PDA

View Full Version : I have a *NEW* hypothetical hi-cap mag question.


CHS
04-17-2009, 12:51 PM
I bet this one hasn't been asked before.

Here's a hypothetical situation:

Bob buys a large-capacity magazine rebuild kit online.
Bob walks into a gun store that has a large-capacity magazine permit.
Bob assembles the rebuild kit into a large-capacity magazine inside the store.
Bob walks out of the store with a large-capacity magazine.

Has a law been broken?
The store did not transfer the magazine to Bob. Bob did not import the magazine. Manufacturing by Bob took place, but under the umbrella of a large-capacity magazine permit-holder.

Is this defensible?

Jicko
04-17-2009, 12:52 PM
Bob assembles the rebuild kit into a large-capacity magazine inside the store.

....

Manufacturing by Bob took place, but under the umbrella of a large-capacity magazine permit-holder.

Bob manufactured a large-capacity magazine. (period)

1) eg. Bob walks into a police station doesn't make Bob an LEO!

2) Bob is manufacturing, he doesn't have a large-capacity magazine permit. The store does, so the store would need to do the manufacturing. Bob IN the store, doesn't mean that Bob is part of the store or "under the umberlla"....... duh!!

Pretty stupid proposition.

DDT
04-17-2009, 12:53 PM
No, Bob is not a large-capacity magazine permit holder. Either Bob created the magazine or the permit holder did. If Bob created the magazine he violated the law, if the permit holder did he couldn't have transferred to Bob.

rkt88edmo
04-17-2009, 12:54 PM
Ummm...Bob is not the permit holder - how is he allowed to manufacture? If the manufacture is done by the permit holder, then the permit holder is transferring to Bob.

That's my first take on it anyways.

But I think you are correct in that no one has asked that before :43:

AKman
04-17-2009, 12:54 PM
Bob buys a large-capacity magazine rebuild kit online.
Bob walks into a gun store that has a large-capacity magazine permit.
Bob assembles the rebuild kit into a large-capacity magazine inside the store.
Bob walks out of the store with a large-capacity magazine.
Bob gets an all expense paid vacation to spend some quality time with the Booty Bandit.
Bob loses his Second Amendment rights.
Bob dies of AIDS.

Untamed1972
04-17-2009, 12:57 PM
Bob gets an all expense paid vacation to spend some quality time with the Booty Bandit.

:rofl2:

gose
04-17-2009, 1:04 PM
OMGWTFBBQ?

Barbarossa
04-17-2009, 1:04 PM
I bet this one hasn't been asked before.

Here's a hypothetical situation:

Bob buys a large-capacity magazine rebuild kit online.
Bob walks into a gun store that has a large-capacity magazine permit.
Bob assembles the rebuild kit into a large-capacity magazine inside the store.
Bob leaves the magazine in the store with a dated invoice for 5 years.
Bob walks out of the store with a large-capacity magazine.

Is this defensible?

???

Table Rock Arms
04-17-2009, 1:15 PM
How bout this one.

Bob buys an AR pistol from out of state.
The company who sold him the pistol won't ship it to California.
Bob has the pistol sent to another FFL who puts a BB on it and ships it to CA.
Bob DROS's the pistol and waits his 10 days then picks it up.
Bob goes home and opens up the side pouch of the bag the gun came with to find a 30rd magazine with a date stamped on it of 05/08.

What should Bob do now?

DDT
04-17-2009, 1:39 PM
How bout this one.

Bob buys an AR pistol from out of state.
The company who sold him the pistol won't ship it to California.
Bob has the pistol sent to another FFL who puts a BB on it and ships it to CA.
Bob DROS's the pistol and waits his 10 days then picks it up.
Bob goes home and opens up the side pouch of the bag the gun came with to find a 30rd magazine with a date stamped on it of 05/08.

What should Bob do now?

Buy a lottery ticket. The odds of a CA FFL is letting that happen are infinitesimal.

