PDA

View Full Version : police officer told my Brother in CA wheres you reciept for that Magazine


RugerFan777
03-01-2010, 4:16 PM
My brother was at the range the other day and a sheriff asked wheres his receipt for a magazine for his glock 17 which was a 17 rounder. He told him he didn't have one because he bought it in 1995. The Officer told him next time he would arrest him for having a assault weapon, receipts must be kept with magazines over 10 rounds even if he bought them 50 years ago.

Is this legal?

Scratch705
03-01-2010, 4:18 PM
nope.

no laws saying that the person needs to keep proof of purchase. the burden is on the state to prove he did break the law to get that 17 rounder. or else they got nothing

odysseus
03-01-2010, 4:20 PM
My brother was at the range the other day and a sheriff asked wheres his receipt for a magazine for his glock 17 which was a 17 rounder. He told him he didn't have one because he bought it in 1995. The Officer told him next time he would arrest him for having a assault weapon, receipts must be kept with magazines over 10 rounds even if he bought them 50 years ago.

Is this legal?

No of course not. It is FUD. Was this guy in uniform?

Rover
03-01-2010, 4:21 PM
Wouldn't be an assault weapon anyway unless it had other features. The only thing the State could get him on is illegal construction/importation of a high-cap, and that would require some proof that he did it in an illegal way.

paul0660
03-01-2010, 4:22 PM
6 posts. Did it happen? We on this forum, including myself, get riled up too easily.

lawaia
03-01-2010, 4:22 PM
He didn't arrest your brother that day for a reason.:D

jdogg2000
03-01-2010, 4:39 PM
My brother was at the range the other day and a sheriff asked wheres his receipt for a magazine for his glock 17 which was a 17 rounder. He told him he didn't have one because he bought it in 1995. The Officer told him next time he would arrest him for having a assault weapon, receipts must be kept with magazines over 10 rounds even if he bought them 50 years ago.

Is this legal?

Hahahah, you need a receipt even if you bought it 50 years ago!? You better tell the policeman to keep his receipt for his car because in 50 years burning gasoline might be a felony.

zeekster
03-01-2010, 4:39 PM
:fud: on the deputy's behalf

zeekster
03-01-2010, 4:40 PM
Hahahah, you need a receipt even if you bought it 50 years ago!? You better tell the policeman to keep his receipt for his car because in 50 years burning gasoline might be a felony.

LMAO :rofl2:

lorax3
03-01-2010, 4:44 PM
To start, a factory (non-threaded) Glock with a large-capacity magazine would not be an Assault Weapon.

Next time, ask the officer if he keeps receipts for things he purchased with cash 20 years ago.

Or say nothing at all.

kenjimatic
03-01-2010, 4:51 PM
6 posts. Did it happen? We on this forum, including myself, get riled up too easily.
^^ I agree

That reminds me of the "wise" GunRoom guys who says "you can't have any ammo in the same container as your pistols" and I had one(1) .40s&w round in the locked container with my 9mm pistol. :D

Joe
03-01-2010, 4:56 PM
Who keeps receipts for anything they buy. Unless I need it for possible warranty purposes, it goes in the trash.

this

John03
03-01-2010, 4:56 PM
I wonder if that cop will end up on hoarders.

grammaton76
03-01-2010, 4:57 PM
^^ I agree

That reminds me of the "wise" GunRoom guys who says "you can't have any ammo in the same container as your pistols" and I had one(1) .40s&w round in the locked container with my 9mm pistol. :D

While wrong, this is something LEOs continually are being corrected on.

It's reasonable to, in a shop or range, advise people of this commonly held LEO belief.

Back in my pre-Calguns days, a range employee at Iron Sights informed me of that in exactly those terms. "This is legal, but just so you know a lot of LEOs think it's illegal so you probably shouldn't do it unless you just want to get hassled for it."

pingpong
03-01-2010, 5:26 PM
Call his bluff. You know you wanna do it.

odysseus
03-01-2010, 5:26 PM
i swear its like they are purposely ignorant so after the fact they can claim "acted in good faith under their understanding of the law"

It may be a case of the LEO (again assuming, the OP hasn't replied) simply not liking the guy having it there and just going over to him and harass him about it. Back before the OLL craze, going around with a Reg AW would regularly bring out someone at the public range querying me like I had to justify myself for having one. Just pure jealousy most of the time.

I have seen stuff like that before, just odd jealousy or some tweak that makes a person simply be mean for no good reason except they can.

qaz987
03-01-2010, 6:03 PM
Which range?

whitey
03-01-2010, 7:17 PM
I have a dumb question What dose FUD mean i know something about police

ke6guj
03-01-2010, 7:23 PM
FUD = fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Basically means BS.

Ding126
03-01-2010, 7:38 PM
should of got his name, the department he works for and speak to his superior...I would call it harrasment. The lack of education on the officer/deputies behalf is unacceptable for him to threaten you with arrest

SickofSoCal
03-01-2010, 7:44 PM
My brother was at the range the other day and a sheriff asked wheres his receipt for a magazine for his glock 17 which was a 17 rounder. He told him he didn't have one because he bought it in 1995. The Officer told him next time he would arrest him for having a assault weapon, receipts must be kept with magazines over 10 rounds even if he bought them 50 years ago.

Is this legal?

Judge, Jury, & Executioner............or so he thinks.

five.five-six
03-01-2010, 7:51 PM
Judge, Jury, & Executioner............or so he thinks.

that's such a great idea...


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QKdPxQutiGA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QKdPxQutiGA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Mstrty
03-01-2010, 7:59 PM
Hahahah, you need a receipt even if you bought it 50 years ago!? You better tell the policeman to keep his receipt for his car because in 50 years burning gasoline might be a felony.

I thought it was Illegal to burn gasoline? Who knew?

Fate
03-01-2010, 8:00 PM
[internet toughguy]I woulda laughed in his face and said, "Why wait until next time?"[/internet toughguy]

pogo
03-01-2010, 9:08 PM
I have a dumb question What dose FUD mean i know something about police
It's "effed up disinformation" in my book, but "fear, uncertainty and doubt" certainly works just as well.
should of got his name, the department he works for and speak to his superior...I would call it harrasment. ...
Exactly! The officer is ignorant of the law here and he (and perhaps his department) needs an education about this.

otteray
03-01-2010, 9:10 PM
I was at a local range recently where a leo was letting another (from a different agency) try out his
Glock.
The former told the latter that, hey, it has hi cap mags and only they can use them.
The regular citizen can't have hi cap mags, he laughed. He seemed so pleased.
I bit my tongue and kept my mouth shut in total amazement that this belief actually exists, even though it it one of the few gun laws that is very clearly written. (Well, compared to most of the other laws, anyway)

ledman
03-01-2010, 9:22 PM
Cops never want to think that Cilvilians know more about gun laws than they do...I mean, come on, we are just dumb civilians, what would we know about owing guns and hi-cap mags in CA?

