Moving Forward with “Large Capacity” Magazine Court Ordered Stay

INFORMATION BULLETIN:
COURT ORDERED STAY IN DUNCAN V. BECERRA
“LARGE CAPACITY” MAGAZINE CASE:
WHAT GUN OWNERS NEED TO KNOW MOVING FORWARD
APRIL 8, 2019

Between the hours of Friday afternoon on March 29, and 5:00 P.M Friday, April 5, hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were lawfully purchased by California gun owners. Referred to by many as “Freedom Week,” this was a direct result of a federal district court issuing a decision in the NRA and CRPA supported lawsuit titled Duncan v. Becerra, which permanently enjoined California from enforcing its restrictions against so-called “large-capacity” magazines.

That decision has been stayed pending an appeal by California’s Attorney General. As of 5:00 P.M. Friday, April 5, California’s restrictions against the manufacture, importation, sale, giving, lending, buying, or receiving “large-capacity” magazines are once again in effect. However, the court has clarified that anyone who “manufactured, imported, sold, or bought” such magazines during “Freedom Week” cannot be prosecuted for violating California’s “large-capacity” magazine restrictions. What’s more, the court’s June 2017 injunction prohibiting California from enforcing its restriction against the “possession” of such magazines, remains in effect.

Naturally, many gun owners have questions regarding the recent rulings in Duncan and their effects. To that end, we have prepared the following list of commonly asked questions with answers to assist our members and gun owners moving forward.

I. CAN I STILL PURCHASE MAGAZINES CAPABLE OF HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS IN CALIFORNIA?
NO! As of 5:00 P.M. Friday, April 5, the decision granting the Duncan Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has been stayed pending appeal by the California Attorney General. As a result, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazines are once again in effect.

II. CAN I CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED?
YES! As of the date of this bulletin, California’s restrictions against “possession” have been unenforceable since June 29, 2017, when this same court issued a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect while the parties litigated the merits of the case.

III. CAN I USE THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED AT A SHOOTING RANGE?
YES! For the same reasons above, California does not currently prohibit the “possession” of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Only activities involving the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of such magazines are prohibited. The mere “use” of a magazine at a shooting range, for example, is not specifically prohibited. But BEWARE: the use of any “large-capacity” magazine in either a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine or a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine could classify the firearm as an illegal “assault weapon” under California law.1

IV. CAN I CARRY THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED WITH A FIREARM PURSUANT TO A CARRY LICENSE?
YES, but your local licensing authority’s policies may still restrict such activity. As noted above, California law does not prohibit the “use” of any “large-capacity” magazine. However, department policies of a local licensing authority may prohibit individuals from carrying such magazines in connection with their CCW permits. Individuals should, therefore, review their CCW license authority’s policies before carrying any “large-capacity” magazine in connection with their CCW permit.

V. I LAWFULLY PURCHASED MAGAZINES DURING “FREEDOM WEEK” BUT THEY HAVE YET TO ARRIVE IN THE MAIL, AM I STILL OK TO RECEIVE THEM?
YES! As noted in the Court’s order granting a stay, anyone who “manufactured, imported, sold, or bought” magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds during “Freedom Week” cannot be prosecuted for violating California’s “large-capacity” magazine restrictions. Assuming the individual “bought” the magazines but has yet to receive them, the Court’s order prohibits that individual from being prosecuted.

VI. I OWN “LARGE-CAPACITY” MAGAZINES THAT ARE CURRENTLY OUT OF STATE, CAN I STILL BRING THEM BACK INTO CALIFORNIA?
NO! As noted above, California’s restrictions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or receipt of any “large-capacity” magazine are currently in effect. Attempting to bring back magazines into California, despite already being owned by you, can be construed as “importation” which is currently prohibited.

