BREAKING: California Judge Reinstates ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban As of 5pm Friday

large capacity AR-15 magazines

Bigstock

In response to a motion from the California Department of Justice, US District Court Judge Roger Benitez, who issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of California’s “high capacity” magazine ban, has just issued a stay of his own injunction. That means that the window for ordering standard capacity magazines is closing.

His order goes into effect at 5:00pm Pacific time on Friday, April 5. You can read the full order here, but this is the relevant portion:

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310(a) and (b) is hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.

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.

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.

The ban on possession of “high capacity” magazines will not be enforced while the case is argued and decided, but California residents will not be able to buy them after 5:00pm tomorrow.

Have you ordered your magazines yet?

comments

  1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting to old for this shit" PR says:

    Now watch the Cali Nazis start seizing shipments before delivery can be completed…

    1. avatar Tim says:

      C ‘ya, freedom! Nice knowin’ ‘ya!

    2. avatar P Sucks A says:

      Does that mean PSA (Palmetto) the new CTD, will stop their price gouging on magazines?

      1. avatar LibertyToad says:

        Price gouging? Nonsense. It is called supply and demand. Econ 101.

        1. avatar Only One Cannoli says:

          No, it’s called taking advantage of the less fortunate. Perhaps when there is a hurricane in South Carolina, we can sell PSA water and supplies at a premium. That’s not being a capitalist…it’s called being rat-faced opportunist. They should have been selling these mags at a regular price just to get as many of them as possible into California. So they’re not helping, they’re just taking advantage of Californians for their own (literal) enrichment. What goes around…comes around. Not buying anything else from PSA anymore. And I’m not the only one. They’re no better than Springfield Armory. They’re both anti 2nd amendment.

        2. avatar Jack Sparrow says:

          You are write – it is Econ 101. Of course we as consumers are part of that as well – and we can choose to no longer buy from a company that jacks up mags from $7.99 to $12.30 when all of the sudden Californians can buy them.

          Remember a little company called Cheaper Than Dirt? Yeah, me neither.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          Go away prog snowflakes. AOC needs you to carry her baggage.

          BUY SOMEWHERE ELSE. This isn’t commie china YET.

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          @Only One Cannoli — No, it’s actually called supply and demand. Econ 101. That is being capitalist, and whether you personally like to think so or not is irrelevant. That, and they weren’t even price gouging, either, as magazines were and still are being sold at regular price through them. Which means that you don’t even know what you’re talking about to begin with. So, yes, they are helping, you’re not, and your retarded little personal temper tantrum “boycott” isn’t going to do jack shit to hurt their bottom line, regardless. You’re no better than Springfield Armory and anti-Second Amendment yourself because you’re a liar.

        5. avatar Only One Cannoli says:

          You’re absolutely clueless. Perhaps next time we have a hurricane, you can be the first one on the scene selling water and food to those in need…for twice as much. Funny thing is that such an action would get you arrested by the local Sheriff. I saw that happen first hand in Florida. This is no different, other than the fact that no one had the foresight to pass federal/state antigouging law to protect law-abiding gun owners from opportunistic traitors to the 2nd Amendment like you and PSA. Make no mistake, you’re either with us or against us. And when you take advantage of your brothers in need during a crisis, then you’re worse the Pelosi and Feinstein. At least they have the common sense not to fok their own over.

      2. avatar somethingclever says:

        Pmags listed at $12 bucks on the website just like pretty much every other day. What are you even talking about?

      3. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

        Someone on here once accused me of being poor and broke. Which is funny considering I refuse to buy from PSA. Where other companies have poor customer service, PSA has none. Brownells, Midway USA, Midsouth Shooter’s Supply just to name a few are companies that get my money. Maybe they don’t have rock bottom prices but I have never not got an order from them, they always answer the phone if I have to call, and my order has never been wrong. Even though I’m poor and broke I would rather pay more to a better business.

        Capitalism is selling a product in a free market for a price that is standard in the chosen industry. Raising the industry standard pricing during a time of strife to take advantage of people in the situation is price gouging. The strife also causes a barren consumer market as well. The only one that wins really is the business doing the gouging. Like another commenter has already said, if you think this practice isn’t price gouging I personally have no pitty for you or yours when you are in the middle of crisis and need something and the place that has it want way more for the item in need than what it would otherwise be.

      4. avatar polly pure heart says:

        Wow P, You really do SUCK, don’t you? Now go back to /K/ and try to get a different reaction

    3. avatar Grayson says:

      The regular price for Pmags everywhere else on the planet is $12.95. Yes they were on sale for $7.99 and there normal price was $9.95. They were able to offer Pmags at that price because Magpul offered them special pricing. Demand goes up, Magpul no longer offers bulk discounts so PSA can not possibly continue selling Pmags for $7.99. Everyone else is charging $12.95 or more for Pmags right now so why should psa sell them for less than everyone else? Imagine what they are paying in overtime right now making sure all these mags get out. Them and everyone else has been slammed with California orders. I promise you Magpul isn’t offering any discounts right now. Another thing to consider is that shipping from South Carolina to California is going to be substantially more than the cost of shipping to just about anywhere else in the US. PSA offers free shipping on orders of 10 or more Pmags so they are eating a lot of money in shipping costs. $13 is a fare price. Assholes in California were selling used Pmags for $25 and up the day the ban was lifted. Now that is price gouging.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        The LGS/range was selling Pmags for $50 after Colorado passed it’s mag limit. I don’t do business with them. I drive and take my business elsewhere.

      2. avatar John says:

        Well i got foked , when were they 7.99 !

  2. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Well, that didn’t last long…

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Never procrastinate ,as one never knows.

      1. avatar BGryphon says:

        Someone made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

        1. avatar TX223 says:

          Took the words out of my mouth!
          They got to him somehow.

        2. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Either a briefcase contract or the promise of a promotion to a higher court in the future.

          The former is more traditional, but the latter is less traceable.

        3. avatar DavidB says:

          I’m guessing he did this because some other court would have done it in a worse fashion. He only stopped the import/manufacturer. Sounds like Californian merchants can still sell what’s in the state, and you can own.
          If another court struck down his stay it could have been worse. He’s basically a legal insurgent; holding ground isn’t always viable, but I think we can safely say he’s the greatest friend to gun freedom California has seen in many years.

        4. avatar G says:

          David, you are correct. He knew another left leaning Judge, or a 9th panel could put the stay in place with hefty restrictions. By him doing it, theres no recourse by the AG & 9th.

        5. avatar Jlaw says:

          He went from a 2A hero to a 2A zero just like that. What a bought and paid for chump!!

    2. avatar Karl says:

      The theory is that he knew the 9th would impose a stay, possibly much stricter than this one. He controls the timeline and has allowed for anyone who purchased during this window to be exempt during the court process. That extends beyond the 5th…

  3. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Respect lost for the “judge”. You don’t ethically write that opinion and then take it back. Now the window will be closed forever because the 9th will reverse his decision and scotus will refuse to hear. Oh well.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting to old for this shit" PR says:

      “Now the window will be closed forever because the 9th will reverse his decision and scotus will refuse to hear.”

      Really?

      What makes you believe SCOTUS will do that? They just recently granted cert. to an insignificant little NY case recently. Magazine capacity would be a nice addition to that one…

      1. avatar Stateisevil says:

        That kourt has done precision little for us. Heller barely helped inmates of DC and the rest of the country just ignores it. The result of the NYC case will be……. drum roll….. inmates of NYC who actually own premises/target permits for handguns will be able to take them out of the city. Just like DC residents can pay a grand and wait 6 months to register a revolver. I hope to be wrong but history says otherwise.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting to old for this shit" PR says:

          “Heller barely helped inmates of DC and the rest of the country just ignores it.”

          Tell that to the *thousands* of new gun owners in New York City and San Fransisco, for starters.

          I think Thomas & Co. have learned something since the watershed ‘Heller’ decision. They won’t make the same mistake that required Mr. Otis McDonald to correct it (and properly apply it to the entire nation)…

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          You do realize that this is the first majority conservative court since WWII? RIght?

        3. avatar John says:

          Roberts is hardly a “conservative”. He’s the flip-flop that is as likely to side with the left as the right.

      2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        The Supreme Court has refused to hear one gun related case already and refused to put an injunction on the bump stock ban. They have agreed to hear one case. By my count they are one for three for doing anything in regards to guns. This is with a conservative heavy Court, I certainly wouldn’t get my hopes up with that track record so far.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This is with a conservative heavy Court,…”

          Roberts is the squirrel. Formally replaced whoever it was that was the squirrel when Scalia was on the court. So far, there is not a reliable “conservative” majority seated.

        2. avatar How_Terrible says:

          In all fairness the Supreme Court rejects the overwhelming majority of cases that are sent to it. Every year several thousand cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, but at the same time the justices only really have enough time each year to hear, and then decide, a few hundred cases.

