California appeals court upholds ban on higher-capacity magazines, spurring unusual video dissent - 21 March 2025

[USMC06RET]

I will conclude as well with a quote that is widely attributed to my favorite author and satirist:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain

 

[jhsd20]

I will conclude as well with a quote that is widely attributed to my favorite author and satirist:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain

Satire is great for identifying problems. Solutions come from those that analyze statistics, identify trends accurately, and act upon knowledge derived from the data.

 

[USMC06RET]

Satire is great for identifying problems. Solutions come from those that analyze statistics, identify trends accurately, and act upon knowledge derived from the data.

We both know that statistics are subject to the whims of those who collect and compile them. Additionally, a vague reference to statistics is not the same as presenting the actual statistics that can be evaluated objectively by all parties. Personally, I have found Twain's aphorism to be spot-on accurate far more times than it is wrong.

 

[sonofeugene]

Some people are mentally defective and there’s nothing that can be done to prevent that aside from making sure that law abiding citizens have the same equipment that the criminals have. One cannot legislate compliance. Just look how well that worked with drug laws.

 

[Robdog1]

The supreme court better do their job!!! This is so ridiculous that anything California does just gets pushed by these activist judges. It is proven that 10 rounds might not be enough and already the criminals are always caught with 30 round mags so they do not care. Unbelievable!

SCOTUS do their job? Heh, that’s a good one! The only ‘job’ they do is vote whichever way benefits the highest bidder.

 

[DrPete]

This is a little naive on my part but I'll say it anyways.

There needs to be a new law.

Any new law has to be decided by someone who owns and actually shoots a firearm.

It's to save the children, ya know. That part will get it fixed every time.

 

[treelogger]

Well it is standard capacity, not high capacity.

You can call it whatever you want. But California law, and the court cases about California law, call it a large capacity magazine. To prevent confusion, I choose to use the same terminology as the law.

And because under CA logic, the magazine is required for normal function of the firearm (because of magazine disconnect),

That statement is false at various levels.

First, magazine disconnects are not required by law on pistols. You can continue to buy pistols that don't have them by PPT, and you can remove them from pistols bought from dealer stock (on roster) after purchasing them.

And pistols with a mag disconnect do not require a large capacity magazine to function; they function just fine with a 10-rounder.

it should not be regulated in any way, shape or form (referring to capacity in this case). The magazine being a requirement to function, it is (and should be) protected by the constitution.

That is just wishful thinking on your part. They are regulated today, and the current legal situation (as just confirmed by the 9th circuit en banc panel) is that this is constitutional. Now, a review of this decision by the Supreme Court might change that, but probably not using your argument that large-capacity magazines are required for pistols to function.

 

[M_N04H]

You can call it whatever you want. But California law, and the court cases about California law, call it a large capacity magazine. To prevent confusion, I choose to use the same terminology as the law.


That statement is false at various levels.

First, magazine disconnects are not required by law on pistols. You can continue to buy pistols that don't have them by PPT, and you can remove them from pistols bought from dealer stock (on roster) after purchasing them.

And pistols with a mag disconnect do not require a large capacity magazine to function; they function just fine with a 10-rounder.


That is just wishful thinking on your part. They are regulated today, and the current legal situation (as just confirmed by the 9th circuit en banc panel) is that this is constitutional. Now, a review of this decision by the Supreme Court might change that, but probably not using your argument that large-capacity magazines are required for pistols to function.

Potato po tah toe. But yea it is standard capacity, regardless of what they want to call it.

Just using the mag disconnect logic as it relates to the roster. PPT and off roster is another topic. But firearms they do want sold through gun stores, with exceptions of SSE firearms, need to have mag disconnect.

And of course it's wishful thinking, don't we all? The constitution is the law of the land. Hopefully SCOTUS sees it that way. I'm no law expert, just trying to go about this by common sense. Standard capacity, just how it's meant to be.

