CPR: As of July 1, all that stands between the state of California and the criminalization of thousands of previously law-abiding state citizens is the opinion of a single federal judge. In a 66-page order, Judge Roger Benitez temporarily blocked a new California law that required citizens to surrender possession of any gun magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.
Remember how gun-controllers mock conservatives who claim that progressives really want to confiscate lawfully owned weapons? Well, someone forgot to tell California progressives to hide their radical cards. Last year the state amended its criminal law. It already banned the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines. The new law applied to those magazines that were grandfathered in, legally possessed under previous law. As of July 1, 2017, any person who keeps a lawfully purchased and lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine risks a fine and up to one year in a county jail. Or, to quote the judge, “On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.”
The law, however, does play favorites. It exempts “active and retired law enforcement officers” (but not members of the military), “employees of armored car businesses” and — incredibly — “movie and television actors when magazines are used as a prop.” Not even social justice can stop the Hollywood gravy train.
The little people, however, have but three choices: take the magazine out of the state (I’ll gladly accept donations to my Tennessee stash), sell it to a licensed firearm dealer, or surrender it to law enforcement for destruction. more here
I think I’d go for this fourth choice: take a bunch of 30-round mags and shove one up the ass of each legislator who voted for the bill, and TWO up Jerry Brown’s.
A Flicker of hope from the gulag?
Is a law really a law if no one pays any attention to it. Every road sign in this county has a “Will Not Comply” sticker stuck to it. And not just the mags either.
Illiteracy is normally a requirement to be on the California bench, this judge is an exception.
Federal trumps state law. The 2nd Amendment is FEDERAL.
I say the gov’t should swoop in and jail any state law-maker who tries to INFRINGE on our Constitutional rights.
“Federal trumps state law. The 2nd Amendment is FEDERAL.”
That points been made several times to our Law Makers. My favorite reply from one of them was “Well this is California and we really don’t pay to much attention to the U.S. Constitution”. They should be jailed.
Fuck Marxifornia!
“Every road sign in this county has a “Will Not Comply” sticker stuck to it.”
Brad – You have been busy…
Jethro LOL, I wore the taste buds off my tongue too.
This may seem to be a nit, but the 2nd Amendment is national. State and federal govts are supposed to abide by the Constitution. Amending that document requires both state and fed govts to act together.
Taste buds?
I won’t ask…
If I absolutely had to turn in a magazine, it would not be in a serviceable condition
This may be of some interest:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/06/johannes-paulsen/breaking-federal-judge-blocks-californias-magazine-ban/
There is some discussion of pertinent legal matters in the comments.
It appears this decision was not based entirely on the Second Amendment.
I doubt we have heard the last of this.
“It appears this decision was not based entirely on the Second Amendment.”
Nope, but just as powerful. Commerce Clause. If I purchase something that’s legal, and years later the state determines it’s illegal, to bad. Hmm think about that and so called assault rifles.
It would be up to the county sheriffs to enforce it. You saw how that worked in oregon. NOT.
I neednt worry about grandfathering-in any old 30 round magazines. Mine are all new Magpul’s.
Because I’m one of those people who won’t comply with this nonsense – EVER.