Interesting Case Law - Large Capacity Magazines

[RickD427]

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.

 

[RustVendor]

Very interesting thanks for posting that. I had to look at the case to see if they clarified how they got the evidence and he is indeed a Dumbrava:

"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"

https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2026-g065074.pdf?ts=1787265177

 

[lactoast]

Very interesting thanks for posting that. I had to look at the case to see if they clarified how they got the evidence and he is indeed a Dumbrava:

"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"

https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2026-g065074.pdf?ts=1787265177

How the hell does this guy have the money to make so many stupid decisions after his legal battle and prison time?

Anyway, great reminder that this ongoing gray area of LCM ownership is still teetering on the edge of ending very poorly for us in this state, despite the common discourse about "freedom week."

 

[treelogger]

(I'll refrain from using the obvious pun involving his last name).

You used the obvious pun, and thank you for that.

Police found a receipt showing Dumbrava had purchased five LCMs from an Arizona gun store just prior to the 2020 search of his
bedroom

Save the receipt! Well organized people never throw away a receipt!

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.

That is a very interesting an important observation. Fundamentally, anyone who had the possession of large-capacity magazines documented in LE interactions in either the last 3 years (rough estimate of statute of limitations) or since proposition 63 passed (I think that was 2018 or so) is still in danger of being prosecuted.

The other (very obvious but often ignored) thing I like to remind people of: Yes, Duncan protects mere possession from prosecution for now. And yes, Freedom Week made it a bit more difficult to prosecute LCMs, since the excuse "I could have legally bought them during Freedom Week" is enough to create reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. But to break through that reasonable doubt, all it takes is LE getting things like credit card records, video footage from gun dealers, or records of crossing the state border. If a DA goes to a jury with the following story, I think a conviction for buying/importing LCMs is pre-ordained: "The defendant was seen by Flock cameras driving to Arizona on Saturday morning. Their credit card was used at Bob's Gun Emporium in Yuma, AZ on Saturday afternoon at 4pm, for $80. The POS system at Bob's shows a sale of four Glock 17-round magazines at that exact time, with that exact amount. A person wearing a distinctive T-shirt the defendant owns and with a large Stetson was seen in the parking lot of Bob's on video; their face is not visible in the recording due to the hat. The defendant was seen re-entering California Sunday afternoon. They have in their possession four magazines of that exact description, one with very little usage, the other three unused still in the original Glock packaging." I think no sane jury would believe the Freedom Week story in this context, and the defendant's claim that all the other evidence is "just a funny coincidence".

The only thing that is saving lots of people from that conviction right now is that LE agencies have better things to do than spending dozens of hours on a relatively minor crime.

On an unrelated topic, nothing to do with guns: Go see the "Coyote vs. ACME" movie. It's very very fun.

 

[MK6M9]

and now we will have wait another six years just to see if the SCOTUS will reject the LCM case. meanwhile bonta and california have already made another seven laws to cap that ruling. hence, the endless lawsuit game. i find it amusing that people think and hope that any of this is/ has gone anywhere in the last ten years. i mean all anyone has to do is look at the reality that is occurring and has been occurring. (shrugs)

 

[RustVendor]

You used the obvious pun, and thank you for that.


Save the receipt! Well organized people never throw away a receipt!


That is a very interesting an important observation. Fundamentally, anyone who had the possession of large-capacity magazines documented in LE interactions in either the last 3 years (rough estimate of statute of limitations) or since proposition 63 passed (I think that was 2018 or so) is still in danger of being prosecuted.

The other (very obvious but often ignored) thing I like to remind people of: Yes, Duncan protects mere possession from prosecution for now. And yes, Freedom Week made it a bit more difficult to prosecute LCMs, since the excuse "I could have legally bought them during Freedom Week" is enough to create reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. But to break through that reasonable doubt, all it takes is LE getting things like credit card records, video footage from gun dealers, or records of crossing the state border. If a DA goes to a jury with the following story, I think a conviction for buying/importing LCMs is pre-ordained: "The defendant was seen by Flock cameras driving to Arizona on Saturday morning. Their credit card was used at Bob's Gun Emporium on Saturday afternoon at 4pm, for $80. The POS system at Bob's shows a sale of four Glock 17-round magazines at that exact time, with that exact amount. A person wearing a distinctive T-shirt the defendant owns and with a large Stetson was seen in the parking lot of Bob's on video; their face is not visible in the recording due to the hat. The defendant was seen re-entering California Sunday afternoon. They have in their possession four magazines of that exact description, three unused, one with very little usage, the other still in the original Glock packaging." I think no sane jury would believe the Freedom Week story in this context, and the defendant's claim that all the other evidence is "just a funny coincidence".

