PDA

View Full Version : Did I read that right?


Apocalypsenerd
03-16-2010, 9:52 PM
If you own a large capacity magazine in CA for 3 years or more the statute of limitations is up? Does that make them legal to own then?

Peter W Bush
03-16-2010, 9:56 PM
NO!!!

dantodd
03-16-2010, 9:58 PM
They are ALWAYS legal to own, just not import or manufacture. The statute of limitations makes you unprosecutable for mfg/importation after 3 years.

Cokebottle
03-16-2010, 9:58 PM
They are legal to OWN at any time.

The crime is manufacture, importation, or offering for sale/lend.

dantodd
03-16-2010, 9:58 PM
They are legal to OWN at any time.

The crime is manufacture, importation, or offering for sale/lend.

beat you by less than a minute. :D

Apocalypsenerd
03-16-2010, 10:06 PM
God, that just further proves how incompetent Sacramento is. It's like the initial AWB that banned firearms by name, so the manufacturers just changed the names.

I mean, I don't like these laws in the first place, but if we are paying the bastards to work for us, the least they could do is a good job writing a bill.

Scratch705
03-16-2010, 10:15 PM
If you own a large capacity magazine in CA for 3 years or more the statute of limitations is up? Does that make them legal to own then?

yes in that you can use it without worry of prosecution from cops/DA after the 3 years.

BUT you have to first commit the crime (import/manufacture) in order to reach this point.

so you will be a criminal for 3 years.

geeknow
03-16-2010, 10:17 PM
God, that just further proves how incompetent Sacramento is. It's like the initial AWB that banned firearms by name, so the manufacturers just changed the names.

I mean, I don't like these laws in the first place, but if we are paying the bastards to work for us, the least they could do is a good job writing a bill.

welcome to calguns. I would encourage you to poke around. You might be surprised at what you learn.

For example...the firearms that were banned by name are still banned by name.

it's a common fallacy amongst the anti-gun crowd, though...

best,
g

leelaw
03-16-2010, 10:56 PM
Assuming that this is a spin-off question from those who thought it was cute to suggest "well if you get one now and aren't caught for three years, then the statute of limitations has passed!" no, it doesn't mean that you possess them legally. It means that you are a felon that wasn't caught in time to prosecute.

Apocalypsenerd
03-16-2010, 11:03 PM
The intentions of the laws are foolish enough. The holes in them are just astonishing.

corrupt
03-16-2010, 11:03 PM
Yeah nice. Why don't you just go and admit to breaking the law too. I suppose next you'll be asking where to buy rebuild kits. Give me a break.

Apocalypsenerd
03-16-2010, 11:24 PM
Thanks for the accusation, but I'll pass.

OleCuss
03-17-2010, 12:03 AM
Assuming that this is a spin-off question from those who thought it was cute to suggest "well if you get one now and aren't caught for three years, then the statute of limitations has passed!" no, it doesn't mean that you possess them legally. It means that you are a felon that wasn't caught in time to prosecute.

OK, I'll admit to my being dumb on this and ask what I'm sure will be a stupid question(s). . . Also understand that this is purely hypothetical for me because I got my high cap magazines long before any ban and before I even got my AR-15 (which is fully registered).

If I had illegally imported or purchased the magazines more than 3 years ago and had never been arrested or prosecuted, then I wouldn't actually be a felon would I? I mean, legally, to be a felon don't you have to have been convicted of a felony?

I would not dispute in the slightest that someone who had deliberately broken a felony law is felonious in nature and deserves great disrespect, but despicable as they might be, they still wouldn't actually be a felon, would they?

But to further pursue the initial question, if one had illegally obtained high-cap magazines more than 3 years ago, would one's continued possession of and/or use of such magazines be a crime? From what some have posted it would seem that it wouldn't be but I wonder if the magazines might still be subject to confiscation even if the possessor could not be prosecuted?

Apocalypsenerd
03-17-2010, 12:10 AM
I'm not sure, but I would think the magazines AND the weapon in question would both be subject to confiscation. Just because they can't prosecute you for breaking the law, doesn't mean they have to allow you tocontinue to do so. Not a legal scholar here, though, so not sure about that.

rromeo
03-17-2010, 5:56 AM
It seems like you'd get in less trouble for stealing a magazine than buying one.

