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

[RickD427]

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?

Please be careful not to accept the representation of a reporter that a legal case is "precedent." There is no value as precedent in the Yang case.

As to your question about the locked container, there is a ton of legal case law on the question, and not all of it is in agreement. The sum of the case law is that if the locked container is movable (meaning that it can be readily removed from the vehicle and secured pending a warrant application), then the balance of the case law requires that a search warrant be obtained. OTOH, if the locked container is fixed to the vehicle, then no search warrant is required. The key case on this point was U.S. V Ross in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of a vehicle's trunk (itself a locked container) based only on probable cause.

I don't agree with your point about the nuisance seizure. As of the moment, it is still lawful for officers to seize large-capacity magazines as "Nuisance" items. But to do so would violate the spirit (even though not the letter) of the federal court injunction. LE agencies tend to be very respectful of court orders and I just don't see that happening. I am anecdotally aware of two instances where officers seized magazines in violation of the federal court injunction. One being the Yang case and another in Santa Barbara county. In both cases, the agency could have saved some face by using the nuisance statute to justify keeping the magazines, but instead returned them.

 

[Hit Factor]

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

There are currently over 25,000 people in California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS). Let that sink in. Over 25,000 potentially dangerous people — that the state knows about — who are currently in possession of firearms despite being prohibited by law from possessing any firearms at all. Don’t you think the CA DOJ is probably a little more concerned about going after actual prohibited people with firearms than they are about chasing down otherwise law-abiding citizens with magazines that might be capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and that they may or may not end up being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt were actually acquired outside of Freedom Week, in costly and resource-draining prosecutions that would ultimately do absolutely nothing to make people safer in this state?

 

[DB>)>]

AS for judicial opinions, they publish them so you can read the actual OPINIONS issued by the justices, but some of it is as much gibberish and word salad as you'd expect from someone who can't define simple words consistent with their generally understood meanings. Since the Justices are human, they all too often leave "cracks" in their logic that open the doors to creative interpretation based upon individual biases and views.

We have to remember that SCOTUS "opinions" can be reversed (because they were Constitutionally WRONG!) after decades of being "THE LAW". SCOTUS opinions have to rule based upon arguments and briefs sent to them, and we hope that they "correct" un-Constitutional "opinions" of lower courts, Constitutionally. The wheels grind slowly, but one can hope that they align with actual truth and justice under Constitutional principles and precedent more often than not.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Off topic a little, but something I was thinking about. When the AW ban get overturned, does anyone think the gun industry will be in for a world of hurt? I feel there may be an initial spike in some sales here and there, but after, there won’t be any more runs to stock up. If they deem these rifles to be protected, in the long term, it seems to me a lot of smaller companies may just go under. To an extent that’s already happening because of Trump being in office. It seems like it would increase the effects of the Trump slump. Why worry about getting a certain rifle “before you can’t get them anymore”, when you can just wait around for sales or just lose the sense of FOMO.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

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.

There was a reporter that posted a whole article about Alito announcing retirement, and then 10 minutes later the story was retracted. I guess that’s what caused the rumor to circulate.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

There was a reporter that posted a whole article about Alito announcing retirement, and then 10 minutes later the story was retracted. I guess that’s what caused the rumor to circulate.

Alito's retirement has been rumored since long before that article.

 

[CadeH]

There are currently over 25,000 people in California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS). Let that sink in. Over 25,000 potentially dangerous people — that the state knows about — who are currently in possession of firearms despite being prohibited by law from possessing any firearms at all. Don’t you think the CA DOJ is probably a little more concerned about going after actual prohibited people with firearms than they are about chasing down otherwise law-abiding citizens with magazines that might be capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and that they may or may not end up being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt were actually acquired outside of Freedom Week, in costly and resource-draining prosecutions that would ultimately do absolutely nothing to make people safer in this state?

They should obviously be targeting those people, but I have zero faith in the CADOJ to actually target the people they should.

Straight from the owner of the site, they have issued warrants for people's information based on the that they have said here. Just a cover your own ass thing, really

 

[Hit Factor]

They should obviously be targeting those people, but I have zero faith in the CADOJ to actually target the people they should.

Straight from the owner of the site, they have issued warrants for people's information based on the that they have said here. Just a cover your own ass thing, really

Well, all of my 10+ magazines were acquired between March 29 and April 5, 2019, but let’s test this theory about making potentially incriminating statements here on CAguns.

Here goes: I’ve never told anyone this before, but I’ve been cutting the tags off my pillows and mattresses since 1994.

 

[RickD427]

There are currently over 25,000 people in California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS). Let that sink in. Over 25,000 potentially dangerous people — that the state knows about — who are currently in possession of firearms despite being prohibited by law from possessing any firearms at all. Don’t you think the CA DOJ is probably a little more concerned about going after actual prohibited people with firearms than they are about chasing down otherwise law-abiding citizens with magazines that might be capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and that they may or may not end up being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt were actually acquired outside of Freedom Week, in costly and resource-draining prosecutions that would ultimately do absolutely nothing to make people safer in this state?

Methinks that you may be jumping the gun here. Assuming your figure of 25,000 people being on the APPS list is accurate (and I have no information to the contrary), that only means that there are 25,000 people on the list. There is no support for the belief that all 25,000 of them currently possess weapons (re your comment "who are currently in possession").

 

[Hit Factor]

Methinks that you may be jumping the gun here. Assuming your figure of 25,000 people being on the APPS list is accurate (and I have no information to the contrary), that only means that there are 25,000 people on the list. There is no support for the belief that all 25,000 of them currently possess weapons (re your comment "who are currently in possession").

