LEO telling me my HI CAP mags are illegal

[n556]

Someone I known all my life is a LEO... he was telling me my rifles might be illegal.. I showed him my RAW paper work. He never saw one before...

Anyways... I emailed him a photo of my rifle and he liked it but stated the magazine is illegal. How do I explain that they're not since I bought them before Jan 1, 2000?

Am I misunderstanding the current laws?

Every time he tells me something like this I get really scared/worried even know I have always done everything within the laws and know I'm legal... I get concerned that if I do run into a LEO they might not know either.

[ke6guj]

tell him to show you the penal code section that says possession of a large-capacity magazine is illegal (guess what, he can't, it doesn't exist).

here is the pertinant section,

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(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.note that possession is not regulated.

[dreyna14]

tell him to show you the penal code section that says possession of a large-capacity magazine is illegal (guess what, he can't, it doesn't exist).

here is the pertinant section,

note that possession is not regulated.

Then tell him to STFU.

[grywlfbg]

Ignorant LEOs are a fact of life in a place w/ as complicated laws as Cali. There is nowhere in the law where it says you have to "prove" you bought the mags prior to 1/1/00. There is nowhere in the law where it says that possession is illegal.

The key if you have to deal w/ a LEO is to be cool, calm, and know your facts. If they keep pushing it then let it go and you'll nail them in court. If you're clean (haven't done something stupid like having brass knuckles or some other dumbass move that is against the law) then the CGF will try and help you as best they can.

Don't live in fear - just enjoy your freedoms as best you can.

[n556]

tell him to show you the penal code section that says possession of a large-capacity magazine is illegal (guess what, he can't, it doesn't exist).

here is the pertinant section,

note that possession is not regulated.

This is a life time friend of our family. I wouldn't want to step on his toes. He's a really good guy and a great deputy. I highly respect the law and people who uphold the law. I would like to show him where it states it's legal to own mags before 1-1-2000.

I did find this but I don't know it it'll be enough to convince him.

----------------
2)Large-Capacity Magazines . This bill defines "large-capacity
magazine" as any feeding device with the capacity to accept
more than 10 rounds (including both centerfire and rimfire/.22
caliber), but does not include a feeding device that has been
permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10
rounds nor shall it include any .22 caliber tube ammunition
feeding device. This bill makes it unlawful to manufacture,
import into California, offer for sale, or lend any large
capacity magazine after January 1, 2000, with certain specific
exceptions, and is punishable as an alternate
felony/misdemeanor. Federal law, which became effective
September 13, 1994, bans the manufacture of large-capacity
feeding devices manufactured after that date. A "large
capacity feeding device" is defined as one that has the
capacity of, or can readily be restored or converted to
accept, more than 10 rounds.

-------------------

[n556]

I sent him that PC section...

Hopefully he looks into it. I hate looking like a criminal to him.

[ke6guj]

This is a life time friend of our family. I wouldn't want to step on his toes. He's a really good guy and a great deputy. I highly respect the law and people who uphold the law. I would like to show him where it states it's legal to own mags before 1-1-2000.

I did find this but I don't know it it'll be enough to convince him.you aren't stepping on his toes by asking him to prove his asertations. Who knows, he may learn something that day. My LE friend continually has to educate co-workers about this exact scenario. Guys trying to bust a guy for mere possession of large-capacity mags. In turn, I've been able to educate him on certain parts of the PC. I've been able to read him what the PC ACTUALLY says, not what they THINK it says. Its not always the same thing.

----------------
2)Large-Capacity Magazines . This bill defines "large-capacity
magazine" as any feeding device with the capacity to accept
more than 10 rounds (including both centerfire and rimfire/.22
caliber), but does not include a feeding device that has been
permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10
rounds nor shall it include any .22 caliber tube ammunition
feeding device. This bill makes it unlawful to manufacture,
import into California, offer for sale, or lend any large
capacity magazine after January 1, 2000, with certain specific
exceptions, and is punishable as an alternate
felony/misdemeanor. Federal law, which became effective
September 13, 1994, bans the manufacture of large-capacity
feeding devices manufactured after that date. A "large
capacity feeding device" is defined as one that has the
capacity of, or can readily be restored or converted to
accept, more than 10 rounds.

