PDA

View Full Version : City of Richmond bans possession of large capacity magazines


hoffmang
08-25-2009, 11:23 AM
The City of Richmond adopted an LCAV model ordinance (http://www.lcav.org/library/model_laws/LCAV_Model_LCAM_Possession_Ban_05.09.pdf) and now makes possession of large capacity magazines a misdemeanor crime. Here is the ordinance: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/archives/66/ord.%2040-07%20large%20capacity%20magazine%20ban.pdf

It was adopted on October 2, 2007.

I expect this will get added to either CGF or CRPA's todo list as soon as we have incorporation settled. In the meantime, I would suggest those of you that live in Richmond should disassemble any large capacity magazines you possess.

-Gene

Merle
08-25-2009, 11:29 AM
Great :(

So what's the penalty?

b.faust
08-25-2009, 11:31 AM
So anyone shooting at Richmond Rod & Gun needs to make sure they only have 10 round magazines not only at the range, but should have none in their car as well?
(i.e. they're not a resident of Richmond, but are driving through in route to Richmond Rod and Gun Club)

B.

thatrogue
08-25-2009, 11:32 AM
nice a misdemeanor, the crime that only non criminals worry about.

wash
08-25-2009, 11:40 AM
Has this really been in effect for almost two years?

bwiese
08-25-2009, 11:41 AM
This is a fairly simple preemption case. We'll beat it, but let's get incorporation first.

In addition, those travelling with hicap mags on Hwy 80 driving thru Richmond should use care.

wildhawker
08-25-2009, 11:43 AM
This is really a b*itch for the USPSA action shooters at RRG. I doubt many will conform to this ordinance.

Librarian
08-25-2009, 11:53 AM
y'know, if this spreads, keeping the wiki even close to updated is going to be annoying.

You sure about NBC 'applications' on Bush street in SF being unwise?

JDoe
08-25-2009, 11:56 AM
What about armored car companies/employees?

Section 11.98.030 shall not apply to any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to possess a large-capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties.

JohnnyRooks
08-25-2009, 11:56 AM
so what's up really with high cap mags? if someone is willing to kill no high caps or low caps can prevent the crazies... Cali is really a fun state...

PEBKAC
08-25-2009, 12:01 PM
How does this affect mis-use of magazines within Richmond shooting ranges?

I'm specifically talking about unmodified 10 round beowulf mags shoved full of as much 5.56 as will fit. :D

odysseus
08-25-2009, 12:05 PM
Out of curiosity, how does this skirt the jurisdiction that the state of California has regarding firearm laws, which prevents small municipalities from trying to control them? Passing through Richmond with high caps makes this a crime, but not as you were driving into it from El Cerrito?

Untamed1972
08-25-2009, 12:09 PM
Nice to see local officials using the taxpayers resources wisely by passing laws on things they have no legal authority or jurisdiction to pass laws about.

They should all receive a fine to be paid from their personal funds for abuse of their positions.

jamesob
08-25-2009, 12:14 PM
if i travel threw richmond and i get stop and they find out i have a ccw and inspect my weapon for some reason and they see my 17 rnd. mag in my g17 i would be cited for a misdemeanor?

BillCA
08-25-2009, 12:21 PM
This is a fairly simple preemption case. We'll beat it, but let's get incorporation first.

In addition, those travelling with hicap mags on Hwy 80 driving thru Richmond should use care.

Given 53071 of the Government Code specifically states that the State occupies the whole field of regulating firearms registration and licensing, this law should not be enforceable.

Unless the city believes that regulation of a certain piece of a firearm is permissible or that outright prohibition on certain gun parts avoids the language in the statute.


In addition, those travelling with hicap mags on Hwy 80 driving thru Richmond should use care.

This is similar to Lambert v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=355&invol=225)(355 U.S. 225 (1957)) where the city of LA had a requirement that ex-felons residing in the city for more than 5 days register with the LAPD.

SCOTUS struck down the law as violative of the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

Consider the wording of the decision and think of it as applying to someone charged with having hi-caps while refueling a vehicle while transiting through the city...


Violation of its provisions is unaccompanied by any activity whatever, mere presence in the city being the test. Moreover, circumstances which might move one to inquire as to the necessity of registration are completely lacking. At most the ordinance is but a law enforcement technique designed for the convenience of law enforcement agencies ...
Nevertheless, this appellant on first becoming aware of her duty to register was given no opportunity to comply with the law and avoid its penalty, even though her default was entirely innocent. She could but suffer the consequences of the ordinance, namely, conviction with the imposition of heavy criminal penalties thereunder. We believe that actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge and subsequent failure to comply are necessary before a conviction under the ordinance can stand.


