brought up; the one where he says he doesn't "see the DOJ proceeding in this direction until the case is fully concluded, or at least until an appellate court revises that finding."
Before you continue down this path any further, maybe you should read this: https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpa-ale...-ordered-stay/

It might help to put your mind at ease about Freedom Week magazines.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh


Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 04-08-2019 at 8:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 04-08-2019, 8:22 PM
LEAD LAUNCHER's Avatar
LEAD LAUNCHER LEAD LAUNCHER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Simi Valley, Ca.- Oklahoma no more :(
Posts: 1,769
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Idea for a new T-shirt design:

California Freedom Week
3/29/19-4/5/19

Calguns Retarded Thread Week
4/6/19-????
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 04-08-2019, 9:22 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
Before you continue down this path any further, maybe you should read this: https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpa-ale...-ordered-stay/

It might help to put your mind at ease about Freedom Week magazines.
Exactly where does the CRPA Alert say what happens if and when appeals end with PC 32310 being upheld and the trial court's Judgment being vacated? Do you have any authority for the proposition that an injunction against enforcement enjoins investigatory activity, such as the service of subpoenas or the execution of search warrants?

Last edited by Chewy65; 04-08-2019 at 9:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:10 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Palomino Vally, Pah-Rah Mountains, NV
Posts: 12,438
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Assume the Judgment is vacated on December 1, 2019, and a panel decision holding the section constitutional issues. No one requests a rehearing or a hearing en banc. No one petitions SCOTUS or, if they do, the Petition is denied July 1, 2020.

Are you saying that should the 9th Circuit disagree with the District Court and vacate the Judgment a person cannot be prosecuted for violating PC 32310(a) for purchasing a LCM on April 3, 2019? That calls for a yes or no.

[After posting this I see where RickD's earlier post was brought up; the one where he says he doesn't "see the DOJ proceeding in this direction until the case is fully concluded, or at least until an appellate court revises that finding."
Yes, I am saying exactly what Judge Benitez stated and I don't have to make up ridiculous hypothetical arguments based in fantasy to do so.

Quote:
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.
And I find it most interesting that you expect me to answer your questions and yet you refuse to answer mine, instead you blew it off.

Are you seriously asserting that if 32310 becomes permanent law, that the second it happens, there will be no grace period for people to dispose of these magazines and everyone becomes an instant felon?

How does the state prove that the information for the warrant is fresh and that the person still possesses the magazine?

Are you seriously trying to argue that the DOJ can go in front of a judge and state "Your honor, we know that this person had a LCM 6 months ago when it was legal to do so. We are now requesting a search warrant to see if they still own it"?

You are aware that even if one did still possess a LCM at that time, the charge would be simple possession, an infraction/misdemeanor?

Can you explain the legal process of getting a search warrant for an infraction/misdemeanor or a nuisance?

Are you seriously saying that you think that in the future that if 9th district rules 32310PC constitutional, that this would mean that anyone purchasing a LCM during the period that Judge Benitez ruled them legal by granting summary judgement would become felons because they followed the judges ruling?
__________________


Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Last edited by TRICKSTER; 04-08-2019 at 10:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:23 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,261
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
No one needs to do groundwork for the DOJ, but those of you posting about how much you had spent, where, and on what ought to receive thank you notes from the gun grabbers.
Please. It was legal, specifically and undeniably legal, and the AG admitted it was legal when he applied for a stay.

Tell me again how I engage in risky behavior and help the gun grabbers.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. J Beezy View Post
Unfortunately for you, I have the truth on my side and... I’m definitely better than you at what you make a living from.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:28 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Palomino Vally, Pah-Rah Mountains, NV
Posts: 12,438
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Exactly where does the CRPA Alert say what happens if and when appeals end with PC 32310 being upheld and the trial court's Judgment being vacated? Do you have any authority for the proposition that an injunction against enforcement enjoins investigatory activity, such as the service of subpoenas or the execution of search warrants?
What you are saying is that you expect agencies to be able to investigate and get a search warrant for an action that was not a crime at the time it occurred.

There was a time that sodomy was a crime in this state, if you committed sodomy last week and 6 months from now it was made illegal again, do you think that it could be investigated as a crime and that the police could get a search warrant looking for evidence?
__________________


Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:30 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,261
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Assume the Judgment is vacated on December 1, 2019, and a panel decision holding the section constitutional issues. No one requests a rehearing or a hearing en banc. No one petitions SCOTUS or, if they do, the Petition is denied July 1, 2020.