CSACANNONEER
03-01-2010, 9:25 PM
Hell, I don't even have reciepts for the high cap mags I bought last week, let alone those I bought +20 years ago!







J/K

sorensen440
03-01-2010, 9:26 PM
I don't believe this actually happened

Beelzy
03-01-2010, 9:26 PM
I would have made him repeat himself......Then Belly-Laughed so loud everyone would notice.

But that's just the kind of guy I am.

SJgunguy24
03-01-2010, 9:32 PM
Next time, ask the officer if he keeps receipts for things he purchased with cash 20 years ago.



Stealing my line;)

My standard answer. Execpt I say 15 years ago.

tbhracing
03-01-2010, 9:35 PM
Ummm, Officer. They are not illegal to have. Just buy, sell and trade. But being how youre so well briefed on the current laws of our state, I am sure you already knew that.

The Blind Gunman
03-01-2010, 9:47 PM
nope.

no laws saying that the person needs to keep proof of purchase. the burden is on the state to prove he did break the law to get that 17 rounder. or else they got nothing

They could check when you took ownership of the firearm if they were to prosecute you. Depending on whether you bought it after the law was introduced which prohibits magazines more then the capacity of 10 rounds which they could find you guilty based on collaborative evidence and/or circumstantial evidence.

If you bought the firearm before the law was introduced it can be deducted that you bought the magazine at the same time the firearm was purchased. If this is the case your in the clear.

If you bought the firearm after the law was introduced the burden of proof would fall on the prosecutor to prove that you bought the illegal 17 round magazine. He could easily argue that you bought it online.

But don't take my word for it.

SJgunguy24
03-01-2010, 9:53 PM
They could check when you took ownership of the firearm if they were to prosecute you. Depending on whether or not you bought it before the law was introduced which prohibits magazines more then the capacity of 10 rounds which they could find you guilty based on collaborative evidence and/or circumstantial evidence.

If you bought the firearm before the law was introduced it can be deducted that you bought the magazine at the same time the firearm was purchased. If this is the case your in the clear.

If you bought the firearm after the law was introduced the burden of proof would fall on the prosecutor to prove that you bought the illegal 17 round magazine. He could easily argue that you bought it online.

But don't take my word for it.


I have mags for guns I don't own, but I thought ahead and picked them up anyway.

Argue all he wants but if a cop arrests you for a legally owned mag then he has serious issues and should be put into traffic enforcment, at least there he will be doing something to make the world safer.

Scratch705
03-01-2010, 9:53 PM
They could check when you took ownership of the firearm if they were to prosecute you. Depending on whether or not you bought it before the law was introduced which prohibits magazines more then the capacity of 10 rounds which they could find you guilty based on collaborative evidence and/or circumstantial evidence.

If you bought the firearm before the law was introduced it can be deducted that you bought the magazine at the same time the firearm was purchased. If this is the case your in the clear.

If you bought the firearm after the law was introduced the burden of proof would fall on the prosecutor to prove that you bought the illegal 17 round magazine. He could easily argue that you bought it online.

But don't take my word for it.

this part doesn't make sense, as many members here have stated they bought "hi-caps" right before the ban took place without even owning the guns that it belonged to. or members that did own guns but sold them, and kept the magazines, and they can still be used in newer versions of the guns, (glock comes to mind)

or those that found the magazines maybe carelessly dropped in BLM areas or where ever.

or those that broke the law, but hide the magazines for 3 years, and thus be free and clear by the statute of limitations

or the magazine is a 10 rounder for a certain caliber but can be used effectively when loading another caliber and load over 10 rounds. (the 50 beowulf magazines, 10 rounds for .50 beowulf but 30 rounds .223/5.56, or .40s&w mags can put 12 rounds 9mm for glocks.)

The Blind Gunman
03-01-2010, 10:06 PM
this part doesn't make sense, as many members here have stated they bought "hi-caps" right before the ban took place without even owning the guns that it belonged to. or members that did own guns but sold them, and kept the magazines, and they can still be used in newer versions of the guns, (glock comes to mind)

or those that found the magazines maybe carelessly dropped in BLM areas or where ever.

or those that broke the law, but hide the magazines for 3 years, and thus be free and clear by the statute of limitations

or the magazine is a 10 rounder for a certain caliber but can be used effectively when loading another caliber and load over 10 rounds. (the 50 beowulf magazines, 10 rounds for .50 beowulf but 30 rounds .223/5.56, or .40s&w mags can put 12 rounds 9mm for glocks.)

In my opinion that is like saying I bought a marijuana plant before marijuana became illegal. As far as I'm concerned that magazine is contraband and having no evidence that you bought it before the ban means that your sitting in hot water.

Furthermore statute of limitation applies if you have been charged or have had a police report and that the timer starts then.

Scratch705
03-01-2010, 10:08 PM
that comparison doesn't make sense. since the possession of a marijuana plant is illegal.

possession of a hi-cap mag isn't. only import, buying, selling is.

as for statute of limitations, it starts when you commit the crime. how you think some rapist get away with it, or child molestors. the timer starts with the commission of the crime, not when you get charged with the crime.

The Blind Gunman
03-01-2010, 10:13 PM
But what is to bail you out if you have no proof that you bought it before the ban?
your saying possession of a high-capacity magazine isn't illegal?

Scratch705
03-01-2010, 10:15 PM
But what is to bail you out if you have no proof that you bought it before the ban?
your saying possession of a high-capacity magazine isn't illegal?

bail out from what? the burden of proof is on the state. if they arrest you for just "hi-caps" just shut your mouth(5th amendment), call one of the lawyers that know gun laws in CA (most likely from the CGF) and let them do all the work.

i'm not saying it isn't, the california penal code says it isn't.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions

The Blind Gunman
03-01-2010, 10:16 PM
i'm not saying it isn't, the california penal code says it isn't.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions

wiki websites are not reliable sources to cite.

The Blind Gunman
03-01-2010, 10:18 PM
bail out from what? the burden of proof is on the state. if they arrest you for just "hi-caps" just shut your mouth(5th amendment), call one of the lawyers that know gun laws in CA (most likely from the CGF) and let them do all the work.

i'm not saying it isn't, the california penal code says it isn't.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions


oh you know what a wobbler is right? It can either be considered a felony or a misdemeanor. it doesn't mean its not illegal to own.

Scratch705
03-01-2010, 10:19 PM
did you even read the page? it lists the california penal code, which you can look up yourself on official ca government websites.

and if you don't believe me, then w/e, keep believing that you can't own hi-caps, while i and others enjoy them

edit: and the wobbler only determines the amount of years for statute of limitations. a misdemeanor is 2 years while felony is 3. so hence why i said if someone hides it for 3 years, they can bring it out afterwards and use it free and clear.