GrizzlyGuy
03-17-2010, 7:12 AM
Here is an interesting post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3856919&postcount=108) by an attorney and prosecutor related to this question.

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

tzahoy
03-17-2010, 7:14 AM
None of this advice will protect you from an overzealous LEO (Tuason) arresting you, having to hire an expensive attorney for your defense, spending some time in the klink, getting your firearms taken away, losing time off work, and having your reputation damaged. Good people do get arrested for improper reasons. Recent events (Cannon) should make that clear!

Yes in the end you may likely prevail, but would you have really come out ahead? Would it really be worth it?

Make your decisions wisely.

OleCuss
03-17-2010, 7:15 AM
I'm not sure, but I would think the magazines AND the weapon in question would both be subject to confiscation. Just because they can't prosecute you for breaking the law, doesn't mean they have to allow you tocontinue to do so. Not a legal scholar here, though, so not sure about that.

That makes sense to me. The idea that you should be able to commit a crime, evade prosecution for a period of time and then be able to benefit from the commission of the crime - just doesn't make sense to me.

But then, a lot of what our government says and does seems ridiculous.

Edit:

Thanks Grizzlyguy and tzahoy - I think your responses are right on target.

The Director
03-17-2010, 7:25 AM
Assuming that this is a spin-off question from those who thought it was cute to suggest "well if you get one now and aren't caught for three years, then the statute of limitations has passed!" no, it doesn't mean that you possess them legally. It means that you are a felon that wasn't caught in time to prosecute.

That's way over the top. He wouldn't be a felon unless proven so in a court of law, and a prosecutor has already chimed in saying that the law for hi cap mags in unworkable and almost impossible to prosecute.

You can still keep Calguns' lily white reputation for not advocating the breaking of laws and truthfully admit to people that the high cap magazine law is de facto unenforceable.

Let's just be honest here.

The Director
03-17-2010, 7:30 AM
this thread seriously sucks. Let me change your OP wording around just so you see how ridiculous it sounds.



Yes, I know illegally buying a hi cap mag and rape is not comparable, but theyre both crime that have statues. You will still be a criminal one way or the other.

Slap yourself for me. That's the dumbest example you could possible come up with. Last time I checked, almost every other state in the union allowed the purchase, use, and possession of high capacity magazines. None of them allow rape.

Here we have a really poorly written and ambiguous law that prevents people from having what everyone else in the country has.....and some people have used a statute of limitations to own what they otherwise could not - I say more power to them.

I was fortunate enough to be old enough before the ban and have the foresight to buy all I could ever use - even for guns I didn't own at the time - and I wish others were able to do it as well. As you should be as a firearms owner.

oaklander
03-17-2010, 7:33 AM
I have read the attorney's post that was referenced above. I am also an attorney and CGF Board Member. Nobody here advocates breaking the law.

That being said, we know of no successful prosecutions for manufacturing or importing high caps mags. That is not to say that there haven't been any, rather, if there have been any prosecutions that resulted in charges that "stuck" - we are not aware of them.

That being said - please do not break the law! We have enough on our plate already.

The Director
03-17-2010, 7:47 AM
I have read the attorney's post that was referenced above. I am also an attorney and CGF Board Member. Nobody here advocates breaking the law.

That being said, we know of no successful prosecutions for manufacturing or importing high caps mags. That is not to say that there haven't been any, rather, if there have been any prosecutions that resulted in charges that "stuck" - we are not aware of them.

That being said - please do not break the law! We have enough on our plate already.

Nobody advocated breaking the law. I certainly didn't say that.

What I did say is that the law as written in patently unenforceable, and to top it off, there is a short statute of limitations on it. What people do with that information is their problem, not mine.

Peter W Bush
03-17-2010, 10:26 AM
Slap yourself for me. That's the dumbest example you could possible come up with. Last time I checked, almost every other state in the union allowed the purchase, use, and possession of high capacity magazines. None of them allow rape.

Here we have a really poorly written and ambiguous law that prevents people from having what everyone else in the country has.....and some people have used a statute of limitations to own what they otherwise could not - I say more power to them.