Are you saying that should the 9th Circuit disagree with the District Court and vacate the Judgment a person cannot be prosecuted for violating PC 32310(a) for purchasing a LCM on April 3, 2019? That calls for a yes or no.

[After posting this I see where RickD's earlier post was brought up; the one where he says he doesn't "see the DOJ proceeding in this direction until the case is fully concluded, or at least until an appellate court revises that finding."
Yes, that is what I am saying. It does not matter if the 9th CA disagrees with Judge Benitez’ ruling. It does not matter what their final ruling is

They CAN NOT determine that people acting under his order violated the statute, because his order cannot be erased.

He is a sitting federal court judge with the power to issue the ruling he issued. The doj will not successfully prosecute anyone for violating the law for actions taken during the week between his initial judgment and his stay.

Period.

The absolute best they could hope for is a determination that his order was erroneous, and some period of time including a buyback, after which lcms would be illegal.

But prosecuting someone for buying a magazine when a federal judge issued an order permitting it?

That’s the opposite of breaking the law.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. J Beezy View Post
Unfortunately for you, I have the truth on my side and... I’m definitely better than you at what you make a living from.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:32 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Palomino Vally, Pah-Rah Mountains, NV
Posts: 12,438
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
Before you continue down this path any further, maybe you should read this: https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpa-ale...-ordered-stay/

It might help to put your mind at ease about Freedom Week magazines.
Nothing will put his mind at ease. He is either being intentionally obstinate or he is being a troll. No one can be this ridiculous unless they are trying or have some other special issue.
__________________


Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:11 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
Yes, I am saying exactly what Judge Benitez stated and I don't have to make up ridiculous hypothetical arguments based in fantasy to do so.

No you are not saying "exactly" what he said. At best you are giving us your spin of what he said, and at worse you are lying.

And I find it most interesting that you expect me to answer your questions and yet you refuse to answer mine, instead you blew it off.

Most of what you asked was already answered and the rest was so idiotic as not to be deserving of a response.

Are you seriously asserting that if 32310 becomes permanent law, that the second it happens, there will be no grace period for people to dispose of these magazines and everyone becomes an instant felon?

There you go making things up. I never said that there will be no grace period, but it is entirely possible that there will be none. Can give us any authority for the proposition that there will be any?

How does the state prove that the information for the warrant is fresh and that the person still possesses the magazine?

No one is talking about applying for a warrant with stale information but doing so soon.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the DOJ can go in front of a judge and state "Your honor, we know that this person had a LCM 6 months ago when it was legal to do so. We are now requesting a search warrant to see if they still own it"?

A major flaw with your sophomoric question is the presumption that is was legal at the time of the act reus. That will be decided on appeal. Still, it would be smart not to hide the ball and to disclose in the application the injunction against enforcement the validity and basis of will be determined on appeal.

You are aware that even if one did still possess a LCM at that time, the charge would be simple possession, an infraction/misdemeanor?

If you only consider possession, I believe that is so, but violation of (a) and (b) is a wobbler.

Can you explain the legal process of getting a search warrant for an infraction/misdemeanor or a nuisance?

No and if you took your head out of that dark place where the sun don't shine you would realize that this issue has been addressed above. The application would be for a warrant for a felony.

Are you seriously saying that you think that in the future that if 9th district rules 32310PC constitutional, that this would mean that anyone purchasing a LCM during the period that Judge Benitez ruled them legal by granting summary judgement would become felons because they followed the judges ruling?

I don't think it likely, but possible. Again you fail to grasp the strategy I fear the DOJ will employ, which is not to obtain convictions but to indulge the gun grabbers with how aggressive the Governor and the AG are in going after evil weapons of death.
Just what is your problem? The purpose of this thread was to suggest to some people how they may be placing themselves at risk by shooting their mouths off in posts and keeping records of sales laying about. Records that, if they need them, they should be able to easily obtain. I suppose the DOJ could go after everyone, but I don't see that happening. What is more probable is it selects some of those that purchased thousands of dollars worth of magazines for show trials.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:20 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Palomino Vally, Pah-Rah Mountains, NV
Posts: 12,438
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
No you are not saying "exactly" what he said. At best you are giving us your spin of what he said, and at worse you are lying.
What a joke, that is a direct quote from his ruling, all that was left out was "IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that" and you accuse me of lying? You have some serious issues, I hope you work them out and get better.

