Interesting Case Law - Large Capacity Magazines

[Zoomiee]

Wait… what’s the obvious pun?

DUMBrava

 

[CadeH]

I thought he was clear that its very unlikely, just pthat it's legally (maybe) possible. It's more about legal minutiae than an actual warning. The practical takeaway is don't be an idiot and be aware that it's all a legal grey area.

At this point in time the ban on possession is illegal for the state to enforce, at this current time there is nothing gray about it.

He makes these comments constantly about a hypothetical future where in over a year from now the Supreme Court might potentially allow (b) to go into effect, and then the state potentially goes back and charges hundreds of thousands people with millions of possession charges over magazines they were allowed to possess under court order, because the injunction is no longer in effect and he thinks they might be able to charge people for possession during a time that the possession ban was illegal to enforce. There is nothing here or anywhere that indicates that this is going to happen.

Its the same as when Indiana passed a law banning abortion and the courts issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the law for the plaintiffs and "those with similar religious commitments." When the appeals court narrowed the protected class to "the plaintiffs [who] sought abortions for sincere religious reasons, not for reasons that did not implicate RFRA", did we see the state of Indiana charge people who got abortions when they were protected by the court order and then became no longer protected? No.

 

[RustVendor]

At this point in time the ban on possession is illegal for the state to enforce, at this current time there is nothing gray about it.

He makes these comments constantly about a hypothetical future where in over a year from now the Supreme Court might potentially allow (b) to go into effect, and then the state potentially goes back and charges hundreds of thousands people with millions of possession charges over magazines they were allowed to possess under court order, because the injunction is no longer in effect and he thinks they might be able to charge people for possession during a time that the possession ban was illegal to enforce. There is nothing here or anywhere that indicates that this is going to happen.

Its the same as when Indiana passed a law banning abortion and the courts issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the law for the plaintiffs and "those with similar religious commitments." When the appeals court narrowed the protected class to "the plaintiffs [who] sought abortions for sincere religious reasons, not for reasons that did not implicate RFRA", did we see the state of Indiana charge people who got abortions when they were protected by the court order and then became no longer protected? No.

If you read the case it's a bit more clear, when he was first charged section 32310 was "unconstitutional" and the LCM charges were dropped, but was then found "constitutional" and he was prosecuted under the same section. So the thing did happen, the case law during the course of prosecution changed and he was found guilty for the charge that was previously dismissed.

In 2019, Sebastian Bogdan Dumbrava posted statements on
social media about committing a mass shooting the University of California
at Irvine (UCI). Police searched his bedroom and found parts for an assault
rifle, and 22 large-capacity magazines (LCMs) loaded with bullets. Dumbrava
was specifically prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition. And
there is a California statute—section 32310 (a)—that generally prohibits all
persons from buying, receiving, or importing LCMs into the state.
In 2020, the People filed an information charging Dumbrava with
attempted unlawful firearm possession, unlawful ammunition possession,
and 22 counts of violating section 32310 (a). Dumbrava moved to dismiss the
LCM charges because a Ninth Circuit opinion held that the statute—section
32310—violates the Second Amendment. The trial court granted Dumbrava’s
motion to dismiss the 22 LCM charges in the interests of justice. (See § 1385
(a).) Dumbrava was convicted and sentenced on the remaining charges.
While Dumbrava was on supervised release from prison, and
after he made further posts about mass shootings, police searched a storage
unit he was using. Police found a receipt showing Dumbrava had purchased
five LCMs from an Arizona gun store just prior to the 2020 search of his
bedroom. By this time, the Ninth Circuit had reversed itself and found
section 32310 to be constitutional under the Second Amendment.
In 2022, the People filed a second information charging
Dumbrava with two counts of extortion, and five counts of importing LCMs
into the state. Dumbrava filed a motion to dismiss the five LCM charges
based on the People’s alleged violation of the Kellett rule. The trial court
denied Dumbrava’s motion. A jury could not reach a verdict on the two
extortion charges, but found Dumbrava guilty of the LCM charges.

 

[Gawernator]

tl;dr don't be a prohibited person and repeat criminal

 

[CadeH]

If you read the case it's a bit more clear, when he was first charged section 32310 was "unconstitutional" and the LCM charges were dropped, but was then found "constitutional" and he was prosecuted under the same section. So the thing did happen, the case law during the course of prosecution changed and he was found guilty for the charge that was previously dismissed.