I was fortunate enough to be old enough before the ban and have the foresight to buy all I could ever use - even for guns I didn't own at the time - and I wish others were able to do it as well. As you should be as a firearms owner.

I wanted to over-simplify it and make it easy and clear to understand. They are both crimes in this state. One is something most of America is allowed to do and one is illegal just about everywhere, I know. The OP seems to be asking "Hey, the statute of limitations for ____ is 3 years so if I do it and don't get caught for 3 years then its ok."

Apocalypsenerd
03-17-2010, 10:59 AM
Peter Bush: I'm not sure how you went from hi-cap mags to child rape. That's besides the point. You edited my post, and it could look to someone quickly reading that I might have said something that reprehensible. Please edit your post.

Also, in the future, if you are going to quote me, then quote me. Don't put words in my mouth, especially not about something like that.

Thank you.

motorhead
03-17-2010, 11:09 AM
God, that just further proves how incompetent Sacramento is. It's like the initial AWB that banned firearms by name, so the manufacturers just changed the names.

I mean, I don't like these laws in the first place, but if we are paying the bastards to work for us, the least they could do is a good job writing a bill.
AHHH! bite your tongue. if our laws were well written it'd be much harder and more expensive to neuter them in court.

Apocalypsenerd
03-17-2010, 11:20 AM
Motorhead: I mostly believe in the will of the majority. Freedom to speak and vote implies we must all live with consequences we may not like. It just really pisses me of that they waste our time and money "showing" us they are doing something, when they are really just wasting our time and money.

Neutering an unconstitutional law is based on its failure to the constitution, not failings of the ne'er-do-wells in Sacramento.

If I had my way, and I know I never will, our government will get to the point where we have honest politicians who manage the business of state rather than try and look good while writing foolish, costly, and apparently unenforceable laws.

Ca Patriot
03-17-2010, 11:22 AM
Just a side note.....I wouldnt ever use the term "own" in regards to high cap magazines. I would always use the term "possess". When you use the term "own" you are implying or suggesting that you purchased or aquired the magazine in a way that could fall under the California law regarding their illegality.
The term "possess" is so narrow and specific that it cant fall under CA law.

POLICESTATE
03-17-2010, 11:28 AM
The intentions of the laws are foolish enough. The holes in them are just astonishing.

Well the legislatures real intent was to get votes from idiots. It worked.

POLICESTATE
03-17-2010, 11:33 AM
Oh yeah, everyone, please stop calling magazines that carry more than 10 rounds high caps. There are many many guns whose standard magazines carry more than 10 rounds.

The legislature didn't ban high cap magazines it banned magazines carrying more than 10 rounds, thereby banning many standard cap magazines.

Don't go along with their Orwellian newspeak.

My Sig Sauer does not have a standard cap magazine, it has some nerfed 10 rounder when it should have a standard 13 round mag.

I know there are lots of other gun owners of Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, Smith & Wessons and on and on that suffer from the same limitation imposed on us from a bunch of money/vote grubbing dopes in Sacramento.

I only have 1 gun that has a standard capacity magazine less than 10 rounds and that is my Kimber, it only takes 8, oh wait, I guess that's a high cap cause the stock mag is 7 :P

In any case, my other guns I'm prevented by law from getting standard cap mags for and have to go with nerfed subcapacity 10 round magazines.

dfletcher
03-17-2010, 11:35 AM
It seems like you'd get in less trouble for stealing a magazine than buying one.

I have that thought most always when I read these threads. I wonder what the offense is for stealing some run of the mill 30 round magazine as compared to importing or manufacturing. I doubt stealing a $20.00 hi cap amounts to much and I don't think anything can be added on by a creative DA. I guess the only way our hypothetical thief could turn felon is if he steals it then tries to sell it.

ZombieTactics
03-17-2010, 11:36 AM
... It means that you are a felon that wasn't caught in time to prosecute. Which legally - as far as any effect it's likely to have on your life - is a distinction without a difference. There isn't a "felon not caught in time" registry or a checkbox on your Driver's license or any particular career that you are banned from pursuing, y'know?

It also occurs to me that people need to NOT be so flippant about this issue. I have - for instance - some pre-ban Glock mags which I am perfectly within my rights to own. I've been scared to take them on out-of-state trips for fear of being accused of "importing" them upon my return.