Unless Richmond places signs which are easy to read outside it's city limits that gives travelers a chance to avoid violating the law, enforcement is likely unconstitutional two different ways.

bwiese
08-25-2009, 12:37 PM
How does this affect mis-use of magazines within Richmond shooting ranges?

I'm specifically talking about unmodified 10 round beowulf mags shoved full of as much 5.56 as will fit. :D

Most all locap magazines in the specified caliber are hicap magazines in another caliber.

If your mags were marked in that "locap caliber" and you had some of that ammo that fit in it with you, that should help - esp on dismissal due to clarity, wholly aside from any preemption issues.

bwiese
08-25-2009, 12:40 PM
Given 53071 of the Government Code specifically states that the State occupies the whole field of regulating firearms registration and licensing, this law should not be enforceable.

Unless the city believes that regulation of a certain piece of a firearm is permissible or that outright prohibition on certain gun parts avoids the language in the statute.


This is similar to Lambert v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=355&invol=225)(355 U.S. 225 (1957)) where the city of LA had a requirement that ex-felons residing in the city for more than 5 days register with the LAPD.

SCOTUS struck down the law as violative of the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

Consider the wording of the decision and think of it as applying to someone charged with having hi-caps while refueling a vehicle while transiting through the city...

Unless Richmond places signs which are easy to read outside it's city limits that gives travelers a chance to avoid violating the law, enforcement is
likely unconstitutional two different ways.


Your points are valid on a technical-legal basis.

But a crusading "anti gang crime" local judge may just ignore this logic. Look how various areas' sales bans on 'pocket rocket guns' still stand (though soon to be challeneged, and is slightly different in that possession has not been banned).

Look how long it took us to fight Prop H in SF (admittedly, some of the time/damage to our side was self-inflicted, and Prop H coulda died an early death if certain individuals had listened to CA NRA staff).

technique
08-25-2009, 12:49 PM
How have we missed out on this since 2007? Someone get popped?

artherd
08-25-2009, 12:50 PM
This should fall to preemption, and with incorporation it will fall faster. Don't underestimate how much it costs to strike these illegal laws though, Prop H took over $half a million! CGF needs your $.

p7m8jg
08-25-2009, 12:52 PM
Why doesn't someone call the Richmond City Attorney's Office (local ordinances usually handled by the City Attorney and not the County DA) and ask them for statistics on how many times this law has been enforced in the last two years? How many prosecutions?

Make the request under the California Public Records Act

I"m guessing the big answer is ........................................ZERO...... .

SgtDinosaur
08-25-2009, 1:06 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha! How many people in Richmond you think really give a crap about this? Being a near Richmondite I am fairly sure most of the hi cap mags are in the hands of gang bangers. And any citizen that possesses them sure needs them. I don't even stop for gas in Richmond.

Man I'm getting cynical lately.

Python2
08-25-2009, 1:16 PM
So I guess all the guys shooting Open and Limited division at Richmond Rod and Gun Club are doing it illigally?:eek:

redline
08-25-2009, 1:41 PM
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Richmond&state=CA

For some reason, I don't think this possession law will help these stats much.

CalNRA
08-25-2009, 1:54 PM
I don't even stop for gas in Richmond.

Man I'm getting cynical lately.

same here.

I made a mistake of going to the Mall there a year or so ago. Upon exiting the mall I made a wrong turn and headed for the "neighborhoods".

Never going there again.

OlderThanDirt
08-25-2009, 2:00 PM
I own numerous firearms where I have nothing but standard capacity magazines. Most (if not all) 9mm semi-auto handguns came with >10 round magazines prior to 2000. While I never go anywhere near Richmond, this bonehead ordinance will get copied in several like-minded cities (you know, high crime, gang-ridden areas). Its a good thing there are no gangs here in Oxnard.

hoffmang
08-25-2009, 2:11 PM
How have we missed out on this since 2007? Someone get popped?

No one was popped. I noticed it in some LCAV "promotional" materials.

-Gene

Gryff
08-25-2009, 3:34 PM
That's amazing. Glad that RPD has too much real crime to fight instead of showing up at RR&GC to cite the competitors at the USPSA matches.