The Blind Gunman
03-01-2010, 10:25 PM
did you even read the page? it lists the california penal code, which you can look up yourself on official ca government websites.

and if you don't believe me, then w/e, keep believing that you can't own hi-caps, while i and others enjoy them

yeah I did check out the web page and it only takes tidbits of the laws and it doesn't even cite the whole definition of the laws making it construed. Like I said wiki websites are not reliable sources to cite. It doesn't even give the full definition of the Statute of Limitations. Website is broken and im not about to bust out my penal code book.

I'm just going off of our conversation and what you have brought to the table is backed by another unreliable wiki website.

I'll check the laws out of curiosity at this point. This raises a good question about high-capacity magazines.

djm315
03-01-2010, 10:26 PM
But what is to bail you out if you have no proof that you bought it before the ban?
your saying possession of a high-capacity magazine isn't illegal?

The simple possession of h/c mags is not regulated by law , you dont have to have proof of when you bought it , they "LEO/DA" must prove that you committed a crime by import,manufacture,buy or sell. Just saying I think you just bought is nowhere near the burden of proof .

ledman
03-01-2010, 10:26 PM
Show me where it says you are not allowed to Posses Hi-Cap mags?

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php

J-cat
03-01-2010, 10:27 PM
The statute of limitations on this felony is three years. It begins running from the time the felony is comitted, not when it is discovered. Even if the DA wanted to pursue the case using circumstantial evidence (which is just ridiculus) they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you obtained the magazine after the ban and within the statute of limitations. They have a better chance of winning the lottery.

djm315
03-01-2010, 10:29 PM
yeah I did check out the web page and it only takes tidbits of the laws and it doesn't even cite the whole definition of the laws making it construed. Like I said wiki websites are not reliable sources to cite. It doesn't even give the full definition of the Statute of Limitations. Website is broken and im not about to bust out my penal code book.

I'm just going off of our conversation and what you have brought to the table is backed by another unreliable wiki website.

I'll check the laws out of curiosity at this point. This raises a good question about high-capacity magazines.

Dude , just give it up ,its only going to get uglier from here.

Barkoff
03-01-2010, 10:30 PM
I was at a local range recently where a leo was letting another (from a different agency) try out his
Glock.
The former told the latter that, hey, it has hi cap mags and only they can use them.
The regular citizen can't have hi cap mags, he laughed. He seemed so pleased.
I bit my tongue and kept my mouth shut in total amazement that this belief actually exists, even though it it one of the few gun laws that is very clearly written. (Well, compared to most of the other laws, anyway)

Enlighten me, I thought that was true.

The Blind Gunman
03-01-2010, 10:31 PM
I'll look into this. I want to provide a reliable truthful answer. I'll know for sure and let you all know by tomorrow. For all I know you could be right but your not really providing anything to prove it.

I'll get to the bottom of this.

The Blind Gunman
03-01-2010, 10:33 PM
Enlighten me, I thought that was true.

oh **** lol

djm315
03-01-2010, 10:35 PM
I'll look into this. I want to provide a reliable truthful answer. I'll know for sure and let you all know by tomorrow. For all I know you could be right but your not really providing anything to prove it.

I'll get to the bottom of this.

Try this

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709&highlight=high+capacity+magazine

Barkoff
03-01-2010, 10:37 PM
Don't new magazines have part numbers from the manufacture that might identify them as newer mags?

So if you buy a high cap mag manufactured before 2000 from a friend out of state, it is up to the state of CA to prove that you didn't buy it yourself prior to 2000?

Scratch705
03-01-2010, 10:39 PM
the wiki page is credible since it wasn't created by some random dude on the street, the big guys at the CGF, Calguns Foundation were the ones that made the calguns foundation wiki section, and only they can edit it. got new info, anyone can edit, but should be corrected quickly by those in the know.

and sure the Penal Code is cut, only because that small paragraph pertains to gun magazines. the rest of it either has nothing to do with guns
example:
(3)As used in this section, a "nunchaku" means an instrument consisting of two or more sticks, clubs, bars or rods to be used as handles, connected by a rope, cord, wire, or chain, in the design of a weapon used in connection with the practice of a system of self-defense such as karate.
or takes about short barreled shotguns or C&R guns. or tracer ammo for shotguns.

Don't new magazines have part numbers from the manufacture that might identify them as newer mags?

So if you buy a high cap mag manufactured before 2000 from a friend out of state, it is up to the state of CA to prove that you didn't buy it yourself prior to 2000?

this still wouldn't matter b/c you are allowed to rebuild/repair any "hi-caps" you do own already. as long as you end up with the same amount of mags it doesn't matter. (ie if you have 5 old "hi-caps" you can buy 5 rebuild kits, destroy/take apart/replace parts on the old mags w/ rebuild kit, and end up with still just 5 "hi-caps" will be legal.)

The Blind Gunman
03-01-2010, 10:41 PM
Try this

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709&highlight=high+capacity+magazine

yeah thats pretty good :)

djm315
03-01-2010, 10:42 PM
The search function does work

lorax3
03-01-2010, 10:43 PM
the wiki page is credible since it wasn't created by some random dude on the street, the big guys at the CGF, Calguns Foundation were the ones that made the calguns foundation wiki section, and only they can edit it.

Actually anyone can edit the wiki as long as you are logged in. As with any source it should be used as a starting point and verified by the written statute and case law.

1 SIG fan
03-01-2010, 10:43 PM
I have brand new 30rnd magazines. I used them as parts kits to rebuild the damaged metal body mags I've owned for over 10 years. I ahve a sweet new Tango down mag, because it rebuilt one of my busted standard mags. My total 30rnd mag count hasn't changed, just the worn out parts have been replaced with fresh new parts to maintain the same qty. of mags.
Hence new mags (even ones marked LE ONLY) are legal.

ke6guj
03-01-2010, 10:44 PM
the wiki page is credible since it wasn't created by some random dude on the street, the big guys at the CGF, Calguns Foundation were the ones that made the calguns foundation wiki section, and only they can edit it.
.

actually anybody can edit that wiki, so you still have to look at the info on it through your own personal filter. That said, any major errors on it would probably be quickly edited by someone that knew the correct info.

Scratch705
03-01-2010, 10:45 PM
Actually anyone can edit the wiki as long as you are logged in. As with any source it should be used as a starting point and verified by the written statute and case law.

actually anybody can edit that wiki, so you still have to look at the info on it through your own personal filter. That said, any major errors on it would probably be quickly edited by someone that knew the correct info.

did not know that. i just thought it was locked due to not having that usual wiki edit button available even when not logged in.

lorax3
03-01-2010, 10:46 PM
You will have to lie about this, but if you are willing to lie, then it is up to the state to prove you bought it post 2000.
The ability on the state to prove such a crime occurred is already extremely difficult. Please do not suggest illegally importing large-capacity magazines or committing perjury.