CHS
03-17-2010, 11:46 AM
The law is essentially unenforceable and possession of hi-cap mags is 100% legal.

Do what you will with that knowledge.

putput
03-17-2010, 11:48 AM
I predict you'll be able to buy them legally in less than three years...

POLICESTATE
03-17-2010, 11:50 AM
I predict you'll be able to buy them legally in less than three years...

In a way it kind of sucks, means I will have 7 10 round sig mags I won't be able to sell to subsidize the purchase of 7 13 round sig mags :(

Aldemar
03-17-2010, 11:53 AM
yes in that you can use it without worry of prosecution from cops/DA after the 3 years.

BUT you have to first commit the crime (import/manufacture) in order to reach this point.

so you will be a criminal for 3 years.

Let's assume someone bought some std cap mags out of state in 2006 or prior and kept the receipt as proof. Are they now 100% legal in California?

MAC USMC
03-17-2010, 11:56 AM
We must keep in mind that many high capacity magazines have been in California for years, well before any prohibiting laws were in effect. Very few mags that I have seen have a stamped manufacturing date on them only the name of the company, model and caliber, etc.

I only have this type of magazine and you probably do also. Most police officers are not current on the myriad of laws related to guns, mags, possession, etc. You have the right to request a police supervisor if you encounter a negative LEO contact. Explaining the current magazine law and establishing your "good guy" credentials with the supervisor usually ends the matter.

In my experience the #1 concern of the LEO's is why you have the mags with you at the particular time. Yeah, I know it is your right, etc., etc., but the goal is to avoid problems and be on your way. It is reasonable explaination time!

POLICESTATE
03-17-2010, 11:58 AM
Let's assume someone bought some std cap mags out of state in 2006 or prior and kept the receipt as proof. Are they now 100% legal in California?

Sounds really risky to me.

CSDGuy
03-17-2010, 12:03 PM
12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.
Looks like all that stuff above is only a misdemeanor, not a Felony. Furthermore, it's the seller/importer/manufacturer that breaks the law... If you can find someone that can legally sell the magazine to you, no crime is committed.

CSDGuy
03-17-2010, 12:05 PM
Let's assume someone bought some std cap mags out of state in 2006 or prior and kept the receipt as proof. Are they now 100% legal in California?
Wouldn't matter. That person couldn't be prosecuted for it as the statute of limitations has passed.

Scratch705
03-17-2010, 12:07 PM
Let's assume someone bought some std cap mags out of state in 2006 or prior and kept the receipt as proof. Are they now 100% legal in California?

Sounds really risky to me.

yep. i wouldn't risk even having the receipt to show as "proof" that you are legally clear.

just use your 5th amendment rights.

Glock22Fan
03-17-2010, 12:13 PM
In a way it kind of sucks, means I will have 7 10 round sig mags I won't be able to sell to subsidize the purchase of 7 13 round sig mags :(

Look on the bright side, you won't need as many 13 round magazines!

On a separate note, but still relevant to this thread, I am reminded of the amusing, if naive, question on one of the Government forms I completed (I think it was INS) where they asked "Have you ever committed any felonies which you have not been accused of committing?"

Aldemar
03-17-2010, 12:24 PM
yep. i wouldn't risk even having the receipt to show as "proof" that you are legally clear.

just use your 5th amendment rights.

Strange thoughts pop into my head occasionally:7:

POLICESTATE
03-17-2010, 12:26 PM
Look on the bright side, you won't need as many 13 round magazines!

On a separate note, but still relevant to this thread, I am reminded of the amusing, if naive, question on one of the Government forms I completed (I think it was INS) where they asked "Have you ever committed any felonies which you have not been accused of committing?"

Did they have a check box that said "I exercise my right to not incriminate myself" ?

Glock22Fan
03-17-2010, 12:29 PM
Did they have a check box that said "I exercise my right to not incriminate myself" ?

No. For collectors of such trivia, there's also one on the visa waiver form that non-residents (from treaty countries) complete on the way into the country: "Are you entering the United States with intent to commit acts of terrorism or violence?"