 

[69Impala]

So what happens to all the freedom week magazines?

 

[jhsd20]

So what happens to all the freedom week magazines?

If we go by what happened the first time around, the case will go back to Benitez and he will have to implement the En Banc ruling. He will most likely stay the ruling pending appeal, just like it was stayed when the Plaintiffs won in the 9th the first time pending En Banc. So things will stay as they are until the SCOTUS ruling.
If scotus refuses to take the case, then Benitez and CA will have to decide a date on which the law comes into effect. You will have until then to block or dispose of your magazines, including freedom week and pre 2000 ones.

 

[FNfan]

Jumping over to that Nevada border looks better by the day.

 

[USMC06RET]

If we go by what happened the first time around, the case will go back to Benitez and he will have to implement the En Banc ruling. He will most likely stay the ruling pending appeal, just like it was stayed when the Plaintiffs won in the 9th the first time pending En Banc. So things will stay as they are until the SCOTUS ruling.
If scotus refuses to take the case, then Benitez and CA will have to decide a date on which the law comes into effect. You will have until then to block or dispose of your magazines, including freedom week and pre 2000 ones.

Actually, at this point the plaintiff's have the right to appeal this to SCOTUS, if they do not appeal or if SCOTUS declines to hear the case, it doesn't go back to Benitez, instead the law which went into effect in 2000, will remain in effect. The En Banc 9th district court ruled on Thursday (7-4) that the law is constitutional. Benitez has no authority to stay a ruling of the 9th circuit court of appeals. Additionally, if it goes to SCOTUS, the law will remain fully in effect until such time as SCOTUS overrules the 9th Circuit. For all intents and purposes, Benitez's role in this case is over.

 

[jhsd20]

Benitez has no more deciding role to play, but IIRC he still has an administrative role since it was originally his case and the other courts are deciding if he got it right or not.
It would be the CA district courts that decide how and when the penal code becomes active, it doesn't happen immediately after a upper or scotus decision. I misspoke when I said he would stay the decision, it's more correct to say he would implement a timeline to lift his inital stay that remains in effect in response to the 9ths decision.

If not Benitez specifically, then for certain the CA district courts. I may have some details fuzzy, but all I'm saying is personally owned magazines will not be affected until the district courts implement the ruling and lift Benitez's original stay on his own decision. After which, ALL magazines of 10+ capacity WILL be affected.

 

[USMC06RET]

Benitez has no more deciding role to play, but IIRC he still has an administrative role since it was originally his case and the other courts are deciding if he got it right or not.
It would be the CA district courts that decide how and when the penal code becomes active, it doesn't happen immediately after a upper or scotus decision.
If not Benitez specifically, then for certain the CA district courts. I may have some details fuzzy, but all I'm saying is personally owned magazines will not be affected until the district courts implement the ruling and lift Benitez's original stay on his own decision. After which, ALL magazines of 10+ capacity WILL be affected.

The law is and has been in effect. Benitez's ruling has been nullified / vacated. Possession of high capacity magazines has been and still is illegal in the state of California.

 

[jhsd20]

I am 100% certain you are not correct on this and this is disinformation. Please refer to the CRPA's after brief on the case.

Buying, selling, or receiving a lcm has always been illegal since 2000.
Possession of large capacity magazines had NEVER been illegal in CA. This is not a loophole, the penal code explicity says possession of magazines is legal. Possession was set to be illegal in July of 2017 upon the passage of the penal code Duncan challenges. Benitez granted a preliminary injunction in June of 2017, which kept possession legal. He made a decision in 2019, then stayed it, keeping the law the way it has been since his injunction in 2017. that stay has not been lifted. it wasn't lifted when Duncan won in the 9th, lost in en banc, got sent to scotus, got sent back, and went back up.

The stay won't be lifted until the district courts lift it- which is likely when scotus refuses to hear the case. Until then Large Capacity Magazinrs are LEGAL to possess, as they always have been. they are still ILLEGAL to acquire.