The only thing that is saving lots of people from that conviction right now is that LE agencies have better things to do than spending dozens of hours on a relatively minor crime.

On an unrelated topic, nothing to do with guns: Go see the "Coyote vs. ACME" movie. It's very very fun.

"Freedom week" is irrelevant, now it's statute of limitations on importation/sale/etc that matters.

 

[Skilly]

I know its completely counter to their current framing that magazines are not arms but let's say that SCOTUS rules in favor of Duncan, how long do you think it will take before the CADOJ push for a move to a DROS for mags? I bet the AB is already drafted.

 

[treelogger]

I know its completely counter to their current framing that magazines are not arms but let's say that SCOTUS rules in favor of Duncan, how long do you think it will take before the CADOJ push for a move to a DROS for mags? I bet the AB is already drafted.

An interesting one would be requiring that all magazines sold in California have serial numbers.

And I agree with RustVendor: Freedom Week, while still much talked about, has sailed off into the sunset.

 

[RustVendor]

I know its completely counter to their current framing that magazines are not arms but let's say that SCOTUS rules in favor of Duncan, how long do you think it will take before the CADOJ push for a move to a DROS for mags? I bet the AB is already drafted.

Well they already created a separate category by doing it with barrels and "accessories". Honestly the double edged sword of Bruen is that it rubber stamped a lot of regulation as long as it's "shall issue" at the end of it. Just look at what it takes to buy a firearm at all in NY.

 

[MK6M9]

how long do you think it will take before the CADOJ push for a move to a DROS for mags? I bet the AB is already drafted.

they will not. they already have a new bill/ law to curb that ruling. but it will be rejected and then sent back down. then it will be passed back up to the SCOTUS once again but that will be in the year 2032

 

[No_glonks]

An interesting one would be requiring that all magazines sold in California have serial numbers.

And I agree with RustVendor: Freedom Week, while still much talked about, has sailed off into the sunset.

most of the barrels don't have serial numbers, and yet subject to background check.

 

[mbuss101]

The LCM thing is so odd cause they’re legal for now but as someone said that ship sailed long ago and I see plenty of posts on IG of agencies listing possession of LCM as a charge when someone is arrested. Granted it’s always along with other charges for them being retarded but you get what I’m saying

 

[RustVendor]

The LCM thing is so odd cause they’re legal for now but as someone said that ship sailed long ago and I see plenty of posts on IG of agencies listing possession of LCM as a charge when someone is arrested. Granted it’s always along with other charges for them being retarded but you get what I’m saying

I've only worked on civil cases but I'm sure criminal is the same, you start the negotiation with everything you can possibly think of and use those as tools to get the judgement you want.

 

[CadeH]

In January 2022, police executed a search warrant for an Anaheim storage unit they observed being utilized by Dumbrava. Police located a receipt from an Arizona gun store. The receipt showed that Dumbrava had purchased five LCMs and ammunition on January 3, 2020 (just prior to the 2020 search of his bedroom). Officers also obtained a rental agreement indicating that Dumbrava had rented a car on January 2, 2020, and returned it the following day.

There was no injunction preventing enforcement of 32310 (a) importation of LCM at the time when he imported the magazines. The only time period there was an injunction in place on (a) was 3/29/2019 to 4/5/2019.

He wasn't charged with the original 22 counts of LCM importation not because he raised a freedom week argument either, it was because the state didn't object to their original dismissal after losing the 3 judge panel (which did not do anything about the enforcement of 32310 (a) either, just kept the injunction on (b) while it went en banc). It appears they didn't object to the dismissal because they didn't have any evidence that he did not obtain those magazines during the week (a) was enjoined. Nothing says that he made that argument, just that the state could not prove that he committed the violation before or after the injunction was in effect/ended.

In 2019, a federal district court enjoined California from enforcing the LCM statute—section 32310—on Second Amendment grounds. 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 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.’