SJgunguy24
03-01-2010, 10:51 PM
I'll look into this. I want to provide a reliable truthful answer. I'll know for sure and let you all know by tomorrow. For all I know you could be right but your not really providing anything to prove it.

I'll get to the bottom of this.

Heres the bottom of it. CA penal code 12020, or at least part of it.
Oh another thing, if you don't beleive what you read on the gunwiki site, stop looking at Calguns right now. That was the idea of calgunners and is maintained by calgunners. There are several who go through that site just to make sure everything is GTG.

Now if you read this law, there isn't anywhere that says possession isn't legal. Possession is 100% legal. I don't need to show anybody a receipt for jack sh*t, and if officer nice thinks it's illegal, thats great. I don't care what he thinks, show me the PC and i'll comply, untill then have a nice day.


(19) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.
(23) The importation of a large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000, lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with the large-capacity magazine previously lawfully possessed in the state.
(24) The lending or giving of any large-capacity magazine to a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071, or to a gunsmith, for the purposes of maintenance, repair, or modification of that large-capacity magazine.
(25) The return to its owner of any large-capacity magazine by a person specified in paragraph (24).
(26) The importation into this state of, or sale of, any large-capacity magazine by a person who has been issued a permit to engage in those activities pursuant to Section 12079, when those activities are in accordance with the terms and conditions of that permit.
(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.
(28) The lending of large-capacity magazines by the entities specified in paragraph (27) to their authorized employees, while in the course and scope of their employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's armored vehicle business.
(29) The return of those large-capacity magazines to those entities specified in paragraph (27) by those employees specified in paragraph (28).
(30)(A) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(B) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for use by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.

(C) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for export or for sale to government agencies or the military pursuant to applicable federal regulations.

(31) The loan of a large-capacity magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production.

(32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes:

(A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production.

(B) For export pursuant to federal regulations.
(C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations.

five.five-six
03-01-2010, 10:54 PM
OK, admittedly, I did not read every post in this thread.... but... in america, the burden of proof that a crime was committed is on the prosecution. you don't need a recipt.... they need a receipt, or an admission of guilt....


http://thatssofetch.com/images/facepalm2.jpg

.40Cal
03-01-2010, 11:03 PM
nope.

no laws saying that the person needs to keep proof of purchase. the burden is on the state to prove he did break the law to get that 17 rounder. or else they got nothing

It's a noob questions - If that were ture, couldn't someone buy a new 17 round mag yesterday and say I've had it since 1995? ... I'm just asking as a noob, so don't mind my silly question.

djm315
03-01-2010, 11:04 PM
Heres the bottom of it. CA penal code 12020, or at least part of it.
Oh another thing, if you don't beleive what you read on the gunwiki site, stop looking at Calguns right now. That was the idea of calgunners and is maintained by calgunners. There are several who go through that site just to make sure everything is GTG.

Now if you read this law, there isn't anywhere that says possession isn't legal. Possession is 100% legal. I don't need to show anybody a receipt for jack sh*t, and if officer nice thinks it's illegal, thats great. I don't care what he thinks, show me the PC and i'll comply, untill then have a nice day.


(19) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.
(23) The importation of a large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000, lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with the large-capacity magazine previously lawfully possessed in the state.
(24) The lending or giving of any large-capacity magazine to a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071, or to a gunsmith, for the purposes of maintenance, repair, or modification of that large-capacity magazine.
(25) The return to its owner of any large-capacity magazine by a person specified in paragraph (24).
(26) The importation into this state of, or sale of, any large-capacity magazine by a person who has been issued a permit to engage in those activities pursuant to Section 12079, when those activities are in accordance with the terms and conditions of that permit.
(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.
(28) The lending of large-capacity magazines by the entities specified in paragraph (27) to their authorized employees, while in the course and scope of their employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's armored vehicle business.
(29) The return of those large-capacity magazines to those entities specified in paragraph (27) by those employees specified in paragraph (28).
(30)(A) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(B) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for use by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.

(C) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for export or for sale to government agencies or the military pursuant to applicable federal regulations.

(31) The loan of a large-capacity magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production.

(32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes:

(A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production.

(B) For export pursuant to federal regulations.
(C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations.


I think he got it now , lol...

Mstnpete
03-01-2010, 11:09 PM
I always keep a copy of the dros.
These will show when the Hi-capped pistol was purchased.

Scratch705
03-01-2010, 11:31 PM
The ability on the state to prove such a crime occurred is already extremely difficult. Please do not suggest illegally importing large-capacity magazines or committing perjury.

It's a noob questions - If that were ture, couldn't someone buy a new 17 round mag yesterday and say I've had it since 1995? ... I'm just asking as a noob, so don't mind my silly question.

answered by lorax.

its up to you. i can't tell you how to act or use the poorly written law to your advantage. ;)

9mmepiphany
03-01-2010, 11:38 PM
These will show when the Hi-capped pistol was purchased.
when a pistol was purchase has nothing to do with when the magazine was legally obtained. as already stated, some of us thought ahead and bought magazines for any high cap mag we thought we'd ever buy in the future.

among others, i have mags for the S&W 59/459/5904 pistols i have never owned and i have mags for pistols i've since sold, but which i can use in someone elses gun

oaklander
03-01-2010, 11:41 PM
THAT one is reliable. . .

:chris:

wiki websites are not reliable sources to cite.

oaklander
03-01-2010, 11:52 PM
Which range? I am sure that we can get some Calgunners to go there next time that Sheriff shows up, and do some educational outreach. If it's in the Bay Area, I would be happy to talk to him.

My brother was at the range the other day and a sheriff asked wheres his receipt for a magazine for his glock 17 which was a 17 rounder. He told him he didn't have one because he bought it in 1995. The Officer told him next time he would arrest him for having a assault weapon, receipts must be kept with magazines over 10 rounds even if he bought them 50 years ago.

Is this legal?

lorax3
03-02-2010, 12:00 AM
I have been LEO over 16 years and know better. Also , a Glock 17 with ANY magazine is NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON

A Glock 17 with a fixed magazine holding over ten rounds would be an Assault Weapon. :)

Turbinator
03-02-2010, 12:01 AM
Wow, I'm surprised how many Calgunners don't know the laws related to hicap mags. New guys, please keep an open mind and read up. There's a whole lot of learning y'alls need to do here.

Turby

trendar5
03-02-2010, 12:02 AM
"The only thing more odious than a badge-heavy cop, is an ignorant badge-heavy cop. Call his bluff: take him to court." -LEOLEO

Question? Take him to court for what? Do you get the Judge Judy Channel or something?


"Is this legal?" -OP

Question: Is what legal? Is it legal for some guy to say some stupid stuff to you at a range? Yep.

oaklander
03-02-2010, 12:07 AM
Now THIS might have some problems (except for the magazine, which is 100 percent legal to own):

:D

http://i50.tinypic.com/2eqg9bl.jpg

bigcalidave
03-02-2010, 12:25 AM
I get hot looking at that thing oak!!!