Steyr_223
04-17-2009, 1:45 PM
Bob buys an FAL Parts kit online.
Bob gets FAL Parts kit via UPS
Bob finds included in the FAL Parts kit, 2 assembled FAL hi-cap magazines

Did Bob break any laws? Does Bob get to keep the mags?

BONECUTTER
04-17-2009, 1:47 PM
Buy a lottery ticket. The odds of a CA FFL is letting that happen are infinitesimal.

It can happen really easily. Guns come in all kinds of wrapping garbage from out of state dealers. Most the time the gun is pulled to check serial numbers and put in the safe. When the customer comes in on pick up day the box can very easily be handed over without un-wrapping evey peice of newspaper in it.

I have seen high-caps wedged in boxes all the time.

Table Rock Arms
04-17-2009, 1:48 PM
Buy a lottery ticket. The odds of a CA FFL is letting that happen are infinitesimal.

Well it happened to Bob this week. That's why I'm asking cause Bob really would like to know.

leitung
04-17-2009, 1:49 PM
Bob buys a large-capacity magazine rebuild kit online.
Bob walks into a gun store that has a large-capacity magazine permit.
Bob assembles the rebuild kit into a large-capacity magazine inside the store.
Bob walks out of the store with a large-capacity magazine.
Bob never hears anything about it ever again, however store staff are puzzled as to why some strange guy was in the store building a high cap mag. They think about calling LE, but decided not to.

More like what would accually happen, it's still illegal, and still a VERY bad idea, but the law is largely unenforced. Infact I would like to know how many cases have been successfully prosecuted here in California.

BONECUTTER
04-17-2009, 1:49 PM
Bob buys an FAL Parts kit online.
Bob gets FAL Parts kit via UPS
Bob finds included in the FAL Parts kit, 2 assembled FAL hi-cap magazines

Did Bob break any laws? Does Bob get to keep the mags?

Did Bob...Import, Sell, Manufacture,...Does not sound like he did anything wrong.

BONECUTTER
04-17-2009, 1:51 PM
Well it happened to Bob this week. That's why I'm asking cause Bob really would like to know.

Bob can rest easy..... Bob found a mag and that is legal. Unless Bob had a part in telling someone to hide a mag for him.

Table Rock Arms
04-17-2009, 1:59 PM
Bob can rest easy..... Bob found a mag and that is legal. Unless Bob had a part in telling someone to hide a mag for him.

Bob is mostly concerned with the fact that the magazine has a date stamped on it. Even though he did not break the law, it could look that way.

JeffM
04-17-2009, 1:59 PM
Bob buys an FAL Parts kit online.
Bob gets FAL Parts kit via UPS
Bob finds included in the FAL Parts kit, 2 assembled FAL hi-cap magazines

Did Bob break any laws? Does Bob get to keep the mags?

Bob broke the law only if he knew the shipper would send the mags. It would be importation, or at the very least conspiracy to do so.

If Bob didn't know the mags were in the shipment, or asked that they not be sent as complete mags, but they showed up anyway, he broke no law.

Some people would advocate returning them, but IMHO that would be breaking the law - Bob would then be giving, lending, offering, yada yada...

Bob should keep them, or if he's a bit on the high-strung side, break them down and keep them for parts.

BONECUTTER
04-17-2009, 2:03 PM
Bob is mostly concerned with the fact that the magazine has a date stamped on it. Even though he did not break the law, it could look that way.

Date stamps have no bearing on the legality of. Many legal mags in CA have been rebuild with post ban dated bodies. If your legal don't stress about it. Be honest and say you found it.

JeffM
04-17-2009, 2:03 PM
Bob is mostly concerned with the fact that the magazine has a date stamped on it. Even though he did not break the law, it could look that way.

The "rebuild-your-old-mags-with-new-parts" game has become so prolific that it would be nearly impossible to convict someone for it.