There is nothing here that indicates that the state can or will charge someone after an injunction is dissolved for an action that was legal to do under an injunction. I don't understand what the point of this post is, don't illegally import mags and if you do don't tape the receipt to them showing you illegally imported them?

 

[treelogger]

The LCM thing is so odd cause they’re legal for now

They are not. It is illegal to possess them. You just can not be charged or prosecuted for that FOR NOW. Rick has written that countless times.

There is nothing here that indicates that the state can or will charge someone after an injunction is dissolved for an action that was legal to do

It was not legal. It is illegal to possess them. You just can not be charged or prosecuted for that FOR NOW. Rick has written that countless times.

I don't understand what the point of this post is,

First, that if you possess them while the injunction is in force, you can still be prosecuted for possession later after the injunction goes away.

Second, that if you possess them, it is logically true that you obtained them, and many ways of obtaining them are illegal. The fact that it can be a little difficult to prove that you obtained them illegally, and that the crime is minor enough that law enforcement doesn't feel like investing a lot of time into it does not make it legal, nor free of risk.

don't illegally import mags and if you do don't tape the receipt to them showing you illegally imported them?

I agree with don't commit crimes in the first place. And don't rely on hiding your copy of the receipt to be save from prosecution, given that other copies and lots of other evidence is around.

 

[CadeH]

It was not legal. It is illegal to possess them. You just can not be charged or prosecuted for that FOR NOW. Rick has written that countless times.
First, that if you possess them while the injunction is in force, you can still be prosecuted for possession later after the injunction goes away.

Second, that if you possess them, it is logically true that you obtained them, and many ways of obtaining them are illegal. The fact that it can be a little difficult to prove that you obtained them illegally, and that the crime is minor enough that law enforcement doesn't feel like investing a lot of time into it does not make it legal, nor free of risk.

If the state could charge you with possession that was allowed during an injunction then they would have charged people with violating 32310 (a) for their freedom week magazines after the injunction on (a) dissolved. Yet the court consistently has dismissed charges when "I imported them during freedom week" is invoked as a defense and the state has no evidence proving the action happened outside of the injunction.

This is a case of someone violating a law that was in effect when the violation was committed, it has nothing to do with freedom week. Like I said, the post is pointless.

 

[RustVendor]

There was no injunction preventing enforcement of 32310 (a) importation of LCM at the time when he imported the magazines. The only time period there was an injunction in place on (a) was 3/29/2019 to 4/5/2019.

He wasn't charged with the original 22 counts of LCM importation not because of a freedom week argument either, it was because the state didn't object to their original dismissal after losing the 3 judge panel (which did not do anything about the enforcement of 32310 (a) either, just kept the injunction on (b) while it went en banc).


There is nothing here that indicates that the state can or will charge someone after an injunction is dissolved for an action that was legal to do under an injunction. I don't understand what the point of this post is, don't illegally import mags and if you do don't tape the receipt to them showing you illegally imported them?

It's slightly pedantic but the point is that many think it's just "legal" but the reality is that people shouldn't be cavalier. There's a lot of clueless people out there, in another thread earlier today a guy was saying "who would use a maglock or featureless nobody I know does that" and posted a picture of his rifle. People seriously just admit to felonies online lol

 

[CadeH]

It's slightly pedantic but the point is that many think it's just "legal" but the reality is that people shouldn't be cavalier. There's a lot of clueless people out there, in another thread earlier today a guy was saying "who would use a maglock or featureless nobody I know does that" and posted a picture of his rifle. People seriously just admit to felonies online lol

I would agree if his argument was that posting your "freedom week" magazines is a bad idea when you didn't import them during freedom week, but his argument is that the state will charge you for possessing mags during the injunction if the injunction is ever dissolved and there is not a single part of this court ruling that indicates that this is true or possible. It's just fearmongering.

 

[RustVendor]

I would agree if his argument was that posting your "freedom week" magazines is a bad idea when you didn't import them during freedom week, but his argument is that the state will charge you for possessing mags during the injunction if the injunction is ever dissolved and there is not a single part of this court ruling that indicates that this is true or possible. It's just fearmongering.

I thought he was clear that its very unlikely, just that 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.

 

[ButteFlyFisher]

Wait… what’s the obvious pun?