Blind Gunner, perfect id !!!

Welcome to calguns, please do some reading before you start lecturing...

NavDoc
03-02-2010, 5:34 AM
Blind Gunner, perfect id !!!

Welcome to calguns, please do some reading before you start lecturing...

Amen.

Mstnpete
03-02-2010, 7:03 AM
when a pistol was purchase has nothing to do with when the magazine was legally obtained.

? Oh yes it does,
That is why by having a copy of the dros this will show when both were obtained. I have receipts stapled to the Dros.
For me it does. Because I obtained my hi-caps along with my pre-ban pistol
Purchase before 1-2000. I am not talking about mags purchased by themselves without the pistol. I am merely stating that it is a very good idea to have a copy of the dros to show that the pistol & hicaps were purchased before the ban. Therefore it is legal to own hi-caps!

J-cat
03-02-2010, 8:36 AM
I am merely stating that it is a very good idea to have a copy of the dros to show that the pistol & hicaps were purchased before the ban. Therefore it is legal to own hi-caps!

How about telling the offensive person to go away. That works better than carrying a bunch of paperwork with you.

oaklander
03-02-2010, 8:49 AM
The bottom line is that we are not required to walk around with our "papers." The exception would be the registration info for a RAW.

A police officer is not entitled to look at your "papers" if you are at a range with a legal pistol or OLL.

If someone wants to try and arrest me for my legal OLLs and legal magazines, they will be making a mistake.

We abide by the law, but let's not start doing things that are NOT required.

? Oh yes it does,
That is why by having a copy of the dros this will show when both were obtained. I have receipts stapled to the Dros.
For me it does. Because I obtained my hi-caps along with my pre-ban pistol
Purchase before 1-2000. I am not talking about mags purchased by themselves without the pistol. I am merely stating that it is a very good idea to have a copy of the dros to show that the pistol & hicaps were purchased before the ban. Therefore it is legal to own hi-caps!

joefrank64k
03-02-2010, 8:52 AM
I'll look into this. I want to provide a reliable truthful answer. I'll know for sure and let you all know by tomorrow. For all I know you could be right but your not really providing anything to prove it.

I'll get to the bottom of this.

Welcome to our community...there's no need for you to provide us with any information regarding this topic...it has been throughly discussed and dissected by experts in the field.

I've provided some relevant links for you, they have certainly saved me much worry: :D

Nice little Q & A from the DOJ (although you should take some of their advice with the proverbial grain of salt!)

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#5

Letter from the DOJ covering just about any scenario re: HiCap mags:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-large-cap-magazines-2005-11-10.pdf

And the thread that gives new members lots of great info:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56818

Again, WELCOME TO CALGUNS!!! :D

evidens83
03-02-2010, 8:57 AM
Who keeps receipts for anything they buy. Unless I need it for possible warranty purposes, it goes in the trash.

I keep receipts until they post into my account. Otherwise they go straight to the dumpster unless it was a big ticket item or warranty type sale. Who the hell would keep receipts from 20 years ago anyways??? Let alone 2+ years ago???? :confused::TFH:

joefrank64k
03-02-2010, 9:02 AM
And no new posts from the OP is leading me to think that this whole thing never happened, anyway!

FeuerFrei
03-02-2010, 9:14 AM
Remember the "I do not talk to cops for any reason" thread/video.
"I have nothing illegal here", " Am I free to leave?"
How about; "Here's my lawyers business card and have a nice day.".

1 SIG fan
03-02-2010, 9:24 AM
Nope... their on to something.. I'm gonna start carrying ALL my receipts for my computer, tv, car stereo, oil change, deed to my house... You can't be too careful these days.

what do those things have in common with my hi-cap mags? they're all LEGAL to posses.

You need a permit to have a DOG in some places. Do you bring that every time you take fido out for a walk?

SJgunguy24
03-02-2010, 9:25 AM
And no new posts from the OP is leading me to think that this whole thing never happened, anyway!

True, but it wasn't the OP who started the pissing contest either.

SJgunguy24
03-02-2010, 9:28 AM
Nope... their on to something.. I'm gonna start carrying ALL my receipts for my computer, tv, car stereo, oil change, deed to my house... You can't be too careful these days.

what do those things have in common with my hi-cap mags? they're all LEGAL to posses.

You need a permit to have a DOG in some places. Do you bring that every time you take fido out for a walk?

What would the Sierra Club think? Your mindless slaughter of innocent trees just to keep your CO2 generating tail out of jail! You should be ashamed of yourself.:D

joefrank64k
03-02-2010, 9:31 AM
True, but it wasn't the OP who started the pissing contest either.

Word! :D

Fishslayer
03-02-2010, 10:41 AM
The letter clarifies that it is legal to replace parts of a legally possessed large-capacity magazine with parts of any vintage. It also states that the possession, sale, or import of all the parts of an otherwise prohibited large-capacity magazine is not illegal though assembling them into a new large-capacity magazine would be a crime.

They mention "import" a number of times. Do they mean import for sale or do they mean simply bringing it into the state?

My understanding was always that "importing" something involved commerce of some type.

I'm seeing if Magpul has hi cap moonclips for my new .45ACP revolver...;)

joefrank64k
03-02-2010, 10:56 AM
It means just bringing it in to the State...you go to a Gun Show in Phoenix, buy a few hi-caps, and bring them in...Felony.

Now, if you already own hi-caps in California and you buy the same type in Phoenix, disassemble them, and bring them in for spare parts, then no problem at all.

And, if you buy hi-caps in Phoenix, disassemble them, bring them in, and permanently alter them to only hold 10 rounds, then no problem either. This conversion is OK even if you don't already own the mags in California...you just can't reassemble the mags into hi-caps.

M1A Rifleman
03-02-2010, 11:08 AM
When the mag ban went into effect, I figured this would be the end result, LEO's would start demanding your proof that you purchased before the ban. Glad I kept my reciepts to stick in their face. :43:

Fobanginvtek
03-02-2010, 11:23 AM
My buddy went to the range, and found a 30round hi-round mag for an AK. No one was arround and he took it. Is there any wrong in doing that? Is there anyway they can track when the mag was purchased? If no evidence, then hes in the clear right?

1 SIG fan
03-02-2010, 11:53 AM
It means just bringing it in to the State...you go to a Gun Show in Phoenix, buy a few hi-caps, and bring them in...Felony.

Now, if you already own hi-caps in California and you buy the same type in Phoenix, disassemble them, and bring them in for spare parts, then no problem at all.