*nearly*

JeffM
04-17-2009, 2:03 PM
Date stamps have no bearing on the legality of. Many legal mags in CA have been rebuild with post ban dated bodies. If your legal don't stress about it. Be honest and say you found it.

That would be the wrong answer.

The correct one?




"Talk to my lawyer"

Hopi
04-17-2009, 2:08 PM
What is Bob's forum name?

Table Rock Arms
04-17-2009, 2:12 PM
What is Bob's forum name?

Which Bob are we talking about?

DDT
04-17-2009, 2:19 PM
Well it happened to Bob this week. That's why I'm asking cause Bob really would like to know.

If you are serious the "correct" option is probably to return it to the FFL and let him deal with it. He gave it to you and caused an illegal transfer. As far as I could see in the CPC there is no "out" for unintentional actions.

Table Rock Arms
04-17-2009, 2:22 PM
If you are serious the "correct" option is probably to return it to the FFL and let him deal with it. He gave it to you and caused an illegal transfer. As far as I could see in the CPC there is no "out" for unintentional actions.

Return it to the FFL in california, or the out of state dealer the gun was purchased from?

MikeinnLA
04-17-2009, 2:29 PM
Bob moves to Vegas.

Problem solved.

Mike

geeknow
04-17-2009, 2:31 PM
Bob is mostly concerned with the fact that the magazine has a date stamped on it. Even though he did not break the law, it could look that way.

Tell Bob not to worry about it. As Bonecutter said, Bob did nothing wrong. Besides, the burden of proof is not upon Bob. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor to prove that Bob did purchase, import, or manufacture a hi-cap.

Does a receipt exist that shows a hi-cap being transferred? Of course not, he did not buy one.

Does evidence exist that shows Bob importing a hi-cap (possession does not imply importation)? Of course not as he did not import one.

Does evidence exist that shows Bob manufacturing a hi-cap? Of course not because he did not.


....now tell Bob to go get that lottery ticket.:thumbsup:

Steyr_223
04-17-2009, 2:33 PM
What is Bob's forum name?

Bob is all of us. Bob is the every man. We are all Bob in a way..
Good Bless Bob..

Hopi
04-17-2009, 2:34 PM
Bob is all of us. Bob is the every man. We are all Bob in a way..
Good Bless Bob..

I thought SAS was Bob? No?

AKman
04-17-2009, 2:44 PM
Bob can rest easy..... Bob found a mag and that is legal. Unless Bob had a part in telling someone to hide a mag for him.

The Booty Bandit prefers to hide the sausage, but for Bob he would probably be willing to hide the hicap mag in the same place after he is done. Either way, Bob should just learn to be happy with his 10 rd mags until the laws change or he moves to a free state.

M. Sage
04-17-2009, 4:00 PM
Bob moves to Texas.

Problem solved.

Mike

Fixed it for you.

slappomatt
04-17-2009, 4:06 PM
If you are serious the "correct" option is probably to return it to the FFL and let him deal with it. He gave it to you and caused an illegal transfer. As far as I could see in the CPC there is no "out" for unintentional actions.

here we go again with the CALGUNS paranoia,

Bob. Take the magazine apart. go about your life. Stop asking poeple wearing tinfoil hats legal questions off the internet.

DDT
04-17-2009, 4:08 PM
here we go again with the CALGUNS paranoia,

Bob. Take the magazine apart. go about your life. Stop asking poeple wearing tinfoil hats legal questions off the internet.

It is not paranoia. There is next to ZERO percent chance that he would ever get prosecuted. I am not going to be the person telling him to be a party to a felony though. The most logical thing to do would have been the STFU and just use the thing. The most legal thing to do would be to return it to the FFL to "unwind" the transfer of the illegal magazine.

Fate
04-17-2009, 5:04 PM
What about Bob?


Sorry...I had to do it.

Quiet
04-17-2009, 5:07 PM
How bout this one.

