District Court permanently enjoins California magazine confiscation law

Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 03/29/2019 | David Kopel

[William Tell]

"This year the requirement is that the gun must be disassembled in order to change the magazine. "

This requirement only applies to recently legislated assault weapons. Previously registered assault weapons can use normally detachable magazines.

Also, many of us neutered our rifles by removing the pistol grips, flash hiders, adjustable stocks, etc. These non-assault weapons can still use detachable magazines and could use grandfathered normal capacity magazines.

[trebb]

I just spent some time in (A State which doesn’t recognize any of my rights to do so) with my weapon on my hip...which means I had to be careful to not garner attention...suggest you don’t garner attention either.

[zeugma]

Thanks for posting a link to the full opinion. Should make for some interesting reading.

[CurlyDave]

...The case is now ready to be heard on its merits by the Ninth Circuit if California chooses to appeal; which it most certainly will...

They may have some heartburn about appealing. The Judge was very clever in his ruling. He discusses standards of review at great length, which will almost force the 9 CA to explicitly address this issue.

Now where it gets interesting, too low a standard (intermediate scrutiny) invites the Supremes to tell them what the standard should be. Anything higher (strict or even stronger scrutiny) invalidates the decisions in a lot of cases that CA does not want to see resurrected, shall issue CCW for instance.

From the standpoint of CA, this is a minor loss, but fighting it can open them up to a much bigger loss. This is the true history of how Illinois got shall issue -- they were afraid to ask the SC to consider the case...

[SPDSHDW]

If you do not have a pistol grip, a front grip, flash hider, or any other “evil features” you may have a removable magazine, with no bullet button. Most people can use a small magnet to change it into a standard mag release button also.

[The Unknown Republican]

This is so not true. In California, an “Assault Rifle” is a semi-auto centerfire rifle that possesses a removable stock AND one other feature (telescoping stock, flash hider, foregrip, etc.). So if such a rifle has a fixed magazine it isn’t an Assault Rifle and if it does have a removable magazine without another “feature” it is also not an “Assault Rifle”.

The bullet button itself has been banned as a means of making the rifle possess a fixed magazine. Now the rifle can only be deemed to have a fixed magazine if the magazine can only be released by means of opening the action (in the case of an AR, the separating of the upper and lower).

You can certainly “possess a rifle capable of releasing the magazine with finger pressure” if it is a featureless build or if the magazine can be released when the action is opened. I suggest you better familiarize yourself with the regulations before you get yourself or someone else into trouble.

[jonascord]

F#%K the "regulations"! It's easier to simply sidestep the Democratic People's Republic of Kali, until such time as the Shooting starts and the Final Solution to the Democrat Problem can be applied to the DPRK.

I'm basing my intelligence on a guy who fled the DPRK about 18 months ago.

The idea that cosmetic features make a rifle a felony is an anathema.

[The Unknown Republican]

You’ll get no argument from me on that front. I want out and have plans to effectuate that early next year.

My main point in reply to you is that people need to be careful if they do live here.

I re-read my response and noticed that I wrote it incorrectly...it isn’t “a semi-auto centerfire rifle that possesses a removable stock + a feature”, it’s a “semi-auto centerfire rifle that possesses a removable magazine + a feature”.

[The Unknown Republican]

Many retailers are, as of this past weekend and today, now shipping formerly banned magazines into California. The folks at Calguns are talking about it at length today.