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

[NorCalBusa]

I thought the answer was self-evident, in your scenario I'm fine with the 7+1 00 buck that my 870 accommodates. Seriously, I wouldn't need more than two rounds.

But its not about "you". Its about every adult citizen who may need to defend.

 

[USMC06RET]

But its not about "you". Its about every adult citizen who may need to defend.

If it's about "every adult citizen" then it is about me. If you can't fend off a couple of intruders with eight, 12 gauge 00 buck rounds and six in a carrier on the weapon in reserve, then you should probably just spend some more time at the range OR just give it up and run for your life. I can't even count the number of VC and NVA I "influenced" with my 12ga or 7+1 Colt 1911.

 

[USMC06RET]

So, a CDDA, 5 years ago, recognized freedom week. You cannot find this codified into any law in the state of California, it also doesn't count as legal precedent, simply as the opinion of one CDDA.

However, anyone who wants to roll the dice and drop about $50k in legal fees to defend themselves, should feel free to do so. I wish them lots of luck. I posit that any concept of freedom week is nullified by the existing statute. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=32310.

 

[Jacob]

The whole "High cap" magazine ban is the dumbest thing ever.
I can reload my gun in literally a second. Having 10 rounds vs 30 rounds makes no sense.

 

[foothillman]

So, a CDDA, 5 years ago, recognized freedom week. You cannot find this codified into any law in the state of California, it also doesn't count as legal precedent, simply as the opinion of one CDDA.

However, anyone who wants to roll the dice and drop about $50k in legal fees to defend themselves, should feel free to do so. I wish them lots of luck. I posit that any concept of freedom week is nullified by the existing statute. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=32310.

Legal fee?

"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."


When Freedom Week ended....

#13/#15
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued
on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and
(d) shall remain in effect

32310
(a) 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, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.

(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.

(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;
(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or
(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.
(Amended November 8, 2016, by initiative Proposition 63, Sec. 6.1.)

 

[USMC06RET]

Legal fee?

Go for it Foothillman! The worst thing that can happen is you spend a year in prison.

 

[p--and--p]

Im confused, is this thread so long because people are defending california? Cars kill SO many people, we need to ban cars so we can save even one life right? California is a complete craphole for people's rights and its about time the supreme court ended this

 

[USMC06RET]

Im confused, is this thread so long because people are defending california? Cars kill SO many people, we need to ban cars so we can save even one life right? California is a complete craphole for people's rights and its about time the supreme court ended this

The thread is long because there is an ongoing debate about specifics of the law.

 

[potguts]

The thread is long because there is an ongoing debate about specifics of the law.

USMC, out of curiosity, do you believe that us normal folks should be limited to protecting ourselves with 10 round mags, but that the judges should be protected with 10+ round mags?

 

[USMC06RET]

USMC, out of curiosity, do you believe that us normal folks should be limited to protecting ourselves with 10 round mags, but that the judges should be protected with 10+ round mags?

Seems like you are trying to lead me down a rabbit hole, which is something I will not abide. I made the post to inform everyone of the decision by the 9th circuit. If you want to pick a fight, I suggest you look elsewhere.

 

[David.S]

USMC, out of curiosity, do you believe that us normal folks should be limited to protecting ourselves with 10 round mags, but that the judges should be protected with 10+ round mags?

The 100% easy answer is of course not. Someone can run out of 10 real fast. Sure it wont be the case 90% of the time probably as it would be enough, but that extra times, you just hope "you" arent the person that ran out. It is complete BS and the 9th circuit totally went against Bruen- that being said if the SC doesn't step up and do their job, they are complicit in all of this madness.

 

[potguts]

Seems like you are trying to lead me down a rabbit hole, which is something I will not abide. I made the post to inform everyone of the decision by the 9th circuit. If you want to pick a fight, I suggest you look elsewhere.

Not at all, sorry if it came across that way. I think your posts have helped me and many others here consider other view points, which is always valuable.

 

[USMC06RET]

Not at all, sorry if it came across that way. I think your posts have helped me and many others here consider other view points, which is always valuable.

If I misinterpreted your message, I apologize.

I am going to do my best to answer your original question but, the closed ended question requires more than a simple yes or no answer.