Bob buys an AR pistol from out of state.
The company who sold him the pistol won't ship it to California.
Bob has the pistol sent to another FFL who puts a BB on it and ships it to CA.
Bob DROS's the pistol and waits his 10 days then picks it up.
Bob goes home and opens up the side pouch of the bag the gun came with to find a 30rd magazine with a date stamped on it of 05/08.

What should Bob do now?

Bob would not be able to DROS it.
Because the AR pistol with just a BB is not a single-shot pistol, therefore the FFL dealer could not be DROS it to Bob.
FFL dealer would then send the AR pistol back to the middle-man FFL.

Table Rock Arms
04-17-2009, 5:16 PM
Bob would not be able to DROS it.
Because the AR pistol with just a BB is not a single-shot pistol, therefore the FFL dealer could not be DROS it to Bob.
FFL dealer would then send the AR pistol back to the middle-man FFL.

The pistol was shipped with the upper and lower separated. Bob then used the FFL's single shot magazine to DROS it. Not sure of all the legal stuff, but the DROS is done, and the Gun is at Bob's house. Bob even took it up to Burro on Wednesday and had about as much fun as you can have with clothes on.

Sarkoon
04-17-2009, 5:44 PM
Bob buys a large-capacity magazine rebuild kit online.
Bob walks into a gun store that has a large-capacity magazine permit.
The store owner assembles the rebuild kit into a large-capacity magazine inside the store, and hands the assembled magazine to Bob.
Bob walks out of the store with a large-capacity magazine.

Has a law been broken?

How about this slight modification of the original scenario? Or would that be described as "giving or lending" which is already illegal? oh well nevermind.

G17GUY
04-17-2009, 6:07 PM
What if bob broke down a bunch of standard cap mags with intent to rebuild them and got his new parts so mixed up with his old parts he ended up forgetting how many magazines he originally had, or didn't have? Can bob put his parts back together, or is he stuck with a pile of magazine parts?

Ravenslair
04-17-2009, 9:04 PM
Bob should make sure he comes on a public forum to ask a "hypothetical" question that clearly indicates a violation of the law. Bob is not that smart if he keeps coming here and asking these "hypothetical" questions. No matter how many times Bob asks about something illegal, it is still going to be illegal. Bob should know the law and adhere to it. Pretty simple Bob.

workinwifdakids
04-17-2009, 10:13 PM
http://www.paulabegoun.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/enzyte20lawsuit20busted20liars.jpg

motorhead
04-18-2009, 8:43 AM
bob is buggered! bob should avoid thinking and stick to pursuits he is more experienced at. do remind him to breathe, he might forget.

artherd
04-18-2009, 10:24 AM
Bob goes to jail.

RideIcon
04-18-2009, 1:41 PM
What if bob bought the hi-caps from some sneaky mexican in a u-haul down a dark alley way.

DDT
04-18-2009, 5:16 PM
What if bob bought the hi-caps from some sneaky mexican in a u-haul down a dark alley way.

Well, if he's Mexican he's not an illegal arms dealer. He's just an undocumented salesperson.

CnCFunFactory
04-18-2009, 10:42 PM
Bob gets on a train leaving Los Angeles at four PM bound for Sacremento and is traveling at a speed of 65 mph. The DOJ finds out about Bob's Magazines. The DOJ special agents leaving Sacremento by motor vehicle are traveling at an avg speed of 55 mph. How long before Bob gets caught......

Sorry with all these hypothetical questions about Bob, I figured I'd throw in the 8th grade hypothetical. :43:

RANGER295
04-19-2009, 9:07 AM
Ok… I think “Bob’s” original scenario is clearly illegal. The FFL with the hi-cap permit is not the one manufacturing the mag, Bob is and he is not doing it under the “umbrella” of the shop. But listen to my idea… I would not feel comfortable doing this, but I am throwing it out there for the sake of argument.

