Jump to content
Pepper

To our California members...

Recommended Posts

Because of the recent federal court ruling regarding standard capacity magazines, and how they're now fully legal to own.... I am going to try to start something good. 

 

TO ANY MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING WITH MORE THAN 90 DAYS MEMBERSHIP CURRENTLY RESIDING IN CALIFORNIA: I will donate a 30-round magazine to the first two people who post in this thread and say, "I'LL TAKE ONE". Why only two? Because I'm broke as f**k right now, but I want to do something decent for our brothers behind the wall. They will be used, but functional USGI magazines. What I am hoping, is that if enough folks want magazines, that some of our members who have huge stockpiles might gift one or two of them to our comrades in arms. No expectations, but that would be cool if people did. Or, they could expand it to other high-cap mags, like Glocks, etc. I know several online retailers are out of stock, and more are jacking up the prices, and I don't like seeing brothers getting gouged. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see if I can dig up my stash I've got 2 or 3 USGI mags I can let go of if I can find my box that's packed up somewhere. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance as I have not read into this yet........is this ruling for the recent law that tried to take away all the grandfathered hi-cap magazines and not an all out reversal or is it going to reverse the long standing 10 round limit?  

 

 

Found this....looks like it may (may) open it up for new mags to be acquired. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/30/california-judge-high-capacity-gun-ammunition-magazines/3318916002/

 

It will be nice to uncork my S+W 659 from 10 back to 15 and pull the plugs on my S+W 4006 mags and get them back to 11. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to donate a couple.

 

Terry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, towtruck said:

Excuse my ignorance as I have not read into this yet........is this ruling for the recent law that tried to take away all the grandfathered hi-cap magazines and not an all out reversal or is it going to reverse the long standing 10 round limit?  

A long read. Here's the conclusion:

 

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf

 

IV. CONCLUSION Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 87 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.8138 Page 84 of 86 85 3:17cv1017-BEN (JLB) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that lawabiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits lawabiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.68 Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted.69 California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Joel74 said:

A long read. Here's the conclusion:

 

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf

 

IV. CONCLUSION Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 87 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.8138 Page 84 of 86 85 3:17cv1017-BEN (JLB) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that lawabiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits lawabiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.68 Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted.69 California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.

In layman's terms, that judge just raised a middle finger to the entire state government of California. If it makes it to the 9th circus, it will be upheld. The gun grabbers are too smart to challenge it further, they'll lose CA, and STFU. If the USSC rules on a magazine ban, they'll lose every one of them nationwide. Not something the banners want to chance. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'll take one!
 

Actually, I'm not looking for donations. I'm happy to pay retail. I'm just trying to find GI steel mags.

Edited by ipser
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to charge retail. PM me your address, and I'll get one off in the mail on Monday. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like my 9mm house gun will get it's mags uncorked and rock the 15 rounds it was meant to hold. The 4006 will lose it's corks as well even though it only gains me one more round per mag. . As far as my AR15's....well, I only hunt with them and the ten rounders are my preferred magazine off the bench anyway so I'm good there.  I can see my 10/22's getting some new hardware in the future though  :banger:

 

My 9mm is kinda fat for summer time conceal carry but having three mags full for a count of 45 on board makes me think I need to figure out a way to carry it more now.  I will turn my 4006 into a house gun as it has a rail for a light I will add someday. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Pepper said:

In layman's terms, that judge just raised a middle finger to the entire state government of California. If it makes it to the 9th circus, it will be upheld. The gun grabbers are too smart to challenge it further, they'll lose CA, and STFU. If the USSC rules on a magazine ban, they'll lose every one of them nationwide. Not something the banners want to chance. 

They may not have to challenge it in California to have it end up being heard in SCOTUS. We now have conflicting rulings in separate circuits. This won't end well for the gun grabbers.

 

And they aren't that smart anyways. We had a judge in Illinois who ruled a very specific part of our FOID law is unconstitutional and toss a case. It was a very specific circumstance where a woman had a single shot .22 in her home for defense but did not have an FOID but was otherwise not prohibited from possessing a firearm. The cops arrested her for possessing a firearm without an FOID and of course seized the gun. She went to trial and the judge tossed the case, which the state asked him to reconsider and he tossed it with prejudice. It sat that way for 5 months until the new attorney general just elected and a minion of Chicago decided to appeal the judges ruling to SCOIL. It is a wait and see what the court does now. If they take up the case and reverse the decision it could well be that the entire FOID law ends up on the chopping block.

Then there is the class action lawsuit filed against Illinois over the FOID. The law says that the charge for the card can be no greater than $10 but the state will only accept credit card payment online and they charge $1 for that service. So the FOID ends up being $11. And then the lawsuit that the CCL cost is denying people of modest means the ability to defend themselves which was ruled as being an inalienable Right and how the state was forced to allow concealed carry in some form. That one could end up with the state either giving out CCL's at no charge or turning the state into Constitutional Carry.

 

And the desire of the politicians here to pass an AWB is dying rapidly now that California's over 10 mag ban has been ruled unconstitutional. They'd be a whole bunch less desire if they were watching California politicians dangling from a gallows for making an unconstitutional law but we will take what we can get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pepper said:

In layman's terms, that judge just raised a middle finger to the entire state government of California. If it makes it to the 9th circus, it will be upheld. The gun grabbers are too smart to challenge it further, they'll lose CA, and STFU. If the USSC rules on a magazine ban, they'll lose every one of them nationwide. Not something the banners want to chance. 

 

From what I read & posted in another thread, this is the NRA camel’s nose under the tent and they are going after everyone who has a mag ban....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rampy said:

 

From what I read & posted in another thread, this is the NRA camel’s nose under the tent and they are going after everyone who has a mag ban....

 

 

Makes sense...if they can take down a California ban after California has led the way for other states those bad laws will fall like Dominos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, towtruck said:

Makes sense...if they can take down a California ban after California has led the way for other states those bad laws will fall like Dominos. 

 

Monday Magpul is meeting with lawyers and is planning a magazine dump airlift on calif...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rampy said:

 

Monday Magpul is meeting with lawyers and is planning a magazine dump airlift on calif...

That would be awesome. Every FFL that has an account with Magpul getting multiple cases of magazines. The lid is off right now, and it's going to be damned difficult to put it back on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll donate a couple of Pmags to Tow!😂🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×