And, if you buy hi-caps in Phoenix, disassemble them, bring them in, and permanently alter them to only hold 10 rounds, then no problem either. This conversion is OK even if you don't already own the mags in California...you just can't reassemble the mags into hi-caps.
^^ this, but doesn't need to be 'same type'. You can 'rebuild' the entire mag with new parts, body etc... as long as your total qty never increases.

Rekrab
03-02-2010, 12:08 PM
This.

As a member of a local M.C., I get this sort of thing all the time, literally.



Just curious, what's an M.C.?

My buddy went to the range, and found a 30round hi-round mag for an AK. No one was arround and he took it. Is there any wrong in doing that? Is there anyway they can track when the mag was purchased? If no evidence, then hes in the clear right?

Well, he did technically steal it. That's morally wrong for some people. :43:

MajorBoothroyd
03-02-2010, 12:17 PM
Just curious, what's an M.C.?



Well, he did technically steal it. That's morally wrong for some people. :43:

Motorcycle Club was my guess.

Noxx
03-02-2010, 12:52 PM
correct.

Barkoff
03-02-2010, 2:04 PM
Wow, I'm surprised how many Calgunners don't know the laws related to hicap mags. New guys, please keep an open mind and read up. There's a whole lot of learning y'alls need to do here.

Turby


Why I'm here, brother.

beemaze
03-02-2010, 2:08 PM
In my opinion that is like saying I bought a marijuana plant before marijuana became illegal. As far as I'm concerned that magazine is contraband and having no evidence that you bought it before the ban means that your sitting in hot water.


The law clearly states and regulates the transfer and sale of "hi-cap" magazines but does not regulate the possession of "hi-cap" magazines period.

mif_slim
03-02-2010, 2:11 PM
My brother was at the range the other day and a sheriff asked wheres his receipt for a magazine for his glock 17 which was a 17 rounder. He told him he didn't have one because he bought it in 1995. The Officer told him next time he would arrest him for having a assault weapon, receipts must be kept with magazines over 10 rounds even if he bought them 50 years ago.

Is this legal?

Next time is the keyword here. Officer didnt arrest him because he knew he couldnt. So he "threaten" you guys so you guys wont use it anymore.

stix213
03-02-2010, 2:19 PM
It's a noob questions - If that were ture, couldn't someone buy a new 17 round mag yesterday and say I've had it since 1995? ... I'm just asking as a noob, so don't mind my silly question.

The burden of proof would be on the state and likely difficult to prove. The state would need evidence that you acquired or assembled the magazine within the last 3 years. Not sure what they would have unless you had a Nevada gun shop receipt that said "17 round mag" sitting on your passenger seat, but that's still a felony. Please don't advocate committing felonies on our great calguns forums.

I don't know about everyone else, but owning a 17 round magazine over a 10 rounder isn't worth a felony charge to me. Too much to lose, plus a felony means you never get to own a gun again, period. All for an extra 7 round capacity. I recommend staying away from playing with felony fire, no matter how hard it may be to actually get burned. I'll stock up on 17 rounders as soon as the 10 round mag law is thrown out in favor of the constitution.

That said, if you own them legally, don't let the ignorant... even the ignorant with a badge, push you around.

B Strong
03-02-2010, 5:30 PM
My brother was at the range the other day and a sheriff asked wheres his receipt for a magazine for his glock 17 which was a 17 rounder. He told him he didn't have one because he bought it in 1995. The Officer told him next time he would arrest him for having a assault weapon, receipts must be kept with magazines over 10 rounds even if he bought them 50 years ago.

Is this legal?

If this incident happened as described, the officer in question is far off in left field.

There is no section of the California Penal Code that requires you to keep proof of purchase for high cap magazines.

RugerFan777
03-02-2010, 5:38 PM
If this incident happened as described, the officer in question is far off in left field.

There is no section of the California Penal Code that requires you to keep proof of purchase for high cap magazines.

It was at a shooting range in the Bay Area.

B Strong
03-02-2010, 5:44 PM
It was at a shooting range in the Bay Area.

FUD never sleeps, and LEO's are amongst the worst sources of legal advice wrt firearms and firearms laws.

The unfortunate side effect is that sometimes people are hooked up and taken in for crimes that do not exist, or for firearms that are completely legal.

Mstnpete
03-02-2010, 6:41 PM
I keep receipts until they post into my account. Otherwise they go straight to the dumpster unless it was a big ticket item or warranty type sale. Who the hell would keep receipts from 20 years ago anyways??? Let alone 2+ years ago???? :confused::TFH:

I had an experience back than, when I sold a gun to a gun store.
I had a visit from detectives about 1996. The pistol I sold to a gun store was used in robbery and was involved in other assaults as well.I don't know why DOJ did not have the paperwork stating that I sold it. I had to do the detective work and went to the gun store and asked for the DOJ forms as to who they sold the pistol to. I faxed the paperwork to the detectives and they were so pleased of my help with them. They arrested the buyer from Gardena.

From then on, every DROS I do. I ask for a copy from the gun store.
And I keep the DROS in a file. Just incase things like this happen again.

NotSoFast
03-02-2010, 7:21 PM
^5

In total agreement.

CSACANNONEER
03-02-2010, 7:29 PM
The bottom line is that we are not required to walk around with our "papers." The exception would be the registration info for a RAW.

Really? I don't think that there is any legal requirement to carry or even keep your RAW documents? Please correct me if I am wrong.

It means just bringing it in to the State...you go to a Gun Show in Phoenix, buy a few hi-caps, and bring them in...Felony.

Now, if you already own hi-caps in California and you buy the same type in Phoenix, disassemble them, and bring them in for spare parts, then no problem at all.

And, if you buy hi-caps in Phoenix, disassemble them, bring them in, and permanently alter them to only hold 10 rounds, then no problem either. This conversion is OK even if you don't already own the mags in California...you just can't reassemble the mags into hi-caps.

You can reassmeble them when you take them back out of state. There are no laws stating that you must have "the same type" of mag that you buy a parts kit for. In fact, it is perfectly legal to make an 11 round ammunition feeding devise into a 250 round one! As long as you legally owned it before the ban and it will still function in the gun it was originally designed for.

Cokebottle
03-02-2010, 7:43 PM
Don't new magazines have part numbers from the manufacture that might identify them as newer mags?

So if you buy a high cap mag manufactured before 2000 from a friend out of state, it is up to the state of CA to prove that you didn't buy it yourself prior to 2000?
Even if they do, it doesn't matter.
Legally obtained high capacity magazines can be rebuilt using modern parts. In a rare case of logic, the lawmakers understood that parts wear out.

You can have a high-cap with 2010 stamped on every part as long as those parts replaced an older high-cap.

Actually... you can HAVE a high-cap with 2010 stamped on every part anyways, because mere possession is not a crime.
You can't import one from out of state.
You can't manufacture one from a parts kit (except as a replacement for an existing mag).
You can't sell or offer to sell or lend one.... there is an exception for armored car company owners.