I do work on mechanical stuff, and do some fabrication and repair stuff. I have had some friends that have started repair projects (cars, tractors, trailers just to name a few), gotten them apart, and not been able to get them back together. They have brought them to me and I have put them back together, many times in their presence. I never took possession of these projects, so I was not transferring (selling, giving, lending…) them to the owner in any way. Just because someone brought me a bunch of parts that I assembled doesn’t mean that anything legally changed hands.

Ok so now for “Bob”
Bob buys a mag kit
Bob brings it to Bubba’s Beer, Bait, & Ammo (a FFL with a hi-cap permit)
Bubba puts the kit together while Bob waits
Bob walks out with it

Bubba (the permit holder) put it together but did not transfer it. Nothing changed hands. Now once again, I am posting this idea for the sack of discussion. I would not want to be on either side of this experiment and am not advocating anyone try it.

DDT
04-19-2009, 9:47 AM
Do you think the ATF would allow the same logic in letting you have a Marine Armorer build you an FA AR-15?

How about if you bring all the chemicals etc. to a friend with an explosives permit and he cooks up some semtex for you?

383green
04-19-2009, 11:11 AM
Do you think the ATF would allow the same logic in letting you have a Marine Armorer build you an FA AR-15?

Those are two different situations. The mere possession of an FA gun is restricted, while mere possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds is not.

RANGER295
04-19-2009, 11:40 AM
Those are two different situations. The mere possession of an FA gun is restricted, while mere possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds is not.

Exactly… not even in the same ball park

sfwdiy
04-19-2009, 12:51 PM
Bob is all of us. Bob is the every man. We are all Bob in a way..
Good Bless Bob..

His name was Robert Paulson!
http://a47.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/3/l_85b2f07e4a40391302d00a2dfbcb594e.jpg

--B

DDT
04-19-2009, 12:55 PM
Those are two different situations. The mere possession of an FA gun is restricted, while mere possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds is not.

Possession of large capacity rounds IS restricted in CA. Your magazines aren't documented but that doesn't mean their possession isn't restricted. Possession of Large Capacity magazines in CA is restricted to those in your possession before the law was passed, unless you are exempt.

flameboy
04-19-2009, 1:35 PM
Possession of large capacity rounds IS restricted in CA. Your magazines aren't documented but that doesn't mean their possession isn't restricted. Possession of Large Capacity magazines in CA is restricted to those in your possession before the law was passed, unless you are exempt.

Uh, pretty sure that's not the case. The law restricts the buying, selling, importing, giving, manufacturing, etc of the magazines not possession. Possession can be used to infer the illegal act of doing one of the above, but possession itself is not restricted.

Bruce3
04-19-2009, 1:47 PM
How about this one!

Jon takes his rebuild kit to a armored car company
The armor car company manufactures a 30 round magazine from the rebuild kit
The armor car company returns the magazine to Jon

DDT
04-19-2009, 2:13 PM
How about this one!

Jon takes his rebuild kit to a armored car company
The armor car company manufactures a 30 round magazine from the rebuild kit
The armor car company returns the magazine to Jon

I don't see why not but it would be a little silly when the Armored Car company could just sell him the magazine and be done with it.

Bruce3
04-19-2009, 2:17 PM
doesn't ANYONE on calguns know someone in the armored car business?

jarios
04-19-2009, 2:28 PM
Bob places a 10 rounder under his pillow.
Bob goes to sleep.
Bob wakes up with a high cap under his pillow.

Iggy goes to jail?

DDT
04-19-2009, 2:37 PM
Bob places a 10 rounder under his pillow.
Bob goes to sleep.
Bob wakes up with a high cap under his pillow.

Iggy goes to jail?

Bob is Rip van Winkle and the statute of limitations is over when he awakes.

383green
04-19-2009, 3:04 PM
Possession of large capacity rounds IS restricted in CA. Your magazines aren't documented but that doesn't mean their possession isn't restricted. Possession of Large Capacity magazines in CA is restricted to those in your possession before the law was passed, unless you are exempt.

