JHSD is correct, USMC is incorrect.
USMC also stated earlier in the thread that "bullet buttons" were required for California compliance, which is also incorrect information. I believe USMC, while well intentioned, is misinformed in California firearms law.
Yes, one has to always keep up with legislative changes that as Benitez put it "would make an angel swear". "Bullet buttons" were a fantasy intended to "fix" the "problem" by requiring a tool to drop a mag... this was about as succesful as a screen door on a submarine, SO... they re-wrote all the laws so that Bullet buttons were verboten, and certain "scary features" were banned, UNLESS your firearm had something to prevent the mag being removed without opening the action, if you had a "fixed mag", you could have scary features... yeah, this is how illogical the logic applied to "common sense gun laws" works. Are ya swearing yet?!
Part of the problem here is the assumption that criminals or psycho/sociopaths (often with suicidal ideations, either through self-identification as dead, or suicide by cop) will give two poops about whether their weapons of choice are against the law - they WILL NOT! A lunatic most of the time INTENDS to end up dying while taking as many others with them, so they couldn't care less about "common sense gun laws" that only tack on some extra charges - they are dead... Thus all the warm fuzzy "feel good 'cause we DID SOMETHING" laws overwhelmingly criminalize law abiding citizens who aren't "child killers" like the anti-gunners like to portray 2A proponents...
As far as the 9th, it's the MOST overturned circuit in the country, SCOTUS already sent this one back once, and is sitting on two similar cases, VERY likely waiting for the last year as the 9th twiddled and put off releasing their "opinion". Benitiez set this case up for SCOTUS, the question is whether the 9th made crap up (uh huh) to reach their "opinion"... SCOTUS might well be chomping at the bit to slap the 9th sideways, along with the AW bans. The Second has been a second class RIGHT for far too long.
If the analysis I have read is correct, the 9th took a crazy twist, deciding that a magazine was an "accessory" so therefore has NO protection under the Second Amendment, as it is not a "firearm". Problem with this "logic" is that a magazine has NO OTHER USE other than as used with a firearm, and a typical modern firearm REQUIRES a magazine to function. More important factually, only the serialized frame is a "firearm", meaning that in theory laws could be passed banning virtually the entire rest of a firearm piece by piece, and say it's not a gun, so no 2A protection whatsoever....
There were supposedly well over 1 MILLION "large cap" mags that entered the state JUST DURING FREEDOM WEEK!!!! Has there been an increase in people killed by ANY of these? <crickets> Or does this constitute "in common use"...? It is unlikely that SCOTUS will say that an arbitrarily determined capacity (which has been decided to be different in different locations) makes one mag unprotected by the 2A, while another is covered under 2A. How is three 10 round mags somehow less lethal than a 30 round? Yeah, if one practices mag swaps, it ain't, and anyone arguing otherwise is just blowing smoke.
The 9th is basically saying you can have as many guns as you want (except the ones they say you CAN'T of course, which to the CA legislature would mean you can't have ANY), as many bullets as you want (or can afford after the sin taxes and fees), and as many 10 round mags as you want, but if you own a mag over 10 capacity, you're a "criminal", because "the children". The map for the ANTI-2A crowd is to chip away at Constitutional RIGHTS incrementally until you HAVE NO 2A RIGHTS. Choose a part of a firearm that it can't funcion without (like maybe firing pins MUST have a microstamp? Sound familiar?) and make a law requiring that "feature" or you can't buy that part or a gun without it (and yes, I believe they already passed something to that effict to kick back in in 2028 IIRC, despite not appealing the adverse ruling on microstamp requirements!!). But of course the firing pin isn't a "firearm", so no 2A protection - do you see now why the current path is one designed to stomp out guns???? Incremental bans until you can only buy a single shot gun and a handful of bullets... maybe. There are even those posting here that are nodding along about how the incremental "death by 1000 cuts" seems "OK"... it's not.
I agree that civil discourse is needed, along with a firm and unwavering defense of 2A rights. Just imagine if all the other RIGHTS were as easily circumvented (like you can't use more than 10 words to make a point that disagrees with a "politically acceptable" position, or you lose your 1st amendment protections, and are a felon/enemy of the state). If we rely on "common sense" that frankly does not pass the smell test, we can and will lose rights intended by the founding fathers for a free citizenry.
The mainstream anti-2A monologue is so often easily debunked, yet sometimes even some "pro 2A" individuals get sucked into nodding in agreement, and a large portion of the "public" is as clueless as can be, so they chug the anti-2A KoolAid.
As firearm enthusiasts, we have to be willing to speak up and call out the BS. There is ZERO proof that an arbitrary limitation on magazine capacity (or most other "common sense gun controls") will save even one life - it's all speculation and opinion! Just because it's the opinion of a bunch of clueless guys/gals in black robes doesn't make it right, and we should not forget that.
I'd be interested in starting a thread that might try to identify what real solutions are needed and would actually WORK to reduce so called "gun violence". To start with, roughly 60% of gun deaths are SUICIDES... unless one is a terrible shot, that only takes ONE round, so mag capacity is pretty much as irrelevant as can be. Yet here we are, dealing with discussing "feel good" laws that screw over the law abiding, gun safe citizen while doing virtually nothing to save lives.