VII. CAN I TRAVEL WITH THE MAGAZINES I LAWFULLY ACQUIRED OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA?
NO! Prior to the enactment of Proposition 63 in 2016, California law allowed individuals to travel with their lawfully acquired magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds outside of California and then return with them.2 But this provision was repealed with the enactment of Proposition 63. As a result, individuals can no longer travel outside of California with their lawfully acquired magazines unless they plan on leaving their magazines out of California.

VIII. WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING CALIFORNIA’S MAGAZINES RESTRICTIONS?
Anyone 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 magazines” can be charged with either a misdemeanor with up to a year imprisonment or felony with up to 3 years imprisonment (known as a “wobbler”).3 This restriction is currently in effect except as applied to those who bought magazines during “Freedom Week” per the Court’s order regarding the stay.
In addition to the above, California law also prohibits the “possession” of any “large-capacity” magazine.4 But this restriction never took effect as a result of the Court’s June 2017 order granting a preliminary injunction, which remains in place despite the issuance of the stay. Should this provision become enforceable, anyone who possesses a “large-capacity” magazine can be charged with either: 1) a fine up to $100 per magazine; 2) a misdemeanor with a fine up to $100 per magazine; 3) imprisonment up to one year; or, 4) both a fine and imprisonment.5
Lastly, California law also declares any “large-capacity” magazine to be a “nuisance” subject to confiscation and summary destruction.6

IX. HOW DOES THE COURT’S RULING AFFECT CALIFORNIA’S “NUISANCE” PROVISION?
While a law enforcement agency might, in fact, seize “large-capacity” magazines as a “nuisance” under California Penal Code section 32390, it is our attorneys’ view that there is no legal authority for it to do so—at least not for those who lawfully acquired their magazines. As an initial matter, our attorneys believe section 32390 is unenforceable against at least lawfully acquired “large capacity” magazines, regardless of this ruling, as it was never intended to apply to them. In 2010, the Legislature reorganized firearm laws with the intent of making them easier to understand by renumbering, breaking up, and rewording long, complicated statutes. All those alterations were expressly intended to make no substantive legal change to the existing statutes.
The predecessor of section 32390 was an ambiguous provision that, at most, applied only to “large capacity” magazines that were unlawfully made, imported, sold, or acquired, but not merely possessed; this is because that previous statute applied to a whole host of weapons whose possession was illegal, while the “large capacity” magazine statute only applied to acquisition of news ones. The legislative history for the original “large capacity” magazine statute expressly stated that it did not intend to affect lawfully possessed magazines. It would make no sense, nor would it likely pass constitutional muster under the Due Process Clause, to construe section 32390 as applying to the lawful possession of magazines.
In any event, even if our attorneys’ analysis of California Penal Code section 32390 is wrong, the ruling in the Duncan matter makes clear that it is unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. The notion that an item whose possession is protected by the Second Amendment can be seized by government provided there is no criminal penalty is absurd; particularly so if there is no compensation for it, because seizing a “large-capacity” magazine as a nuisance would still be an illegal taking under the ruling. The ruling itself leaves little doubt that it would not tolerate enforcement of section 32390. As stated by the court in the March 29, 2019, decision:
Casting a common sized firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds as a nuisance, as a way around the Second Amendment, is like banning a book as a nuisance, as a way around the First Amendment. It conjures up images from Ray Bradbury’s novel, Fahrenheit 451, of firemen setting books on fire, or in this case policemen setting magazines on fire.
In the coming days, CRPA attorneys will be sending a letter to various law enforcement channels in the State explaining Section 32390 ‘s unenforceability. If you or anyone you know has a “large-capacity” magazine seized by law enforcement on the basis that it is a nuisance under Section 32390, we urge you to contact CRPA attorneys immediately by sending an email to helpdesk@michellawyers.com or by calling (562) 216-4444.

