DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[s786afg]

Interesting!

Thank you for the info!

So if someone has freedom mags and they use them, could they get in trouble as of now? Like getting arrested get a citation etc.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

So if someone has freedom mags and they use them, could they get in trouble as of now? Like getting arrested get a citation etc.

The ban on possession is stayed indefinitely. They can still be confiscated as a nuisance, but you cannot be arrested or charged for possessing them without evidence they were obtained within the last 3 years. (Everyone always references "Freedom Week," but that really has no meaning, since the statute has a 3 year statute of limitations.)

Buying, distributing, manufacturing, and importing are still outlawed.

 

[CadeH]

The ban on possession is stayed indefinitely. They can still be confiscated as a nuisance, but you cannot be arrested or charged for possessing them without evidence they were obtained within the last 3 years. (Everyone always references "Freedom Week," but that really has no meaning, since the statute has a 3 year statute of limitations.)

Buying, distributing, manufacturing, and importing are still outlawed.

California has a "Discovery Rule" essentially starting the statute of limitations at when the crime was uncovered. So if you imported mags illegally in 2021 and the police pull you over tomorrow and find them, they have 3 years to investigate and determine whether or not they can prosecute you.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Alito is rumored to be retiring - before the mid-terms. He’s the really the only 2A activist on SCOTUS so if true, that could impact how 2A cases are being picked up and heard in the future.

 

[jkcerda]

California has a "Discovery Rule" essentially starting the statute of limitations at when the crime was uncovered. So if you imported mags illegally in 2021 and the police pull you over tomorrow and find them, they have 3 years to investigate and determine whether or not they can prosecute you.

you mean "alleged" crime since it's up to them to prove it?

 

[cali_jazz]

California has a "Discovery Rule" essentially starting the statute of limitations at when the crime was uncovered. So if you imported mags illegally in 2021 and the police pull you over tomorrow and find them, they have 3 years to investigate and determine whether or not they can prosecute you.

I don't believe this is correct. California Penal Code Section 803(c) explicitly lists the exact criminal offenses that get to use the discovery rule, firearms and weapons violations are completely left off that list.

For the case you imported mags illegally in 2021, the 3 year statute of limitations has run, the burden is on the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you obtained or imported those magazines within the last 3 years.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Alito is rumored to be retiring - before the mid-terms. He’s the really the only 2A activist on SCOTUS so if true, that could impact how 2A cases are being picked up and heard in the future.

If there were any retirements before the midterms, they would have been announced already.

 

[CadeH]

I don't believe this is correct. California Penal Code Section 803(c) explicitly lists the exact criminal offenses that get to use the discovery rule, firearms and weapons violations are completely left off that list.

For the case you imported mags illegally in 2021, the 3 year statute of limitations has run, the burden is on the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you obtained or imported those magazines within the last 3 years.

You might be right, everything I googled regarding felony wobbler statute of limitations requirements all mentioned the Discovery Rule as something to consider. I did not know that it only applied to very specific laws. Reading through it it seems like a lot of the laws are sexual, environmental, fraud, etc. things that would take years to uncover.

I guess that means if you illegally import magazines, leave them in your basement for 3 years like you're aging a fine wine before you take them to the range? I don't think I have the balls to try that out

 

[cali_jazz]

You might be right, everything I googled regarding felony wobbler statute of limitations requirements all mentioned the Discovery Rule as something to consider. I did not know that it only applied to very specific laws. Reading through it it seems like a lot of the laws are sexual, environmental, fraud, etc. things that would take years to uncover.

I guess that means if you illegally import magazines, leave them in your basement for 3 years like you're aging a fine wine before you take them to the range? I don't think I have the balls to try that out

It's highly unlikely anyone is getting prosecuted solely for large cap mag possession, it's too cumbersome and expensive for the State.

The Yang case in 2000 was eventually dismissed and set somewhat of a precedent.