POLICESTATE
03-17-2010, 12:34 PM
No. For collectors of such trivia, there's also one on the visa waiver form that non-residents (from treaty countries) complete on the way into the country: "Are you entering the United States with intent to commit acts of terrorism or violence?"

Now that's just silly, all it weeds out are the really stupid terrorists.

Back to the original question of what was it?

"Have you ever committed any felonies which you have not been accused of committing?"

Well you can honestly answer NO because you have not committed a crime until you have been convicted of it. Not that any of us would have to worry about that, but just in case they decide to make thinking independently a felony...

CSDGuy
03-17-2010, 12:51 PM
So, Murder is legal until you get caught? I don't think so...

You aren't a convicted Felon until you've been convicted... of a Felony. That doesn't mean you haven't committed a Felony already.

CHS
03-17-2010, 12:56 PM
So, Murder is legal until you get caught? I don't think so...


Murder doesn't have a statute of limitations :)

POLICESTATE
03-17-2010, 12:59 PM
So, Murder is legal until you get caught? I don't think so...

You aren't a convicted Felon until you've been convicted... of a Felony. That doesn't mean you haven't committed a Felony already.

Yeah but admitting you committed a felony is a confession of guilt.

When the judge asks you how do you plead when you're on trial for murder (and you really did it) and you say "not guilty" you are not committing perjury even though you did in fact commit the crime.

I'm not a lawyer but the concept seems to be asking you if you are guilty you are forced to lie (or say you're guilty and go to jail etc), asking you questions about things that can establish your guilt you use the 5th.

CSDGuy
03-17-2010, 1:06 PM
I never said pleading not guilty to a crime you committed made you guilty of anything... just that you're not convicted until you've been convicted. Just because murder doesn't have any statute of limitations attached, doesn't mean you've been convicted of murder until you've been convicted for your commission of murder...

That form question is great for fishing for people who might have committed a felony in the recent (SOL not expired for that crime) past. After the SOL has passed, what does it matter if you then confess to that crime? You shouldn't be able to be charged for that crime.

POLICESTATE
03-17-2010, 1:08 PM
I never said pleading not guilty to a crime you committed made you guilty of anything... just that you're not convicted until you've been convicted. Just because murder doesn't have any statute of limitations attached, doesn't mean you've been convicted of murder until you've been convicted for your commission of murder...

That form question is great for fishing for people who might have committed a felony in the recent (SOL not expired for that crime) past. After the SOL has passed, what does it matter if you then confess to that crime? You shouldn't be able to be charged for that crime.

If I had committed a crime I would never admit to it one way or another, SOL in play or not. These days you just never know what's going to come up anywhere anymore. The less information that people know about your personal life the better.

tanda10506
03-17-2010, 6:38 PM
How would you show proof that you had the magazines for over 3 years, by having a reciept that shows you imported them? I don't understand, not to knowledgeable on the magazine laws, I thought it was 10 and that's it.

Cokebottle
03-17-2010, 6:52 PM
How would you show proof that you had the magazines for over 3 years, by having a reciept that shows you imported them? I don't understand, not to knowledgeable on the magazine laws, I thought it was 10 and that's it.
Burden of proof is on the state to prove that you illegally manufactured or imported them.

All you have to do is.... nothing. Don't say a word.

andalusi
03-17-2010, 7:20 PM
God, that just further proves how incompetent Sacramento is. It's like the initial AWB that banned firearms by name, so the manufacturers just changed the names.

I mean, I don't like these laws in the first place, but if we are paying the bastards to work for us, the least they could do is a good job writing a bill.

That's how most laws work, you know (or you should). Almost every crime has a statute of limitations beyond which you can't be prosecuted (murder being one of the exceptions with no SOL).

Meplat
03-17-2010, 7:26 PM
The founders of this nation were not politicians. They were patriots, revolutionaries, thinkers, and soldiers. But, they knew the disgraceful condition of the character of the political class. Most doubted that despite their mightiest efforts to Yoakum the cracks and prevent evil from seeping in, liberty could long survive. Thomas Jefferson estimated a new revolution would be needed about every 30 years. To there credit they created a constitution that lasted twice that before blood was shed again in the cause of liberty. And our country is now seven score and five years beyond that conflict. The only reason we have made it this long without having to water the tree again is because the founders accurately estimated the greed, corruption, and moral depravity of politicians, but underestimated their incompetence. That these maggots are dumb as a box of rocks is a blessing. Not a curse. Be careful what you wish for! :43:


God, that just further proves how incompetent Sacramento is. It's like the initial AWB that banned firearms by name, so the manufacturers just changed the names.

