About that unconstitutional California mag ban

California, as expected, has asked for a stay of Judge Benitez’ ruling pending appeal.

all four factors considered in such a stay request are satisfied. See Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez , 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A party seeking a stay must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, [3] that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and [4] that a stay is in the public interest.”

1. No way in hell Benitez will see them as likely to win.

2. Becerra suffers no harm from innocent people buying standard capacity mags.

3. Eh?

4. Benitez already made the point that the ban was not in the public interest.

This is all set up for the appeal.

until the Judgment is stayed pending appeal, individuals will be free to acquire new LCMs, and there is evidence that sales have begun already. If Section 32310 is ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove these new LCMs.

Yep. Just like they are incapable of confiscating once-lawfully owned firearms when they even know who has what where. Unregistered mags? Ain’t happening.

Bump-Stock-Type Devices Proposed Rulemaking

In case you haven’t commented on the proposed rule to ban bump-fire stocks, you should. Currently victim disarmers seem to be trying to flood the system with pro-ban comments.

Comment Here. Comments are due by June 27, 2018, at 11:59 PM ET.

You might consider something along these lines:

I oppose any rule redefining bump-stock-type devices (BSTD) as machineguns or any other type of firearm.

1. The description of how and what BSTDs do is grossly incorrect. While they assist in trigger reset, each shot fired still requires a separate operation of the trigger.

2. BSTDs do not increase the theoretical maximum rate of fire. In fact, since they bleed off recoil energy in order to assist in trigger reset, they can DECREASE the theoretical maximum rate of fire.

3. The The description of how and what BSTDs do conflicts with existing legislation defining machineguns (multiple rounds fired per operation of the trigger) as each round fired still requires manual operation of the trigger.

4. The rule is unenforceable: a) with no grandfathering it violates the Fifth Amendment as a taking without just compensation, b) no one knows how many BSTDs there are or where they are making confiscation without further Fifth Amendment violations impossible, c) the language is so vague that it would apply to any semiautomatic firearm that can be held in the non-firing hand (any semiautomatic firearm that can be so held can be bump-fired).

5. MILLER defined weapons which may be banned/regulated as those that are not in common military use; if a firearm with a BSTD is suddenly a “machinegun” — which are in common military use, they are protected under the SCOTUS MILLER decision, opening the ATF to lawsuits. You really don’t want to go there.