CA magazine ban - seems unenforceable?

[Benellishooter]

THIS IS NOT A THREAD ADVOCATING BREAKING ANY LAW.

I am just making an observation. It seems almost impossible to enforce the "high cap" magazine ban since all the parts can be imported into the state for repair purposes.

Certain items (Magpul followers, date stamped mag bodies) could be identified according to dates. But, stainless steel milspec springs and blank floorplates would be impossible to prove that they were not possessed before the ban. As a matter of fact, anyone possession a "high cap" magazine could be accussed of manufacturing a new magazine because all the components are not date stamped. There is no way of knowing either way if something is pre or post ban.

Furthermore, a honest person could rebuild a magazine and be accussed of building a new one unless he kept the old parts. If he threw out the old parts, then he is at risk.

The whole thing seems like a gray area.

[Stanze]

Like the "Assault" Weapons ban, the point of these asinine laws seems to be, when the current generation of "AW" and standard capacity mag owners die off, eventually no living person can legally justify possession of items in question.

They weren't really after you, but rather your children and grandchildren, so on and so forth.

[Benellishooter]

I guess my main question/comment is:

How can they enforce it due to the fact that all the components are not date stamped?

It seems that you could follow the law and still be accused of manufacturing a magazine do to these facts. How would you prove your mag is pre-ban??

[ohsmily]

I guess my main question/comment is:

How can they enforce it due to the fact that all the components are not date stamped?

It seems that you could follow the law and still be accused of manufacturing a magazine do to these facts. How would you prove your mag is pre-ban??

You don't even fully get the law. The date stamps are nearly irrelevant...you CAN REPLACE PARTS ON YOUR LEGALLY ACQUIRED FULL CAP MAGS WITH PARTS THAT HAVE DATE STAMPS FROM ANY TIME, INCLUDING THIS YEAR. Technically, you can even REPLACE old mag parts with parts that are marked LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY. The burden is on the state to prove that you did not have them prior to 2000. It is difficult to prove a negative.

Having said all this, it gets lame and old b/c a thread like this pops up every week on this exact topic. We know the law, we are all adults (well, maybe some aren't) so conduct your lives how you like. As for me personally, I had the foresight to purchase a large quantity of magazines before the ban. My USGI AR mags have dates like 92, 85 and so on and so forth.

We know the law is poorly written, but that doesn't mean you need to impliedly tell everyone that go ahead and break it b/c it is likely they can't enforce it against you (WE KNOW).

As to your question about how they will enforce this...You didn't pay attention to the earlier post that pointed out that the current law is nearly toothless EXCEPT for those people born on or after 1/1/2000 b/c then there is NO LEGAL way they could have acquired full capacity magazines. It is mostly geared toward them b/c it is VERY easy to prove they acquired them after the legal cut-off, they just introduce your birthdate as evidence.

[railroader]

Stanze has it right. The law is unenforceable for us. But the younger shooters as time goes along will be unable to say they owned hicaps prior to 1/1/2000 just because of their age. Eventually this will eliminate legal hicaps in this state. Mark

[mow]

Couldn't they be grandfathered if you inherit them from a parent?

[C.G.]

Couldn't they be grandfathered if you inherit them from a parent?

I guess you haven't read the regs: you cannot inherit AWs and hi-cap mags.

[Sgt Raven]

Stanze has it right. The law is unenforceable for us. But the younger shooters as time goes along will be unable to say they owned hicaps prior to 1/1/2000 just because of their age. Eventually this will eliminate legal hicaps in this state. Mark

Except for .mil, .gov, and .LEO!

[socalguns]

read the law, answer is NO
It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, cause to be manufactured, import into the
state, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any large-capacity
magazine. (Penal Code § 12020(a)(2).)

[Benellishooter]

Ohsmily, I did not imply anything illegal. If you don't like a thread, don't read it. I had some questions and comments. Just because a topic has come up once before, does not mean the subject is closed forever.