Incorrect. The following things are restricted with respect to large-capacity magazines (as defined by law):

* Manufacturing
* Causing to be manufactured
* Importation
* Keeping for sale
* Offering or exposing for sale
* Giving
* Lending

The following things are not restricted:

* Buying
* Possessing
* Finding
* Etc...


Now, it is generally pretty difficult to obtain a large-capacity magazine without committing one of the restricted acts or engaging in conspiracy to commit one of them. However, mere possession is not restricted at all (even though it may provide evidence that one of the other restricted acts may have occurred), and there are entirely legal ways to obtain a large-capacity magazine. For example, if Alice accidentally tosses her legal large-capacity magazine into the trash at the range, and then later on Bob (who does not know Alice, did not witness the dropping of the magazine, etc.) picks it up out of the trash and takes it home, then none of the restricted actions have occurred. Note that I'm not talking about Alice "dropping" the magazine for Bob by "mistake", wink-wink-nudge-nudge, because that would be criminal conspiracy. I'm talking about an entirely honest and accidental loss of the magazine, followed by it being found by a complete stranger.

There is no law against simple possession of a large-capacity magazine in CA. A restriction on possession is what SB 776 is trying to create. There are also entirely legal (though exceedingly uncommon) situations in which a person may legally acquire a large-capacity magazine after 2000, and those rare exceptional cases are precisely what we're trying to discuss here.

Ok, now back to the question about having person B assemble person A's parts without a transfer taking place. I don't think that would be legal. Here's the actual text of PC 12020.(a)(2), covering the restricted acts with respect to large-capacity magazines:

(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.

It seems to me that the proposed activity would be considered a case of "causes to be manufactured". It might be argued that there was no importation, keeping offering or exposing for sale, giving or lending, and that the manufacturing was performed by a licensed, exempted person. Still, the owner of the parts "causes [the magazine] to be manufactured" by person B. And that's assuming a very optimistic situation where the DA doesn't convince the jury that no transfer of ownership took place, and thus person B did not "give" the large-capacity magazine to person "A".

razorx
04-19-2009, 4:11 PM
possession would be a bit tricky for someone moving into CA post ban.

hawk81
04-19-2009, 4:22 PM
What is with the hypothetical questions? If your going to break the law, then your going to break the law. There is no reason to dream up ways of doing it.

flameboy
04-19-2009, 4:26 PM
The following things are not restricted:

* Buying
* Possessing
* Finding
* Etc...
I don't understand how a DA would ever be able to prove that one of these occurrences did not take place unless you incriminate yourself.

flameboy
04-19-2009, 4:27 PM
What is with the hypothetical questions? If your going to break the law, then your going to break the law. There is no reason to dream up ways of doing it.

I think the whole point is trying to find a way to do what you want without breaking the law :)

383green
04-19-2009, 4:34 PM
What is with the hypothetical questions? If your going to break the law, then your going to break the law. There is no reason to dream up ways of doing it.

The purpose of this discussion is to brainstorm ways to obtain large-capacity magazines without breaking any laws. It is based on the observation that buying, receiving or possessing a large-capacity magazine is not illegal by itself. The tricky part, which is being discussed here, is finding ways to do this without breaking any laws in the process, including (but not limited to) conspiracy to commit any of the acts which are restricted by the large-capacity magazine law.

Perfectly legal ways to obtain new large-capacity magazines have already been identified, but they involve very uncommon and inconvenient situations, such as finding an accidentally-lost magazine (most folks take good enough care of their property to avoid losing a valuable magazine), or purchasing one from an armored car company (so far, no armored car companies have been identified which are willing to try this). So, this discussion is trying to find any other unrestricted ways to legally obtain new large-capacity magazines, if any such ways exist.

As I understand it, any discussion about how to deliberately break the law is not welcome in this thread, or on Calguns in general.

383green
04-19-2009, 4:43 PM
I don't understand how a DA would ever be able to prove that one of these occurrences did not take place unless you incriminate yourself.

I think that you meant "...prove that one of these occurrences did take place...".

