#1
|
|||
|
|||
Warrants to Search Homes for LCMs
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, Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
A warrant to enforce a nuisance seizure? Sounds like a stretch, even for CA.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
While not legal advice...
This is so far out... No judge in CA is going to authorize a search warrant for anything remotely this, er, contextually irrelevant and vague? You could likely call the local Sheriff's office right now (not using 911) and admit to owning unlawful guns or mags, and they can't record or trace your call, and they're likely to tell you to resolve it yourself. As has been posted many times... LE and DOJ are now in a difficult position, and any nuisance confiscation is thus far unknown (to my knowledge) or part of a more relevant crime. Take heed of the legal advice here. Write down Michel & Associates phone number, and act accordingly if anything happens. (The likelihood of which is wee.) Breathe... Last edited by liberty_head; 04-08-2019 at 3:18 AM.. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Agree, this would be a stretch. Enforcement would more likely be range harasment. LEO asking for reciepts proving dates of purchase type things etc. Even this would be discresionary.
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life. John 3:16 NRA,,, Lifer United Air Epic Fail Video ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
1. An officer has to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion. 2. Possession alone does not constitute either probable cause or reasonable suspicion 3. From an LEO's point of view, (and I have an Active LEO in my family that I talk to regularly) Unless you are doing something else that warrants their attention they couldn't care less. The paper work involved to pop you for an infraction?? You guy's realize that possession alone was nothing more than an infraction. Infractions can only be enhanced to misdemeanors when their is justification. Mere possession alone is not enough to justify an enhancement. You guys need to frigging relax. Chewy65, while it is appreciated, your dissection of the laws is one thing. Jumping to the conclusion that the DOJ is chomping at the bit to kick in doors is pure paranoia. There is a court order in place. And while you may be correct on the nuisance issue. I've not heard of anyone having mags confiscated on possession alone, EVER. Meaning the person involved was charged with something else and the mags were collateral damage. Now that court order we have protecting us only covers one section of the code. But once limiting possession is deemed unconstitutional then all state laws limiting possession become unconstitutional. Yes that is a matter for the courts to hash out though. So I'll say it again. Know the laws. Know your rights. and don't do stupid stuff. Last edited by kcstott; 04-08-2019 at 4:34 AM.. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Anchors Aweigh Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 09-03-2019 at 5:56 PM.. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
OP, you really have a fantastic imagination.
__________________
“The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats." -The Honorable Judge Roger T. Benitez |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Not worth the time or money. There's too many variables.
What if a buyer sold the magazines bought on record? What if the package never arrived? What.if the owner got scared and changed them back to 32310 compliance? What if the package was sent to a "dead drop"? What if a package was sent back? That's just the tip of the iceberg.
__________________
Anyway...here's a dearth of reasoning to ponder: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Guns |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Cops don't care about nuisances. There is no "nuisance squad." Nuisance status is secondary to criminality.
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Nuisance Falls, i think it was called.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
If what the OP describes happens... Michel's office will have the plaintiff they mentioned looking for in the other thread(s). It obviously has not happened yet. Penal Code §32390 has not yet been challenged probably because there has not been a suitable plaintiff for said case...
This hardline enforcement just ain't gonna happen folks, stop being worry warts!
__________________
SCC CCW *326 Days* Application: 2/27/2023 ($72.33) Original Interview: 12/21@1030|Actual: 4/13@0900 'Informal" email Background complete: 9/19 Email to schedule Psych: 10/27@1539 ($150) Psych Test: 11/3@0800|Psych Interview: 11/9@0900 (Dr.McKenzie) LiveScan: 11/9 (UPS Store $93+$25)|Livescan cleared: CA/FBI 11/9, Firearms 11/20 LiveScan Email: 11/17@0842 Training Email: 11/29@1007|Instructor: 1/10/2024 SaberTactics ($399+40)|Docs: 1/12 Approval: 1/17@1346 ($264+$7.96)|Pickup: 1/19@1030 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"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."