In 2019, Sebastian Bogdan Dumbrava posted statements on
social media about committing a mass shooting the University of California
at Irvine (UCI). Police searched his bedroom and found parts for an assault
rifle, and 22 large-capacity magazines (LCMs) loaded with bullets. Dumbrava
was specifically prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition. And
there is a California statute—section 32310 (a)—that generally prohibits all
persons from buying, receiving, or importing LCMs into the state.
In 2020, the People filed an information charging Dumbrava with
attempted unlawful firearm possession, unlawful ammunition possession,
and 22 counts of violating section 32310 (a). Dumbrava moved to dismiss the
LCM charges because a Ninth Circuit opinion held that the statute—section
32310—violates the Second Amendment. The trial court granted Dumbrava’s
motion to dismiss the 22 LCM charges in the interests of justice. (See § 1385
(a).) Dumbrava was convicted and sentenced on the remaining charges.
While Dumbrava was on supervised release from prison, and
after he made further posts about mass shootings, police searched a storage
unit he was using. Police found a receipt showing Dumbrava had purchased
five LCMs from an Arizona gun store just prior to the 2020 search of his
bedroom. By this time, the Ninth Circuit had reversed itself and found
section 32310 to be constitutional under the Second Amendment.
In 2022, the People filed a second information charging
Dumbrava with two counts of extortion, and five counts of importing LCMs
into the state. Dumbrava filed a motion to dismiss the five LCM charges
based on the People’s alleged violation of the Kellett rule. The trial court
denied Dumbrava’s motion. A jury could not reach a verdict on the two
extortion charges, but found Dumbrava guilty of the LCM charges.

I read the case, 32310 (a) was not enjoined by the 2020 en banc panel they are referring to and the only reason the LCM charges were dropped was because

1) The burden of proof is on the state to prove he didn't purchase those magazines during the time that 32310 (a) was enjoined, which was March 29, 2019 to April 5, 2019 and the state at the time didn't have evidence that he bought them before or after it.

2) The state didn't object to the original dismissal

They spell that out in the decision here for the Freedom Week argument:

The People argued the discovery of the receipt from Arizona “fundamentally change[d] the prosecution of the [LCM counts]. Prior to this discovery, the People had no evidence showing what date defendant had acquired or purchased [any of the 22 LCMs]. This would allow for a defense that defendant lawfully acquired the [22 LCMs] during ‘Freedom Week.’ . . . The date of purchase allows the People to prove that [five of the 22 LCMs] were not acquired during ‘Freedom Week.’” 9 (Internal footnote omitted.)

and here for why the original charges were dismissed:

In 2020, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling. (Duncan v. Becerra (9th Cir. 2020) 970 F.3d 1133, 1140, opn. vacated by Duncan v. Becerra (9th Cir. 2021) 988 F.3d 1209, 1210.) Based on this, the trial court granted Dumbrava’s oral motion to dismiss the 22 LCM charges in the interests of justice. (See § 1385 (a).) A decision of a lower federal court ordinarily does not have binding force as precedent in California courts. (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1292.) But this objection was never raised by the People during the initial proceedings.

The original charges were dismissed because the state didn't object to the dismissal, there was no injunction and they were dismissed in the interest of justice after the non-binding 3 judge panel ruled it unconstitutuonal rather than due to a federal court order.

If this as OP said it was then the purchasing them during Freedom Week argument is irrelevent, as that injunction is no longer in effect. Instead we see the court understanding that it is a valid legal defense to 32310 (a) charges and the charges were allowed to be brought because the State found evidence that he in fact did not buy them when it was legal.

If injunctions going away means the state now can charge people for actions allowed under the injunction, why would Freedom Week be a valid legal defense? Why would he only be charged for the 5 magazines they could prove weren't bought during freedom week, instead of all 22? Like I said, the injunction on (a) is gone.

 

[Hit Factor]

The California Court of Appeals just handed down an interesting case last week concerning Large-Capacity Magazines (People v Dumbrava). In this case, Dumbrava, in 2019, made a number of threats to commit a mass shooting. Officers served a search warrant and recovered component parts of a firearm (the decision is silent as to what parts), ammunition, and 22 large-capacity magazines. Dumbrava was a prohibited person and was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, along with violation of California's large-capacity magazine statute. At trial, Dumbrava moved to dismiss the Large-Capacity Magazine charges based on federal court decisions in the Duncan case. Those charges were dismissed and he was convicted on the remaining charges.

Following his release from prison, Dumbrava repeated his criminal actions (I'll refrain from using the obvious pun involving his last name). Officers located evidence that he had purchased five large-capacity magazines from out of state after they became illegal under PC 32310 and before his first trial. He was then charged with the unlawful importation of large-capacity magazines (PC 32310(a)). These charges are permitted under the federal court injunction in Duncan.