Freedom Week used as defense for California man facing gun magazine charges

There's a unique legal challenge to a serious charge in Central California that could have an impact on the enforcement of a gun law across the state.

abc7news.com

Here's what AI says:

Why Standalone Possession Prosecutions are Rare
While the law permits law enforcement to charge possession of a large-capacity magazine as a standalone misdemeanor or felony (a "wobbler" offense), standalone prosecutions face a couple of massive hurdles:

• The Enforcement Stay: For years, while the landmark lawsuit Duncan v. Bonta made its way through the court system, a federal injunction specifically protected gun owners who legally acquired their magazines prior to 2000 or during Freedom Week in 2019. Because the state carried the burden of proving when and how a person acquired a plastic box with a spring in it (which rarely have date-stamps), standalone possession charges were incredibly difficult for District Attorneys to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The Nature of Police Contact: Police do not have the legal authority to walk up to law-abiding citizens and search their property just to check magazine capacities. Therefore, almost every single time a large-capacity magazine is discovered, it is the result of a search incident to a different crime—such as a traffic stop revealing a concealed, unregistered firearm, a domestic violence response, or a narcotics search warrant.

 

[11thfinger]

It's highly unlikely anyone is getting prosecuted solely for large cap mag possession, it's too cumbersome and expensive for the State.

The Yang case in 2000 was eventually dismissed and set somewhat of a precedent.

Freedom Week used as defense for California man facing gun magazine charges

There's a unique legal challenge to a serious charge in Central California that could have an impact on the enforcement of a gun law across the state.

abc7news.com

Here's what AI says:

Why Standalone Possession Prosecutions are Rare
While the law permits law enforcement to charge possession of a large-capacity magazine as a standalone misdemeanor or felony (a "wobbler" offense), standalone prosecutions face a couple of massive hurdles:

• The Enforcement Stay: For years, while the landmark lawsuit Duncan v. Bonta made its way through the court system, a federal injunction specifically protected gun owners who legally acquired their magazines prior to 2000 or during Freedom Week in 2019. Because the state carried the burden of proving when and how a person acquired a plastic box with a spring in it (which rarely have date-stamps), standalone possession charges were incredibly difficult for District Attorneys to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The Nature of Police Contact: Police do not have the legal authority to walk up to law-abiding citizens and search their property just to check magazine capacities. Therefore, almost every single time a large-capacity magazine is discovered, it is the result of a search incident to a different crime—such as a traffic stop revealing a concealed, unregistered firearm, a domestic violence response, or a narcotics search warrant.

As an example, you are pulled over and you have a valid California CCW. The IA you have your permit through states that you MUST disclose anytime you are carrying when making contact with law enforcement. If the LEO wants to disarm you, isn't he inspecting your firearm at that point? Or am I wrong here?

 

[jkcerda]

As an example, you are pulled over and you have a valid California CCW. The IA you have your permit through states that you MUST disclose anytime you are carrying when making contact with law enforcement. If the LEO wants to disarm you, isn't he inspecting your firearm at that point? Or am I wrong here?

depends on the LEO, in 8 years had 2 traffic stops, as soon as they saw the CCW card they let me go with a warning, the guy at the DUI check point looked at me and waved me through, now keep in mind LA county might have a different view but that could be just at the top and not the rank and file, that is me in the avatar so I don't look legal........

 

[jkcerda]

You might be right, everything I googled regarding felony wobbler statute of limitations requirements all mentioned the Discovery Rule as something to consider. I did not know that it only applied to very specific laws. Reading through it it seems like a lot of the laws are sexual, environmental, fraud, etc. things that would take years to uncover.

I guess that means if you illegally import magazines, leave them in your basement for 3 years like you're aging a fine wine before you take them to the range? I don't think I have the balls to try that out

no one is saying.
" bro just do it you'll be fine".

what you do is your business, people are simply taking the FUD out of things here. again if you "allegedly" do something THEY have to prove you did.

 

[RickD427]

It's highly unlikely anyone is getting prosecuted solely for large cap mag possession, it's too cumbersome and expensive for the State.

The Yang case in 2000 was eventually dismissed and set somewhat of a precedent.

• The Nature of Police Contact: Police do not have the legal authority to walk up to law-abiding citizens and search their property just to check magazine capacities. Therefore, almost every single time a large-capacity magazine is discovered, it is the result of a search incident to a different crime—such as a traffic stop revealing a concealed, unregistered firearm, a domestic violence response, or a narcotics search warrant.

As an example, you are pulled over and you have a valid California CCW. The IA you have your permit through states that you MUST disclose anytime you are carrying when making contact with law enforcement. If the LEO wants to disarm you, isn't he inspecting your firearm at that point? Or am I wrong here?