__________________
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." George Washington "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Cops do not have the time or resources to check out everybody they can. So, they pick the most promising targets. Generally speaking, don't look like a promising target, and the police won't notice you. It's not hard. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
OP, try cutting out the sweets before bed. I have hallucinations like yours when I eat ice cream before bed.
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns 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 |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
OP, before you go any further, may I suggest that you next do some research and post the laws governing under what circumstances one can be granted a search warrant In CA.
By the way, you wouldn't happen to be related to HighCapAssaultOpinionator, would you?
__________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups Last edited by TRICKSTER; 04-08-2019 at 7:53 AM.. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I have a lot of family in Law Enforcement here too, and according to one of them, they (en masse) have very little idea about the current status and nuance of most of this stuff, so good luck. More so, they are not out after anyone, but if you are a felon and breaking rules, even nuisance laws, look out. He had a parolee the other day with ammo and high caps (and a variety of other stuff he shouldnt have been doing), but no gun, and dude was hauled in. Felon plus ammo was the problem, mags made it worse.
It does not seem to be standalone, but it will depend on you and your attitude/preparedness with info (knowing CVC#'s and citing the Benitez case cliff-notes) for them to make the call you're GTG or to let the judge make the call (cited). The laws change so fast, they can only do the best they can to keep us safe. Sometimes, that means following their gut and letting a judge make the call. Life is better if you don't be a tool and piss off the gut. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
If they tried this, the house of cards would crumble further than it has already. An item that is expressly legal to own and possess cannot simultaneously be a nuisance subject to seizure from your house.
They rely on discrete use of that nuisance law (as it pertains to magazines) to keep the charade going. If they were to come out enmasse and try this, and further if they took it to our homes, the kimono would come off and this magazine nuisance law would never survive scrutiny. Last edited by SkyHawk; 04-08-2019 at 8:25 AM.. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
That story is too far fetched you are reaching OP.
__________________
“This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.” Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge March 29, 2019 ____________ |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
You can probably go out of your way in an act of civil disobedience to get their attention so they make an example out of you. Give it a shot and we'll watch. Kevin DeLeon can go on TV and talk about your 30 second ghost clip that holds a hundred magazines.
__________________
Buy made in USA whenever possible. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
1525.
A search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. IANAL, seems to me about the only way a SCM is going to be seized as a "nuisance" in execution of a search warrant would be if a search warrant was issued for any other cause as described in the PC. While the stay is in place for the Summary Judgement pending appeal, I don't see the standard being met for a judge to sign off on a search warrant to seize LCM's citing the "nuisance" provision, but again, IANAL... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...er=3.&article=
__________________
NRA Member NRA-ILA Contributor CGN Contributor iTrader Feedback Link https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1885547 |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As for getting a judge to issue a warrant, are you saying that DOJ isn't going to find any that would buy an application based on PC 1524. Quote:
Penal Code section 32310 is still law, thought enforcement is enjoined. If it is law can a warrant be issued for evidence that a felony has been committed? Perhaps not if to do so would be enforcement of 32310. 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. Last edited by Chewy65; 04-08-2019 at 10:20 AM.. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
(but yes, I agree, probably better odds at winning the lottery than having agents come looking for your mags at home) |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think it's entirely possible, nay, probable, that the DOJ is going to divert all resources from the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS), and instead direct local law enforcement agencies to go to the homes of responsible, law-abiding gun owners with legally purchased and possessed large-capacity magazines, put those citizens into large burlap bags, beat them with reeds, and then ritualistically shave their testicles. I'll be interested to see if anyone agrees with me. If, like your theory, this scenario is universally rejected, then my concern over its occurrence will also be elevated.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 04-08-2019 at 11:39 AM.. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Long before we had Trump Derangement Syndrome, we had California Paranoia. Both include irrational thought and a denial of logic and fact.
We are seeing a prime example of the latter here.
__________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
I've already had my weapon inspected by Fish and Wildlife and the local Sheriff and none of them cared at all. The only thing mentioned was to make sure I wasn't using a high cap to hunt big game.
__________________
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
I don't understand the level of paranoia here. What city has the budget to even begin to enforce something so ridiculous.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|