        3. avatar rosignol says:

          We won’t have a conservative-heavy court until RBG retires. Right now, we have a 4-1-4 situation with Roberts as the swing vote. It’s basically the same situation we had before Kennedy retired.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        The NY case is insignificant because it’s a ridiculous niche law that only applies in one city in the country. This is massively different. Deciding that magazines are arms and are subject to the same constitutional right to possess as, say, a handgun, would be huge.

        So they won’t step in.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          If the NY case was so insignificant, the court would not have taken it. Instead, the case raises a central issue that infects all of these cases: the proper level and method of review. Although Heller said that a “sliding scale” analysis was improper, that is exactly what all of the liberal courts have done. Moreover, although they all spout that they are applying “intermediate scrutiny,’ they are doing anything but. Rather, if the State says passes a law, that is good enough–which by all intents is minimum or rational basis scrutiny. Just look at Thomas’ dissents in cases in which cert was denied, such as the Peruta case.

          The manner in which strict or intermediate scrutiny is SUPPOSED to be applied is demonstrated by Judge Benitez’s careful and lengthy opinion. Simply because he granted a stay that after 5 tomorrow evening prevents more “large capacity magazines” from entering the state is not an indication that he doubts for a minute the correctness of his decision. And quite frankly, it is far far better that he fashioned the language of the stay than a Ninth Circuit panel consisting of two Democrat appointed judges and one Republican appointee that could have issued a stay that suspended the entire decision (thereby making all owners of “LCM”s instant felons as it would mean that the challenged law would immediately go into effect).

      4. avatar ANG Pilot says:

        Because Roberts is the new Souter and Kavanaugh isn’t particularly friendly to 2A rights.

        1. avatar Roger J says:

          And I’m sure he revels in his new role. This is how you get to the A list of DC parties. This is how you get glowing stories in the NYT and WaPo about your superb legal mind. This is what turns good people and makes them trash.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Right, and I’m sure Mr. Kavanaugh just can’t wait to hit the cocktail circuit with the same people who publicly called him an alcoholic, drug abusing rapist in an overt attempt to wreck his entire life.

          I know that’s who I’d be running out to party with.

        3. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunniesbunnoes says:

          Kavanaugh has previously ruled that he thinks an assaualt weapons ban is unconstitutional.

        4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “…and Kavanaugh isn’t particularly friendly to 2A rights.”

          Wrong.

          Read it, and rejoice :

          “Brett Kavanaugh Said Banning Assault Rifles Would Be Like Banning Speech”

          “The Supreme Court nominee said there’s no ‘constitutional’ difference between them.”

          https://www.thedailybeast.com/brett-kavanaugh-thinks-banning-assault-rifles-would-be-like-banning-speech

          The Leftists are shitting bricks with “The Kav” on the court.

          Kav isn’t perfect, but he’s easily 95 percent where we want him to be on the 2A…

        5. avatar Ton E says:

          I bet the people who are defending Kavanaugh and his 2A record conveniently ignored his Heller II dissent when he was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anyone who believes Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court is a win for the 2A is ignoring facts plain and simple.

        6. avatar Ton E says:

          @Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR

          The leftist were mostly crapping bricks because of Kavanaugh possibly overturning Roe v Wade. Seriously read the dissent he wrote for Heller II.

      5. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Of course the Fascist 9 th. circus will uphold the ban but my fervent hope is SCOTUS will hear it and all of America will fall under the 2 nd. amendment as originally written by the founders.
        Don’t count SCOTUS out as Ruthie Bad Girl can’t live forever.

        1. avatar User1 says:

          Most of the judges are anti liberty thus anti gun.

          America shouldn’t be in a place where a few people determine their freedom and liberties. That’s called a failed state.

          The 2nd Amendment is supposed to make sure the people can provide the security of a free state. Now the State is infringing on that natural human and constitutionally protected right to the extreme. Rule of law does not exist like intended, it’s now orders given by politicians to law enforcement to enforce with violence.

      6. avatar User1 says:

        Refusal to protect Americans from the bump fire stock enforcement?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          That’s machine gun stock now… according to Trump, apparently.

          “Don’t worry about bump stock. We’re getting rid of it… I’ll do that myself.” -Trump

          Anyone who defends this asshat’s actions on these matters is delusional or a liar. He’s not “playing 3D chess”. Look at this video. He intended for them to be banned. He fanned the friggin’ flames of gun control when it was completely unnecessary to do so.

      7. avatar Shawn says:

        SCOTUS has refused to hear any gun cases for a decade. That trend will never stop. The courts are our enemies. Nearly every single judge in this country hates gun owners and wants all gun owners exterminated by the government. I’d say a good 80% of them would be perfectly fine with Swalwells idea of carpet bombing the United States with nukes and killing over half the population. When California and Oregon makes gun ownership punishable by execution without trial and goes door to door of every registered gun owner and execute them SCOTUS will not stop it. By then a democrat will be in the White House anti-Democrats the only good gun owner is a dead gun owner.When the federal government in 2026 makes gun ownership illegal and punishable by execution SCOTUS STILL will not stop it.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Shawn,

          SCOTUS has refused to hear any gun cases for a decade.

          That is because the United States Supreme Court was divided on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

          If the United States Supreme Court was fervently against broad firearm ownership, the Court would have taken any number of cases and ruled against broad firearm ownership. The fact that the Court did NOT take a case and did NOT rule against broad firearm ownership shows that a majority of the Court is NOT against broad firearm ownership.

          Now that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear and rule on the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. New York City, I believe we are going to get a decision that seriously reinforces broad ownership and possession of firearms, both inside and outside the home.

          Furthermore, Judge Benitez’s exhaustively complete justification for his recent permanent injunction is an irrefutable template that all federal courts can use to support broad firearms ownership. Any court which discounts his exhaustive, irrefutable justification will be blatantly corrupt and signing its own warrant for sanctions, whether official or unofficial.

          Court actions on our right to keep and bear arms should get quite interesting after the United States Supreme Court issues its ruling on the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association case. Stay tuned.

        2. avatar JR Pollock says:

          Shawn,

          You have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re dead wrong.
          In 2015 SCOTUS granted cert on the Abramski case which should have bee a slam dunk win for our side. It was the case dealing with straw purchases.

          Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas held that a purchase of a firearm by one legal individual, and subsequent transfer to another legal buyer did not constitute a straw purchase. Kennedy sided with the 4 leftists, and now we have a horrible precedent on the books.

          After Abramski, the Conservatives decided not to hear anymore 2A cases, because Kennedy was no longer a reliable 2A ally.

          Do a modicum of research before you post stupid shit in the future…

    2. avatar G says:

      Think further down the line. He protected his ruling by taking the power from the AG & 9th to hear the stay. Had he refused to issue the stay, the AG would have asked for an en Banc hearing and they would have put the stay in place with hefty restrictions. Now, the AG will appeal to the 9th for a panel. They will of course overturn this ruling. It’s going to go to the SCOTUS. Hopefully RBG is gone by then.

      1. avatar Mark H says:

        Whether a 3-judge panel on the 9th upholds or overrules is really a role of the dice. 40:60 depending on which three judges get picked. There are enough pro-RKBA judges that we could get a good ruling by random selection.

        If so, that would be a stepping stone to the 9th overturning en banc of course.

  4. avatar Hank says:

    How can a judge overrule himself? That should be illegal.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      He’s not overruling himself, he is ruling on a motion made to stay his own judgement in expectation (and certainty) of an appeal so that exactly what happened won’t happen- a bunch of companies starting to ship magazines into CA as fast as possible in such a way that it will be difficult to undo.

      He is recognizing that he is not a law unto himself and that his legal decision may be reversed by higher courts.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        The appeal has been filed.

  5. avatar George from Alaska says:

    Am I reading correctly? The judge that filed the stay to the injunction – allowing Californians to order standard capacity magazines is now saying that they will be illegal under the original injunction.
    So people that bought for four or five days are now criminals and their magazines are forfeit?
    I’m sorry if i missed something but that how it reads to me??

    Dammit Jim… I’m a trained firefighter/medic, not a legal expert.

    Please someone, correct me.

    1. avatar hgc says:

      Only wrinkle, is maybe a California Penal Code messing with and reaching across state lines on interstate commerce.
      Hum, I know there are some pages on that somewhere.

    2. avatar Pete says:

      Quite the opposite: he’s saying that the ban on simple possession cannot be enforced by the state while the case is appealed. The ban on buying/selling mags will go back into effect tomorrow at 5pm.

      In short, he maintains the status quo (no buying or selling of mags after 5pm Friday, which has been the case since 2000) while explicitly protecting people who, relying on his order during the last week, bought new mags.

      /not a lawyer

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        A correct summation of the order.

      2. avatar arc says:

        Get while the gittin is good, buy extra for friends and family and some extra more to stash away.