It's more than highly unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted in California for the simple possession of a large-capacity magazine while the federal court injunction is in place. It's close to a legal impossibility.

There is no precedent established by the Yang case. It never went to trial. IMHO, the District Attorney screwed up by filing charges in violation of the injunction and then quickly backed out once he became aware.

We need to be careful about the use of AI when researching our postings. AI tools are great at sifting through a lot of information, but are not yet very good at vetting that information, or putting into the proper context of the question being considered. Almost daily, there are stories out where attorneys get fanged by a court for placing AI material in their filings without proper vetting.

Such is the case here, a nice LEO does not need a reason to inspect firearms (except when the firearm is being carried in a shooting-permitted area). The reasons for this are found in Penal Code section 25850(b) and in the the California Court of Appeals decision in People v DeLong. PC section 25850(b) provides a peace officer with the authority to inspect firearms (in shooting prohibited areas) in order to determine if they are loaded (looks like somebody's AI search engine missed this one). The People v DeLong decision is very unique. It applied principles of criminal search and seizure to the administrative inspections permitted under then Penal Code sections 12031(2) (since re-codified to section 25850(b)). In sum, DeLong provides that if the nice officer has probable cause to believe that a firearm is present they may conduct a search in order to locate the firearm. It's worth noting that the DeLong case involved the search of an automobile trunk where probable cause alone permitted the search. DeLong is silent as to whether a search warrant would be needed in other locations.

 

[jkcerda]

It's more than highly unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted in California for the simple possession of a large-capacity magazine while the federal court injunction is in place. It's close to a legal impossibility.

There is no precedent established by the Yang case. It never went to trial. IMHO, the District Attorney screwed up by filing charges in violation of the injunction and then quickly backed out once he became aware.

We need to be careful about the use of AI when researching our postings. AI tools are great at sifting through a lot of information, but are not yet very good at vetting that information, or putting into the proper context of the question being considered. Almost daily, there are stories out where attorneys get fanged by a court for placing AI material in their filings without proper vetting.

Such is the case here, a nice LEO does not need a reason to inspect firearms (except when the firearm is being carried in a shooting-permitted area). The reasons for this are found in Penal Code section 25850(b) and in the the California Court of Appeals decision in People v DeLong. PC section 25850(b) provides a peace officer with the authority to inspect firearms (in shooting prohibited areas) in order to determine if they are loaded (looks like somebody's AI search engine missed this one). The People v DeLong decision is very unique. It applied principles of criminal search and seizure to the administrative inspections permitted under then Penal Code sections 12031(2) (since re-codified to section 25850(b)). In sum, DeLong provides that if the nice officer has probable cause to believe that a firearm is present they may conduct a search in order to locate the firearm. It's worth noting that the DeLong case involved the search of an automobile trunk where probable cause alone permitted the search. DeLong is silent as to whether a search warrant would be needed in other locations.

AI can suck it and my real name is Jose Schwarzenegger................

 

[mblat1968]

My fear is that they hold Ducan for these AWB cases. They issue a narrow opinion on AWB cases in our favor and then GVR Duncan back to the 9th. We win, and the state appeals, we win again, and the State En Banc's, again. We lose and then go back to the SC and wait. All of this takes another 2-3 years. I don't think anything changes unless we get a pro 2A AG in CA.that is exactly how this will go.

That is exactly how it will go with 90 percent probability.
Another 10 goes to Alio and Thomas retirement and SCOTUS flipping back to anti gun stance

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

Alito is rumored to be retiring - before the mid-terms. He’s the really the only 2A activist on SCOTUS so if true, that could impact how 2A cases are being picked up and heard in the future.

Alito hasn't written a 2A case since Caetano in 2016, but chose to write Wolford. In Wolford, he cites VanDyke twice. I think there's a strong chance Alito retires between terms and VanDyke is named as his replacement.

The good news is that we get a strong 2A justice on the Supreme Court. The bad news is we're left with essentially no pro-2A judges in the 9th after Benitez's retirement.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

If there were any retirements before the midterms, they would have been announced already.

A. There is a 0% chance they would have announced any retirements before the end of the Supreme Court term, which was 3 days ago.