But it would not be illegal to "find one at the range or in the desert"... unlikely as that may be.
Regardless, it's the job of the state to prove that you either manufactured or imported the magazine... those are the only crimes that an owner could be charged with.

Cokebottle
03-02-2010, 7:49 PM
I always keep a copy of the dros.
These will show when the Hi-capped pistol was purchased.
The pistol, yes... but that doesn't prove anything about the mags.

Example 1 - You could have purchased more high-caps for that pistol after the ban
Example 2 - You could have purchased high cap mags for that pistol prior to the ban.

A perfect case is Glock. They haven't changed their 9mm mags (minor changes, but they are compatible).
You could have owned a Glock with high caps in 1995, then sold that gun and bought another one in 2005... but in 2005, you would have been required to either keep your high-caps, or break them down and sell them as parts kits.

Cokebottle
03-02-2010, 7:55 PM
It means just bringing it in to the State...you go to a Gun Show in Phoenix, buy a few hi-caps, and bring them in...Felony.

Now, if you already own hi-caps in California and you buy the same type in Phoenix, disassemble them, and bring them in for spare parts, then no problem at all.

And, if you buy hi-caps in Phoenix, disassemble them, bring them in, and permanently alter them to only hold 10 rounds, then no problem either. This conversion is OK even if you don't already own the mags in California...you just can't reassemble the mags into hi-caps.
Also, if you go to Phoenix, buy some high-caps, disassemble them before coming home, then leave them disassembled until you go back out of state to shoot with friends, you're also GTG.

Cokebottle
03-02-2010, 7:56 PM
^^ this, but doesn't need to be 'same type'. You can 'rebuild' the entire mag with new parts, body etc... as long as your total qty never increases.
And it still operates in the original gun.

You wouldn't be able to legally modify a Glock mag to work in an XDm unless it could still be used in the Glock.

Z ME FLY
03-02-2010, 8:48 PM
I know a lot of people have hi cap mags. I was actually young before then ban, I'm turning 26 this year. The only thing I was smart enough to do is buy some glock 33 rd mags. They look like crap since they we in my parents basement but I have them. Even when I do rebuild them, I wouldn't personally go to the range with them, it just draws too much unwanted attention personally. 33rds is nice but I can do fine with 10rd mags in my glock.

russ69
03-02-2010, 9:08 PM
.... I wouldn't personally go to the range with them, it just draws too much unwanted attention personally. 33rds is nice but I can do fine with 10rd mags in my glock.

You are a smart fellow, we have the right but there is no need to attract unwanted attention, unless you like poking the bear to see what his reaction might be.

Thanx, Russ

odysseus
03-02-2010, 9:32 PM
It was at a shooting range in the Bay Area.

I asked earlier, was he in uniform? How did you know he was LE?

GoodEyeSniper
03-02-2010, 11:42 PM
I asked earlier, was he in uniform? How did you know he was LE?

The abnormally large chip on his shoulder may have been a helpful clue.

otteray
03-03-2010, 5:45 AM
You are a smart fellow, we have the right but there is no need to attract unwanted attention, unless you like poking the bear to see what his reaction might be.

Thanx, Russ

I disagree. For example, the laws exempting smog devices on pre- 1975 vehicles. You still see these old Model As and Hudsons on the road. When was the last time you heard of one being pulled over and ticketed for not having a smog device? Are these drivers somehow taunting or poking DMV and CHP?
Of course not. Neither are folks legally possessing the pre- 2000 magazines.
How could so much misguided information be spread as truth in such a short span?

B Strong
03-03-2010, 5:56 AM
Really? I don't think that there is any legal requirement to carry or even keep your RAW documents? Please correct me if I am wrong.

You can reassmeble them when you take them back out of state. There are no laws stating that you must have "the same type" of mag that you buy a parts kit for. In fact, it is perfectly legal to make an 11 round ammunition feeding devise into a 250 round one! As long as you legally owned it before the ban and it will still function in the gun it was originally designed for.

I believe that you're correct, but here's the problem.

You register a named AW in compliance with the original R-R AW control act, you have papers in hand.

LEO checks database for some reason and your rifle isn't listed as registered.

You're now in a fix, but with AW reg papers in hand you're in a much better position to fight.

Do a google on problems with the NFA NFTR - lots of people have encountered situations where the ATF has "lost" the paper on their registered MG, and they are then put into a position where they have to prove ATF wrong - impossible to do without a tax stamp.

Mstnpete
03-03-2010, 6:23 AM
The pistol, yes... but that doesn't prove anything about the mags.

Example 1 - You could have purchased more high-caps for that pistol after the ban
Example 2 - You could have purchased high cap mags for that pistol prior to the ban.

A perfect case is Glock. They haven't changed their 9mm mags (minor changes, but they are compatible).
You could have owned a Glock with high caps in 1995, then sold that gun and bought another one in 2005... but in 2005, you would have been required to either keep your high-caps, or break them down and sell them as parts kits.

LOL Rich, So are you stating that there are no win-win on these?
BTW, early Glock mags where the non-drop kind with a u-shape at the back top mag than the drop free came out.

joefrank64k
03-03-2010, 6:53 AM
Also, if you go to Phoenix, buy some high-caps, disassemble them before coming home, then leave them disassembled until you go back out of state to shoot with friends, you're also GTG.

Word! :D

joefrank64k
03-03-2010, 6:57 AM
You can reassmeble them when you take them back out of state. There are no laws stating that you must have "the same type" of mag that you buy a parts kit for. In fact, it is perfectly legal to make an 11 round ammunition feeding devise into a 250 round one! As long as you legally owned it before the ban and it will still function in the gun it was originally designed for.

By "same type" I meant something like "I have a hi-cap mag for my AR. I want to repair it. So I buy the "same type" (for the AR platform) of hi-cap mag in Phoenix, disassemble it, and bring it in."

Apologies for not being more clear! :D

CABilly
03-03-2010, 7:29 AM
did you even read the page? it lists the california penal code, which you can look up yourself on official ca government websites.

and if you don't believe me, then w/e, keep believing that you can't own hi-caps, while i and others enjoy them

edit: and the wobbler only determines the amount of years for statute of limitations. a misdemeanor is 2 years while felony is 3. so hence why i said if someone hides it for 3 years, they can bring it out afterwards and use it free and clear.

Something tells me he could go to a gun store tomorrow and legally buy all the hi-caps he wanted.

hnoppenberger
03-03-2010, 11:02 AM
if this really happened, you need to get his badge and file a complaint with his department. we cant have this guy employed with our tax money with his current state of mind, its simply wrong.

i know everyone knows this, but its 100% legal to posses and use hi caps. its not contraband, if you think it is, your ignorant of its law.