WeekendWarrior
08-25-2009, 3:48 PM
Something tells me this is a tac-on law, as in you get busted for shooting someone its just another crime they can charge you with to make sure you get put away and stay away for the longest amount of time, or maybe as special circumstances. I shoot Richmond all the time, but have never seen an LEO do a high cap mag check on anyone.

Sobriquet
08-25-2009, 3:50 PM
That's amazing. Glad that RPD has too much real crime to fight instead of showing up at RR&GC to cite the competitors at the USPSA matches.

Don't give them any ideas.

CalNRA
08-25-2009, 3:56 PM
Don't give them any ideas.

Section 11.98.030 shall not apply to any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to possess a large-capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties.

sounds like cops off duty competing at RRGC with >10 round mags are subject to arrest as well.

CSACANNONEER
08-25-2009, 4:04 PM
Oh no! My tube fed .22lr pumps are illegal there! I guess they only like lever actions there.

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-25-2009, 4:06 PM
Oh no! My tube fed .22lr pumps are illegal there! I guess they only like lever actions there.

Uh, what? Inanity abounds.

bwiese
08-25-2009, 4:08 PM
sounds like cops off duty competing at RRGC with >10 round mags are subject to arrest as well.

Yep, and mags aren't the only reason ;)

CalNRA
08-25-2009, 4:14 PM
Yep, and mags aren't the only reason ;)

I wonder if that has anything to do with maglocks switched out in the back of patrol cars in gunshop parking lots?
s
P.S., Bill you just passed the 16k mark.

Gryff
08-25-2009, 4:20 PM
Oh no! My tube fed .22lr pumps are illegal there!

Those are exempted. 11.98.020.B

RobG
08-25-2009, 4:32 PM
I have to say, I know it sounds ridiculous, and that I may even be exaggerating BUT, the last shooting I responded to in Richmond, there two guns were used. Now, my partner and I could actually hear the shooting occur and I counted from 30 to 40 shots with no pause, ie., reloading. So could it be possible, if even only with the most remote chance, that the bad guys DID NOT abide by the city ordinance. I mean, its a crime. Why would they not follow the law?:p

audiophil2
08-25-2009, 5:36 PM
Laws like these are simply nuisances. When I lived in Illinois I had to make sure I was not driving in certain towns with a pistol or passing through Chicago with pistols or "AW"s. It's not easy to go from the west side to the north or south without passing through some of these towns.
I know of FFLs that were selling "AW"s outside of Cook county to Cook County residents simply telling them not to take them into Cook county. Since both airports are inside Chicago (ohare is Chicago property) I was not even able to fly out with my "AW"s.

Shotgun Man
08-25-2009, 6:20 PM
When this issue becomes ripe for us, is there some way we can screw the Richmond government beyond a simple declaration that ordinance is pre-empted? Maybe teach other municipalities a lesson? I expect not.

I know that domestic batterers are required to donate money to a battered women's shelters, etc.

These yahoos have battered us. They have conspired to violate our civil rights.

sargenv
08-25-2009, 6:53 PM
Guess I better switch back to Revo Division

cousinkix1953
08-25-2009, 8:11 PM
Oh no! My tube fed .22lr pumps are illegal there! I guess they only like lever actions there.
They won't like my almost 50 year old semi-automatic .22 (17 shot tube magazine) with a 4X scope on it either. They will accuse me of having a sniper rifle...

cousinkix1953
08-25-2009, 8:17 PM
When this issue becomes ripe for us, is there some way we can screw the Richmond government beyond a simple declaration that ordinance is pre-empted? Maybe teach other municipalities a lesson? I expect not.

I know that domestic batterers are required to donate money to a battered women's shelters, etc.

These yahoos have battered us. They have conspired to violate our civil rights.
You could boycott their stores, resturaunts and other facilities which are sources of sales tax revenues. Don't buy a car in Richmond either.

The peoples' republik of Santa Cruz would collapse if nobody went to the Boardwalk and a few other tourist traps...

hoffmang
08-25-2009, 8:19 PM
Maybe teach other municipalities a lesson?

We've been putting some thought into exactly this issue. First there is the legal fee awards that will only start to be real after DC pays Gura and hopefully Alameda pays Kilmer. There are some other potential ways to add to the pain...

-Gene

CSACANNONEER
08-25-2009, 8:36 PM
Uh, what? Inanity abounds.

Yea, I really have to read slower sometimes. I focused on "C" and completely missed "B".

Those are exempted. 11.98.020.B

Thanks for the correction.

They won't like my almost 50 year old semi-automatic .22 (17 shot tube magazine) with a 4X scope on it either. They will accuse me of having a sniper rifle...

