PDA

View Full Version : Hi cap mags; the firearm has to have been available to civilians prior to the AWB?


froopah_loop
02-07-2010, 8:42 AM
There's one little issue I'm unclear on when it comes to legally possessing "hi cap" mags/"hi cap" mag parts.


I know that in a state with mag cap restrictions (CA specifically) a given firearm had to exist prior to the AWB for a CA resident to legally possess the magazines for the firearm. But what if the firearm existed prior to the AWB however it was not yet available to civilians until after the AWB? Can a resident of a state with mag cap restrictions then legally own "hi cap" mags/parts for the firearm in this instance?

I'm thinking the civilian availability issue is not a factor. And that so long as the weapon existed prior to the AWB then that so too would mean the mags for the weapon existed prior to the AWB..... And therefore, civilian availability or otherwise, the mags were nonetheless in circulation. But naturally since I'm unclear on the issue, I thought I would ask.

To be specific as to why I am asking well I think you can already tell why.... I am interested in a rifle that did indeed exist prior to the AWB however it only become available post-AWB in civilian form. I obviously do not own any pre-ban magazines for the rifle so no I would not intend to use the parts as rebuild kits but rather for use out of state.

Roadrunner
02-07-2010, 9:01 AM
I believe it became law in 2000 that persons cannot transfer from one to another a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds at a time. But there is nothing illegal about possessing those same magazines if you possessed them prior to 2000. The interesting part that comes into play is for police to be able to prove that you obtained them after the 2000 cutoff. For instance, I own several 20 and 30 round mags for an AR that I've had since the 70's. However, what if I obtained them after 2000? Sure it's "illegal" but short of someone snitching me off, how are they going to know, unless the firearm they are for didn't exist until after 2000. Or perhaps a mag made of a specific material didn't exist prior to 2000. That of course would be a problem. Another firearm I own is my Smith and Wesson 459 9mm pistol. It's perfectly legal for me to own and shoot with its 15 round mags. I bought it in the 80's.

froopah_loop
02-07-2010, 9:08 AM
Well I understand everything you said. And I thank you for your input.

But what I'm unclear on is whether the firearm had to be available in civilian-legal form (semi auto in other words) prior to the AWB in order to legally possess the "hi cap" magazines?

So to give a hypothetical example.... Say the FAL existed prior to the AWB but did not become available in civilian legal form until AFTER the AWB. We both know the FAL both existed and was available in civvie form prior to the AWB but I'm just using it as an example.

freonr22
02-07-2010, 9:09 AM
I believe there is a 2 year statute of limitations.....

CSACANNONEER
02-07-2010, 9:14 AM
There is no law stating that it is illegal to own a +10 round mag for a gun which did not exist prior to 2000. So, the rest of your hypothetical question is really moot.

SJgunguy24
02-07-2010, 9:17 AM
You do not have to prove anything. They (LEO's) have the burden of proof and you also have your constitutional right to remain silent.

Now if you have a box full of mags and a reciept from a week ago with the name of a store in Nevada then your toast.

I've been asked about my mags and my standard response is "I don't keep reciepts for stuff I bought 15 years ago with cash, do you officer?"

If the mags in question are for a newer firearm I wouldn't say anything. It doesn't matter really because possession isn't illegal, and you could build a 10 round mag with the parts.

GrizzlyGuy
02-07-2010, 9:19 AM
Here is the skinny on large capacity magazines (from the FAQ):

Magazine Questions (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Magazine_Questions)

In terms of parts and whether they existed before 2000 or not, see this one:

Can I use parts from new magazines that didn't exist before 2000 to repair and rebuild my old magazines (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_use_parts_from_new_magazines_that_didn.2 7t_exist_before_2000_to_repair_and_rebuild_my_old_ magazines.3F)?

froopah_loop
02-07-2010, 9:23 AM
Now if you have a box full of mags and a reciept from a week ago with the name of a store in Nevada then your toast.



I wouldn't intend to construct a completed mag with the parts. The parts would stay just parts. At least until I either A. Move (which I fully well intend to do since this state is horrendous for 2A issues.) Or B. travel out-of-state.

froopah_loop
02-07-2010, 9:25 AM
In terms of parts and whether they existed before 2000 or not, see this one:



I guess my concern is over propriety magazines that no other firearm but the firearm in question utilizes.

QuarterBoreGunner
02-07-2010, 9:27 AM
The date of origin of the firearm in question has absolutely no bearing on the possesion of standard capacity magazines for it; see the wiki for details. (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Is_possession_of_a_large_capacity_magazine_ill egal.3F) The law makes no mention of it. And the statue of limitations is 3 years:

CHS
02-07-2010, 9:29 AM
P90 magazines were available on the civilian market during the Federal AWB, and before the semi-auto civvie-legal firearm was actually available to the public.

Basically, nothing really matters because the hi-cap mag ban is basically unenforceable, and there are still legal ways in which someone can actually acquire hi-cap magazines.

froopah_loop
02-07-2010, 9:35 AM
P90 magazines were available on the civilian market during the Federal AWB, and before the semi-auto civvie-legal firearm was actually available to the public.



Ahhh okay there we go. That was my worry.

I was thinking (but obviously wasn't sure) that since a magazine is clearly not a controlled part/component that there is the distinct possibility a civvie could come into possession of at least the magazines for such a firearm even prior to the weapon existing in civvie legal format. Alright I think that quells my concerns.

Thanks, that answers my question.

Thanks to everyone else for chiming in, too. I am never the type to take people's help for granted so you input is greatly appreciated to say the least.

freonr22
02-07-2010, 9:54 AM
The date of origin of the firearm in question has absolutely no bearing on the possesion of standard capacity magazines for it; see the wiki for details. (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Is_possession_of_a_large_capacity_magazine_ill egal.3F) The law makes no mention of it. And the statue of limitations is 3 years:
thanks

Glock22Fan
02-07-2010, 12:00 PM
given firearm had to exist prior to the AWB for a CA resident to legally possess the magazines for the firearm.


Wrong. Possession is, as we keep saying, legal. As long as the magazines have been available for at least three years (counting up to the time that LEO asks you about them) and they can't prove that you imported, manufacured or bought them within those three years, then keep your mouth shut and you should be OK. Importing, manufacturing etc. is illegal, but if it is more than three years ago, you cannot be prosecuted for it, so (although you are a naughty person) you'll get away with it.

If they've been available for less than three years, then there could be a strong case that you must have done something illegal. Unless they could prove exactly what you did, it might be hard for them to get a conviction. "Well, members of the jury, we can see that he must have done something naughty, but we can't say exactly what or exactly when except that it must have been in the last three years."


Now if you have a box full of mags and a reciept from a week ago with the name of a store in Nevada and you are stupid enough to let the cops see the receipt then your toast.


My addition in bold.

Note, I am not encouraging people to deliberately do something illegal. Just pointing out that it you, mistakenly, did something you should not have done, then it is on the prosecution to prove that you did it in the last three years. As usual, the golden rule is "keep your mouth shut!"

bambam8d1
02-07-2010, 12:09 PM
sorry... computer glitch... posted twice

bambam8d1
02-07-2010, 12:12 PM
so for the younger guys who werent quite old enough to start their collection before the AWB and hicap mag laws came out.... they are pretty much SOL as far as being able to have hi cap mags yeah? Seeing as how they couldnt have legally bought them when they were available.

darkshier
02-07-2010, 12:16 PM
Yes, us younger guys are pretty much screwed when it comes to STANDARD capacity magazine. I really hate how just because of our age and birthdate, we can't buy the same mags as the guy at the range. Discrimination at its' finest.

rromeo
02-07-2010, 12:22 PM
so for the younger guys who werent quite old enough to start their collection before the AWB and hicap mag laws came out.... they are pretty much SOL as far as being able to have hi cap mags yeah? Seeing as how they couldnt have legally bought them when they were available.

Since you didn't have them before the ban, then yes you are screwed. Obviously, this sort of thing probably wasn't on your radar 10 years ago, but it still would have been legal for you to obtain them prior to January 2000.

CSACANNONEER
02-07-2010, 12:32 PM
so for the younger guys who werent quite old enough to start their collection before the AWB and hicap mag laws came out.... they are pretty much SOL as far as being able to have hi cap mags yeah? Seeing as how they couldnt have legally bought them when they were available.

Anyone born before 1-1-2000 could have legally owned +10 round mags before the ban. Yep, a 1 day old baby could have been legally given some. Or, a 4 year old kid could have legally walked into any retail outlet that sold them and bought some. There is not now, nor has there ever been any kind of age restrictions to own or purchase magazines. Also, it is not illegal for a 3 year old to own +10 round mags in California today. He/she might have a hard time explaining how he/she aquired them but, possession is not illegal.

Seesm
02-07-2010, 12:47 PM
nah... not true.

I have a old wooden box full of ammo and mags from my grandpa when he passed away. It smells like Hoppes and is a treasure trest full of stuff... Some not even sure what the parts fit. Just a cool old box full of ammo, oil, and magazines etc etc...

Anyone have anyone have a cheap M1 Carbine or a German Luger for sale? I have some mags for those ready to go...

IrishPirate
02-07-2010, 12:55 PM
so for the younger guys who werent quite old enough to start their collection before the AWB and hicap mag laws came out.... they are pretty much SOL as far as being able to have hi cap mags yeah? Seeing as how they couldnt have legally bought them when they were available.

Yes, us younger guys are pretty much screwed when it comes to STANDARD capacity magazine. I really hate how just because of our age and birthdate, we can't buy the same mags as the guy at the range. Discrimination at its' finest.

not true, your parents/other relatives or even some wack job off the street could have given them to you before the ban. There was no law about how old you had to be to own hi-cap mags. I know lots of grandparents who bought their grandkids a box of hi-cap mags before the ban. as long as you were born before 01/01/2000, you can legally posses hi-cap magazines......assuming you had them before the ban.

darkshier
02-07-2010, 1:02 PM
not true, your parents/other relatives or even some wack job off the street could have given them to you before the ban. There was no law about how old you had to be to own hi-cap mags. I know lots of grandparents who bought their grandkids a box of hi-cap mags before the ban. as long as you were born before 01/01/2000, you can legally posses hi-cap magazines......assuming you had them before the ban.

Unfortunately, not all of us have family that supports gun rights. Also, for my pistol, Springfield XD, that wasn't even made until after the ban, but yet I am still stuck with crippled magazines.

IrishPirate
02-07-2010, 1:07 PM
like i said though, ANYONE could have given you the magazines. it didn't have to be family. Also, since the AW ban expired in 04 and the statute of limitations is 3 years....even if you told a cop "yeah i thought it was ok to buy them again in 04 so when i was in reno i bought some parts kits and put them together over here" (which is not something you should do, i'm just saying hypothetically) you would be immune from prosecution. It's a very bad idea to have that be your defense, especially if you didn't own the gun prior to 04, and I'm sure it would cause a tremendous headache for you, but when you get down to the wire, the statute of limitations would be up and you would eventually be left alone. eventually.........

bwiese
02-07-2010, 1:42 PM
Let's stop the nonsense here about "found", "given", etc.

The hicap mag you have - if it's only specifically/uniquely for a make/model gun in production only after 2000 - will smell very bad.

Most folks here will try to explain it and talk themselves into jail instead.

There may be some wording-based handwaving defenses a lawyer might be able to use but do not rely on them, and those trying 'games' might well get burned.

For practical stay-outta-jail purposes hicap mags that you have should be for guns available pre-2000.

If anyone asks you origin of your mags, state ONLY: "PC 12020(c)(20) et seq magazine laws only ban hicap mag acquisitions after 1/1/2000. Those possessing them before this date in CA were allowed to continue to possess them. Contact my attorney if you have further questions."

RideIcon
02-07-2010, 7:15 PM
You found the magazine... no law broken

corrupt
02-07-2010, 7:15 PM
I have always been curious about what would happen if someone rebuilt a newer model firearm's hi-capacity magazine using a previously owned pre-ban magazine of a different firearm using say the spring. Obviously the pre-ban magazine body and follower, etc, would be destroyed. Then later the owner replaced that spring (could wear out, or just because). Obviously this wouldn't stop you from a cop or DA putting charges against you, but could it not be legal and plausible? I mean come on, it's just a damn magazine, we should be able to do what we want with the damn thing. That doesn't mean that one wouldn't be spending money on defense lawyers though... :(

leelaw
02-07-2010, 7:19 PM
You found the magazine... no law broken

Let's not go there. Suffice to say, you're gonna end up in hot water with your story.

I have always been curious about what would happen if someone rebuilt a newer model firearm's hi-capacity magazine using a previously owned pre-ban magazine of a different firearm using say the spring. Obviously the pre-ban magazine body and follower, etc, would be destroyed. Then later the owner replaced that spring (could wear out, or just because). Obviously this wouldn't stop you from a cop or DA putting charges against you, but could it not be legal and plausible? I mean come on, it's just a damn magazine, we should be able to do what we want with the damn thing. That doesn't mean that one wouldn't be spending money on defense lawyers though... :(

Rebuilding or modifying a magazine is lawful. In either case, the magazine must still operate in the firearm for which it was originally designed. If you're trying to convert a Glock to a Sig by reusing the spring, then you're going to run afoul of manufacturing.

corrupt
02-07-2010, 7:45 PM
Rebuilding or modifying a magazine is lawful. In either case, the magazine must still operate int he firearm for which it wa soriginally designed. If you're trying to convert a Glock to a Sig by reusing the spring, then you're going to run afoul of manufacturing.

Interesting. So where is the difference between "modifying" and "manufacturing" ? I'm guessing that it has something to do with the fact that you're converting a magazine to be used in a different firearm. I would be interested in seeing how this is expressed in law.

What would happen if you were to get a licensed manufacturer to convert these magazines for you? You could then even have a paper trail that could help you explain how you came to possess the magazines.

This is Cat, by the way ;)

bwiese
02-07-2010, 8:37 PM
Interesting. So where is the difference between "modifying" and "manufacturing" ? I'm guessing that it has something to do with the fact that you're converting a magazine to be used in a different firearm. I would be interested in seeing how this is expressed in law.

What would happen if you were to get a licensed manufacturer to convert these magazines for you? You could then even have a paper trail that could help you explain how you came to possess the magazines.

Little is expressed in the law other than "don't acquire/import/mfg new ones after 2000" [with certain exceptions to be later exploited], the fact that one can leave the state and return with their hicaps acquired/owned in CA before 2000, and a DOJ letter saying it's OK to import separated/disassembled magazine parts for lawful purposes (repair, or for building up legit 10-looks-like-30 mags).

Your questions really relate to "the law of conservation of hicapness" ;)

Existing legally-acquired/owned hicap mags can indeed be modified to work in other firearms - just as long as original functionality is not lost in that modification. smells really, really bad to have a unique single-usage-instance hicap mag for a unique gun (say, a S&W M&P pistol) that was not in production until way after 2000. A person finding himself in that situation and being questioned about it should say nothing and call a gun lawyer fast. (In fact, "say nothing" is a good general rule anyway....)

corrupt
02-07-2010, 8:48 PM
bwiese, thanks for your always informative posts!

Mstrty
02-07-2010, 9:45 PM
:thumbsup:bwiese:
Sigh? I think the usual posters should setup macros to answer these questions. The same top 10 "what if" get asked an answered time and again. I'm guilty of being sucked in by the subject only to read the same posts from the same people with the same responses to the same arguments. Most of you have the tolerance and dedication to help keep RKBA folks in line. My hats off to you guys. :thumbsup:

M. Sage
02-07-2010, 9:56 PM
There's one little issue I'm unclear on when it comes to legally possessing "hi cap" mags/"hi cap" mag parts.


I know that in a state with mag cap restrictions (CA specifically) a given firearm had to exist prior to the AWB for a CA resident to legally possess the magazines for the firearm. But what if the firearm existed prior to the AWB however it was not yet available to civilians until after the AWB? Can a resident of a state with mag cap restrictions then legally own "hi cap" mags/parts for the firearm in this instance?

I'm thinking the civilian availability issue is not a factor. And that so long as the weapon existed prior to the AWB then that so too would mean the mags for the weapon existed prior to the AWB..... And therefore, civilian availability or otherwise, the mags were nonetheless in circulation. But naturally since I'm unclear on the issue, I thought I would ask.

To be specific as to why I am asking well I think you can already tell why.... I am interested in a rifle that did indeed exist prior to the AWB however it only become available post-AWB in civilian form. I obviously do not own any pre-ban magazines for the rifle so no I would not intend to use the parts as rebuild kits but rather for use out of state.

It's very simple: You have to have been in possession of that magazine (you may rebuild it, including eventual replacement of all parts - this is considered the same magazine) in California prior to the ban's beginning in 2000. That's it, that's all.

RideIcon
02-08-2010, 12:29 AM
Let's not go there. Suffice to say, you're gonna end up in hot water with your story.


Without proof of importation, manufacture, purchase, lending, or anything else thats illegal, there is no way to get into "hot water"

leelaw
02-08-2010, 12:40 AM
Without proof of importation, manufacture, purchase, lending, or anything else thats illegal, there is no way to get into "hot water"

Your "I found it" story holds water as well as a sieve, as well as admits improper handling of found property.

Let's not play the cutesy "found it" games; they're counterproductive.

bigcalidave
02-08-2010, 1:48 AM
gag!

CHS
02-08-2010, 8:40 AM
Your "I found it" story holds water as well as a sieve, as well as admits improper handling of found property.

Let's not play the cutesy "found it" games; they're counterproductive.

If I find hi-cap mags in the trash of a private shooting range, and have permission to root through the trash of said private shooting range, there's no law that has been broken and no improper handling of found property.

There's nothing "cutesy" about it. No law has been broken.

macadamizer
02-08-2010, 2:31 PM
Without proof of importation, manufacture, purchase, lending, or anything else thats illegal, there is no way to get into "hot water"

People seem to think that the "proof" has to be a receipt or a videotape showing somebody importing the high-caps. If a DA wanted to make a case out of it, the "proof" would be an expert witness on the stand saying that no high cap magazines for that particular firearm were in private hands prior to cutoff date. That, along with the cop's testimony that he found you in possession of the high-caps, is going to be the "proof." The DA will make the case that the only way you could have them in your possession is if you imported them after the ban date. That might be enough evidence to convince a jury.

And before anyone pulls that "well, that's all just circumstantial evidence" card, remember that all evidence, other than eyewitness testimony, is some form of circumstantial evidence.

If I find hi-cap mags in the trash of a private shooting range, and have permission to root through the trash of said private shooting range, there's no law that has been broken and no improper handling of found property.

There's nothing "cutesy" about it. No law has been broken.

This will be your defense, presumably. How do you think that is going to look on cross examination? If the gun wasn't in California prior to the ban, then those magazines were illegally imported by someone, and you are the one found in possession -- you've essentially ended up with the "those aren't my drugs, I don't know who put them in my backpack defense..."

EDIT: And yes, I realize the comparison between high-caps and drugs in not completely applicable, because drugs are generally illegal to possess per se while high-caps are not -- but once the DA has proved up (sufficiently) that your high-caps are illegal (see above), then on cross exam, your "I found them" defense is about the same as the "I have no idea who put those drugs in the bag I was carrying" defense.

Look, is this likely to happen? It hasn't yet, seems unlikely at this point -- but could it happen? Sure.

railroader
02-08-2010, 5:10 PM
Let's stop the nonsense here about "found", "given", etc.

The hicap mag you have - if it's only specifically/uniquely for a make/model gun in production only after 2000 - will smell very bad.

Most folks here will try to explain it and talk themselves into jail instead.

There may be some wording-based handwaving defenses a lawyer might be able to use but do not rely on them, and those trying 'games' might well get burned.

For practical stay-outta-jail purposes hicap mags that you have should be for guns available pre-2000.

If anyone asks you origin of your mags, state ONLY: "PC 12020(c)(20) et seq magazine laws only ban hicap mag acquisitions after 1/1/2000. Those possessing them before this date in CA were allowed to continue to possess them. Contact my attorney if you have further questions."

I would also think if you have a gun that was designed and came out between 1994 and 2000 could be a problem too. The hicap mags that were sold for these guns during this time period would say "law enforcement only". Unless you were a LEO you couldn't of purchased those mags legally between 1994 and 2000. So you either bought them illegally pre 2000 or imported them illegally post 2000. It just seems like it would throw up a red flag. Mark

ke6guj
02-08-2010, 5:19 PM
People seem to think that the "proof" has to be a receipt or a videotape showing somebody importing the high-caps. If a DA wanted to make a case out of it, the "proof" would be an expert witness on the stand saying that no high cap magazines for that particular firearm were in private hands prior to cutoff date. That, along with the cop's testimony that he found you in possession of the high-caps, is going to be the "proof." The DA will make the case that the only way you could have them in your possession is if you imported them after the ban date. That might be enough evidence to convince a jury.

And before anyone pulls that "well, that's all just circumstantial evidence" card, remember that all evidence, other than eyewitness testimony, is some form of circumstantial evidence.



This will be your defense, presumably. How do you think that is going to look on cross examination? If the gun wasn't in California prior to the ban, then those magazines were illegally imported by someone, and you are the one found in possession -- you've essentially ended up with the "those aren't my drugs, I don't know who put them in my backpack defense..."

EDIT: And yes, I realize the comparison between high-caps and drugs in not completely applicable, because drugs are generally illegal to possess per se while high-caps are not -- but once the DA has proved up (sufficiently) that your high-caps are illegal (see above), then on cross exam, your "I found them" defense is about the same as the "I have no idea who put those drugs in the bag I was carrying" defense.

Look, is this likely to happen? It hasn't yet, seems unlikely at this point -- but could it happen? Sure.

As you mentioned, possession is not illegal, so I think the DA would have to prove that you imported or manufactured the magazine in question within 3-years of the arrest, which would push that 2000 date back to 2007. Any magazine design tht had never existing prior to 2007 would be "proof" that "something" illegal happened within hte statute of limitiations, but they would still have to prove that you were the one that committed the crime with that time frame.

bwiese
02-08-2010, 5:19 PM
I would also think if you have a gun that was designed and came out between 1994 and 2000 could be a problem too. The hicap mags that were sold for these guns during this time period would say "law enforcement only". Unless you were a LEO you couldn't of purchased those mags legally between 1994 and 2000. So you either bought them illegally pre 2000 or imported them illegally post 2000. It just seems like it would throw up a red flag. Mark

Reddish perhaps, but useless for CA law.

Also: not really probative since mags can be repaired and these could be readily be replacement parts.

ke6guj
02-08-2010, 5:22 PM
I would also think if you have a gun that was designed and came out between 1994 and 2000 could be a problem too. The hicap mags that were sold for these guns during this time period would say "law enforcement only". Unless you were a LEO you couldn't of purchased those mags legally between 1994 and 2000. So you either bought them illegally pre 2000 or imported them illegally post 2000. It just seems like it would throw up a red flag. MarkHow does the possibility that a person violated a federal law sometime between 1994 and 2000, a law that doesn't even exist anymore, apply to his possession of that magazine in 2010? Any violation of that federal law is most likely past any statute of limitations.


Also: not really probative since mags can be repaired and these could be readily be replacement parts.Right, covered by the following CADOJ letter, http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-large-cap-magazines-2005-11-10.pdf

bigcalidave
02-08-2010, 5:26 PM
How does the possibility that a person violated a federal law sometime between 1994 and 2000, a law that doesn't even exist anymore, apply to his possession of that magazine in 2010? Any violation of that federal law is past any statute of limitations.

You can't be prosecuted for violating a law that doesn't exist anymore.

macadamizer
02-08-2010, 5:37 PM
As you mentioned, possession is not illegal, so I think the DA would have to prove that you imported or manufactured the magazine in question within 3-years of the arrest, which would push that 2000 date back to 2007. Any magazine design tht had never existing prior to 2007 would be "proof" that "something" illegal happened within hte statute of limitiations, but they would still have to prove that you were the one that committed the crime with that time frame.

I'm not saying this would be a slam-dunk for a DA to prove -- it's mainly a rebuttal to those who seem to think that the whole "can't prove I didn't find it" or the statute of limitations is an automatic get-out-of-jail free card.

How a DA might date something is similar to the scenario given above -- bring in an expert, who opines that this is a new magazine made in the last couple of years. Does that "prove" that the defendant committed a crime? Of course not -- but were talking a lay jury here, not a group of gun aficionados (or even rights aficionados, for that matter). Jury hears "new magazine," gets the law read to them, and then will reach their own conclusions.

Maybe the defendant's expert will be able to poke holes in the DA's story, point out the rebuild issue, that possession isn't a crime (although I think the story that "finding" these cool magazines at a range is probably a weak jury argument) -- my only point is that none of this is a slam dunk, get-out-of-jail-free card for someone who "finds" said magazines, and is going to rely on the DA not being able to prove importation or manufacture as a defense.

Fortunately, it appears that no DA's have really bothered to go after anyone on this. But it's not a risk I would take, that's for sure.

SJgunguy24
02-08-2010, 9:08 PM
You can't be prosecuted for violating a law that doesn't exist anymore.

I wouldn't think so. If that were true how many people would go down for drinking alcohol? I mean at one time it was illegal.

steelrain82
02-09-2010, 1:53 AM
thank goodness i had bought a bunch of mags on my own to shoot my dads guns with before the ban. especially since i was only 18 when the law went into effect. now im lucky enough to own and use standard mags in featurless weapons.

ap3572001
02-09-2010, 8:25 AM
I think I said this before. IN CA pistols like: Browning High Power, Beretta 92FS, Sig p226/228 and a whole bunch of Smith and Wessons are good guns to have. The magazines for these guns were made for many years..........

SixPointEight
02-09-2010, 9:15 AM
I might be mistaken, but it seems to me a lot of you are assuming that aquiring high cap mags right now is illegal. It is not. It is not illegal to buy them, it is not illegal to receive them, and it is not illegal to possess them. Those are the facts. You can walk into a police station with a grocery cart full of 30 round AR mags, swear on the bible that you purchased half of them in an alley yesterday in Compton, the other half were birthday presents, and they wouldn't have a case. Just don't get into the selling & loaning/maufacturing/importation business, leave that to the FFL's and armored car operators.


This is how the law is written. In their own words, buying a mag of full capacity is legal. Selling/loaning/giving etc is not legal.

Glock22Fan
02-09-2010, 11:53 AM
It is not illegal to buy them,


Holy Moley, how many times does it have to be pointed out that assisting someone to commit the crime of selling a high cap mag is illegal?

RideIcon
02-09-2010, 2:03 PM
Holy Moley, how many times does it have to be pointed out that assisting someone to commit the crime of selling a high cap mag is illegal?

:rolleyes:

CSACANNONEER
02-09-2010, 2:27 PM
Holy Moley, how many times does it have to be pointed out that assisting someone to commit the crime of selling a high cap mag is illegal?

I don't believe that someone would HAVE TO commit a crime when selling +10 round mags in Ca. I beleive that it would be legal for someone with a Hi-Cap mag permit to sell them but, it would also give DOJ a reason to pull their permit since it was issued with certain conditions. I son't recommend that anyone with a Hi-Cap permit ever try this though and, I don't have one in front of me to actually read it. I'm just going out on a limb and taking a guess. Also, I have FOUND broken +10 round 10-22 mags in the trash when I worked at a range. I have more than enough already so, I left the cheap and broken beyond repair Eagle mags where they belonged! Finding mags can happen but, I would not risk trying to convince a judge or jury that I found them. It's not worth the legal fees!

joefrank64k
02-09-2010, 4:16 PM
If I find hi-cap mags in the trash of a private shooting range, and have permission to root through the trash of said private shooting range, there's no law that has been broken and no improper handling of found property.

There's nothing "cutesy" about it. No law has been broken.

There is California 485pc to think about:

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him
knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who
appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another
person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just
efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is
guilty of theft.

Now is it "lost" when it's in the trash can as opposed to lying on a shooting bench or in a range bag? Probably not...so 485 may not apply.

Does an unmarked mag give you "knowledge or means of inquiry as to the true owner"? Again, probably not...

And if so, what exactly is a "reasonable and just" effort to find the owner? If you've got this far, then is posting a "found magazine" sign at the range for a couple of weeks "reasonable and just?" Who knows....

I guess the bottom line, like Gene says, is keep you fool mouth shut! :D

CHS
02-09-2010, 4:21 PM
I can't imagine 485pc could ever apply to shooting detritus found in a garbage can of a shooting range. Especially if it's pretty clear that someone actually threw it away.

GrizzlyGuy
02-09-2010, 4:28 PM
Holy Moley, how many times does it have to be pointed out that assisting someone to commit the crime of selling a high cap mag is illegal?

I think you're referring to the crime of conspiracy (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3660222&postcount=190). That's what we came up with the last time this came up (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=242136&page=20).

Glock22Fan
02-09-2010, 5:07 PM
I think you're referring to the crime of conspiracy (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3660222&postcount=190). That's what we came up with the last time this came up (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=242136&page=20).

That's what people have said over here. In England we would call it being an accessory to the crime, usually reserving conspiracy for something a little more underground. Being charged as an accessory can be as slight as knowing about a crime, before or after its execution, and not informing the authorities, or as serious as helping someone bury the body.

GW
02-09-2010, 5:45 PM
I know that in a state with mag cap restrictions (CA specifically) a given firearm had to exist prior to the AWB for a CA resident to legally possess the magazines for the firearm.

Not necessarily The Kel-Tec SU-16 did not exist prior to the ban but it accepts AR-15 style magazines. So my "post ban" SU-16 can legally hold/load/shoot "pre-ban" magazines.

joefrank64k
02-09-2010, 6:12 PM
I can't imagine 485pc could ever apply to shooting detritus found in a garbage can of a shooting range. Especially if it's pretty clear that someone actually threw it away.

Agreed...just a thought experiment! :D