Technically and logically, you would be correct. However, keep in mind that all they need to do is to convince a jury that one of those occurrences took place. The mere argument of "how could this person [who moved into CA after 2000, for example] possibly possess this magazine if he did not commit one of the restricted actions?" might be a pretty compelling argument, unless the defense could make a sufficiently believable argument describing how the defendant managed to possess the magazine without breaking any laws.

Thus, we're necessarily discussing two separate but related issues:

1) How can a person legally acquire a new large-capacity magazine post-2000?

2) How can a person reasonably show that their possession of a large-capacity magazine does not imply that they committed any crimes?

Again, mere possession is not illegal, but a DA might still use it to convince a jury that a defendant committed one or more acts which is illegal. Also, even in the situations which have been identified already where a person can legally acquire a new large-capacity magazine, I would not personally want to be the first guy to sit in a defendant's chair and try to explain this.

flameboy
04-19-2009, 5:25 PM
I think that you meant "...prove that one of these occurrences did take place...".

Technically and logically, you would be correct. However, keep in mind that all they need to do is to convince a jury that one of those occurrences took place. The mere argument of "how could this person [who moved into CA after 2000, for example] possibly possess this magazine if he did not commit one of the restricted actions?" might be a pretty compelling argument, unless the defense could make a sufficiently believable argument describing how the defendant managed to possess the magazine without breaking any laws.

Thus, we're necessarily discussing two separate but related issues:

1) How can a person legally acquire a new large-capacity magazine post-2000?

2) How can a person reasonably show that their possession of a large-capacity magazine does not imply that they committed any crimes?

Again, mere possession is not illegal, but a DA might still use it to convince a jury that a defendant committed one or more acts which is illegal. Also, even in the situations which have been identified already where a person can legally acquire a new large-capacity magazine, I would not personally want to be the first guy to sit in a defendant's chair and try to explain this.

No, I actually meant did not take place.

If your story is that you found it or somebody you cannot identify sold it to you illegally, how can the DA prove this to be false? I don't understand why or how you must prove your story when the burden of proof is on them. Assuming your story is true it's not like there would be evidence anyway.

383green
04-19-2009, 6:04 PM
No, I actually meant did not take place.

If your story is that you found it or somebody you cannot identify sold it to you illegally, how can the DA prove this to be false? I don't understand why or how you must prove your story when the burden of proof is on them. Assuming your story is true it's not like there would be evidence anyway.

The DA doesn't need to prove your claim to be false. It works the other way around: The DA tells their story first, and then you try to undo the damage that the DA has just caused to your image in the jury's minds.

The DA will tell their complete story about how you laughed maniacally while illegally importing your evil baby-killing large-capacity magazine. Then, after they have completed assassinating your character, you will get your opportunity to try to convince the jury that the DA might be full of crap.

The jury is supposed to assume that you are innocent until you are proven to be guilty, and they are also supposed to give a verdict of not-guilty by default if they have any reasonable doubts about your guilt. Still, focusing on the idea that the DA would need to disprove the defendant's claim misses the very important point that the DA makes all of their claims first, and then the defendant tries to disprove those claims and/or cast doubt on them.

The DA doesn't need to disprove your claim; they just need to convince the jury that you are guilty. Furthermore, the DA has nothing to lose by trying and failing to convict you, while you'll spend tens of thousands of dollars on your defense whether you win or lose.

Table Rock Arms
04-19-2009, 6:30 PM
The DA doesn't need to prove your claim to be false. It works the other way around: The DA tells their story first, and then you try to undo the damage that the DA has just caused to your image in the jury's minds.

The DA will tell their complete story about how you laughed maniacally while illegally importing your evil baby-killing large-capacity magazine. Then, after they have completed assassinating your character, you will get your opportunity to try to convince the jury that the DA might be full of crap.