California has existing case law (Kellett v Superior Court) that generally requires prosecutors to file all charges resulting from a single caper into a single court filing. The idea is to prevent prosecutors from "trickling" an endless stream of charges.

Dumbrava moved to dismiss his Large-Capacity Magazine charges under Kellett since they could have been tried in his first trial. The trial court denied the motion.

The Court of Appeals upheld the denial. Central to their reasoning was that the effect of the Duncan litigation prevented the charges from going forward in the first trial and that the deterrent effect of the Kellett rule to prevent prosecutors from "trickling" charges was not realized in this case.

In many previous threads, when someone posts that the possession of Large-Capacity Magazines is "legal", or that "large-capacity magazines purchased during "Freedom Week" are legal to possess", I often correct them by pointing out that the simple possession of large-capacity magazines is currently illegal, it's just that the Duncan injunction prevents any enforcement. That creates a legal condition almost the same as if their possession were legal, but with one big difference. There is nothing that prevents a prosecutor, if the injunction were to be dissolved, and PC 32310 to remain in place, from "reaching back", to the limits of the SOL, to prosecute cases that occurred while the injunction was in place. There are many good reasons for a prosecutor not to do so, but there is no prohibition. The Dumbrava case reinforces their ability to do so.

 

[RockOutWithYerGlockOut]

what a F-ing moron

 

[RustVendor]

I read the case, 32310 (a) was not enjoined by the 2020 en banc panel they are referring to and the only reason the LCM charges were dropped was because

1) The burden of proof is on the state to prove he didn't purchase those magazines during the time that 32310 (a) was enjoined, which was March 29, 2019 to April 5, 2019 and the state at the time didn't have evidence that he bought them before or after it.

2) The state didn't object to the original dismissal

They spell that out in the decision here for the Freedom Week argument:

and here for why the original charges were dismissed:

The original charges were dismissed because the state didn't object to the dismissal, there was no injunction and they were dismissed in the interest of justice after the non-binding 3 judge panel ruled it unconstitutuonal rather than due to a federal court order.

If this as OP said it was then the purchasing them during Freedom Week argument is irrelevent, as that injunction is no longer in effect. Instead we see the court understanding that it is a valid legal defense to 32310 (a) charges and the charges were allowed to be brought because the State found evidence that he in fact did not buy them when it was legal.

If injunctions going away means the state now can charge people for actions allowed under the injunction, why would Freedom Week be a valid legal defense? Why would he only be charged for the 5 magazines they could prove weren't bought during freedom week, instead of all 22? Like I said, the injunction on (a) is gone.

The weird part though is that they dismissed the charges under section 1385 "in the interest of justice" which would usually mean that they could have prosecuted but decided not to. Then of course the case document itself references Duncan and how it's status changed. Even though it wasn't enjoined at the time it seems like that may have been part of why they dismissed "in the interest of justice". That's how I read it anyway, that it was at least somewhat related to the current status of the case in appeal. But it's obviously significant that they found more evidence and that's what the case was really about, whether he could be charged again for the same crime.

 

[thegill]

is ex post facto no longer in the Constitution? oh right Ca doesn't care about that silly old stuff

 

[miles888]

Sounds like hi cap mags are fine unless you carry receipts from Arizona around with you.

 

[AA2323]

they are Standard Capacity Magazine.

 

[Gawernator]

.

 

[RickD427]

is ex post facto no longer in the Constitution? oh right Ca doesn't care about that silly old stuff

There is no "ex post facto" involved in this. An "ex post facto" is where an action is criminalized after it has occurred.

With the exception of "Freedom Week", Large-Capacity magazines became illegal to possess in 2016. Nothing has occurred since then that invalidates the law. All of the charges being discussed here have resulted from conduct after that time.

 

[treelogger]

they are Standard Capacity Magazine.

You can call them whatever you want. If you prefer to use the word "elephant" for them, that's fine with me.

California law calls them large capacity magazines. When talking about the effect of the law, it is a good idea to use the correct terms, to prevent confusion. As Rick just explained yet again for the people who don't want to believe it, possession of large capacity magazines has been illegal since 2016, and acquisition has been for much longer (about 25 years). If you think using different names for them is going to get you out of legal trouble, you're utterly wrong. We can hope that the judge will be amused ... but having been in courtrooms quite a bit, my guess is that they won't find it funny.

What you're doing is very similar to the "I'm not driving, I'm traveling" stunt popular with another set of either criminal or confused people.

 

[Gawernator]

You can call them whatever you want. If you prefer to use the word "elephant" for them, that's fine with me.