And the rest of your non answers make you sound irrational and unhinged making it a waste of time to respond to.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ing-Appeal.pdf
Page 6 lines 16-20.

Quote:
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, 2019and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
Now go away troll and stop lying, making stuff up and wasting everyone's time.
__________________


Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Last edited by TRICKSTER; 04-08-2019 at 11:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:36 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Yes, that is what I am saying. It does not matter if the 9th CA disagrees with Judge Benitez’ ruling. It does not matter what their final ruling is

They CAN NOT determine that people acting under his order violated the statute, because his order cannot be erased.

He is a sitting federal court judge with the power to issue the ruling he issued. The doj will not successfully prosecute anyone for violating the law for actions taken during the week between his initial judgment and his stay.

Period.

I didn't say the prosecution would be successful.

Exclamation mark.


The absolute best they could hope for is a determination that his order was erroneous, and some period of time including a buyback, after which lcms would be illegal.

But prosecuting someone for buying a magazine when a federal judge issued an order permitting it?

That’s the opposite of breaking the law.

Breaking the law as in disregarding the highest law of the land; the Constitution? Suck it up. This is the 9th Circuit.
What you are arguing is similar to a justifiable reliance argument. If you have any authority more on four squares do share it. I agree that the equities favor denying prosecution, but as I have emphasized over and over again, while the DOJ would undoubtedly love to prosecute some successfully, I think they would apply for search warrants now just for the politics.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:57 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Palomino Vally, Pah-Rah Mountains, NV
Posts: 12,438
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Documented for posterity and the ridiculousness of the responses.
California Paranoia, it's a real thing and apparently a mental disorder.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER
Yes, I am saying exactly what Judge Benitez stated and I don't have to make up ridiculous hypothetical arguments based in fantasy to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65

No you are not saying "exactly" what he said. At best you are giving us your spin of what he said, and at worse you are lying.
Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER
And I find it most interesting that you expect me to answer your questions and yet you refuse to answer mine, instead you blew it off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65
Most of what you asked was already answered and the rest was so idiotic as not to be deserving of a response.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER
Are you seriously asserting that if 32310 becomes permanent law, that the second it happens, there will be no grace period for people to dispose of these magazines and everyone becomes an instant felon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65
There you go making things up. I never said that there will be no grace period, but it is entirely possible that there will be none. Can give us any authority for the proposition that there will be any?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER
How does the state prove that the information for the warrant is fresh and that the person still possesses the magazine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65
No one is talking about applying for a warrant with stale information but doing so soon.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER
Are you seriously trying to argue that the DOJ can go in front of a judge and state "Your honor, we know that this person had a LCM 6 months ago when it was legal to do so. We are now requesting a search warrant to see if they still own it"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65
A major flaw with your sophomoric question is the presumption that is was legal at the time of the act reus. That will be decided on appeal. Still, it would be smart not to hide the ball and to disclose in the application the injunction against enforcement the validity and basis of will be determined on appeal.
.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER
You are aware that even if one did still possess a LCM at that time, the charge would be simple possession, an infraction/misdemeanor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65
If you only consider possession, I believe that is so, but violation of (a) and (b) is a wobbler.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER
Can you explain the legal process of getting a search warrant for an infraction/misdemeanor or a nuisance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65
No and if you took your head out of that dark place where the sun don't shine you would realize that this issue has been addressed above. The application would be for a warrant for a felony.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER
Are you seriously saying that you think that in the future that if 9th district rules 32310PC constitutional, that this would mean that anyone purchasing a LCM during the period that Judge Benitez ruled them legal by granting summary judgement would become felons because they followed the judges ruling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65
I don't think it likely, but possible. Again you fail to grasp the strategy I fear the DOJ will employ, which is not to obtain convictions but to indulge the gun grabbers with how aggressive the Governor and the AG are in going after evil weapons of death.
__________________


Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Last edited by TRICKSTER; 04-09-2019 at 12:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:58 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,658
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER


Now go away troll and stop lying, making stuff up and wasting everyone's time.

Don’t be sucked into an argument, this is the same guy who posted this on another thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Somewhere I read that CA DOJ was requesting carriers not to import LCMs into California. Such a threat may be responsible for your shipment being held up in Vegas.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:07 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
What a joke, that is a direct quote from his ruling, all that was left out was "IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that" and you accuse me of lying? You have some serious issues, I hope you work them out and get better.