I wish I had some of those old, +10 round tube mags to feed some centerfire .22cal cartridges. It appears that the law still allows for +10 round tubular mags for .22 Hornet, .223, .22-250, etc. To bad, one can't have a +10 round tube mag for a .17 cal rimfire though.

otteray
08-25-2009, 8:55 PM
You could boycott their stores, resturaunts and other facilities which are sources of sales tax revenues. Don't buy a car in Richmond either.

The peoples' republik of Santa Cruz would collapse if nobody went to the Boardwalk and a few other tourist traps...

Umm, Insanity Cruz is no where near Richmond... just keep us out of the conversation, please.
No crazy mag limits here, either, or council members focused on more local gun controls.
Now, back to Richmond's issue...

Hogxtz
08-25-2009, 9:02 PM
This should fall to preemption, and with incorporation it will fall faster.

Hi artherd, Can you please explain what this means so I can keep up. Thanks

cdtx2001
08-25-2009, 9:26 PM
Bottom line, if going through Richmond, I won't give anyone any reason to look in my vehicle (not that I consent to searches anyway). Just keep a low profile and all will be well.

rkt88edmo
08-25-2009, 9:36 PM
Hi artherd, Can you please explain what this means so I can keep up. Thanks

More or less that the Richmond law goes farther than the state/fed law allows, therefore, the law can be thrown out if challenged.

cousinkix1953
08-26-2009, 2:59 AM
Umm, Insanity Cruz is no where near Richmond... just keep us out of the conversation, please.
No crazy mag limits here, either, or council members focused on more local gun controls.
Now, back to Richmond's issue...

Not as as you might think! A drunk driver killed somebody last weekend. His son drove from Richmond to pick up the suspect and they tried to avoid the police. Both men were arrested about two hours after the accident. Maybe you know the suspect from the East Bay. Read all about it here.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_13205102

The boycott can affect most any city if enough people do not like it's kind of politics. Thhat goes for Richmond or any other town...

SgtDinosaur
08-26-2009, 10:44 AM
No one wants anything in Richmond so a boycott would probably be moot. I wouldn't eat in a restaurant there if you paid me.

Greg-Dawg
08-26-2009, 12:17 PM
Martial law.:mad:

Maestro Pistolero
08-26-2009, 12:30 PM
Any point in at least sending a threatening cease and desist letter to the DA just to get them a notice of the illegality of the ordinance on the record?

Untamed1972
08-26-2009, 12:30 PM
We've been putting some thought into exactly this issue. First there is the legal fee awards that will only start to be real after DC pays Gura and hopefully Alameda pays Kilmer. There are some other potential ways to add to the pain...

-Gene


I vote for sanctions levied against the personal funds of the city council who passed the law so as to remind them that their power is not limitless and they must abide by the law as well and not overstep the authority granted to them by those who voted them into office.

Swiss
08-26-2009, 12:54 PM
No one wants anything in Richmond so a boycott would probably be moot. I wouldn't eat in a restaurant there if you paid me.

Then you're missing out. There are some excellent Mexican and El Salvadoran places with authentic and delicious fare.

Richmond's a very liberal city so fight the good fight but be ready for resistance.

berto
08-26-2009, 1:19 PM
Then you're missing out. There are some excellent Mexican and El Salvadoran places with authentic and delicious fare.

Richmond's a very liberal city so fight the good fight but be ready for resistance.

Taqueria La Bamba

Where else? I don't really have reason to hit central richmond but perhaps for good food.

CalNRA
08-26-2009, 5:42 PM
Then you're missing out. There are some excellent Mexican and El Salvadoran places with authentic and delicious fare.


eh. We are in California, I'm sure I can find a better Mexican place somewhere else.

odysseus
08-26-2009, 5:44 PM
Then you're missing out. There are some excellent Mexican and El Salvadoran places with authentic and delicious fare.

Possibly true, but Richmond is not know as a mecca of good cuisine. :p

CHS
08-26-2009, 5:49 PM
But a crusading "anti gang crime" local judge may just ignore this logic. Look how various areas' sales bans on 'pocket rocket guns' still stand (though soon to be challeneged, and is slightly different in that possession has not been banned).


Ok, I totally missed this upon my first reading.

What the hell is a "pocket rocket gun" ?????

edit: gyrojet???? no....

bwiese
08-26-2009, 6:05 PM
Ok, I totally missed this upon my first reading.

What the hell is a "pocket rocket gun" ?????

edit: gyrojet???? no....