Maybe they should change the name then to Possibly Armed and Prohibited Persons System (PAPPS). On second thought, no. They call it the Armed and Prohibited Persons System for a reason.

 

[MK6M9]

Over 25,000 potentially dangerous people

any human is "potentially dangerous"

Don’t you think the CA DOJ is probably a little more concerned about going after actual prohibited people with firearms than they are about chasing down otherwise law-abiding citizens with magazines that might be capable of holding more than 10 rounds

so why the fight to keep it?

and that they may or may not end up being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt were actually acquired outside of Freedom Week, in costly and resource-draining prosecutions that would ultimately do absolutely nothing to make people safer in this state?

if i remember correctly this actually happened, i read about it in 2024. i remember reading about it. the guy had to prove they were purchased during freedom week, and i think there was a stamp or some sort of thing on the magazine that proved it was purchased during freedom week

 

[Hit Factor]

if i remember correctly, this actually happened in 2024. i remember reading about it. the guy had to prove they were purchased during freedom week, and i think there was a stamp or some sort of thing on the magazine that proved it was purchased during freedom week

Yeah, I heard about that at a poker game. But the person who said it happened couldn’t provide any actual information or citations to the case. Can you? Or is this just one of those “I read about it on the internet so it must be true” things?

 

[CadeH]

if i remember correctly, this actually happened in 2024. i remember reading about it. the guy had to prove they were purchased during freedom week, and i think there was a stamp or some sort of thing on the magazine that proved it was purchased during freedom week

The state is the one required to prove you didn't purchase them during freedom week, your affirmative defense is that you did. If your stamps are past 2019 they'll claim that as evidence, without stamps they'll need to rely on either an admission from you saying you bought them at a different time or they'll get a warrant for Google to provide your GPS data to look at if you stopped at any gun stores out of state. That still doesn't prove anything though, since there are plenty of different reasons for visiting an out of state gun store that aren't illegal.

These are the two main freedom week mag related confiscations that I know of, don't know about a 2024 case and I am not seeing anything about it online:
Freedom week defense, charges dropped
Freedom week mags confiscated, Ventura County returned them after reviewing Benitez's court order

 

[Custodian]

Im tired of all the legal loopholes to drag this on back and forth. We need absolute 2nd amendment meaning and no interpretation

 

[MK6M9]

Yeah, I heard about that at a poker game. But the person who said it happened couldn’t provide any actual information or citations to the case. Can you? Or is this just one of those “I read about it on the internet so it must be true” things?

yeah, you are correct, it was all made up (shrugs)

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

After reading that above back in 2024, I then clicked on something else which led to more details. it was a stamp or something on the mag that proved it was purchased during freedom week

there is also this, which i believe you had mentioned before

California Department of Justice Releases 2022 Armed and Prohibited Persons System Program Annual Report

DOJ collected 1,437 firearms through the APPS program, including 521 firearms that were not part of the database and 54 ghost guns DOJ contacted more individuals than ever before — approximately 24,000 SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the release of the 2022...

oag.ca.gov

" Agents also seized 308 large-capacity magazines, 2,123 standard capacity magazines, and 281,299 rounds of ammunition through APPS enforcement actions. "
" BOF agents used these reports to investigate 194 individuals and seize 56 firearms, four large-capacity magazines, 55 standard magazines, and 6,621 rounds of ammunition. "

and then a basic Google search will state this.
" Multiple arrests and charges involving 30-round magazines have occurred recently "

 

[MK6M9]

The state is the one required to prove you didn't purchase them during freedom week, your affirmative defense is that you did. If your stamps are past 2019 they'll claim that as evidence, without stamps they'll need to rely on either an admission from you saying you bought them at a different time or they'll get a warrant for Google to provide your GPS data to look at if you stopped at any gun stores out of state. That still doesn't prove anything though, since there are plenty of different reasons for visiting an out of state gun store that aren't illegal.

These are the two main freedom week mag related confiscations that I know of, don't know about a 2024 case and I am not seeing anything about it online:
Freedom week defense, charges dropped
Freedom week mags confiscated, Ventura County returned them after reviewing Benitez's court order

i apologize. i read about it in 2024. i will go fix that.

 

[MK6M9]

Im tired of all the legal loopholes to drag this on back and forth. We need absolute 2nd amendment meaning and no interpretation

or simply remove the people that keep making these bills and laws

 

[Hit Factor]

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

After reading that above back in 2024, I then clicked on something else which led to more details. it was a stamp or something on the mag that proved it was purchased during freedom week

No it wasn’t. There was nothing more than a statement that he got the magazines during Freedom Week. Read this:



All that other stuff you referenced were add-on charges. As long as you’re not gang banging, selling drugs, or robbing banks, you’re probably going to be okay. That’s assuming, of course, that you didn’t get your magazines during Freedom Week like the rest of us . . .

 

[cali_jazz]

I don't agree with your point about the nuisance seizure. As of the moment, it is still lawful for officers to seize large-capacity magazines as "Nuisance" items. But to do so would violate the spirit (even though not the letter) of the federal court injunction. LE agencies tend to be very respectful of court orders and I just don't see that happening. I am anecdotally aware of two instances where officers seized magazines in violation of the federal court injunction. One being the Yang case and another in Santa Barbara county. In both cases, the agency could have saved some face by using the nuisance statute to justify keeping the magazines, but instead returned them.

Actually the point about nuisance seizure was not mine, someone mentioned it earlier on this thread.

So your view is essentially the chances of even seizure much less criminal prosecution is next to zero unless there is some more serious crime(s) associated with the event, is that correct?

 

[Warpspeed]

@MK6M9 & @Hit Factor , do you two need a time out ?