MajorBoothroyd
03-03-2010, 12:13 PM
if you think it is, your ignorant

Would you mind if I used this quote in my signature? :D

Cokebottle
03-03-2010, 6:08 PM
LOL Rich, So are you stating that there are no win-win on these?
The win-win is that you don't need to keep the receipt, and it is not a crime to possess a high-capacity magazine.
The burden is on the state to prove that you either imported it or assembled it after 2000 (actually, within the last 3 years).
BTW, early Glock mags where the non-drop kind with a u-shape at the back top mag than the drop free came out.
True, but that change did not render the new mags inoperable in the older guns, AND, your old preban mag that's got worn feed lips can be rebuilt using modern parts.

It would be much harder to explain how you got the Springfield XDm magazine... but once again, the burden of proof is on the state. They'll give you plenty of rope, don't hang yourself.

otteray
03-03-2010, 7:23 PM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Magazine_Questions

drifts1
03-03-2010, 10:03 PM
I believe that you're correct, but here's the problem.

You register a named AW in compliance with the original R-R AW control act, you have papers in hand.

LEO checks database for some reason and your rifle isn't listed as registered.

You're now in a fix, but with AW reg papers in hand you're in a much better position to fight.

Do a google on problems with the NFA NFTR - lots of people have encountered situations where the ATF has "lost" the paper on their registered MG, and they are then put into a position where they have to prove ATF wrong - impossible to do without a tax stamp.

................OR, your rifle is not in the database however you have an obvious copy of a RAW letter (since we advise to keep a copy on hand & the original at home), so now he suspects you have an illegal assault weapon AND illegally falsified papers to make it look like you have a legal RAW :eek:

Cobrarlc
03-03-2010, 10:05 PM
Wow...must keep all receipts.

bluestaterebel
03-03-2010, 10:28 PM
In my opinion that is like saying I bought a marijuana plant before marijuana became illegal. As far as I'm concerned that magazine is contraband and having no evidence that you bought it before the ban means that your sitting in hot water.

Furthermore statute of limitation applies if you have been charged or have had a police report and that the timer starts then.


FUD:rolleyes:

DedEye
03-03-2010, 10:57 PM
Wow...must keep all receipts.

You don't. (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Do_I_need_to_keep_any_proof_that_I_legally_acq uired_my_magazines.3F)

J-cat
03-03-2010, 11:21 PM
Furthermore statute of limitation applies if you have been charged or have had a police report and that the timer starts then.

Wrong. In this case, the statute starts running when the crime is comitted.

801. Except as provided in Sections 799 and 800, prosecution for an
offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison shall be
commenced within three years after commission of the offense.

oaklander
03-04-2010, 12:43 AM
I know the original XD's were based on a design from Croatia that was imported in 1999 as the Intrac HS2000.

:D

Just saying'

The win-win is that you don't need to keep the receipt, and it is not a crime to possess a high-capacity magazine.
The burden is on the state to prove that you either imported it or assembled it after 2000 (actually, within the last 3 years).

True, but that change did not render the new mags inoperable in the older guns, AND, your old preban mag that's got worn feed lips can be rebuilt using modern parts.

It would be much harder to explain how you got the Springfield XDm magazine... but once again, the burden of proof is on the state. They'll give you plenty of rope, don't hang yourself.

B Strong
03-04-2010, 6:02 AM
................OR, your rifle is not in the database however you have an obvious copy of a RAW letter (since we advise to keep a copy on hand & the original at home), so now he suspects you have an illegal assault weapon AND illegally falsified papers to make it look like you have a legal RAW :eek:

He can suspect that you are the Zodiac killer as well, but having the letter in hand is better than not.

Aldemar
03-04-2010, 12:54 PM
They could check when you took ownership of the firearm if they were to prosecute you. Depending on whether you bought it after the law was introduced which prohibits magazines more then the capacity of 10 rounds which they could find you guilty based on collaborative evidence and/or circumstantial evidence.

If you bought the firearm before the law was introduced it can be deducted that you bought the magazine at the same time the firearm was purchased. If this is the case your in the clear.

If you bought the firearm after the law was introduced the burden of proof would fall on the prosecutor to prove that you bought the illegal 17 round magazine. He could easily argue that you bought it online.

But don't take my word for it.

Wrong on every count. I've had an M1A for many years. With standard cap mags. Last year, I bought a Socom16 and use the same mags in it.

It's the mags that are the question here, not the weapon.

dkthree
03-04-2010, 4:23 PM
Not to hijack, but would this also go for OLL's as well?

Hypothetically, if I had a REGISTERED assault weapon and pre-ban hi cap mags for it would it be legal to use those mags in a post ban OLL?

Just trying to get my head around it all.....

Scratch705
03-04-2010, 4:24 PM
only if the OLL is featureless.

if there is a BB on your OLL, then that creates an AW

ke6guj
03-04-2010, 4:35 PM
yes, if your OLL is set up in a featureless configuration and has a standard magazine release, you may use any large-capacity magazine in it. This applies to OLLs, Mini-14s, M1A's, etc. It also applies to handguns like Glocks.

dkthree
03-04-2010, 6:28 PM
yes, if your OLL is set up in a featureless configuration and has a standard magazine release, you may use any large-capacity magazine in it. This applies to OLLs, Mini-14s, M1A's, etc. It also applies to handguns like Glocks.

Copy. Thanks.

RRangel
03-04-2010, 7:20 PM
Cops never want to think that Cilvilians know more about gun laws than they do...I mean, come on, we are just dumb civilians, what would we know about owing guns and hi-cap mags in CA?

Cops are civilians. The only people who are not civilians are military personnel. It's probably easy for people to make similar comments because we're practically living in a police state with all of our state's unconstitutional gun laws.

Cokebottle
03-04-2010, 7:51 PM
I know the original XD's were based on a design from Croatia that was imported in 1999 as the Intrac HS2000.

:D

Just saying'
Indeed... and the HS2000 mag can be modified to work in the XD while still retaining functionality in the HS2000, but that is not the case for the new XDm that is not available with a 10rd mag.

J-cat
03-04-2010, 9:35 PM
Cops are civilians. The only people who are not civilians are military personnel.

What's the difference?

juicemansam
03-04-2010, 9:50 PM
Cops are civilians. The only people who are not civilians are military personnel. It's probably easy for people to make similar comments because we're practically living in a police state with all of our state's unconstitutional gun laws.

+1 Even local government seems to think it's above the citizen. I often hear the mayor and other officials refer to the citizenry as "civilians" when they refer to everybody else that is not part of the local government structure. I also hear the police refer to the citizenry as "citizen" or "civilians," of then as in "the citizens/civilians we protect" or "protecting my citizens." It's also funny how their position above the citizen is proven by the force that will come down upon the citizen should he/she call them on it. Like the mafia enforcer telling you he's in charge, why? because he'll beat the snot out of ya.

ledman
03-04-2010, 10:16 PM
Remember, allot of cops are former Military...so it's just natural for some of them to use that terminology...