      3. avatar Big Bill says:

        As I read this:
        “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. ”
        Anyone who bought these mages during that period can still take possession of them after the 5:00pm cutoff, because they bought them before that time.
        Do I have that right?
        If so, that means you have up until then to order them.

  6. avatar VicRattlehead says:

    I’m SURE all the people who bought mags will turn them all in when the state demands them here shortly. 🤣

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Compliance with a unjust/unConstitutional law is up to each individual to decide but then it has always been that way.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      It cannot demand that they be turned in.
      That part of the law is still stayed.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      It cannot demand that they be turned in.
      That part of the law is still stayed by last Friday’s order and this order on the stay,

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        And that order can be overturned by a higher court.
        Like the Ninth Circus, for example.

  7. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The words of “Dick the Butcher” keep running around in my head. But then…we are not trying to improve a monarchy, are we?

  8. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

    For all the fuck you’s, fuck off’s, stupid fuck’s and all the other fuck headed replies I got when the injunction was initially reported, I fucking told you so! How’s it hanging now, short shriveled and to the left or does feel like it’s been chopped off? Now what are you going to do, go back to calling bad names sitting back on your asses with the oh poor me and everyone that doesn’t live here just doesn’t understand? That’s been working really well for you for the last 18 years. Yet I’m the one that is the clown that doesn’t support freedom of rights. My backyard isn’t perfect but it’s a hell of a lot cleaner than people that live in these communist states. Last time I checked houses here are still for sale. Do your homework I’m sure you can find a free state.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting to old for this shit" PR says:

      “How’s it hanging now, short shriveled and to the left or does feel like it’s been chopped off?”

      Hangin’ proud, along with the ‘boys’.

      BTW, I agree with the others. You can go fuck yourself sideways with an anvil and go swimming… 😉

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Yeah because that’s working wonders. Keep fighting that “good fight” it’s working soooo well! Who’s getting fucked sideways with the anvil? Not me so much freedom here communist states wouldn’t know what to do with it. I’ll keep the freedom going here with those that live in my state and Commifornia will keep getting the shaft it appears. 😂

        1. avatar Ash says:

          Your comment is expected from someone who advertises their vet “status” on gun blogs.

          I actually have more respect for this judge now. Not only did he rule appropriately last Friday, but he has enough self-awareness that he grants a stay so that his initial ruling can be evaluated by the courts. It’s called self-awareness … they probably don’t teach that in whatever leg unit you’re from.

        2. avatar Prick says:

          Someone else with another assuming reply. Doesn’t impress me in the least. Do you like this name better than Iraqvet2003?

        3. avatar red_dirt says:

          Hey prick2003, how about fauxpatriot? fauxpatriot2003? or fauxprick2003?
          Just trying to help. If you actually want to understand how courts, stays and appeals work scroll back up and read MarkN”s analysis. This judge has a strategy, and he’s on our team. Look at how he timed this, for instance. Our previous AG and current senator Kamela Harris probably has the best chance of being the chosen democratic presidential candidate. That should give everyone pause.

        4. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

          How about stop assuming what you think you know. That’s what most around here want to do is assume. Especially if they don’t like what someone else has to say. Assume to try to insult only making themselves look worse. Do you think you don’t because you are doing the exact same thing as everyone else? I’m not faux anything. If my opinion about California doesn’t sit well with then do something to change the environment there and I’ll change my opinion. Opinions sometimes are based on reality and the reality is California has been this way for too long to only continue to get worse. Try to understand this, elected officials in California don’t give a damn what I think. I don’t and can’t vote for them. Even if I did they wouldn’t care what I think because I don’t share their politics. The people that live in California need to address these issues. Personally I think new tactics are needed. If the FINAL decision is favorable I’ll believe something is going to change. I wouldn’t go celebrating. Here where I live on the other hand it’s the opposite. However we are fortunate enough to have the majority of people that still love America and it’s freedoms and traditions. We don’t like liberals or criminals and slowly but surely we are turning the tables on both. I don’t want any democrat elected. As long as there are pussy liberals that think big government will provide for and protect them, I’m stuck with both.

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      Moving away from your family and the place you were born is not all that easy. While I would love to be able to constitutional carry, my family is very important to me and to move away would be hurtful(my grandchildren and great grandchild are my life). Moving everyone to a free state would be very hard and would affect 6 high incomes, so I don’t think it will happen in the near future. While it may be easy for some of you, but I am trapped.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “While I would love to be able to constitutional carry, my family is very important to me and to move away would be hurtful(my grandchildren and great grandchild are my life).”

        Ok. Finally, someone has the nerve to declare there is something more valuable than constitutional rights, specifically, the constitutionally protected right to bear arms in defense of self and family. This comment is not intended to disparage the commenter, but to shine the anti-aircraft search light on the reason 100 million gun owners are not a monolithic voting block.

        We all have to compromise in life, the only question is what constitutional value is subjugated to which personal value. Point? We need to stop lamenting how FUDs aren’t staunch POTG, and find other ways to tilt the politics in our favor.

        1. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

          How about just agreeing that we all have our opinions and while we may not like others we agree that rights are individual and we want to keep them that way? While apparently hard in practice in theory it sure seems like it’s what we all want. The petty arguments within the progun community gets tiring to say the least. Whether machine guns are relevant or not. Whether bump stocks are relevant or not. Whether one caliber is better than another or not (yet no one wants to get shot by a 380 or 9mm even if they think they are substandard). Personally it doesn’t matter what I think about individual rights unless it is my own. No one else can speak to anything but their own rights. If I want to own a machine gun and someone else doesn’t then we have both stated where we stand on that individual right (if it were still a right). Same with all the other bullshit arguments that come up in the so called progun community.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The point remains….so long as people treasure something other than their enumerated (and unenumerated) rights, we are wasting time lamenting that others won’t do right. “Others” are not the path to restoration of the union as founded. We are at a disadvantage in that the gun-grabbers are totally unified on removing guns from lawful people. POTG are maybe unified that 2A is about as absolute as you can get, but the rest of the gun owners have other priorities. Either POTG find a way to successfully convince the rest of the gun owners to fall on their swords over “gun rights”, or we focus on how a minority can drive the majority (the way those crazy leftists manage to do).

        3. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

          Agreed! I have admitted that giving criminals the right to own guns without knowing they are rehabilitated doesn’t sit well with me. However I don’t value my security more than I do my rights. My rights are my security as far as I’m concerned. No one will care about me and mine as much as I do there for the best security for me and mine is me or ourselves depending on individual situation. I believe that to be the biggest problem people don’t want to take full personal responsibility. It has been made too easy to let big government take care of it. We still have that same issue that no one else is more important than I. Given that who does the government have their best interest for you and I or themselves and the system they control? I think at this point the answer is pretty clear. People want to quote the founding father’s with great bravado but still nothing changes on the whole. Yes things are pretty good here for now. The disease is spreading though and it could come knocking. The way the system of state government is set up I have very little say as to what is going on in other states. If I could do more believe I would. As I’ve stated elsewhere the NRA that so many want covet is part of the problem. They are not working for unrestricted rights because they have publicly admitted they support certain restrictions. That the average person has no need for certain items. Hopefully people will realize that this is about nothing more than money and power. We have been paying for something that is suppose to be free. Now we want to go back but the problem is the people that have been paid still want more of both money and power. Without unity those that are still paying just as well keep the money flowing because otherwise it’ll be gone before any of us have a chance to do anything.

      2. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        While I completely understand where you are coming from. There is only two lingering question from everything you said. What good is one high income let alone six when you local government is telling you what you can and can’t spend it on? Yes granted I know there are still things that can’t be purchased legally by anyone. How much whittling away can acceptable before enough is enough? I’m not trying to be a dick here. Your reply was civil regardless if you liked what I said. I’m asking serious questions because for me personally I would be asking myself these same questions if I lived in the same circumstances.

      3. avatar OBOB says:

        I said this on her once and I will say or post it again

        California being messed up is not the state of California’s fault…its the other 49 that left the border VERY WIDE open for the last 35 years AND add to that in 1994 cali cried out, no it yelled out sobbing asking for help with prop 187 of that year banning ALL 100% financial aid from the US fed, the state and locals going to ILLEGAL ALIENS including ANY free schools k through 12 and through being a freaking DR!
        all the other 49 states stood there silently….now only Trump seems to be kind of listening…hearing that cry 34 years too late it seems???

    3. avatar jwm says:

      iraqvet2003 reserves the right to be an asshole. He demands his right to be an asshole. He proudly is an asshole.

      But if you call him an asshole he gets mad. Judging from my experience with him in the past.