I mean, I don't like these laws in the first place, but if we are paying the bastards to work for us, the least they could do is a good job writing a bill.

magsnubs
03-17-2010, 7:28 PM
Except for traffic tickets in AZ. they are forever. I'm fighting 2 from 1994, right now. I got one dismissed, one more to go. If I would have robbed a store, I'd be immune from prosecution now, but driving without "ze papers" nope! What irks me is, at the time CA had no mandatory ins law, and AZ did. I blew it off to avoid points on my CA license, which would have resulted in a suspension. From what I've heard, hundreds of people are being harassed because of a revamped interstate compact.

Meplat
03-17-2010, 7:47 PM
In my humble and highly unprofessional opinion, If I whitenessed a person committing a murdered, rape, assault, I would consider them a felon because I whitenessed them committing a felony, regardless of wether they were an adjudicated felon or not. On the other hand if I whitenessed a person violating some unconstitutional bull**** technical felony, I would consider him a ballsy son of a *****, maybe stupid but ballsy, regardless if he were an adjudicated felon or not! There's the law, and then there's the truth.

OK, I'll admit to my being dumb on this and ask what I'm sure will be a stupid question(s). . . Also understand that this is purely hypothetical for me because I got my high cap magazines long before any ban and before I even got my AR-15 (which is fully registered).

If I had illegally imported or purchased the magazines more than 3 years ago and had never been arrested or prosecuted, then I wouldn't actually be a felon would I? I mean, legally, to be a felon don't you have to have been convicted of a felony?

I would not dispute in the slightest that someone who had deliberately broken a felony law is felonious in nature and deserves great disrespect, but despicable as they might be, they still wouldn't actually be a felon, would they?

But to further pursue the initial question, if one had illegally obtained high-cap magazines more than 3 years ago, would one's continued possession of and/or use of such magazines be a crime? From what some have posted it would seem that it wouldn't be but I wonder if the magazines might still be subject to confiscation even if the possessor could not be prosecuted?

MindBuilder
03-18-2010, 4:08 AM
Large capacity magazines are completely legal to buy, sell, import, possess, or make in California, by authority of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. Unfortunately there is a large, active, and armed, conspiracy of felons, depriving the people of their right to keep and bear such arms. Though they claim the Constitution is vague on these issues, they really just don't like the law as written there. These felons are lucky that we will not likely prosecute them for their crimes.

Scott Connors
03-19-2010, 2:43 AM
Assuming that this is a spin-off question from those who thought it was cute to suggest "well if you get one now and aren't caught for three years, then the statute of limitations has passed!" no, it doesn't mean that you possess them legally. It means that you are a felon that wasn't caught in time to prosecute.

Nobody's a felon until they're convicted of a felony. It doesn't matter what you may or may not have done, convicted is the magic word that changes your status. They're are lots of people who did something awful who got acquitted (COUGH*certain ex-football player/actors*COUGH), and there are also a lot of people who didn't do what they were accused of in jail (and probably on Death Row, or worse, in an unmarked prison grave outside Death Row) who either had lousy lawyers or took a plea deal because they knew they had a lousy lawyer and they'd get a worse sentence if they went before a jury. If a bunch of high-caps mysteriously turn up in the attic three years after the postmark on the box in which they were shipped, the lucky possessor is just that: lucky (and I'd say extremely so--like, don't ever play the lottery again because you've used up your remaining lifetime allocation of luck). Personally, I wouldn't take the chance.

GuyW
03-19-2010, 4:35 AM
Nobody's a felon until they're convicted of a felony. It doesn't matter what you may or may not have done, convicted is the magic word that changes your status.

Not factually correct - (without looking it up) CA law allows police (and others) to shoot a fleeing felon - that is, a person who was observed committing a violent felony and who is a danger to others.
.

RideIcon
03-19-2010, 5:14 AM
use the search button...