I am convinced that our nation is on the road to / authoritarian perdition. It appears that there are tremendous efforts being made to neuter our third branch of government, the judiciary and the legislative branch has already been corrupted by a weak-minded and or extremely greedy cult of personality. Having seen first hand authoritarianism in action in several "areas" around the world, I will not sit idly by while this happens and I will not attempt to whistle while walking past this particular graveyard.

That said, I don't think firearm "laws" are going to matter much in the very near future, they usually don't matter during a civil war. I am not a firearms hobbyist or even an enthusiast, to me firearms are a tool, just like energetic materials are a tool. In a well governed and well adjusted society without existential threats from neighboring nations, I think strict firearm laws are necessary, not to protect the government or the leaders but to protect society as a whole. The very thought of requiring armed guards and armed teachers to protect children while at school is abhorrent to me.

Getting back to the current situation, normally I am 100% in favor of having law enforcement being better armed than non-LEO civilians but, I do not believe LEO should be armed with fully automatic weapons nor other traditional military munitions or vehicles. However, considering the developing and accelerating disposition of LEOs (federal and state) and their commanders; I believe that true patriots, the people who want:

1. The republic to survive.
2. Who want to see liberty reign forever in the USA.
3. Who want everyone to thrive, not just the oligarchy and not just white people.
4. Who see the criminality of the leadership and many members of the highest court.
5. Who are educated enough to have learned the lessons of Germany, Italy and / imperial Japan.

I believe it is those people who should be trained, armed, equipped and prepared to resist the forces of fascism that will undoubtedly be brought to bear against us. We need to become intimately familiar with every aspect of asymmetrical and guerrilla warfare and those of us who are knowledgeable in these tactics need to train others, with the goals being to preserve the republic and rid ourselves of the s who are betraying our nation to outside authoritarians, to eradicate big money from the political arena, to re-establish the United States as the leader of the free world, to eliminate the influence of religion and invisible friends upon our government and to find a way to bury this evil and reprehensible fascism / authoritarianism, once and for all.

I sincerely hope that enough of the structure of our republic will survive to allow us to clean house in a peaceful manner, unfortunately, I do not think that is or, will be the case.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Some holsters and bags come with slots to store extra mags. That's where we are, get plenty of 10 rounders and practice swapping them.

Like in the old west it will come down to who can draw an extra mag the fastest.

 

[USMC06RET]

Some holsters and bags come with slots to store extra mags. That's where we are, get plenty of 10 rounders and practice swapping them.

Like in the old west it will come down to who can draw an extra mag the fastest.

Personally, I think it comes down to who is the best shot, who can secure the best cover, who knows how to toss a grenade, who has access to a SMAW, AT4 or air support..... but, that's just me.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Personally, I think it comes down to who is the best shot, who can secure the best cover, who knows how to toss a grenade, who has access to a SMAW, AT4 or air support..... but, that's just me.

Agreed. Every shot matters- place it where ya want it.

 

[David.S]

Some holsters and bags come with slots to store extra mags. That's where we are, get plenty of 10 rounders and practice swapping them.

Like in the old west it will come down to who can draw an extra mag the fastest.

Actually that isnt true.. Most everytime criminals are caught, they are caught with 30 round glock mags around here. So the bad guys do not abide by 10 rounders, at least most do not.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Actually that isnt true.. Most everytime criminals are caught, they are caught with 30 round glock mags around here. So the bad guys do not abide by 10 rounders, at least most do not.

Loaded most of the time to less than 30 and with range ammo...you see it all the time when local agencies put up their PR shots of this or that bad guy and the fruits of the effort.

 

[jhsd20]

Motion to extend preliminary injunction filed and passed unopposed today. 90 day extension until the plaintiffs file to the Supreme Court. If filed, injunction remains in place until SCOTUS decision.

Tldr: Legal mags remain legal to possess.

 

[treelogger]

Tldr: Legal mags remain legal to possess.

Probably until fall, perhaps longer.

If the plaintiffs file their Supreme Court appeal at the last possible moment (end of June), it is very unlikely or perhaps impossible that the supreme court will decide whether to grant cert to their appeal before its summer break. The earliest thing that could happen is that the court refuses to hear the case (refuses to grand cert) when it starts the next term, in October 2025.

In the unlikely but possible case that the court hears the appeal, it will probably take half a year to a year to decide it. So we will have clarity either this fall, or next summer.