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Nope I know I can be a real rough prick, I can also be extremely civil and polite. Generally speaking the person(s) I’m interacting with dictate which they get. Those on the last article didn’t like what I had to say so be it, I don’t always like what other people have to say either. However I usually don’t stoop to vulgar name calling initially. That usually comes from getting the same from others first. Which I believe was the case last time. In fact I believe you were the first fuck you, am I wrong? Feel free to go back and look. Like I said before I don’t care what you say or think my skin isn’t that thin. You can bet when I’m right I’m coming with salt for the gaping wound. However I wish those that choose to stay in these communist states regardless of the reason the best of luck.

        1. avatar Grid Square says:

          I think you should stick with Prick as your username. Or go with Prick E6 or something of that nature.

        2. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

          I’m going with Happily Irrelevant since it is thought I’m here for relevancy and/or affirmation. I feel for the person(s) that are here for either of those.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Nope. You ain’t wrong. I was the first fuck you and I believe I nailed you quite correctly then and now.

          You like to incite folks and when you get a negative response it somehow satisfies you.

          Sad, really. But that’s the interwebz for you.

        4. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

          Interesting that you think your opinion regardless of what it is is the most important. My initial comment on the other article was just that my opinion. Since you feel your opinion is somehow superior you replied to my comment not the other way around with fuck you of all things. Now hind sight being 20/20, how wrong was I? Here we are again with another opinion of mine. Do you have to like it? Nope, you didn’t have to like my initial comment on the other article either. This sounds exactly the way a liberal would react to someone else’s opinion. They are always entitled to their but everyone else isn’t allowed one unless they are in strict agreement. They don’t want guns so no one else should have them either. I’m not sorry I can have my opinion and you can have yours regardless if we agree or not. Someone not wanting to own guns doesn’t trump the right of others to own guns. Rights are individual not majority. Clearly here in the comments I’m the minority and I’m ok with that. What is worse do you think, being the minority in the comments here or being the minority where you live, especially when it comes to individual rights?

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Interesting that you think your opinion regardless of what it is is the most important.”

          Not really a party to this particular exchange, but to set the record straight…my opinion is the most important. Period.

    4. avatar napresto says:

      Dude, no one disagreed with you that there was still a long road to travel with this particular case. What we disagreed with was your contention that you are, in any way, worth paying attention to…

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        I’m not worth paying attention to. Your words not mine. So your reply was for what exactly? The other article or this one for that matter?

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “What we disagreed with was your contention that you are, in any way, worth paying attention to…”

        *APPLAUSE*

        ‘Vet’, we’ve seen your type come and go around here since…

        Well, just about as long as TTAG has been around. You aren’t impressing anyone with your bluster. And the longer you keep it up, the less relevant you become to the adults in here discussing guns and gun politics…

        1. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

          The assumption that I came here to be relevant to a bunch of people that can do nothing but argue unless the other person agrees with you boggles the mind. I can’t stand liberals but I’ll give them this, they do agree on their assault. While (dare I say) conservatives have at least 5 different opinions. They also give money to organizations that also have their own opinions. The NRA is the absolute worst in my opinion. Then you hear the NRA may not be perfect but they are better than nothing. Why is the NRA needed? To take money for themselves and funnel more to DC? That’s not a right when you are paying for it it’s a privilege. Why do we need someone to speak for us? I have a voice and I use it for way more than commenting on here. This is shits and giggles stuff for me. This is a good source of information sometimes too. You apparently have a voice along with everyone else that comments here. Is it that hard to write an email or pick up the phone expressing what you think to those that represent you? It’s not for me. Something that really removes credibility is bitching without voting. If you do great I’m not talking about you then. However we just had our city elections Tuesday. Of a town of over 11,000 people just over 1,600 voted. That is pathetic! Regardless if anyone thinks voting will do any good or not do it anyway. Putting your voice out there with a vote gives you the right to bitch if nothing else. Clearly so many don’t vote and still bitch. I don’t want to hear it if they can’t speak up when it really matters. For the record I didn’t comment here the first time to be relevant or irrelevant. My life isn’t that pathetic that I need such affirmation from the internet. I’m not commenting for relevancy or affirmation now.

    5. avatar Hannibal says:

      who are you and who dropped you on your head as a child?

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “..and who dropped you on your head as a child?”

        His mother.

        Repeatedly, since he obviously kept squalling and wouldn’t shut up and let the poor woman sleep…

        *snicker* 😉

        1. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

          Assuming things about someone else does nothing to them. However the person doing the assuming, well I’m sure you know what is said about assuming anything.

    6. avatar barnbwt says:

      Well I’m going to bed; this has got to the dumbest thing I could possibly read today.

    7. avatar Accur81 says:

      Anger management and PTSD therapy available to veterans:

      https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand_tx/tx_basics.asp

      You may want to look into it.

      I figured this would be short lived, as have a lot of Californians who rushed to buy standard cap magazines.

    8. avatar Big Bill says:

      What’s your point?

    9. avatar Random NYer says:

      Wow, this guy is one special brand.

      I’ve heard the “Don’t fight for the gun rights you should have anywhere as an American, just run to another state” arguments before. He must have grown up in NYC, California, or some other 2A hellhole but moved out and is now looking down on everyone else for not doing the same, right?

      Nope. He stated on one of the previous news threads about this case he still lives in the same state he grew up in. He’s neither had to fight for his gun rights, nor make the sacrifices he’d have to make to run for them either.

      On gun rights he’s grown up wrapped in warm blankets and bubble wrap and he thinks he’s a badass. That’s all there is to see here.

      1. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

        That’s a valid argument how exactly? Because the state I live in isn’t full of a bunch of communist liberals, yet? That’s your argument? Make no mistake if things ever got as bad here as they are in California or any other communist and it didn’t look like thing were going to change I would be looking to move in as little time as possible. Therefore I’m not telling anyone else to do something I wouldn’t do myself. In my opinion that makes your argument invalid. To top it off I haven’t heard one person from any of these problem states say what the next plan is to restore their rights. As far as I’m concerned it’s a bunch of people on the internet blowing smoke. You have to effect change for change to happen. The liberals have done just that in these states which why these states are in the situation they are now. So again I ask what is going to be done when this fails? Which I’m thinking right now it will.

        Being pissed at me because of where I live and not having the infringements on my rights like people do elsewhere doesn’t bother me at all and doesn’t help their situation either. Now if you or anyone else can’t understand that then you and they have more issues than just getting your 2A rights back. Give me a plan of action that can be implemented if you live in one of these states that is going to be helpful for improving your situation and then I’ll consider this more than just internet blowing smoke BS. Clear enough?

    1. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

      Classic firearms has 100 round dual drum mags for $80……I bought one earlier today (aka screw you Newsome and Becerra)

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        And the donkey they rode in on.

  9. avatar Moltar says:

    Hmmm can we sell California to Mexico and use that money to finance the wall?

    1. avatar Darwin Grigg says:

      Yes, but it would have to be longer to wall off California as well as Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. Speaking as an Idahoan, though….DO IT!!!!!

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        What do you have against Arizona?
        The only rules I have to worry about here are Federal laws; there are no AZ laws I need to even consider.

    2. avatar Some dude says:

      Wall would be way longer and then there’s the massive hole in the “sea to shining sea” thing… Better Commiefornia just falls off into the Pacific! After a good rinse it can come back if it wants…

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        I said the same thing when the judge wasn’t in favor of the state and I got told fuck you among other things. Now because of the dick heads I dealt with then, I’m laughing my ass off. Have the true Americans get out and let the rest sink to the bottom I say.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          AH! I see.
          You’re one of those who likes illegal laws against gun ownership.
          Why are you here? To be told to fuck off again?
          Is this something you get off on?

        2. avatar Happily Irrelevant says:

          No apparently you don’t see because that isn’t my stance at all. Read all of my comments (replies) and then you should see. That is the problem I’ve noticed is an opinion is formed on a single reply only not all of them. As for telling me to fuck off go ahead but it isn’t going to change the fact I was right. My stance right now is I seriously doubt the final decision will be favorable. I also doubt the Supreme Court will consider hearing the case which means people in California will be no further along than they are after whatever time today. I’m saying has been done to date isn’t having a meaningful lasting affect in these problem states and maybe those that live there that want their rights restored should decide on a new possibly more forceful approach. I don’t live there, I don’t want to live there, and my being in another state halfway across the country is going to have very little if any impact. Those that live there and choose to stay are going to have to be the ones to do it. If that’s not clear enough I don’t think I can get you or anyone else to understand then. Currently where I live we in this state have it pretty damn good and we are trying very hard to keep it that way and continue making it better.

    3. avatar OBOB says:

      might have been cheaper or better for you OTHER 49 states to have kept the border closed for the last 35 years…that is the fed job and you blame the state of California for changing under the GREAT WEIGHT of millions of unwashed DEM voting Mexican illegals?

  10. avatar xavier says:

    The judge made a deal to keep sales open till Friday PM . If he hadn’t Xavier was going to get the 9th to stop buyers today.

    The mags just purchased are legal to possess for the time being too. Just don’t put them in a bullet button rifle.

