PDA

View Full Version : Are their any large capacity magazine law suites going on in California?


Quake0
08-27-2009, 11:51 AM
Are their any large capacity magazine law suites going on in California?

Librarian
08-27-2009, 12:12 PM
Are their any large capacity magazine law suites going on in California?

No. In the grand scheme of things that is a minor issue.

Looking at DC and Chicago, those large-cap mag laws may eventually become vulnerable on the 'dangerous and unusual weapon' argument - mags > 10 rounds are neither.

And remember, possession and use of large-capacity magazines in CA is not a crime - the law is an annoyance for users, a slight market restriction for manufacturers.

packnrat
08-27-2009, 12:55 PM
It is crime to have on / with you normal cap mags that hold over 10 rounds, when in the city of Richmond ca.
Can a city do this???

.

Librarian
08-27-2009, 1:40 PM
It is crime to have on / with you normal cap mags that hold over 10 rounds, when in the city of Richmond ca.
Can a city do this???

.

I keep forgetting about them. Turkeys.

Anyway, Richmond has done it, and AFAIK no one has been arrested and charged with violating their law, so it hasn't been tested.

No way to tell ahead of time if a court - especially a lower court - would read the rather narrow state preemption (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/State_Preemption_of_Some_Gun_Regulation) to include magazine capacity.

wash
08-27-2009, 1:40 PM
It's a relatively minor annoyance. There is no need to attack it when bigger issues like CCW and the not-unsafe handgun roster are out there.

Eventually we'll get to it...

CAL.BAR
08-27-2009, 3:11 PM
It's a relatively minor annoyance. There is no need to attack it when bigger issues like CCW and the not-unsafe handgun roster are out there.

Eventually we'll get to it...

I wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree. CCW is the minor issue. Even in counties where CCW's can be obtained the issuance is in the single digits of the percentage of the total population. Very few people care about CCW (really) And it is an issue that SCARES THE HELL out of most every non-gun person out there. It is VERY unpopular in KA.

10 rd mag on the other hand IS a big deal for a great number of CG'ers. Just search and see how many threads and posts have been dedicated to the issue. AR's are the most popular style of rifle being sold today, and the 10 rd thing is the easiest way to a felony I can think of for regular law-abiding folks.

If I stick a loaded gun on my hip and conceal it guess what = misdemeanor!
If I stick a "hi-cap" mag in my M4gery with a BB = FELONY
If I take my wonderful SOCOM II and unknowingly stick a pistol grip on in or stick a front vertical grip on it w/o pinning the mag = FELONY!
The differences between legally configured OLL and AW are miniscule and very convoluted (just look at the bloody flow chart!)


Which is more likely to hurt our membership?

Vtec44
08-27-2009, 3:21 PM
I'd rather us getting rid of the stupid "detachable magazine" law.

Dirk Tungsten
08-27-2009, 3:31 PM
I'd rather us getting rid of the stupid "detachable magazine" law.

QFT. There is no reason for this law, as there is very little difference in a rifle's operation once the magazine is actually in the magwell. Removing with a BB vs. pressing a button? No actual functional difference, really.

wash
08-27-2009, 3:46 PM
The minor issue I'm talking about is the ban of selling magazines over 10 rounds.

A Bullet Button with an 11 round fixed magazine type "assault weapon" is an "assault weapon" issue, not a magazine issue.

CCW is about getting the government to acknowledge the bear part of keep and bear arms. That is a huge issue even if few people will choose to get a CCW license.

Legal 17 round Glock magazines won't be worth spit if a reasonable form of carry isn't obtained or they GFSZ the whole state...

Magazines are minor.

artherd
08-27-2009, 3:46 PM
djandj-

You are commingling magazine law with AW law.

At CGF, we're fighting all of it - however we're starting with CCW and going from there.

Fjold
08-27-2009, 4:29 PM
"suites"?

I can recommend the suites at the Hotel Tropical in Manaus, Brazil but all the magazines are in Portughese.

tube_ee
08-27-2009, 5:05 PM
I wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree. CCW is the minor issue. Even in counties where CCW's can be obtained the issuance is in the single digits of the percentage of the total population. Very few people care about CCW (really) And it is an issue that SCARES THE HELL out of most every non-gun person out there. It is VERY unpopular in KA.


The observable fact is that shall-issue CCW laws are the most effective protection gun rights have ever had in this country.

So far as I know, no state that has gone shall-issue has ever passed any new supply-side gun control laws afterward. Not one.

What that says is that, as the people become accustomed to seeing the choice to be armed for self-defense as a legitimate option for the average citizen, they become more protective of gun rights in general, even if they do not themselves choose to exercise that option.

As the blood resolutely refuses to flow down the streets, Joe and Jane Citizen start considering the presence of legally-armed citizens as part of the fabric of their society. And it's much harder, mentally, to support taking a right away from your family members, friends and neighbors that it is to support an amorphous, not-targeted-at-anyone-I-know concept like "sensible gun control."

There's a reason that the anti-gun-rights orgs have opposed CCW liberalization so bitterly. It's because they know that there is nothing so destructive to their campaign against private ownership of firearms. And they're right. It is lethal to their agenda.

I will bet my freedoms (I am, actually, since I live here) that, if California goes shall-issue, there will never be another gun-control law passed in this state, and most of the other ones, including magazine capacity, will fall in short order.

This has been the case, without exception, everywhere that it's been tried. Shall-issue is the death of gun control.

--Shannon

postal
08-27-2009, 5:11 PM
The observable fact is that shall-issue CCW laws are the most effective protection gun rights have ever had in this country.

So far as I know, no state that has gone shall-issue has ever passed any new supply-side gun control laws afterward. Not one.

What that says is that, as the people become accustomed to seeing the choice to be armed for self-defense as a legitimate option for the average citizen, they become more protective of gun rights in general, even if they do not themselves choose to exercise that option.

As the blood resolutely refuses to flow down the streets, Joe and Jane Citizen start considering the presence of legally-armed citizens as part of the fabric of their society. And it's much harder, mentally, to support taking a right away from your family members, friends and neighbors that it is to support an amorphous, not-targeted-at-anyone-I-know concept like "sensible gun control."

There's a reason that the anti-gun-rights orgs have opposed CCW liberalization so bitterly. It's because they know that there is nothing so destructive to their campaign against private ownership of firearms. And they're right. It is lethal to their agenda.

I will bet my freedoms (I am, actually, since I live here) that, if California goes shall-issue, there will never be another gun-control law passed in this state, and most of the other ones, including magazine capacity, will fall in short order.

This has been the case, without exception, everywhere that it's been tried. Shall-issue is the death of gun control.

--Shannon


Interesting-

I hope you're right.

wash
08-27-2009, 5:24 PM
There has never been a state with laws like CA go shall issue.

I'm pretty sure there will be a fight for everything after CCW.

I strongly agree that responsible legal gun ownership hurts the anti's because it directly contradicts their "guns kill" slogan.

If crime rates measurably go down after shall issue because the thugs start to worry about their victims pulling out a gun, that's it, game over, there will be proof that restrictive gun laws have a negative effect on crime rates.

hoffmang
08-27-2009, 7:12 PM
Magazine capacity laws will be challenged. The issue in the short run is that they are closer cases with smaller net impact than the cases that have been prioritized. NRA is challenging magazine capacity restrictions in DC and should they be successful, those challenges will be imported back here.

-Gene

Seesm
08-27-2009, 9:28 PM
So who wants to be the first to get arrested and test this Richmond place out? :)

HondaMasterTech
08-27-2009, 9:33 PM
What good is 10 rounds in your gun if you have to leave it at home???

7x57
08-27-2009, 9:49 PM
So far as I know, no state that has gone shall-issue has ever passed any new supply-side gun control laws afterward. Not one.



I will bet my freedoms (I am, actually, since I live here) that, if California goes shall-issue, there will never be another gun-control law passed in this state, and most of the other ones, including magazine capacity, will fall in short order.

This has been the case, without exception, everywhere that it's been tried. Shall-issue is the death of gun control.


There has never been a state with laws like CA go shall issue.

I'm pretty sure there will be a fight for everything after CCW.


wash has a point here. While it's true that 80% of the states are shall-issue, they have less than half the population (or so I recall--I don't feel like looking it up). (ETA: well, I did look, and I was wrong (http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html): 64% of the US population lives in a shall-issue state.) So we cannot safely extrapolate from our data so far--crudely, the fight to get Montana to go shall-issue isn't so relevant to what would happen in New York. In essence, we've been cherry-picking the pro-gun states, as we should, building up the public's confidence that we are right that shall-issue is not a recipe for disaster.

But we're just about out of easy states. The ones left are the hardest, the great urban anti-gun fortresses, and we don't really know what will happen. I'm sure it will be good--but how good? Unfortunately, probably not as much as in Virginia.

Fortunately, there is another reason we can't really extrapolate--all our statistics are pre-Heller and pre-Incorporation. When we fight for shall-issue in the great urban anti-gun states, I trust we'll have more legal backing than we ever had. So again our data isn't that relevant, but this effect cuts in our favor.

7x57