What you were saying, which was that "should the 9th Circuit disagree with the District Court and vacate the Judgment a person cannot be prosecuted for violating PC 32310(a) for purchasing a LCM on April 3, 2019" may be your interpretation of the effect of the order, but it is not a direct quote by a long shot.

The pertinent part of the order reads:

Quote:
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, 2019and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
And the rest of your non answers make you sound irrational and unhinged making it a waste of time to respond to.

Your babble speaks for yourself.

Now go away troll and stop lying, making stuff up and wasting everyone's time.

I will gladly go away and stop wasting time trying to reason with the unreasonable.
See it.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:12 AM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Palomino Vally, Pah-Rah Mountains, NV
Posts: 12,438
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
See it.
__________________


Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:12 AM
GW's Avatar
GW GW is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Evergreen State
Posts: 16,072
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I realize it is a super stretch and is not very likely to take place, or if the DOJ goes down this path that it will not get stomped in court.

Then again, and you would know, thought the wording of California's conspiracy statute requires agreement and an overt act to commit a crime, going way way back I seek to recall that something about things less than a crime, things that were malum in se. I may well have this wrong.

Don't poke at the bear and expect the bear to follow the rules.

One last thing. That my scenario is universally rejected gives me more concern that something like it if not it will be tried.
You need to relax
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:18 AM
johnk518's Avatar
johnk518 johnk518 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: HB
Posts: 980
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

lol, this is still going on?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:30 AM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Palomino Vally, Pah-Rah Mountains, NV
Posts: 12,438
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnk518 View Post
lol, this is still going on?
Yep, because if we let fools like this continue to spread FUD, the next time some vendor may see it and decide not to sell to California because it's too risky or someone will be scared off from doing something perfectly legal.
FUD is not harmless and neither are those who intentionally spread it like Chewy65. They do a disservice to the cause of gun rights in CA.
__________________


Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-09-2019, 4:06 AM
AGGRO's Avatar
AGGRO AGGRO is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,776
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Not illegal in CA.
I wasn't going to argue, just glad to be moving on This following a showdown the year before that cost me five grand even though I won the case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-09-2019, 5:51 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,261
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
What you are arguing is similar to a justifiable reliance argument. If you have any authority more on four squares do share it. I agree that the equities favor denying prosecution, but as I have emphasized over and over again, while the DOJ would undoubtedly love to prosecute some successfully, I think they would apply for search warrants now just for the politics.
Wrong. What YOU are arguing is that the doj is so stupidly single minded thst they will prosecute cases they CANNOT win.

That’s not how prosecutions work.

Emphasize all you want, this is a stupid exercise.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. J Beezy View Post
Unfortunately for you, I have the truth on my side and... I’m definitely better than you at what you make a living from.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 04-09-2019, 6:10 AM
SoldierLife7's Avatar
SoldierLife7 SoldierLife7 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,393
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
So you think the probable cause for a warrant of a residence exists in legal action taken pursuant to a lawful order from a sitting federal court judge?

Ok. We agree to disagree.
The bold part is how I read his post as well.

I see too many people with tunnel vision that "cherry pick" part of the PC to make a scary paranoia filled claim...and they don't seem to understand how the whole system works.

*IANAL but I did maintain a 4.0 through all of my business law and criminal justice courses.
__________________
___________

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”

-Edmund Burke, Speech at Country Meeting of Buckinghamshire, 1784
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 04-09-2019, 6:32 AM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 477
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I will leave questions of sodomy up to you and your expertise. Are you now going to tell us all about ex post facto law. Don't bother
"Your Honor, you can see in exibit A. that I am rubber, and you are glue. I rest my case"
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 04-09-2019, 7:14 AM
Rcjackrabbit Rcjackrabbit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 997
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhead45 View Post
Y’all overthink this ****, read too deep and freak out. No one is coming for ****. My god.
Unfortunately, many gun owners are beta male victims. They can't help themselves. If reality doesn't make them a victim in a certain circumstance, their imagination will.

It is all they know. That is why guns appeal to them. It offers them the promise of power and independence. But, their own internal drive to be life's b*tch is too great.

They will not come for your mags that you just bought.

There are plenty of more real things to worry about.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 04-09-2019, 8:26 AM
canopis's Avatar
canopis canopis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 288
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm sure DOJ and LEOs have better things to do. I seriously doubt they're coming after anyone for only mags. You'd have to be doing something else to get their attention first.
__________________
I am not a lawyer, so my dribbles are not legal advice.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:03 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy