9th Circus Upholds Mag Ban Injunction

[CS Tactical]

It's temporary, but I'll take it...

[Tabasco]

If California was allowed to require a previously legal possession to be destroyed, confiscated or moved out of the state, they could do something like ban internal combustion engines and impose the same requirement. Really bad legal precedent.

[RevolverRob]

If California was allowed to require a previously legal possession to be destroyed, confiscated or moved out of the state, they could do something like ban internal combustion engines and impose the same requirement. Really bad legal precedent.

The precedent you suggest has been established for decades and it's precisely why California's "magazine ban" was written in the way that is was. The magazines were not confiscated, if they had been, that would be ex post facto and unconstitutional. By allowing citizens to "dispose of" magazines to include removal from the state by a date, California circumvents ex post facto law.

The exact same precedent is what prevents California from enforcing emission control laws on vehicles made before 1973, but does not prevent them from enforcing laws on post-1973 vehicles and keep going forward. More importantly, internal combustion engines are a poor analogue for firearms, because they are already heavily regulated at state and federal levels and are not constitutionally protected devices.

The argument that has been made re: Magazine Ban is not an ex post facto argument, it is an argument that limitation on ammunition containing devices is a violation of the Second Amendment. The San Diego Circuit Court that granted the injunction specifically applied two forms of scrutiny to issue an injunction, arguing that given legal precedent, magazines are likely to be considered as part of the second amendment by higher courts and therefore may consider California's ban as a 2A issue (granting the plaintiffs an injunction to pursue that case). FWIW in upholding the injunction the 9th Circuit still wrote a dissent that argues that magazines are not constitutionally protected via the second amendment and therefore this shouldn't be moving forward. But - fortunately for us - dissents mean jack and shit legally - and the 9th only determined if the San Diego Circuit Court abused it's authority in issuing the injunction not the actual constitutionality of the law.

[OlongJohnson]

If California was allowed to require a previously legal possession to be destroyed, confiscated or moved out of the state, they could do something like ban internal combustion engines and impose the same requirement. Really bad legal precedent.

This guy I know once owned a well-maintained older car in CA, and when the bi-annual smog check limits were decreased to be below the standards the car had been reliably meeting for many years, he had a hell of a time getting it reregistered. It was pretty damn close to sell it for scrap or move it out of state.

[Tabasco]

This guy I know once owned a well-maintained older car in CA, and when the bi-annual smog check limits were decreased to be below the standards the car had been reliably meeting for many years, he had a hell of a time getting it reregistered. It was pretty damn close to sell it for scrap or move it out of state.

Depends where you live. The emissions requirement is county by county (like lots of other things). I live in Nor Cal, and our county does not require smog checks for registration. The reason being that we have a small population, low income, and if smog checks were required, many more unregistered vehicles would exist and revenue would be lost. Enforcement would be a drain on our already strained law enforcement resources, so it's really not worth it. That's what I was told anyway.

[Bucky]

Now if only NJ could get such a ruling.

[GardoneVT]

This guy I know once owned a well-maintained older car in CA, and when the bi-annual smog check limits were decreased to be below the standards the car had been reliably meeting for many years, he had a hell of a time getting it reregistered. It was pretty damn close to sell it for scrap or move it out of state.

Well, yeah. Otherwise how else can you force people to buy $35,000 brand new cars they don’t need? Salesmen and bureaucrats gotta eat man.