'Pocket rocket' is a term created by the antis to refer to ultracompact larger-caliber guns. "Pocket rockets" are larger caliber than "Saturday night specials" (22/25/32/380).

When they drove mag capacity reduction to 10rds, people figured, "if it only holds 10rds it might as well be small & concealable" - so we ended up with small size big-bore guns like the Glock 26/27, S&W M&P9c, ParaOrdnance P10/Warthog, etc.

CHS
08-26-2009, 6:17 PM
'Pocket rocket' is a term created by the antis to refer to ultracompact larger-caliber guns. "Pocket rockets" are larger caliber than "Saturday night specials" (22/25/32/380).


*forehead smack*
*facepalm*


Wow... Just wow.

So a big .45 is ok, but a little .45 is now evil?

$#(*^%@)(^@^&@&^&^&@!!!!!! <-- Bad bad words.




Edit: Is this just a Bay Area thing? Because I've never heard this term before or any term referring to guns like this.

bwiese
08-26-2009, 7:15 PM
*forehead smack*
*facepalm*


Wow... Just wow.

So a big .45 is ok, but a little .45 is now evil?

$#(*^%@)(^@^&@&^&^&@!!!!!! <-- Bad bad words.




Edit: Is this just a Bay Area thing? Because I've never heard this term before or any term referring to guns like this.

It's been around for awhile. Several cities have bans on *sales* (not possession) of such guns - Oakland, CA and city of Los Angeles, IIRC.

cousinkix1953
08-26-2009, 8:05 PM
'Pocket rocket' is a term created by the antis to refer to ultracompact larger-caliber guns. "Pocket rockets" are larger caliber than "Saturday night specials" (22/25/32/380).

When they drove mag capacity reduction to 10rds, people figured, "if it only holds 10rds it might as well be small & concealable" - so we ended up with small size big-bore guns like the Glock 26/27, S&W M&P9c, ParaOrdnance P10/Warthog, etc.
We call them compact models. These handguns are made in the same caliber as their full size cousins with 1 or 2 less rounds in a shorter magazine. Aren't these pistols illegal in Los Angeles under another illegal city gun ordinance? Didn't we hear about some shoe repairman' shop getting busted for making holsters too?

CABilly
08-27-2009, 1:15 AM
The City of Richmond adopted an LCAV model ordinance (http://www.lcav.org/library/model_laws/LCAV_Model_LCAM_Possession_Ban_05.09.pdf) and now makes possession of large capacity magazines a misdemeanor crime. Here is the ordinance: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/archives/66/ord.%2040-07%20large%20capacity%20magazine%20ban.pdf

It was adopted on October 2, 2007.

I expect this will get added to either CGF or CRPA's todo list as soon as we have incorporation settled. In the meantime, I would suggest those of you that live in Richmond should disassemble any large capacity magazines you possess.

-Gene

So supposing the ordinance is overturned in the future, would those people be able to reassemble their mags without illegally "manufacturing" hi-caps? Wouldn't an out of town safe deposit box be better?

Well, then again, I don't see how anyone is supposed to repair their legally-obtained hi-caps if they can't be disassembled.

IPSICK
08-27-2009, 8:15 AM
Guess I better switch back to Revo Division

I'd really like to see more responses from people who shoot at the Action range at the RR&GC. I think they would be the most vulnerable to the law, especially the open and limited division shooters. How does this affect competitors from out of state?

SgtDinosaur
08-27-2009, 9:29 AM
Then you're missing out. There are some excellent Mexican and El Salvadoran places with authentic and delicious fare.

I'm sure that is true. We have some good taquerias in our war zone, too. And to be honest, I know there are some decent neighborhoods in Richmond, just like in Vallejo. Trouble is they get invaded at odd times. Did you know that within the past couple of weeks someone commited a purse snatching using a shotgun here? And lately some of this stuff has been happening in broad daylight in shopping centers we all use. If you read some of the comments in the Times Herald, it appears some people have decided to quit shopping in Vallejo at all, and now they just go out of town. I don't think things in Richmond are any better.

kmca
08-27-2009, 10:26 AM
So anyone shooting at Richmond Rod & Gun needs to make sure they only have 10 round magazines not only at the range, but should have none in their car as well?
(i.e. they're not a resident of Richmond, but are driving through in route to Richmond Rod and Gun Club)

B.