-------------------
yup, again note that possession and ownership are not mentiond in there.

[SJgunguy24]

tell him to show you the penal code section that says possession of a large-capacity magazine is illegal (guess what, he can't, it doesn't exist).

here is the pertinant section,

note that possession is not regulated.

Your answer is here, it's not stepping on his toes, it's helping him keep up to date on California firearm laws.

[mecam]

Tell him to join Calguns and he'll be a smarter LEO when it comes to firearms. ;) I had to educate my cousin cause they were taught in the academy that any semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip is illegal regardless. :rolleyes:

[cassius]

...Every time he tells me something like this I get really scared/worried even know I have always done everything within the laws and know I'm legal... I get concerned that if I do run into a LEO they might not know either.


You should be. Because most law enforcement officers don't have a clue about firearms regs. And many seem to believe no one should have any.

Consider these events with your friend as training for those other encounters. Get the legal citations together, keep them in your carry case or range bag, multiple copies so you can give one away to a schooled officer or his responding field supervisor.

[n556]

I don't know what's worse... a LEO that knows the codes or one that doesn't.

If they don't know, they could take your weapon away for awhile and god only knows how it's going to be treated. You could end up with a damaged rifle and missing parts.

[Captain Evilstomper]

I don't know what's worse... a LEO that knows the codes or one that doesn't.

If they don't know, they could take your weapon away for awhile and god only knows how it's going to be treated. You could end up with a damaged rifle and missing parts.

read some of the horror stories on this board about people owning a rifle that was in no way against the law and yet still confiscated by a possibly-too-exuberant LEO, and the hassle (and costs) of getting your legally owned property back (and sometimes not getting it back).
that's what scares me.
not to LE bash, bu there seem to be a lot of LE who don't know their a-double-s from a firearm regulation

[n556]

Can't they make a simple 3 page pamphlet outlining the AW laws and Hi Caps. It would make everyone's life easier.

[uclaplinker]

So your buddy is LE and he's now proven to be wrong.

LE or not, I'd be giving him major hell and calling him a huge dumb ***. I mean, seriously, you're both men, right? You should be hazing the crap out of him.

He's trying to say he thinks he knows something when he doesn't. School him, bro. It's what guys do.

Can't they make a simple 3 page pamphlet outlining the AW laws and Hi Caps. It would make everyone's life easier.


They did, and it was about 50 pages and full of FUD.

I called it, "A shopping guide."

[racky]

Ignorant LEOs are a fact of life in a place w/ as complicated laws as Cali. There is nowhere in the law where it says you have to "prove" you bought the mags prior to 1/1/00. There is nowhere in the law where it says that possession is illegal.

actually i got some new pmag 30 "kits" and they now have the mo/yr they were manufactured stamped on them :(. luckily i still have my USGI's :P

[tankerman]

Tell him to come arrest you if he thinks he's right.

[bigcalidave]

actually i got some new pmag 30 "kits" and they now have the mo/yr they were manufactured stamped on them :(. luckily i still have my USGI's :P

So what? Since they agree that it's legal to rebuild old magazines, and you don't have to prove that, your lawyer (since you will say nothing at all) will handle the situation for you easily. The date stamp just shows when your rebuild kit was made.

[supersonic]

Then tell him to STFU.

^^THAT'S exactly what I'd do if I wanted to take a ride in a VERY hard seat with the destination being a VERY hard & uncomfortable bed next to a VERY hard man!;)

[bigcalidave]

^^THAT'S exactly what I'd do if I wanted to take a ride in a VERY hard seat with the destination being a VERY hard & uncomfortable bed next to a VERY hard man!;)

Then don't say anything at all, and sue them when you win the case.

[B Strong]

Someone I known all my life is a LEO... he was telling me my rifles might be illegal.. I showed him my RAW paper work. He never saw one before...

Anyways... I emailed him a photo of my rifle and he liked it but stated the magazine is illegal. How do I explain that they're not since I bought them before Jan 1, 2000?

Am I misunderstanding the current laws?

Every time he tells me something like this I get really scared/worried even know I have always done everything within the laws and know I'm legal... I get concerned that if I do run into a LEO they might not know either.

He's one of many.

I've found that CHP officers in particular are behind the curve on firearms issues and law.

Until you've been told by a LEO the HP's are illegal because they violate the Geneva Convention, your FUD education is incomplete.

[Shane916]

Educating those uninformed and misinformed is much more productive and beneficial than telling someone to STFU.

[EastBayRidge]

"Until you've been told by a LEO the HP's are illegal because they violate the Geneva Convention, your FUD education is incomplete."

Crying... :D

[Nodda Duma]

It is not right for a so-called "lifelong friend of the family" to be accusing you of being a criminal. Especially if his opinion is misinformed. That shows a major lack of respect on his part. The thought probably never crossed his mind that perhaps you were in legal possession of the high-cap mags and that maybe he should look up the pertinent penal code himself. In other words, he didn't think "hmm..a life-long buddy who I know is a law abiding citizen happens to own these mags that I always thought were illegal. Perhaps I misunderstand the penal code and should check it out." I would not be afraid that he was going to haul me in. I would be steamed. School him, give him a bunch of crap for it, and then refer him to calguns.net



-Jason

[Doheny]

This is a life time friend of our family. I wouldn't want to step on his toes. He's a really good guy and a great deputy. I highly respect the law and people who uphold the law. I would like to show him where it states it's legal to own mags before 1-1-2000.

If he's a friend and you don't want to step on his toes, just don't bring up the subject.

[foxtrotuniformlima]

It is not right for a so-called "lifelong friend of the family" to be accusing you of being a criminal. Especially if his opinion is misinformed. That shows a major lack of respect on his part. The thought probably never crossed his mind that perhaps you were in legal possession of the high-cap mags and that maybe he should look up the pertinent penal code himself. In other words, he didn't think "hmm..a life-long buddy who I know is a law abiding citizen happens to own these mags that I always thought were illegal. Perhaps I misunderstand the penal code and should check it out." I would not be afraid that he was going to haul me in. I would be steamed. School him, give him a bunch of crap for it, and then refer him to calguns.net



-Jason


+1

My next door neighbor is local PD. He saw me working on my OLL rifle and asked how it was I had an AR? Keep in mind, he is PD in my city and we have only known each other about 4 years or so.

I explained to him the OLL thing, the one I had out was featureless. He knew about the hicap oddly enough. Ask how long I had them and said that was cool.

[elsensei]

Get used to LEos who don't know the law.

I'm a huge proponent of economics, and I believe economics explains darned near everything. I'm speaking of the economics of value of all sorts of things, not just money. So for example:

Is ignorance of the law a defense for you? Nope. We all know that, and we all know the law. If you break a law because you didn;t know, you're still going down.

Is ignorance of the law a defense for a cop? ABSOLUTELY. It's called "qualified immunity" and it basically means that if a cop makes a mistake that an average cop would make, they get off Scot-free. That's why you hear so often "Tell it to the judge."

There is little or no penalty for the cop to take up hours of your life defending against a false charge. To make matters worse, that doctrine encourages cops to be ignorant. If they are all, on average, ignorant, they effectively increase their power in that they can bust you for things that aren't illegal because "I didn't know, and the average uniformed dimwit standing next to me didn't know either, so viola! qualified immunity!"

So you can see they have no incentive to know the law in this area, and they actually are incentivized to agree to forget what they might know. I don't trust them.

I love economics.

[M1A Rifleman]

He may be your friend, but unfortunately he does not know what he is talking about.

[WokMaster1]

Show him the Sacramento PD memo. End of story. There is even a contact for more info on it.

[Untamed1972]

So what? Since they agree that it's legal to rebuild old magazines, and you don't have to prove that, your lawyer (since you will say nothing at all) will handle the situation for you easily. The date stamp just shows when your rebuild kit was made.

Except Pmags haven't been around long enough to claim you had them before 2000 so that'd be a tough sell......at least if they are found in a fully assembled condition.

[Decoligny]

actually i got some new pmag 30 "kits" and they now have the mo/yr they were manufactured stamped on them :(. luckily i still have my USGI's :P

Makes no difference if they have a date after 1 Jan 2000. As long as you had the original mag pre-ban, you can replace any part that wears out, or any part that you just think needs to be replaced for any reason. If every single part has been replaced at some point in time, it is still a pre-ban mag.

[bigcalidave]

Except Pmags haven't been around long enough to claim you had them before 2000 so that'd be a tough sell......at least if they are found in a fully assembled condition.

As was just said, why would you have to have Pmags? You can rebuild a GI mag with a Pmag, then you have a pmag. Still ok.

[Untamed1972]

As was just said, why would you have to have Pmags? You can rebuild a GI mag with a Pmag, then you have a pmag. Still ok.

Are GI mag internal parts compatible with PMag bodies? Just curious....never thought about it or tried it.

[bigcalidave]

I don't think it matters either way. You could have crushed them with a car, and replaced all the parts at once, right? I've got buckets of old dirty mags from the 90s, slowly turning into shiny new pmags now that we figured out this rebuild kit thing. Best thing ever!

[bwiese]

I sent him that PC section...

Hopefully he looks into it. I hate looking like a criminal to him.

Don't be afraid of how you look to idiots, and pick better friends.

[gn3hz3ku1*]

This is a life time friend of our family. I wouldn't want to step on his toes. He's a really good guy and a great deputy. I highly respect the law and people who uphold the law. I would like to show him where it states it's legal to own mags before 1-1-2000.

-------------------

then shouldn't he arrest you if he thinks you are doing something illegal?

[Sgt Raven]

Are GI mag internal parts compatible with PMag bodies? Just curious....never thought about it or tried it.

Take the spring out of your USGI mag and use the mag tube, follower, base plate and base plate keeper from a PMag to rebuild your worn out USGI Mag. ;)

[madmike]

Seriously, rip him a new one. I never miss an opportunity to call my friends out when they say or do something stupid. It's just what friends do for each other. While you're at it, make fun of his haircut. It's fun! :)

-madmike.



So your buddy is LE and he's now proven to be wrong.

LE or not, I'd be giving him major hell and calling him a huge dumb ***. I mean, seriously, you're both men, right? You should be hazing the crap out of him.

He's trying to say he thinks he knows something when he doesn't. School him, bro. It's what guys do.




They did, and it was about 50 pages and full of FUD.

I called it, "A shopping guide."

[Untamed1972]

While you're at it, make fun of his haircut. It's fun! :)

-madmike.


:rofl2:

[bohoki]

then shouldn't he arrest you if he thinks you are doing something illegal?

damn right

this seems to be mode 2 of "acted in good faith" excuse

instead of running you in i'll let you slide this time

trying to make you think they are doing you a favor when in fact they are intimidating you for exercizing your freedoms

[n556]

^^THAT'S exactly what I'd do if I wanted to take a ride in a VERY hard seat with the destination being a VERY hard & uncomfortable bed next to a VERY hard man!;)

ROFL!!!!!!!!!! That's exactly what I was thinking.. hahaha

[greasemonkey]

cause they were taught in the academy that any semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip is illegal regardless. :rolleyes:

You should be. Because most law enforcement officers don't have a clue about firearms regs. And many seem to believe no one should have any.

friend of mine that I used to target shoot and play with fire with, typical country stuff, came out of the FPD academy with the above quoted mindset. after being in the field a few years, he's reverted back to realizing that it's good for law abiding citizens to be armed!

[MasterYong]

There is no such thing as PC that stats that something is legal. Only PC that states that something is illegal. That's why it's so tough to convince these backwards LEOs (the ones the ARE backwards)... they want proof it's legal and we want proof it's illegal. Trouble is, proof it's legal doesn't exist!

(unless you count the lack of prohibitive PC to be proof it's legal)

[n556]

+1

My next door neighbor is local PD. He saw me working on my OLL rifle and asked how it was I had an AR? Keep in mind, he is PD in my city and we have only known each other about 4 years or so.

I explained to him the OLL thing, the one I had out was featureless. He knew about the hicap oddly enough. Ask how long I had them and said that was cool.

I'd start to worry once he installs some of those very loud buzzing, motion lights on his house, pointing towards yours.

[ke6guj]

There is no such thing as PC that stats that something is legal. Only PC that states that something is illegal. That's why it's so tough to convince these backwards LEOs (the ones the ARE backwards)... they want proof it's legal and we want proof it's illegal. Trouble is, proof it's legal doesn't exist!

(unless you count the lack of prohibitive PC to be proof it's legal)Actually, some sections of the PC ban everything, and then you have to read the PC section that makes a certain item/action legal by excluding it from the ban.

Much of the firearms PC section works that way.

But yes, if an item/action is never prohibited by the PC, there would be no exemption stating it was legal.

[n556]

I don't think it matters either way. You could have crushed them with a car, and replaced all the parts at once, right? I've got buckets of old dirty mags from the 90s, slowly turning into shiny new pmags now that we figured out this rebuild kit thing. Best thing ever!

You would think, hope. I know I want some PMAG's.. I'd just hate the be the first one in court fighting for my life and guns.

[demnogis]

To charge you with a violation of that law, wouldn't they have to have evidence of you purchasing the mags in question after the date in the law? Or that you imported, acquired, etc after?

I find it curious that possession is not prohibited, but any means of acquisition or transfer is. Without a receipt, how would they prove it?

[1BigPea]

I sent him that PC section...

Hopefully he looks into it. I hate looking like a criminal to him.

Let us know when he responds to the PC you sent him and what he says.

:thumbsup:

[dfletcher]

I sent him that PC section...

Hopefully he looks into it. I hate looking like a criminal to him.

Not to get too philosophical, but I don't give someone else the power to determine how I feel about myself or my actions. You've provided the information, allow a little room for it to sink in so he can agree with you without having to admit he was wrong. If he never agrees - and that may happen - then he has his opinion, you have yours and that's the end of it.

You can't tell someone something they don't want to know.

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

To charge you with a violation of that law, wouldn't they have to have evidence of you purchasing the mags in question after the date in the law? Or that you imported, acquired, etc after?

I find it curious that possession is not prohibited, but any means of acquisition or transfer is. Without a receipt, how would they prove it?

Yes. The State has the entire burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you acquired the magazine after 1/1/2000.

How it might be proven would depend on the circumstances under which one were charged with the violation. I leave those to your imagination.

[dilligaffrn]

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php

see #9

[Electric Factory]

You can't tell someone something they don't want to know.

This little tidbit of absolute genius is nothin' but true and born out every day right here at CG.

[odysseus]

You can't tell someone something they don't want to know.

Or in this case, the old saying about leading a horse to water...

.

[Untamed1972]

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php

see #9

If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers.

Interesting....it would seem that even the AGs websites doesn't quite get it right. Because it says "However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy"

But the actual penal code section says nothing about buying.

[Flintlock Tom]

Interesting....it would seem that even the AGs websites doesn't quite get it right. Because it says "However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy"

But the actual penal code section says nothing about buying.

This is very interesting. Since the PC does not prohibit buying, within CA, then the only one breaking the law is the seller. However, the PC says that "Licensed Dealers" are exempt from this PC. So a gun shop (Licensed Dealer) can offer for sale >10 mags and anyone can buy them.
Also, the PC does not specifically prohibit "selling" just "offering for sale" or "exposing for sale". So if I'm shooting my otherwise legal "hi-cap" mag at the range and someone offers me $50 for it, where's the violation if I was not "offering" or "exposing for sale"?

[Librarian]

This is very interesting. Since the PC does not prohibit buying, within CA, then the only one breaking the law is the seller. However, the PC says that "Licensed Dealers" are exempt from this PC. So a gun shop (Licensed Dealer) can offer for sale >10 mags and anyone can buy them.
Also, the PC does not specifically prohibit "selling" just "offering for sale" or "exposing for sale". So if I'm shooting my otherwise legal "hi-cap" mag at the range and someone offers me $50 for it, where's the violation if I was not "offering" or "exposing for sale"?

Old discussion - read this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709
and that wasn't the first time...

[bigcalidave]

To charge you with a violation of that law, wouldn't they have to have evidence of you purchasing the mags in question after the date in the law? Or that you imported, acquired, etc after?

I find it curious that possession is not prohibited, but any means of acquisition or transfer is. Without a receipt, how would they prove it?


LISTEN!!
Here's how it goes. Cop says, where did you get those magazines? Those are high capacity!! Those are illegal!! And you say... NOTHING ! You say, I don't talk to police without a lawyer, sorry. You think you're gonna convince that cop that you're right and he's wrong? Maybe before he arrests you ask him what the PC he is arresting you for is, and to have his supervisor look it up. Make no statements about your magazines or where you got them.
Worst case scenario. You have said nothing to the police and are arrested. Your lawyer then asks the judge what PC you were arrested for, and the case is thrown out. Yet again, you have NEVER said anything about the magazines, because you have a 5th amendment that says you don't have to say a word, backed up by the supreme court.
If the DA tries to press charges for manufacturing or conspiracy to import they are going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without you saying a single word in court that you did not previously own high capacity magazines which you then rebuilt with the new parts. Since there has never been an age restriction on the possession of magazines you could be 10 right now and your dad could have given them to you when you were a baby. They cannot prove this beyond a reasonable doubt UNLESS YOU MAKE A STATEMENT AND SCREW YOURSELF!!@!!@ That's the key here. Shut up, don't say a word and you can't get in trouble for this.

Go ahead, buy your Pmag rebuilds, legally rebuild your old magazines, don't do something stupid like post here how you just made a bunch of high caps and incriminate yourself.

Can a mod add this whole post to a sticky somewhere? I think it needs to be said, and it's the clearest explanation of the law I've seen here.

[bigcalidave]

Oh and if you are worried about having everything be so legal that you won't get arrested AND you want to own guns, MOVE OUT OF CALIFORNIA. The 5000 laws and exceptions to laws on firearms in this state means that an officer at any time might not know what the **** he is talking about and can arrest you. That's life. Keep some rainy day money for tmllp...

[bodger]

This is a life time friend of our family. I wouldn't want to step on his toes. He's a really good guy and a great deputy. I highly respect the law and people who uphold the law. I would like to show him where it states it's legal to own mags before 1-1-2000.



I respect the law and those who uphold as well. And I understand that this is a long time friend and you don't want to alienate him. I'm sure he's a good officer.

But, it's exactly this type of LEO ignorance that can result in illegitimate arrest and guns being seized and mishandled and damaged after months of improper storage.
Not to mention the trauma of arrest and the legal fees. All because a "good officer" did not do his job properly, a large part of which is to know the law so they know when a law is actually being violated and affecting an arrest is valid.
These are the LEOs that spook me. The ones that don't know the laws. It's why I have yet to fire my AR-15 with the bullet button anywhere but on my friends 25 acre property in Kern County. It's a legal weapon. Not all cops might know that.

[Sniper3142]

Except Pmags haven't been around long enough to claim you had them before 2000 so that'd be a tough sell......at least if they are found in a fully assembled condition.

There is NO LAW that says you have to only use PRE-2000 parts to repair your LEGALLY OWNED 10+ magazines. If the body on your legally owned 30 round magazine needs to be replaced, you can use WHATEVER OLD or NEW part to do that.

And if your worried about some ignorant LEO saying your PMag is illegal, then just keep those items at home... or know the law, exercise your RIGHTS, and STAND YOUR GROUND.

:)

[n556]

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php

see #9


Perfect! thanks!

[n556]

I respect the law and those who uphold as well. And I understand that this is a long time friend and you don't want to alienate him. I'm sure he's a good officer.

But, it's exactly this type of LEO ignorance that can result in illegitimate arrest and guns being seized and mishandled and damaged after months of improper storage.
Not to mention the trauma of arrest and the legal fees. All because a "good officer" did not do his job properly, a large part of which is to know the law so they know when a law is actually being violated and affecting an arrest is valid.
These are the LEOs that spook me. The ones that don't know the laws. It's why I have yet to fire my AR-15 with the bullet button anywhere but on my friends 25 acre property in Kern County. It's a legal weapon. Not all cops might know that.


I can understand people being upset, offended but it's really over a hypothetical result as I was only told it was illegal and he didn't haul me off to jail or anything of that nature. He could have been joking. So let's all relax knowing it's ok to own legal hi cap mag(s).

I'm happy to find out per this thread that I can replace parts with my legal standard mags, with PMAGS!!!!

Also thanks to whoever posted that link to the thread which clearly talked about the hi cap legalities.

[Glock22Fan]

LISTEN!!
Here's how it goes.
.
.
If the DA tries to press charges for manufacturing or conspiracy to import they are going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without you saying a single word in court that you did not previously own high capacity magazines which you then rebuilt with the new parts. Since there has never been an age restriction on the possession of magazines you could be 10 right now and your dad could have given them to you when you were a baby. They cannot prove this beyond a reasonable doubt UNLESS YOU MAKE A STATEMENT AND SCREW YOURSELF!!@!!@ That's the key here. Shut up, don't say a word and you can't get in trouble for this.
.
.
.


And they are also going to have to prove that whatever you did wrong was done within the last three years, as otherwise the statute of limitations has run out.

[Bad Voodoo]

Seriously, rip him a new one.

You mean like this, madmike?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/13/sports/hockey/Stanleycup.slide1.jpg

Sorry, OT. :D

[DDT]

And they are also going to have to prove that whatever you did wrong was done within the last three years, as otherwise the statute of limitations has run out.

I keep seeing this suggested as a positive defense but the more I look into it I suspect that this defense would fail. The delay in discovering a criminal act occurred or may have occurred stops the clock on the statute of limitations. So, if you are stopped with a large capacity magazine the state has 3 years after the discovery of the magazine to file charges.

[curtisfong]

The delay in discovering a criminal act occurred or may have occurred stops the clock on the statute of limitations.

IIRC this is a myth. It affects civil law, not criminal law. I could be wrong. IANAL.

[Glock22Fan]

I know that there is something like this concerning debts. I think I read in English law that a debt is no longer collectable when six years has passed since the debtor last acknowledged it. However, if your creditor reminds you about this old debt and you acknowledge that it has been owed, then the six years restarts.

Over here, this does vary from state to state and can range from five to ten years, depending on state and exact situation.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/statuteLimitations.shtml#2

For about half the population, the Statute of Limitations started ticking the day they made the last payment for their account.

Some states have laws which specify that a partial payment does not restart the clock on the SOL, unless there is a new written promise to pay. What that means is that you actually write out a new agreement with the orginal creditor and/or collection agency. If you live in one of these states, simply sending in a check doesn't restart the clock. The statute of limitations is only extended by new written promise to pay in these states:

[DDT]

I haven't found anything specific about "discovery" of a crime being the statute of limitations start time but nolo does talk about the clock on statute of limitations being suspended by "tolling." http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/C0EF9F06-E2CC-415D-8933EB2F1F971691/104/143/153/QNA/

I also found some random information about sexual abuse cases statute of limitations not to have expired and the clock starting after "recovered memories" discovered the crime (let's not get into "recovered memories" please)

Answers.com quotes West's Encyclopedia as:
Criminal Actions

A majority of states have a statute of limitations for all crimes except murder. Once the statute has expired, the court lacks jurisdiction to try or punish a defendant.

Criminal statutes of limitations apply to different crimes on the basis of their general classification as either felonies or misdemeanors. Generally, the time limit starts to run on the date the offense was committed, not from the time the crime was discovered or the accused was identified. The running of the statute may be suspended for any period the accused is absent from the state or, in certain states, while any other indictment for the same crime is pending. This suspension occurs so that the state will be able to obtain a new indictment in the event the first one is declared invalid.


It does seem that California doesn't toll the statute of limitations for "undiscovered" crimes of this type. There are a lot of tolling exceptions so I could have very easily missed one applying to this law.

Here is the overall Statute of Limitations law in CA: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/799-805.5.html

[M. Sage]

This is a life time friend of our family. I wouldn't want to step on his toes. He's a really good guy and a great deputy. I highly respect the law and people who uphold the law. I would like to show him where it states it's legal to own mags before 1-1-2000.

Who is stepping on whose toes again?