B. There is a 0% chance that if there is a retirement they wait until after the midterms, when they might not have the guaranteed vote in the Senate.

 

[cali_jazz]

It's more than highly unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted in California for the simple possession of a large-capacity magazine while the federal court injunction is in place. It's close to a legal impossibility.

There is no precedent established by the Yang case. It never went to trial. IMHO, the District Attorney screwed up by filing charges in violation of the injunction and then quickly backed out once he became aware.

We need to be careful about the use of AI when researching our postings. AI tools are great at sifting through a lot of information, but are not yet very good at vetting that information, or putting into the proper context of the question being considered. Almost daily, there are stories out where attorneys get fanged by a court for placing AI material in their filings without proper vetting.

Such is the case here, a nice LEO does not need a reason to inspect firearms (except when the firearm is being carried in a shooting-permitted area). The reasons for this are found in Penal Code section 25850(b) and in the the California Court of Appeals decision in People v DeLong. PC section 25850(b) provides a peace officer with the authority to inspect firearms (in shooting prohibited areas) in order to determine if they are loaded (looks like somebody's AI search engine missed this one). The People v DeLong decision is very unique. It applied principles of criminal search and seizure to the administrative inspections permitted under then Penal Code sections 12031(2) (since re-codified to section 25850(b)). In sum, DeLong provides that if the nice officer has probable cause to believe that a firearm is present they may conduct a search in order to locate the firearm. It's worth noting that the DeLong case involved the search of an automobile trunk where probable cause alone permitted the search. DeLong is silent as to whether a search warrant would be needed in other locations.

From the link & video:
VISALIA, Calif. -- There's a unique legal challenge to a serious charge in Central California that could have an impact on the enforcement of a gun law across the state.

The Tulare County District Attorney's Office filed a felony charge against 27-year-old Pheng Yang in March this year for violating the state's law on high capacity ammunition magazines.

That violation is in question - in a case that could be "precedent-setting." I was referring to the overall case setting an example vs establishing an actual legal precedent.

Regarding inspecting your mags, PC § 25850(b) and DeLong—that's a good point on the administrative loaded check loophole for visible or accessible firearms. However, that power stops at a locked container, does it not? If your firearms are properly transported locked away under PC § 25610 (or secured in a true trunk), the nice officer lacks the authority to bypass the lock for a random loaded check without independent probable cause or a warrant. So, if you keep your gear locked up on the ride home, you should be ok.

To the overall point of you being charged, you agree the most likely outcome would be siezure of the LCM under the nuisannce statute?

 

[CadeH]

no one is saying.
" bro just do it you'll be fine".

what you do is your business, people are simply taking the FUD out of things here. again if you "allegedly" do something THEY have to prove you did.

People can do whatever they want. I was wrong about the discovery rule, admitted I was wrong, and all I said was that I don't have the balls to test out if I would or would not get charged for doing that in a hypothetical situation. I have over 20 grand in guns and ammo, being charged with a felony for magazines when I already own plenty of 2019 mags just doesn't seem worth it to me. You can do whatever you want, I don't care when people show me their AWs or illegal mags because I am not the police and I think the laws are unconstitutional.

I just wouldn't talk about it on a forum monitored by the DOJ, that is a dumb idea

 

[DB>)>]

My experience is that AI is 148% wrong 127% of the time And yes I just "hallucinated" those numbers...

But the FACT is that AI fabricates, hallucinates, and tells you what it thinks you want to hear (mostly from the GIGO of the internet), then it feeds on the garbage it spews out, and information quality continues to degrade until virtually useless or in some cases DANGEROUS if one accepts and acts upon it. AI noise is rapidly drowning out the signal of actual facts and truth.

EVERY AI generated "answer" I've had in the last few months was at least somewhat incorrect, and many were 100% WRONG. Maybe it's just how I asked the questions, but I wouldn't trust AI for any "mission critical" sourcing, at least not without double and triple checking the validity of the "answers", keeping in mind that MANY other people are now generating their "authorative" answers... generated by AI!


BTW, has anyone checked to see if the CA DOJ site ever got corrected to reflect current 3 in 30 law? It was two cycles behind (1 in 30, unlimited) last I looked a while back... GIGO!