Does this section:
11.98.030 Prohibition on possession of large capacity magazines.
(a) No person, corporation, or other entity in the City of Richmond may possess any large capacity magazine.
(b) Any person who, prior to the effective date of this chapter, was legally in possession of a large capacity magazine shall have 90 days from such effective date to do either of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the large capacity magazine from the City of Richmond; or
(2) Surrender the large capacity magazine to the Richmond Police Department for destruction.

mean the ordnance only applies to Richmond residents, i.e. if you're shooting at the gun club, you have 90 days to leave with your magazines?

383green
08-27-2009, 10:38 AM
Does this section: [...] mean the ordnance only applies to Richmond residents, i.e. if you're shooting at the gun club, you have 90 days to leave with your magazines?

No, that 90 day window closed 90 days after the law went into effect, and the possession clause isn't limited to Richmond residents.

kmca
08-27-2009, 10:43 AM
Okay. As a side question, is Richmond Rod & Gun Club actually within the city limits of Richmond?

tazmanian devil dog
08-27-2009, 11:12 AM
F*** Richmond. My momma lives there and I will drive through/to there with whatever mags I want. They can go to hell! I am not gonna be told how to live by the likes of Richmond politicians who can't even speak properly!

Mikeb
08-27-2009, 11:58 AM
So I was breaking the law when I took my "cowboy assault weapon" to Richmond Rod and Gun Club to zero the new sight? Wow, maybe I should turn my self in...
Makes me wonder when the last time a lever action rifle was used in a drive-by?
Hardly seems fair that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Especially illegal laws.
take care
Mike

kmca
08-27-2009, 12:28 PM
So I was breaking the law when I took my "cowboy assault weapon" to Richmond Rod and Gun Club to zero the new sight? Wow, maybe I should turn my self in...
Makes me wonder when the last time a lever action rifle was used in a drive-by?
Hardly seems fair that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Especially illegal laws.
take care
Mike

If your "cowboy assault weapon" is a lever action/tubular fed rifle...it's exempt.

nicki
08-27-2009, 1:30 PM
Richmond is a "high crime" city and the politicians are grasping to show that they are doing "something".

Still, it is a cancer, and we must watch to make sure this crap doesn't spread around the state.

Nicki

tazmanian devil dog
08-27-2009, 3:29 PM
I grew up in Richmond. The politicians there don't care about your safety anymore than our senators and congressppeople.

Cali-V
08-27-2009, 3:39 PM
Tell me guys why can't a city council enact an ordinance that would accomplish the following...

"If within the city limits, a felon is convicted for committing a felony with a firearm, the felon gets an extra 5yrs, plus an additional 2.5yrs for every round fired"

The total would be an add-on to their sentence...


To me it makes sense to promote logical alternatives to ridicules attempts at anti-crime control... like the attempt executed by Richmond's ordinance... before it becomes a nuisance.

Thinking of nuisance laws, can we work on Berkeley's Rifle Ban...

dantodd
08-27-2009, 4:37 PM
Tell me guys why can't a city council enact an ordinance that would accomplish the following...

"If within the city limits, a felon is convicted for committing a felony with a firearm, the felon gets an extra 5yrs, plus an additional 2.5yrs for every round fired"

The total would be an add-on to their sentence...


To me it makes sense to promote logical alternatives to ridicules attempts at anti-crime control... like the attempt executed by Richmond's ordinance... before it becomes a nuisance.

Thinking of nuisance laws, can we work on Berkeley's Rifle Ban...

Cities and counties can't create felonies. Misdemeanors are not punishable by more than 1 yr. in jail. Firearms regulation is pre-empted by state law.

norcal-ar
08-27-2009, 4:40 PM
i dont live in richmond but for those of us who have had high caps before the ban. your saying it would be illegal for us to maintain ownership if we did live in richmond?

hoffmang
08-27-2009, 7:19 PM
So supposing the ordinance is overturned in the future, would those people be able to reassemble their mags without illegally "manufacturing" hi-caps? Wouldn't an out of town safe deposit box be better?


If you owned large capacity magazines legally before the Richmond ban, you can't manufacture them anew by reassembling them.

-Gene

mecam
08-27-2009, 7:58 PM
I'd really like to see more responses from people who shoot at the Action range at the RR&GC. I think they would be the most vulnerable to the law, especially the open and limited division shooters. How does this affect competitors from out of state?

Lots of cops shoot at the Richmond matches and I've never seen anybody harassed with their 140mm and 170mm mags.

Seesm
08-27-2009, 9:22 PM
Ahhh this is terrible lucky the CGF is on it...

We need to squash this fast... I can nto believe this has been around since 07.