    1. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

      Unless you bought it before 11:59:59 p.m. on June 30, 2018 🙂

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Umm, no. It doesn’t matter when you bought your BB rifle. If it has a BB and any one evil feature, it is NOW an assault weapon that was required to registered by July 1, 2018. If you failed to do so, it would behoove you to convert it as fast as you can to a featureless configuration, which is not an “assault weapon.” Maybe you noticed that you can no longer purchase a BB rifle in this state…now you know why.

        1. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          Yes, I know all of this (I live in CA and have to deal with this bullshit). But why would you not be allowed to insert a “legal” high capacity magazine in one? I looked at the law and did not see any additional restrictions on assault weapons, other than registration. Was there something I missed?

  11. avatar Barnbwt says:

    The standard/bar for granting a stay like this is lower than for striking the law down; because Benitez knows that the 9th/SCOTUS wants a bite at this apple and DOJ, he has to defer to them, ahead of time, by maintaining status quo.

    Disappointing to be sure, but he did grant you guys a full week of freedom, and he could have (possibly even should have per the rules above) implemented a stay immediately. Frankly, +1 million mags entering CA legally in that short a timeframe is itself evidence of how oppressive the existing mag ban was, and how impossible prohibiting possession would be, now. Further, the huge number of legal mags now in CA makes it even easier to make an argument using Caetano (the most recent SCOTUS weapons ruling, and a unanimous one btw) that a ban is wrong since the items are already so common, AND that the only reason they aren’t even more common than that is due to the ban alone.

    This brief window may have actually strengthened the case a good bit…and the CA DOJ slamming it shut will be very revealing, no doubt.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting to old for this shit" PR says:

      “Further, the huge number of legal mags now in CA makes it even easier to make an argument using Caetano (the most recent SCOTUS weapons ruling, and a unanimous one btw) that a ban is wrong since the items are already so common,…”

      *BINGO*! Someone who *gets it*…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “*BINGO*! Someone who *gets it*…”

        Another ruling based on “common” (“tradition and history” IAW Kavanaugh) reinforces the notion that the Second Amendment is dependent on what the government permits to become “common”. Such a theory of law resulted in machine guns not being “common” because the central committee decreed that machine guns should be regulated to the point that they are “uncommon”, then justify that label because the central committee made the weapons “uncommon”; circular logic/reasoning that only benefits the singular purpose for inserting specific prohibition of the central committee to prevent it from disarming the States (now “states”).

        A ruling based on the concept of “common” that benefits gun owners is no more legitimate (or logical) than one which restricts gun owners.

        1. avatar Fully Involved says:

          Well said, Sam I Am.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Well said, Sam I Am.”

          Twice in one night. Gotta put a stop to this crap.

          I need another martoonie.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Kav ain’t perfect, Sam. But he’s easily 95 percent where we’d like him to be…

          “Brett Kavanaugh Said Banning Assault Rifles Would Be Like Banning Speech

          The Supreme Court nominee said there’s no ‘constitutional’ difference between them.”

          https://www.thedailybeast.com/brett-kavanaugh-thinks-banning-assault-rifles-would-be-like-banning-speech

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Brett Kavanaugh Said Banning Assault Rifles Would Be Like Banning Speech”

          And?

          Obviously better than a leftist judge, but I don’t trust any judge who rules based on “history and tradition”. The Second Amendment is not about degrees of permission from government. It is about maintaining parity with the standing army. According to Kavanaugh, any infringement on constitutionally protected rights is permissible, so long as there is significant history or tradition of such infringement/restriction.

          Am I glad Kavenaugh is on the SC? Absolutely. Just don’t depend on him to be solidly conservative on any constitutional question. Set your expectations low, and enjoy the periodic surprise.

        5. avatar barnbwt says:

          Well, you can curse the wind, or you can use it to drive your sails, Sam.

          Does the massive market response to this brief window not clearly illustrate exactly your point, that the mags would be ubiquitous even in highly restrictive areas, were it not solely due to the scarcity caused by these laws? Why, it’s almost like that could be used as a powerful argument in a logical follow-on to applying Caetano to assault weapons/MG bans…almost like maybe that was the entire point of Benitez not imposing a temporary stay on his injunction as would normally be the case with something so obviously destined for appeal.

          But no; I suppose you’d rather Caetano not have been ruled upon, since it wasn’t all-encompassing, everything you ever wanted, right now, upending a century of laws & precedent, in a maelstrom of legal movement that’s never been seen anywhere in history outside of revolutions. You’d rather have nothing instead, while we wait for such a preposterously radical ruling from a bunch of elitist black-robes who are *at best* Fudds of the Fuddiest variety, and more generally very ignorant when it comes to firearms.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Incrementalism is not going to return what is lost. The culture is against us, and producing anti-gunners at a prodigious rate. Note that the SC does not cut the Gordian Knot, and declare that all gun restrictions are invalid. Nor doe it declare that there is no “balancing” of constitutional rights and “compelling government interest”. So let’s talk about “common” as a metric…

          Allegedly, there are ~400 million guns in private hands. 15 million concealed carriers can be argued to not be “common”. 15 million ARs could be argued “not common”. Point is, “common” is undefinable. Relying on an undefinable term is not the path to lasting victory. Using “common” as a standard leaves the question open. If we satisfy ourselves with “common” (or traditional), we must accept that “common” can be defined later by a different-minded judicial system.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        The guy who mentioned that this takes the “stay” ball out of the 9ths/etc hands (who could reimpose the possession ban if they wanted) is also right. Seems like a careful play, that does the least harm to gun owners in the meantime.

        Sorry, but CA DOJ was never going to accept this, so they’d have found a way to halt sales by hook or by crook (passing another law, duh). This preserves the status quo Kalis have endured for years already, except now preban mags will be much cheaper (plus any other mag with a “pre-April 2019 datecode” by the way –there’s no way to know when mags entered.

        Which means every mag in existence, in America today (likely a billion) is now legal in California even after the stay, provided you can sneak it across the border. Tah-dah! The mag ban can’t be enforced in any way even if they wanted to, now. Kali’s will never want for high cap AR/AK/etc mags.

  12. Our government seriously NEEDS a shake-up from the top down! I’m tired of these pompous self important potentates and tassel loafer tyrants instituting authoritarianism! In shear violation of Our U.S. Constitutional – Bill of Rights!

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      It’s coming ,sooner or latter but it’s coming.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        Usually the people are not awakened until it gets so bad they have no power to change anything. Then they flood the streets to be target practice for law enforcement.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          AOC for president in 2020! Constitution be damned…

          That should do it.

        2. avatar User1 says:

          @John

          I think it would be sort of beneficial for a Democrat to win in 2020 because Trump is going to get away with a lot of bad things like he has done in the last two years. It’s not going to be all that different seeing that Trump is a Democrat that had to run as a Republican. The Democrats are boycotting certain lobbies that do not advocate for America first, while Trump puts two countries ahead of the U.S. because of his families’ beliefs.

          Having a Democrat will force Republicans to get active like they were during Obama. Gun owners will be forced to get off the couch and make a stand instead of allowing Trump and Republicans to pass gun control more than the Obama years. Everyone that understands human rights will have to educate their fellow Americans in order to stop the shove of Communism rather than allow the slow and quiet creep that happens with Republicans.

          I rather see Dan Crenshaw run against Trump than have a Democrat, but we know the Republicans and the older Democrats want Trump to do a full 8 years. If Trump does a full 8 years the country will be in horrible shape when a Democrat takes over in 2024; many people believe that will be the end…

          It seems every 30 years or so there is a big passage of federal gun infringements: 1934, 1968, 1994. So 2024 is looking to be ripe for a major strike if not the final blow regardless if Trump does 8 years. Enough times has passed to raise another generation that will accept the infringements, they will even call for it, and the so called gun lobby will write the law.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Always amazed at people who claim the best way to win is first to lose, so that losing can motivate a win. The logical extension is that after the win, a loss is needed in order to motivate the next win, and here we go….”will it go round in circles?”.

          “Nattering nabobs of negativism”
          – – S. Agnew

        4. avatar User1 says:

          @Sam

          If you paid attention to what Trump has done you would be disgusted.

          He resigned NSA spying/logging of Americans, he wants whistle blowers killed, he wants millions of legal immigrants to replace American workers in the next 10 years, he got rid of NAFTA for something even worse, he lied about returning the troops instead he sent them into more places, he illegally bombed a country twice and lied to the public to do it, he gave Saudi Arabia weapons and access to the NSA system, he gave money to Israel to build a wall instead of money for America to build their wall, he gave money to the South Americans who plan to come to America illegally, he is trying to overthrow Venezuela, he put sanctions on other countries to give himself positive PR for his poll numbers, he passed FixNICS, he ordered a bump fire stock ban, he is put in an anti gun AG, he put in a pro police state supreme court judge, he started a trade war that got thousands of workers fired and many businesses closed, he doubled the debt, he didn’t get rid of Obama care but he wants to slash Medicare for elderly using it, he said people on the right should just behave on social media so they won’t be censored, he claimed to go after colleges that don’t allow free speech but he didn’t really, he puts other countries before America because of religion, he only does a push for the wall when it’s politically necessary in reality he has no plan to build a wall, he is pushing for red flag laws, he does’t want any pro 2A legislation, he is threatening to further ruin the economy if American businesses don’t do what he says because he wants to get reelected so he can finish his family’s personal religious plan, etc.