The jury is supposed to assume that you are innocent until you are proven to be guilty, and they are also supposed to give a verdict of not-guilty by default if they have any reasonable doubts about your guilt. Still, focusing on the idea that the DA would need to disprove the defendant's claim misses the very important point that the DA makes all of their claims first, and then the defendant tries to disprove those claims and/or cast doubt on them.

The DA doesn't need to disprove your claim; they just need to convince the jury that you are guilty. Furthermore, the DA has nothing to lose by trying and failing to convict you, while you'll spend tens of thousands of dollars on your defense whether you win or lose.

The DA does have to have actual evidence that you broke the law. The DA can't just say "well we think he broke the law. We don't have any evidence, but we do think that he did it"

383green
04-19-2009, 6:39 PM
The DA does have to have actual evidence that you broke the law. The DA can't just say "well we think he broke the law. We don't have any evidence, but we do think that he did it"

True, but the idea that the DA would need to disprove the defendants claim ignores the actual sequence of events in a court case. The defendant doesn't state that they found the magazine and then let the DA try to disprove it. The DA will claim that the defendant performed one or more of the restricted acts, and then the defendant will try to refute that claim, or at least cast doubt on it.

My argument is just that flameboy's comment implies a sequence of events which is opposite of the way an actual criminal court case would unfold.

RideIcon
04-19-2009, 7:47 PM
Possession of large capacity rounds IS restricted in CA. Your magazines aren't documented but that doesn't mean their possession isn't restricted. Possession of Large Capacity magazines in CA is restricted to those in your possession before the law was passed, unless you are exempt.

you are wrong



If you buy them from some dude you don't know the seller broke the law, NOT YOU
and you are allowed to posses the mags

CHS
04-19-2009, 9:38 PM
you are wrong



If you buy them from some dude you don't know the seller broke the law, NOT YOU
and you are allowed to posses the mags

Actually, you are wrong.

Doesn't matter if you know the guy or not, if you buy large capacity magazines, knowing that selling them is illegal, you are involved in conspiracy to violate the law.

Jpach
04-19-2009, 9:46 PM
Bdsmchs, shouldnt the question be (and I know why you asked this) What if Bob WORKS for the FFL with the hi-cap mag permit and does the mag build in the shop under the FFL holder's authority?

CHS
04-19-2009, 10:02 PM
Bdsmchs, shouldnt the question be (and I know why you asked this) What if Bob WORKS for the FFL with the hi-cap mag permit and does the mag build in the shop under the FFL holder's authority?

Actually, that has nothing to do with this except for getting the gears turning in my head.

I truly wanted to get the discussion going about the possibility of doing it as a non-employee somehow under the umbrella of a hi-cap permit holder.

wutzu
04-19-2009, 10:19 PM
Buy a lottery ticket. The odds of a CA FFL is letting that happen are infinitesimal.

I found a 15-round magazine in a CZ-75 at a gun store in CA a couple years ago. I asked to see the CZ, and the magazine in the well was a 15 rounder. The guy in the store said "whoah, looks like someone wasn't paying attention" and then took the magazine away.

So it does happen. Especially if your FFL isn't prone to fingering guns you have sent in.

Jpach
04-19-2009, 10:21 PM
Ahhh I see. Hmm I dont think that will work as you wont be "covered" and whatnot under the permit-holder's permit. Otherwise anyone could just say hey I know X guy has a hi-cap permit, since I know him I should just make hi-caps. However these bs laws are obviously unconstitutional so I guess technically we can build AWs and hi-caps but CA will think and act upon you otherwise.

CHS
04-20-2009, 7:46 AM
Ahhh I see. Hmm I dont think that will work as you wont be "covered" and whatnot under the permit-holder's permit. Otherwise anyone could just say hey I know X guy has a hi-cap permit, since I know him I should just make hi-caps. However these bs laws are obviously unconstitutional so I guess technically we can build AWs and hi-caps but CA will think and act upon you otherwise.

Technically, these laws aren't unconstitutional. Yet.

Post-incorporation, they definitely will be.