PDA

View Full Version : Not so fast on California magazine ban case!


Uni-Vibe
04-01-19, 14:21
The injunction only concerned Cal. Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d), which prohibit simple possession.

Left untouched was (a) and (b) which talk about manufacturing, selling, possession to sell, importing into the state, transferring, etc.

How are Californians going to legally get these newly-legal magazines?
Doc Safari
04-01-19, 14:25
The injunction only concerned Cal. Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d), which prohibit simple possession.

Left untouched was (a) and (b) which talk about manufacturing, selling, possession to sell, importing into the state, transferring, etc.

How are Californians going to legally get these newly-legal magazines?

"Don't tell anybody when and where you got them?"

Granted companies that suddenly think it's okay to sell to people in California might have reason to worry, how is anyone really going to know you illegally purchased magazines that are now legal to possess?
Uni-Vibe
04-01-19, 14:51
"Don't tell anybody when and where you got them?"

Granted companies that suddenly think it's okay to sell to people in California might have reason to worry, how is anyone really going to know you illegally purchased magazines that are now legal to possess?

California cops have been known to go to NV gun shows and sniff out Californians who buy a few std-caps and take them home. If they're willing to make that kind of effort, it's a cinch to track packages from Palmetto State Armory or somewhere, and pop the Californian where the package goes. Californian will be guilty of "importing into the state" under subsection (a). Go to jail.
Dennis
04-01-19, 14:52
Where are you getting that?

"Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Judgment-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Uni-Vibe
04-01-19, 14:58
You might be right. I don't have access to the original suit so I can't see what was originally complained about. Maybe a CA lawyer can weigh in here, and let us know?
Alex V
04-01-19, 15:12
I'm pretty sure Dennis is right on this one. The entire stature has been thrown out, not just possession.
ggammell
04-01-19, 16:14
You might be right. I don't have access to the original suit so I can't see what was originally complained about. Maybe a CA lawyer can weigh in here, and let us know?

Then why would you post such? Maybe a lawyer can weigh in here? Yeah good call. Nothing like running around saying "hey hey you could all be felons now because I didn't have time to read the decision before I posted."
militarymoron
04-01-19, 19:39
Please discuss in the existing thread on this subject.