        5. avatar kevin (the other one) says:

          When did the US become a dictatorship? I was under the impression that only congress can make laws, allocate money, and declare wars.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I was under the impression that only congress can make laws, allocate money, and declare wars.”

          You musta been away for a very long time.

        7. avatar Kevin (the other one) says:

          Nah, I’ve been here the whole time and nothing has changed. Obama was not king and Trump is not a dictator.

          Executive orders are not laws (only direction provided to the executive branch agencies) and the president can not allocate money without congressional approval. The president also can not write laws, he can only approve them or veto them. I just find it absurd when people blame the president for things that congress does.

        8. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Wow, didnt realize Adam Schiff subscribed this sight.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          And?

          15 other candidates could not get elected. Still not convinced the Dimwitocrat candidate would have produced results more agreeable.

        10. avatar User1 says:

          @kevin

          You know he can veto things. You know he has been pushing for specific policies. You know he can impose tariffs. You know he illegally made bump fire stock owners felons. You know he goes to other countries to make deals he wants. You know he can launch military attacks without congressional approval. And so on.

          Let’s not pretend that the buck stops at congress and the senate. That’s why there is a president role and governor role.

          The establishment Democrats and Republicans want Trump to be President for two terms. They fooled people into voting for Trump by rigging the Democrat nomination for Hillary. They knew that no one wants that woman to be president and she was under investigation for being a criminal. Many people wanted Bernie over Trump.

          Notice how they used fake news stories about Russia for 2-3 years to create a distraction then they flipped on the whole impeachment talk and started calling out the new politicians instead of Trump? Rather than making America great again the government spent their time arguing, knowing there was nothing there to begin with. The whole make America great again plan was intentionally stalled and now they move on to election 2020.

          Currently Trump is going around stroking his ego in front of MAGA country and doing the same make America great again BS for his reelection. He plans to go speak to the dumb asses at the NRA to say how awesome he is and why you should vote for him again. Completely ignoring how he filled the government up with the swamp creatures he said he was going to get rid of and how he did some very bad gun control that empowers Democrats in the future.

          Y’all getting played. A New York Democrat billionaire got elected as a Republican by collecting data from your social media accounts to create campaign propaganda to get you to vote for him because you actually think he is talking to you directly and believes what he says. Then he wins and gets rid of the people that were for America first.

          Trump’s campaign/propagandists used low level mind control on you and you fell for it 100%. Simple brainwashing stuff like: Lock Her Up and Build That Wall. Small brains need short catchy chants and little tricks like labeling opponents with nicknames to belittle them, that way he can get you to follow along like a child.

        11. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Wow, guess he told us! Back to the basement wit ya, take another valium.

        12. avatar Kevin (the other one0 says:

          Oh god, get off the conspiracy kool-aid.

          You know he can impose tariffs (Nope congress is the only one that can impose a tarrif – link provided below). You know he illegally made bump fire stock owners felons (ATF did that). You know he goes to other countries to make deals he wants (State department negotiates trade deals, and Can not make any deals without congressional approval). You know he can launch military attacks without congressional approval (Obama did that, and I will not get into that since it is a lot of writing that you wont read anyways. And so on.

          “Let’s not pretend that the buck stops at congress and the senate. That’s why there is a president role and governor role.” Seriously, try reading the constitution and the separation of powers (link provided below)

          “The establishment Democrats and Republicans want Trump to be President for two terms. They fooled people into voting for Trump by rigging the Democrat nomination for Hillary.” This sentence isn’t in anyway logical. They rigged the election for Hilary, because they wanted Trump to win? In what kind of reality would that ever work? Is that why she won the popular vote and every poll showed Hilary being ahead in the polls…because they wanted Trump to win? WTF?

          “Trump’s campaign/propagandists used low level mind control on you and you fell for it 100%” – You are seriously undereducated in all subject of governance and constitutional laws, but it is everyone else that has been fooled by the media and what the internet tells them? Maybe doing some ACTUAL research on how the government is run (and I do not mean youtube or some conspiracy site) would help you understand how wrong you are here. But instead I am sure you will dismiss every link I provided and just call me brainwashed or a Trump supporter to justify your absurd conspiracy non-sense that you hold on to.

          Tariffs
          https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44707.pdf

          Bump stock law
          https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

          Constitutional separation of powers
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separation_of_powers

  13. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    If someone from the government is hold up a copy of the Bill of Rights and telling the general population that it DOESN’T mean what it says, or it is open for debate, or is up for “interpretation”, or “YOU all DIDN’T see the fine print” , or it “Old, made by Misogynistic, white European Men, with White Privilege”!?! Then its a good bet “WE THE PEOPLE ” have lost control of OUR goverment, and it’s agents are practicing “Authoritarianism !!!” Fast- tracking towards “Totalitarianism” under the guise of public safety !!! ISN’T anyone alarmed yet….?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      ” Then its a good bet “WE THE PEOPLE ” have lost control of OUR goverment, and it’s agents are practicing “Authoritarianism !!!”

      “We the People”, lost control over government when the national legislature meekly accepted Madison vs. Marbury. An no legislature since has seen fit to restore the balance of power to “We the People”.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Dr. Franklin was asked by a woman when he exited Liberty hall,what type of government have you given us? to which,Benjamin Franklin is purported to have replied to the above question with “a Republic madam, if you can keep it.”

        We haven’t kept it very well.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Benjamin Franklin is purported to have replied to the above question with “a Republic madam, if you can keep it.””

          We are on the rapid path to democracy alone.

        2. avatar Grid Square says:

          “We are on the rapid path to democracy alone”.

          You’re absolutely right. And it’s terrifying to watch live as it’s happening.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And it’s terrifying to watch live as it’s happening.”

          If you ever wondered what it was like to live when all that ancient history was being made…it looked a lot like now. One day, some teenager in history class will wonder what it was like to live when history was being made.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I couldn’t have stated it better myself. 🙂

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I couldn’t have stated it better myself.”

          Stopped clock moment, I assure you.

  14. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    Wow, lasted longer than I thought it would. The Clinton/Obama cartel must have applied a little more pressure( money).

  15. avatar sound awake says:

    i guess there isnt a box that has to be checked that says courage of your convictions to be a judge

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      If he hadn’t done it, the Ninth Circus would have. Frankly, I am happy that he did and thus prevented an even harsher stay from the higher court. (The State had told him that an emergency stay would be sought from the Circuit court if he failed to act. And they certainly would have. I have to imagine that the AG and the Gov aRe really really PISSED!!!)

  16. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Before to long it will be demonstrated by those who make political commentary against the establishment and (just like China/S. Korea.) …YOU’LL find out how far THEY’LL expand these “RED FLAG LAWS”….Like as the Demo-Nazis have been trying to pass in many states…The use of Social media, and Political posting sites for police use to criminalize [email protected] supporters, republicans, and general gun owners under “hate speech! ” Think about it ! Nothing more than “Orwellian Newspeak!”

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Your head might explode if you look into what the U.S. government (and their allies) are doing with the NSA. You can’t even imagine… They monitor and store everything you do that is connected to the network, forever.

      Yes, including this message.

      Say hi!

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Store this, tyrants…

        Fuck you, NSA!

  17. avatar User1 says:

    Entrapment.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      You have no idea what entrapment is.

      (also, when someone says “entrapment” on a forum or comments section, it’s 101% not what entrapment is).

      1. avatar User1 says:

        Get someone to do something they wouldn’t normally do, then blame them for everything.

        Hey, guys! You can buy more than 10 round mags now. Go order yourself a box load, buy so much you have to use your credit card. Tell your local gun store to overnight a crate of mags. Tell people to cross state lines with as many mags as they can and hand them out. Oh, wait. It’s now not legal to do what I said you can legally do. Hope you guys are not stuck with a bunch of illegal mags and your shipment makes it to you in time so you won’t get in legal trouble. Your welcome.

      2. avatar Grid Square says:

        I for one was going to go with Rape. Much more fitting as to what the state is getting away with.

  18. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Hang in there california gun owners. I think you will get relief from the supreme court. And when that happens normal cap mags will be legal everywhere!!!