X. WHERE CAN I VIEW THE FILINGS IN THE DUNCAN V. BECERRA LAWSUIT?
All case filings can be viewed online at http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/.
• A copy of the Court’s June 2017 order granting a preliminary injunction can be viewed at: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Duncan-v.-Becerra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf.
• A copy of the Court’s March 29, 2019, order granting summary judgment can be viewed at: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf.
• A copy of the Court’s April 4, 2019, order staying the enforcement of the order granting summary judgment can be viewed at: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-04-Order-Staying-in-Part-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf.

XI. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LITIGATING DUNCAN V. BECERRA?
The California Rifle & Pistol Association, with support from the National Rifle Association, filed this lawsuit after hearing the fear and outrage from its members who were being forced by the passage of Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 in 2016 to either surrender their “large-capacity” magazines to the government or become criminals.

 

  • 1 See Cal. Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(2), 30515(a)(5).

    2 See Cal. Penal Code § 32420 (repealed 2016).

  • 3 Cal. Penal Code § 32310(a). For the purposes of this restriction, “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.” Cal. Penal Code § 32310(b).

    4 Cal. Penal Code § 32310(c).

    5 Cal. Penal Code § 32310(c).

    6 Cal. Penal Code § 32390; See also Cal. Penal Code § 18010(b).

 

View Initial Ruling

37 Comments

  • I think this is excellent I will be sharing it around, Thank you! One that i have heard a lot of is do you need to prove when or how you bought them. This was a question ive seen a bunch. That would be great to add. Thanks for all you guys are doing! I will be looking into a membership shortly, because of your efforts, keep up the good fight!

  • So the question here is. If one imported their previously owned magazines which were kept out of state during freedom week or assembled them during freedom week from parts purchased some time in the past does this stay affect those? Also what documentation one needs to have to prove this or does it even need proving since the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt?

  • Thank You ,CRPA, for your efforts on our behalf !
    I’m a member and will continue to be as well as a donor. I believe in rewarding a job “well done “ !

  • Thank you California Rifle & Pistol Association & the NRA for fighting for our 2nd Amendment Rights. Keep on fighting. We need to take it to the streets.

  • The cities of San Francisco, Sunnyvale and Oakland have their own “large capacity” bans on magazines. Since this court oversees these jurisdictions (which reside in CA), does this decision apply to those cities as well?

  • Can you please provide clarification regarding standard/hi capacity maginze usage in featureless rifles? I have heard both yes and no that it’s OK.

    Thank you

  • First of all, thank you for your time and effort achieving the results that we are all benefiting from.

    I am confused between questions V and VI, in that, question V states “…anyone who “manufactured, imported, sold, or bought” magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds during “Freedom Week”…” is still legally able to receive them. Question VI states “…attempting to bring back magazines into California, despite already being owned by you, can be construed as “importation” which is currently prohibited…”.

    1) In both cases, the purchase was legal, but the magazine didn’t make it across the state line until after 4-5-19 5:00pm. Isn’t that illegal importation?
    2) If the order was placed for standard cap magazines and a confirmation number was provided by the selling company on 4-1-19, but the charge card was charged after 4-5-19, is that viewed as a legal purchase? I was told by the seller it was legal.

    Thank you again, making every attempt to stay legal.

  • As far as fix magazine for rifles that were registered as assaults weapon from the last bullet button ban, can I legally use my freedom week 20 to 30+ rds in my registered/in-progress assault weapon rifle?

  • You didn’t mention anything about “featureless ARs. Would a standard magazine (20/30/…) also render your featureless weapon an “assault weapon “ (made up term)?

  • If I previous to “Freedom Week” bought magazines & drums over 10 rounds from an out of state dealer & had them sent to an actual free state for use sometime in the future when & where it was legal. Could I have had those 10+ round magazines & drums shipped/postmarked to me from that free state to CA during “Freedom Week” even if the delivery to me in CA would’ve been after 5pm on Fri Apr 5, 2019?

  • If i owned “high capacity” magazines in another state and brought them home (California) during “freedom week” are they considered legal for me to use/own?
    Second question- would i need to be able to show proof of purchase during freedom week on all “high capacity” magazines if i was ever questioned?

