Judge Grants State Partial Stay in California Magazine Case

A key detail of Benitez’s stay order is that it left the entirety of his injunction in place until 5 p.m. PDT on Friday, April 5, 2019. According to the order, “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 ten rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019, and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.” Sections (a) and (b) of 32310 prohibit the manufacture, purchase, or sale of magazines with capacities greater than ten rounds. This stay’s delayed start leaves open the option for California gun owners to continue to purchase these magazines right up until that 5 p.m. deadline. Moreover, Benitez does not state that the magazines must be in-hand by this date, merely that they be purchased. This further extends the window in which Californians may place orders. The stay also leaves in place an existing injunction prohibiting the confiscation of magazines owned prior to the state’s original magazine ban.

Given Benitez’s strong defense of the Second Amendment in his original judgment and his lukewarm approach to this stay order, some might wonder why he chose to act at all. The answer is that he essentially had no choice. AG Becerra’s office signaled that if a stay was not issued by the district court by 4 p.m. Thursday, the state would seek one from the 9^th Circuit. Given the 9^th Circuit’s leftward ideological alignment, it’s probable that the court would have ordered a complete stay, making criminals out of Californians who have engaged in a magazine feeding frenzy over the last week. Benitez’s order satiates the state and protects those gun owners.

Even when the stay finally takes effect, the damage to Becerra’s defense will already have been done. A point argued by the state in the original hearing was that “high-capacity” magazines were not in “common use” within California. Thus, the AG argued they were not eligible for Second Amendment protection. Now, hundreds of thousands of additional magazines with capacities greater than ten rounds have flooded California. Some estimates put the real number into the millions at this point. Benitez originally applied Heller’s “common use” standard in the same manner the U.S. Supreme Court approached the issue in Caetano. That is, if private ownership of 200,000 stun guns was sufficient to classify the devices as in “common use,” then surely magazines numbering in the millions would receive the same treatment. Simply put, by allowing truckloads of magazines to enter the state, Benitez has undercut the state’s defense that they are not commonly owned by Californians.

Finally, it should be noted that Benitez issued his original decision just before a long weekend in California. California state offices recognized Cesar Chavez day on Monday, meaning the earliest Becerra and company could address the decision was Tuesday. Combine that with Benitez’s future-dated stay, and it is clear that the judge has attempted everything in his power to aid California gun owners without prompting immediate action from the 9^th Circuit.

With potentially millions of additional standard capacity magazines now in the hands of California gun owners, it will be interesting to see how the case is treated by the 9^th Circuit – which is its next stop. Will the court heed the precedent set by Caetano and rule that the magazines are commonly used and therefore protected? Or will the 9^th Circuit live up to its reputation and side with the state? Only time will tell, but as this stay goes into effect on Friday, all gun owners should recognize that Judge Benitez has done their California brethren an incredible favor by dragging this issue out as long as he possibly could.