    Slow and steady when the race. Trump 2020.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-republicans-push-procedural-change-to-speed-confirmation-of-trump-judicial-picks

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Wins the race!! (smile)

  19. avatar Guns Are Fun says:

    For anyone mad at the judge, the California DOJ was threatening to ask for an emergency stay from the 9th Circuit. The judge decided to issue a stay himself which gives legal protection to anyone who bought mags before 5 PM tomorrow. He did this because he knew it was possible the 9th Circuit wouldn’t grant people that same protection.

    1. avatar Joe Montana says:

      Is the 5PM Friday cut off time for the transaction or the actual physical taking the possession of. It’s impossible to place an order today and get it the next day before 5PM since orders wouldn’t be shipped until Friday morning.

  20. avatar Hannibal says:

    Anyone who didn’t see this coming is way too optimistic.

    The real question is what CA is going to do about it IF the next court reverses pretty much all of this judges decision and decides that all of the mags are unlawful to possess. At that point you can expect subpoenas to arrive on the doors of all the businesses that were advertising sales to CA- and they’ll comply because that’s how they stay in business. From there, notices start going out to all the customers that thought it was a great idea to buy 100 “high capacity” magazines over the internet (requiring business records) instead of just picking some up on a trip out of state. Will they get them all? No. But it won’t be pretty anyway.

  21. avatar jwm says:

    Just now received notice from the vendor that my standard cap mags shipped today.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Congrats ,i mean it sincerely,in under the wire. I hope you and millions of other residents of the state all get large packages of Freedom and Liberty in the form of standard capacity magazines,enough to cover the entire state 6 ‘ deep in magazines.

  22. avatar Ben Grunbaum says:

    I am not a lawyer but this clearly says that all those who purchased magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds between the judgment last week and 5 p.m., Friday the 5th, will be able to keep those magazines pending a different decision from another court. The 9th Circuit will take this up and overturn it. Then hopefully the Supreme Court will settle this once and for all. To be honest, this is as good as it probably was going to be. While his decision was quite clear and unequivocal he had to stay his previous decision. He would have been violating the judicial code of ethics if he had not. Overall, I am happy. I have some new products coming my way

    1. avatar Guns Are Fun says:

      It’s not a sure thing that the 9th will overturn it, a previous 3 judge panel agreed with Benitez’s original decision. Also Trump has been appointing numerous conservative judges to the 9th Circuit, the odds are better than they used to be.

  23. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Saw all this coming before the Clinton ban. Even earlier. Was it ’86? Stocked up then. Sorry if you were too young. Trade some of my gear for your youth.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Gadsden Flag,

      You have no idea how badly I wish I would have purchased a full-auto rifle in 1986 before the Hughe’s Amendment. However, I was not old enough and did not have enough cash.

  24. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Bet someone got to him.

  25. avatar barnbwt says:

    I tell you, for all the “4D chess defenders” of Trump on the board, many of you aren’t applying any more thought or feeling to this decision than children being denied candy *right now.* How dare you fickle fucks denigrate a man who bravely thwarted the entire West Coast govt and decades of gun banners with a brilliant legal opinion that may well save all our asses at SCOTUS one day, even if he was only able to do so for a full week. Be happy with what you got, read his opinion, and demand your reps lobby SCOTUS to take up the case.

    -All pre-May 2019 mags will continue to be legal to have in CA if you can get them in, even if the original ban remains
    -The number of mags is such that many generations will have them at decent prices, even in a worst-case scenario
    -9th won’t realistically be able to issue a more strict stay if one is already in place
    -Modern hi-cap mags are now in “common use” in all major population centers but NY
    -We The People just showed how much the ban law was stifling law-abiding commerce & use of lawful arms
    -The momentum of this influx of mags likely won’t stop on a dime, and smuggling & disobediance will take on a whole new dimension (undermining the laws in place)

    That’s a half dozen damn good reasons why you shouldn’t be bawling your eyes & cursing Benitez for this decision. He’s done his job, now it’s time to do yours. Probably an unfamiliar mindset for a lot of you Kali’s, but it’s time to go win your freedom for a change, and not curse the fair wind while helplessly licking your wounds like so many of you are used to doing.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      I would bet my last dollar in the bank the Scotus will do as they usually do and just refuse to hear the case when the lower courts ban them. Its been the standard operating procedure for Scotus whenever 2a cases come up for the last 89 years.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        They are not stupid people. They know the 2nd means what it says. They want to wait out the clock.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        Well, except the whole Heller & McDonald thing…and Caetano is clearly applicable to firearms for a majority if not the entire court (it was a 9-0 ruling). Oh, and Thompson Center, which is why we can have pistol versions of carbine builds. For one decade, the courts have ignored; carry law cases, and AWB cases –in their defense (such as it can be defended) those laws are changing rapidly, and SCOTUS generally won’t swim in choppy water. That’s poor practice here since the changes are rapidly forming two America’s, but that’s the likely reason. Even Scalia said as much.

        Education; it’s a good thing.

  26. avatar Michael Christensen says:

    I wonder who threatened him or threatened him with the loss of his job?

  27. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Did anyone really think that the magazine ban would be overturned and in of all places California. Maybe when pigs learn to fly.

  28. avatar GS650G says:

    It seems as though the largest state in the country is being managed and run by judges who issue imperial fiats.

    How in God’s name did it come to this?

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Corporations. Public/socialist school. Religion. Militarized law enforcement. Fear.

  29. avatar TommyJay says:

    I’m not too upset with Judge Benitez because he is doing what honest and ethical judges are supposed to do. Although if I were he, I would have spent a week or so hearing arguments from the original plaintiff.

  30. avatar StuartB says:

    Isn’t the issue that now Californians have been able to legally bring in and own these mags then there is no way for LEOs to tell if mags were brought in legally or not, so penalizing ownership of any standard mag is now practically unenforceable in CA? Its not like we keep the receipts.

  31. avatar Luis Valdes says:

    The enforcement date of the law is the date which the legislature enacted it, not when a Court does something with it. You have to think of the whole lawsuit process as one big cohesive event with multiple parts. It comes down to the function of the different levels of the courts.

    Typically, the District Court deals with the facts and applies relevant law to come to a conclusion on the case.

    The Federal Court of Appeals has multiple ways of looking at a case, depending on what specifically the appealing party asks for. For instance, most of the time an appeals court looks at errors in application of the law or case procedure. So if something was misapplied and is obviously wrong or if some procedure wasn’t followed correctly, that’s one thing that the Court of Appeals can look at. The other way it can look at a case is de novo which essentially means “as new”. In a de novo appeal, the Court of Appeals basically takes everything in the record and has a second look to come to its own conclusion. De novo appeals are fairly common, and I’m sure that’s what will be asked for in this case.

    But what I’m getting at is that under de novo appeal, you can basically imagine that the first court never ruled. The Appeals Court is going to make up its own mind as though its the first court to see it. It doesn’t go through a fact-finding mission again, but it looks at everything a second time. When it looks at this case, it will look at it as though the District Court didn’t rule in all liklihood. Whatever its decision ultimately is, it will be as though its the decision the first Court made. It will consider the enforcement date of the statute and that will likely be where it continues to see enforcement, should it uphold the statute and overturn Judge Benitez’s decision.

    If that doesn’t go the way the State wants it to, it can ask for another review en banc I think, which basically means that instead of like a 3-judge panel looking at it and deciding what should be done, the entire Court of Appeals has a look at it. The next step thereafter would be SCOTUS if it accepted the case, but it only accepts like 2% or less of cases appealed to it.

    What makes this particular case interesting is that it seems that Plaintiffs and Judge Benitez caught the State of California with its pants down. In almost every case I can remember, a defendant like the State of California which loses a case like this immediately requests and stay of the ruling pending appeal. California was absolutely gobsmacked by this ruling and the attorneys representing the State weren’t prepared to immediately ask for that stay. Hell, in some cases, the Judge him or herself will stay their own ruling for 5-7 days to allow the losing side to appeal. That didn’t happen in this case, and people scrambled to buy up as many mags as they could before the stay was granted.

    Now we see that Judge Benitez has stayed the ruling partly. He’s stopped the flow of mags into the State (or he thinks he has) and has allowed those who bought the mags that made it in to keep them. But whenever that stay goes into effect, that’s the mags they’ll be contending with that are at issue.

    I’m not sure if this sort of situation is unprecedented (it likely isn’t, but I don’t have the info in front of me), but its unusual. My guess is that if the Court of Appeals overturns it, it’ll be appealed again to an en banc review. And then it’ll be appealed again. If ultimately the mag ban is upheld, I still believe a court is going to go back to the original enforcement date of the statute.

    Just look at what happened with the bumpstock stuff. For 5 years or whatever, bump stocks were legal in the eyes of the BATFE. But when it reversed and declared them MGs, there was no grandfathering or amnesty by them or the Court. In the minds of both of them, the relevant date of enforcement was May 1986. Any machineguns manufactured after that date, under any circumstance, aren’t permitted for civilian ownership.