USMCRet06... I'm not arguing with you on this. I'm answering the others on the thread about what to do with their mags. Please refer to the CRPA brief on this, or read what happened to Duncan initially after it's first en banc loss.

 

[jhsd20]

An easy way to think of this- there was no second freedom week when Duncan won in the 3 panel before its en-banc review pre-Bruen. because the stay was not lifted. thus there is no change after this decision either until it's lifted.
Make no mistake - if scotus does not take the case Benitez will have no choice but to lift his stay. But until it's lifted- business as usual.

 

[USMC06RET]

An easy way to think of this- there was no second freedom week when Duncan won in the 3 panel before its en-banc review pre-Bruen. because the stay was not lifted. thus there is no change after this decision either until it's lifted.
Make no mistake - if scotus does not take the case Benitez will have no choice but to lift his stay. But until it's lifted- business as usual.

I think I understand your confusion. Benitez stayed his own order pending appeal. Additionally, I would refer you to: California Penal Code § 32310 PC paragraph (c), inserted below for your convenience.

(c) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

 

[jhsd20]

Correct. and that penal code remains stayed, just as it did when Duncan won in the 9th 3 panel and lost en banc the first time around.
Benitez's stay keeps the law as it existed during the preliminary injunction, pending appeal, and it has not been lifted. (Because it's still pending appeal)

So possession remains legal until it's lifted.

Editing to post case history.

NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund: Duncan, et al. v. Bonta (formerly, Becerra).

ILA Litigation Counsel informs as follows: This case was filed in May 2017 in the Southern District of the United States District Court, challenging both a state bill and Proposition 63 which placed a ban on the possession of magazines that have a capacity of more than ten (10) rounds. The...

www.nradefensefund.org

 

[USMC06RET]

Correct. and that penal code remains stayed, just as it did when Duncan won in the 9th and lost en banc the first time around.
Benitez's stay keeps the law as it is during is preliminary injunction, and it has not been lifted. So possession remains legal until it's lifted.

Sorry, that is where you are in error. The law was never stayed. Benitez ruled it was unconstitutional and then he stayed his own ruling correction: the 9th circuit stayed Benitez's ruling pending the appeal (see the final paragraph in your NRA link above). The law was left in effect and it is still in effect. This is why retailers in California have not been selling high capacity magazines because it is illegal to do so. If you can provide a credible link that substantiates your assertion, I will be happy to admit that I am in error.

I am concerned that any person reading this thread might accept your assertions as being correct and find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

PS. Are you now willing to acknowledge that mere possession of high capacity magazines in California is illegal? You previously stated that possession was never illegal. In fact it is punishable by a $100 fine and or a one year incarceration.

 

[jhsd20]

I think you're missing a step my friend.

Possession has always been legal since 2000 because it was a way to grandfather magazines without registration. Penal code was changed to make possession illegal starting July 2017. Judge Benitez in June of 2017 put out a preliminary injunction (this is separate from his stay) enjoining 32130 from taking place. therfore, since the law was enjoined before it took place, possession never illegal at any time. He then ruled in 2019 that the law was unconstitutional, which resulted in freedom week. He then stayed his own decision, reverting the law to its status during the preliminary injunction.. Neither the stay nor the preliminary injunction have been lifted.. Therefore, magazines remain illegal to purchase (stay on decision) but legal to possess (PI) as it was before 2017.

if you don't believe me please consult a lawyer. I know I already have so I am confident in my assessment.

From a more academic level: the 9th has decided that California penal code 32130 is constitutional. the 9th has no say in its implementation in California, only CA can decide that... only that it is legal to implement if CA wishes to do so. Actually re-implementing the penal code is a California decision, and if history is a guide it will not be implemented until appeals are over. Both the Preliminary injunction (preventing possession from being illegal) and the stay on Benitez's ruling (preventing legal acquisition) are in still in effect. The law remains as it was in June 2017.