California law calls them large capacity magazines. When talking about the effect of the law, it is a good idea to use the correct terms, to prevent confusion. As Rick just explained yet again for the people who don't want to believe it, possession of large capacity magazines has been illegal since 2016, and acquisition has been for much longer (about 25 years). If you think using different names for them is going to get you out of legal trouble, you're utterly wrong. We can hope that the judge will be amused ... but having been in courtrooms quite a bit, my guess is that they won't find it funny.

What you're doing is very similar to the "I'm not driving, I'm traveling" stunt popular with another set of either criminal or confused people.

They are standard capacity magazines though. You don’t have to be upset at that reality. They are standard issue by the manufacturer. Just because CA tries to redefine it doesn’t make it true. Just like chopping your off doesn’t make you a woman.
By your logic putting a M badge on your 3 series means you have a M3 because we said so

 

[AA2323]

You can call them whatever you want. If you prefer to use the word "elephant" for them, that's fine with me.

California law calls them large capacity magazines. When talking about the effect of the law, it is a good idea to use the correct terms, to prevent confusion. As Rick just explained yet again for the people who don't want to believe it, possession of large capacity magazines has been illegal since 2016, and acquisition has been for much longer (about 25 years). If you think using different names for them is going to get you out of legal trouble, you're utterly wrong. We can hope that the judge will be amused ... but having been in courtrooms quite a bit, my guess is that they won't find it funny.

What you're doing is very similar to the "I'm not driving, I'm traveling" stunt popular with another set of either criminal or confused people.

"popular with another set of either criminal or confused people."

interesting that you default to using the term "criminals" for folks who legally own standard capacity magazines, that's quite an insight to your baseline thinking. I get the feeling you may be upset when SCOTUS forces CA to reverse course on their ban on standard capacity magazines

 

[AA2323]

At this point in time the ban on possession is illegal for the state to enforce, at this current time there is nothing gray about it.

He makes these comments constantly about a hypothetical future where in over a year from now the Supreme Court might potentially allow (b) to go into effect, and then the state potentially goes back and charges hundreds of thousands people with millions of possession charges over magazines they were allowed to possess under court order, because the injunction is no longer in effect and he thinks they might be able to charge people for possession during a time that the possession ban was illegal to enforce. There is nothing here or anywhere that indicates that this is going to happen.

Its the same as when Indiana passed a law banning abortion and the courts issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the law for the plaintiffs and "those with similar religious commitments." When the appeals court narrowed the protected class to "the plaintiffs [who] sought abortions for sincere religious reasons, not for reasons that did not implicate RFRA", did we see the state of Indiana charge people who got abortions when they were protected by the court order and then became no longer protected? No.

thank you for clearly summarizing the facts

 

[treelogger]

"popular with another set of either criminal or confused people."

interesting that you default to using the term "criminals" for folks who legally own standard capacity magazines, that's quite an insight to your baseline thinking. I get the feeling you may be upset when SCOTUS forces CA to reverse course on their ban on standard capacity magazines

You have to read more carefully: That sentence was about SovCits who claim to not need a driver's license because they are "traveling", not "driving".

And you keep ignoring what gets posted here repeatedly: Right now you can NOT legally own large capacity magazines. The penal code is very clear on the fact that this is illegal. It's only enforcement of the possession provision that is currently enjoined. As Rick pointed out, that distinction can be very important in some cases.

And on the contrary, I will be very happy if and when the court gets rid of the current mag capacity limitation.

 

[Ro-bo]

...that distinction can be very important in some cases.

"In some cases", right. In this case (the topic), sure. But that's because the guy is being charged with more serious crimes in the first place, such as making threats to carry out a mass shooting. That's the conduct that's under the microscope as it tends to get people's attention. But how many successful prosecutions have there been statewide for some Joe Schmoe whose sole crime was possessing an LCM?

All that said, the distinction above is mostly meaningless in the grand scheme of things because the majority of people aren't Dumbravas.

 

[Ro-bo]

That creates a legal condition almost the same as if their possession were legal, but with one big difference. There is nothing that prevents a prosecutor, if the injunction were to be dissolved, and PC 32310 to remain in place, from "reaching back", to the limits of the SOL, to prosecute cases that occurred while the injunction was in place. There are many good reasons for a prosecutor not to do so, but there is no prohibition. The Dumbrava case reinforces their ability to do so.

But this is true for a myriad of other potential crimes some overzealous prosecutor could pursue against anyone, if they suffered a moment of apoplectic disregard for their reputation and career.

The only reason this case reminds us of this (I wouldn't actually say it reinforces anything), is that it's in the margins of much more prosecutable crimes with a high chance of successful conviction, such as the mere fact that Dumbrava was a prohibited person. It's the side salad of the main course.