The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) on Tuesday filed an immediate opposition to last week's decision in Duncan v. Becarra, which overturned the Golden State's "high capacity" magazine ban. It was seen as a victory for gun owners because the judgement struck down California’s restrictions against the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, receipt, and possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
On Thursday, Judge Roger Benitez "ordered that the Judgement is stayed in part pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgement." The order goes into effect at 5 p.m. on Friday, meaning the magazines will, once again, be illegal, until a final judgement is made.
The CRPA issued an alert to its members:
Today’s ruling stays enforcement of the injunction as applied to the restrictions against the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and receipt of so-called “large-capacity” magazines, as of 5:00PM TOMORROW, April 5, 2019. In other words, those restrictions will once again be enforceable after that time. But the ruling also clarifies that the injunction against those restrictions will 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.”
Additionally, the ruling also makes clear that the preliminary injunction issued in July 2017, which prohibited the enforcement of the “possession” restriction enacted by Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 will remain in effect during the appeal. In other words, California residents who lawfully possess magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds may continue to possess them while the case is appealed.
That said, it is critical that anyone who possesses one of the magazines in California refuse to talk to law enforcement if asked about their magazine.
The NRA has encouraged California gun owners to keep tabs on what happens in this case so they aren't inadvertently breaking the law.
Here's a full copy of the judgement: