Especially since nobody can prove when they were imported.Actually, it is better than prior, because the newly imported magazines are legal to possess under the stay, and that makes enforcement more difficult.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Especially since nobody can prove when they were imported.Actually, it is better than prior, because the newly imported magazines are legal to possess under the stay, and that makes enforcement more difficult.
None of this should be happening. Should've never been any ban. Do you really think SCOTUS will hear it? I don't. I guess we wait and see.Huh?
It was expected.
If the AG lost, he was going to appeal and he was going to request an immediate stay. If the district judge didn’t grant the stay, then the AG would have requested an immediate stay from the Appeals court, and the Appellate Court would have granted a stay.
In fact, I think it was better that Benitez granted the stay as his stay is limited — the Appellate Court might have granted a broader stay.
The AG will likely win at the Appellate Court. The plaintiff will then appeal, either to the Appellate en band, or to SCOTUS. The plaintiff will request an immediate stay and likely be granted it.
None of this should be happening. Should've never been any ban.
The CA law only grandfathered in pre-ban mags possessed by the person who had then in CA before the ban.Especially since nobody can prove when they were imported.
Yup, Dragon Man our in ArizonaThere are civilians who own tanks. In fact there is a place you can go to pay and drive/fire tanks.
And if my aunt was a man she’d be my uncle. This lawsuit is in as a good a place as possible, given the CA laws.
that may not happen as Trump has been appointing judges to the 9th recently. one can hopeSo with the law enjoined, one could conceivably go out of state and buy a bunch of mags legally and bring them home. How does that work when this decision is likely reversed at the 9th circuit and has to be appealed to SCOTUS?
I think that this judge has made it dramatically more likely that they take it up, both because it's so well-written and because the status quo is that much more untenable after 350k+ new standard capacity mags made it into the state.None of this should be happening. Should've never been any ban. Do you really think SCOTUS will hear it? I don't. I guess we wait and see.
The CA law only grandfathered in pre-ban mags possessed by the person who had then in CA before the ban.
feel bad for any CA gun owners that went on vacation last week...LMAO
Hopefully they have friends who ordered an extra case.
So where does that leave the newly purchased mags? I don't think it matters, the state probably won't dare prosecute anyone for any mag-related charges while this case is under review.
Seriously, this is a huge win considering what’s been the norm for us in blue states.I suspect you couldn't be more wrong. What the judge did would be similar to a retreat, instead of a standing his ground to die.
Amazing what he actually did, he gave those fighting in the court a leg to stand on because he declared that it was LEGAL from March 29th at 5pm to April 5th at 5PM. That is called heroic in judges circles and I guess "pussied out" by some. He took a win for gun rights by agreeing to the stay instead of overextending and pissing off the 5th.
My understanding is that they are legally possessed for now.
If I got jammed up for possession of banned itemswhat I don't get is how the gov will know if they got them last week or next week. checking time stamped receipts?
I disagree. If the judge didn't grant a stay, the appellate court would have done so, and the appellate court may have granted a more sweeping stay. That is, the appellate court might have ruled that CA could go ahead with enforcing their ban on possession of pre-ban standard capacity magazines pending appeal. This stay prevents CA from doing so.
The stay doesn't mean the judge thinks that he is wrong. The stay means that the state of CA doesn't have to implement his decision pending the resolution of their appeal.
You what the queen said? Not Maura.And if my aunt was a man she’d be my uncle. This lawsuit is in as a good a place as possible, given the CA laws.
I suspect you couldn't be more wrong. What the judge did would be similar to a retreat, instead of a standing his ground to die.