    The California mag ban had an enforcement date. If the Court decides ultimately that the law is constitutional and always has been, it’s not really at liberty to set a new date; the date has been set by the legislature passing it. But as I say, these are unusual circumstances because the ruling wasn’t stayed from the moment it was handed down and not only that, it will have been like a week or something before that stay ultimately goes into effect. Someone mentioned it earlier; its a brilliant tactic by Judge Benitez if he’s really thinking of “common use”.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      I don’t see the whole “common use” thing because 10 round mag limits weren’t self imposed. People would buy 30 round mag parts for repairs, which is why they outlawed that too. Flooding the state with more mags isn’t going to make it “common use” when putting that mag into a gun turns the gun and the magazine into an assault weapon under California’s law.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Flooding the state with more mags isn’t going to make it “common use” when putting that mag into a gun turns the gun and the magazine into an assault weapon under California’s law.”

        But they *are* in common use at the national level, and that’s the level that counts if SCOTUS elects to weigh in. SCOTUS currently isn’t overtly hostile to the 2A (like it would have been had Hillary seated two Progressives there.) We have a shot at this, even though it’s currently a 4-1-4 balance as others have noted. Thomas has been public with his unhappiness that the 2A is considered “a second-hand right” as he noted in his dissent of the Peruta petition of cert. denial…

        1. avatar Bob says:

          They’re legal in featureless builds and in registered pre 2000 rifles.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But they *are* in common use at the national level,…”

          The point on the table is that Californication could repeal the magazine ban this afternoon, and the “assault weapon” ban would remain. That would leave citizens with a “cache” of large capacity magazines they cannot legally use. It would require another successful suit to overturn the AWB.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Sam, not entirely correct. We have a number of rifles that could use standard cap mags that are not considered aw’s in CA. m1a, Ruger mini 30, kel tec ca16. Even the older sks can be modded to take 30 rounders.

          I’m not sure about the ‘featureless’ aw’s. I admit I haven’t kept up with these as they hold no interest to me.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We have a number of rifles that could use standard cap mags that are not considered aw’s in CA.”

          Can’t dispute that; haven’t laid-out a matrix of all the laws regarding AWs and magazine capacities. Would imagine that soon, any semi-auto weapon in Californication will be declared an AW, and banned…neutering detachable magazines entirely.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Bump stocks haven’t seen one minute of real judicial review at high levels, though. I wouldn’t count that debacle as precedent just yet. Yes, SCOTUS basically said “ya’ll keep doing what you’re doing” to the ATF/DOJ like they usually do, but that’s not the same as real scrutiny of any type –it hasn’t had a chance to happen yet.

      But if we get strict scrutiny on mag bans, it stands to reason we’d get it on other plastic accessories, too.

  32. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    I had no expectation it would stay, but was hoping to get to my payday first!
    Although by the process who is to say when I bought it from where or how?
    This will be a long battle.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Bingo; so long as the date code is before the injunction and you get them in undetected, I don’t see how they can pass reasonable doubt. Now, they’d become contraband again if the whole injuction is tossed, but so would all mags at that point (it’d be very strange to overturn the possession ban law as unconstitutional, but only for the older era mags, while making possession of identical new ones purchased legally in good faith into contraband –it’d be a capricious ruling ripe for SCOTUS smackdown, possibly even unanimously it’d be so egregious). Even overturning the injunction just got ten times harder, since now all the new mags have to be accounted for when weighing “the greater good” against our goddam rights, as the 9th loves doing.

      The mags are here,
      They’re our gear,
      Get used to it!

      The possession & previous hicap ban have been thoroughly mooted, and while the CA DOJ & 9th Circuit may gnash & weep, it’s largely out of their hands for the foreseeable future. I suspect the same goes for federal mag bans as well now that CA is one of the “free states” on this one issue, absent a constitutional amendment.

  33. avatar Fourday says:

    If I might quote someone.. this seems to be “Fake News”. Why is this only being reported on this website? A grace period till Friday evening? This whole thing stinks. thetruthaboutguns is synonymous
    with Pepe Le Pew.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      He who smelt it…

  34. avatar doublepar says:

    The third part of Judge Benitez’s order 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.”
    Am I reading this correctly? So if you did any of these things between 3/29 and 5PM 4/5/2019, you are in a “protected class” so to speak. California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) don’t apply to you as long as Judge Benitez’s injunction is in effect. And you can keep manufacturing, importing, buying, selling LCMs even after tomorrow.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      No; but the mags were bought legally, just like old pre-ban mags, so they enjoy the same “grandfathered” status now that the old law against sales is back in place.

      But any mag in existence today *would* be legal if it was inside CA…therefore if it ends up in CA and its arrival or purchase cannot be confirmed to have occurred after tomorrow…it must be assumed to have been in CA during the injunction & therefore lawful to possess.

      That’s a *shitload* of mags at this point (probably a billion). The ban is moot no matter what happens at this point, because Benitez is an evil genius. Pre-injunction mags will be plentiful and cheap in CA for generations.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “The ban is moot no matter what happens at this point, because Benitez is an evil genius. Pre-injunction mags will be plentiful and cheap in CA for generations.”

        The real genius is this: Even if he’s overruled all the way to SCOTUS and the plaintiffs lose there too it doesn’t matter because how does one tell a mag that was purchased between said dates and one that was acquired afterwords?

        It’s the same problem they have here in Colorado. The law is completely unenforceable because most mags don’t even come with a date of production on them (PMAGs being a notable exception to that general rule) and certainly don’t have a date of sale stamped on them.

        When you say “I acquired it legally” it’s on the State to prove otherwise and they can’t.

      2. avatar doublepar says:

        The subject of the third part of Judge’s order is “those persons and business entities”, not “magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds”. That’s how I read it.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Hmm, I guess you could read it that way as well. One of those “I helped my Uncle Jack, off a horse” type phrasings, I think. If that’s the case, he essentially took the wind out of the 9th’s sails to impose a strict stay, while changing practically nothing from the original injunction on the ground –the ‘protected buyer’ class can get the mags in, at which point they are no different from the grandfathered mags everyone can already buy now that the possession-ban has been enjoined. That’d be even-evil-er genius, but I somehow doubt it works that way simply because of Equal Protection issues (that said, EP gets stepped on all the time and is itself a stupid & impossible doctrine to start with)

      3. avatar doublepar says:

        And the key words are “permanent” and “shall remain”. If “those persons and business entities” can’t keep doing the activities covered under 32310 (a) and (b) after 5PM Friday, there is absolutely no need for this third part of the ruling. The first part alone should suffice.

  35. avatar strych9 says:

    Meh. I can’t really say this surprises me. It’s always been more of a question of what the outcome of the case is rather than what motions and injunctions are upheld or issued.

  36. avatar r3bman says:

    The Ninth may realize enforcing the mere possession of mags over 10 rounds is unenforceable. I would expect a ban on new sales of mags over 10 rounds, and all previously owned mags are grandfathered.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Which would be about a billion or so mags as of today. The ban is dead, but CA DOJ may not realize that yet and will struggle & rage against the inevitable.

  37. avatar thatguynorthofCali says:

    I really don’t understand why vendors that are OUTSIDE of California have to comply with the ban on sales. I mean just do it anyway.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Because they likely also sell to CA LEO and don’t want to lose that privilege. Making unwitting felons of your well-meaning but ignorant customers is also a poor practice.

  38. avatar former water walker says:

    They comply ALL THE TIME to Illinois’ BS. Commiefornia(and ILL) have a nasty havit of suing.

  39. avatar S.Crock says:

    Well I enjoyed my week of freedom:). Now please God let my next duty station be in a free state!

  40. avatar machnuone says:

    Regardless of the judge’s ethic, politics, or lack thereof, no one can deny he bought hapless Californians a window albeit a short one. As a former resident of that miserable state, I would have greatly appreciated this opportunity a year ago.

  41. avatar Anonymous says:

    Buyer: HI, Can you write me a receipt for Thursday Apr 4th?
    Seller: Sure, here you are.

  42. avatar tom rkba says:

    WTF.

    WHY ARE WE LETTING JUDGES RUN OUR LIVES?

  43. avatar SpeedBump says:

    Kalifornia is ripe for major changes in the political relm of things.

    Is it starting to hurt yet?
    Is it now ever so obvious that socialist ideals are demoralizing, and are greatly impeding upon the quality of life for those living under the Jack Boot of such backwards thinking?

    Every other state in the union, with exception of just a handful of liberal stronghold areas, are flourishing under the political leadership of Donald Trump!

    It couldn’t be more obvious that being a liberal is very counterproductive to an otherwise strong economic and relative happy life that conservative laws and ideals can bring into any community, so long as socialism is squelched under foot.

    Where socialism stands strong, the lives of those suffering it suck!

    Thank GOD I’m a native Texan…..

  44. avatar Speed Bump says:

    Keep voting the same low life communist into office year after year,

    Keep enjoying your sucky life in california!

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email