  • In regards to Question VII, the law as purportedly established under Prop 63 (per the answer provided by CRPA above) doesn’t seem to hold water. Using this same logic, I am therefore “importing” every single thing within my vehicle each time I vacation to our neighboring states of Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona. If I begin my travels from my home within CA with some cash in an envelope and a cooler full of bottled waters, and return three days later with the remaining unspent bills and one bottle, did I “import” them? No…they were acquired from within the state as my lawful property and simply accompanied me throughout my travel to its conclusion. Similarly, if I take 500 rounds of ammo with me to a target range outside CA and consume only 400, am I “importing” the leftover 100 still in my possession? No. This isn’t even close to the spirit of the term “importing”.

  • I suppose it would be more apt to ask if the State of CA considers that I’ve somehow “imported” my vehicle, cell phone, the clothes on my back, my wedding ring, et al, multiple times since lawfully purchasing them here within CA and then traveling back and forth to neighboring states. If the answer from A.G. Becerra is yes, then we have a much bigger problem from Sacramento than can be addressed by talking only about magazines…

  • Thank you for your continued work and effort on this matter.
    I’ll be joining when I get home and encouraging my club to do as well.

  • I have a question regarding your stance on not taking magazines acquired during Freedom Week in/out of state. Because the permanent injunction reads: IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction
    enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in
    effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported,
    sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of
    this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019. Dated: April 4, 2019. Because it refers to the “Person” and includes both a) and b), the Permanent injunction on “b)” (covers importing) would allow us to take our magazines in/out of state. It doesn’t sate the injunction for “b)” was only good from 3/29 – 4/5, it says it falls under the Permanent Injunction. Can you run this by our Lawyers?

  • My two comments posted here a few days ago were deleted and are no longer viewable. Why? I received no notice that moderation deemed them unsuitable, and I cannot imagine why they would be rejected.

  • If a person purchased large capacity magazines from a private person during “Freedom Week”, would they have to show a receipt or divulge the seller’s name if questioned by authorities?

  • Ok I took advantage of freedom week and acquired some magazines. I understand my local licensing authority’s policies has the authority to my CCW carry outside my house, but I have not heard anyone comment on home defense. Can I use them in my home defense firearm? Thanks for the great work you are doing for CA.

  • When can we expect a decision on whether the stay will be removed or not ? How long does the appeal process typically take ?

  • One question not covered. For firearms registered with the state successfully are these now able to use standard capacity magazines over 10 rounds since already registered as an AW? AR or AK etc AW’s registered with CADOJ able to use my legally acquired preban 20 or 30rd mags?

  • Thank you for engaging this fight for American civil rights and private property. It’s a sad commentary on the trajectory of our society, that this needs to be fought at all. The Founders were explicit in their views on an armed populace, and the core ideas of individual liberty and due process. Keep up the good work!

  • I bought high capacity magazines before I purchased my fire arms and the 10 round capacity mags. went into effect. I don’t have any receipts to prove that I had them previous to the ban. Will I be forced to prove that I had them or am I out of compliance with the law?

  • whats next in this process? when might we expect a ruling on the appeal? or was this just a delaying tactic by DOJ because they know that if appealed and lose, they lose big for entire country. the 9th is getting more conservative each month this drags out.

  • How much time does the state have to respond to this case before the California magazine ban is declared unconstitutional if they fail to do so ?

  • All these rules and regulations on firearms, yet an illegal can just waltz in here and not only will the state just look the other way, they will give the lawbreaker “sanctuary”, and use our tax money to see that they remain. Kind of makes you wonder whose side this State’s government is on, doesn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRPA EVENTS

CRPA 1st Responders Appreciation BBQ

Thank you for being our local heroes!

August 05, 2018

CRPA Firing Line Magazine

CRPA Firing Line: May/June 2018 Issue

May 1, 2018