Don't read threads that you don't like.

[Fjold]

Let's say that prior to the cut off date, I gave my grandaughter two normal capacity magazines for her second birthday and her mother saved the birthday card to prove it. It seems to me that it will be a long time before the state is normal magazine free.

[Mike Searson]

Everyone reading this thread that was born before 1/1/2000 should be quaking in their boots....


or in pre-school.

[grammaton76]

I've heard however, that under the law, it's not illegal to find them, and that even for post-00 people, there's no obligation to turn them in. So here's a hypothetical scenario for the year 2050, I'm NOT talking about anything soon or whatnot:

ASSUMING THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED BETWEEN NOW AND THEN:

Say you visit your grandson with some of your stash of full-capacity mags and leave them in his bedroom when he isn't around - then he comes back and finds them. Maybe you put a note on them saying "Have fun - from the easter bunny". Is he actually breaking any laws if he keeps them?

I'm not sure YOU wouldn't be, in fact you probably would be, but would he be for keeping them? He hasn't received them from you, he doesn't know for sure they even came from you. They just appeared in his room. Mostly I'm just thinking down the road to, say, 2050 or so, when most of us will be kinda crusty and probably not give much of a rip about the laws.

I've noticed that seems to happen here in CA... once shooters get past 60 or so, they just stop giving a rip. Or maybe it's just a generational thing.

[gose]

Everyone reading this thread that was born before 1/1/2000 should be quaking in their boots....
or in pre-school.

Or any poor bastard (like me) who just happened to move into the state.

[docsmileyface]

I'm not a lawyer and reading all the regs and laws outlined by the AW section of CA's gun laws makes me see fuzzy....

My unit (National Guard Infantry) issued me a bit of 30 round magazines to keep in my LBV.... did they just make me a felon?!

[treelogger]

This thread seems to imply that there is no legal problem with owning high-cap magazines, as it is difficult or impossible to prove whether they are older than the 2000 cutoff date.

There is another aspect that has not been discussed: It is illegal to import these mags into the state, or to purchase them in the state. So if the DA finds some evidence to document that you purchased the mags, it's game over. For example a credit card receipt from a vendor at a gun show in Nevada who is known to sell high-cap mags, and several credit card receipts for gasoline on the way to/from Reno, plus one of the security guards from the gun show on the witness stand, remembering how you were showing your nice new mags to a friend. Or a cash withdrawal from the ATM machine, and the guy in East Palo Alto or Compton from whom you bought those magazines on the witness stand. This is particularly important if your "cover story" (that you bought these mags when they were still legal) is implausible (like you were 8 years old at the cutoff date) and full of holes (the parts are clearly post-2000 manufacture, and you claim that you replaced the original parts with spare parts, but you don't have any receipts for spare parts).

[ohsmily]

Ohsmily, I did not imply anything illegal. If you don't like a thread, don't read it. I had some questions and comments. Just because a topic has come up once before, does not mean the subject is closed forever.

Don't read threads that you don't like.

Read the law and use the search function...or perhaps that is beyond your ability...

[ohsmily]

This is particularly important if your "cover story" (that you bought these mags when they were still legal) is implausible (like you were 8 years old at the cutoff date) and full of holes (the parts are clearly post-2000 manufacture, and you claim that you replaced the original parts with spare parts, but you don't have any receipts for spare parts).

you could have purchased them or been given them when you were 8. Nothing wrong with that.

The absence of receipts for spare parts is not sufficient to show that you didn't buy new replacement parts for old mags...

[Benellishooter]

ohsmily, you just can't stay away from this thread, can you. If the subject is closed, why do you post? Thank you very much for all your wisdom. You are my hero because you are so smart and strong as defender of the calguns forum.

[HEUER]

This topic is tired. We have a thread with all the necessary info:

just serach "magazine thread"

[HEUER]

New record for search. 6 seconds.

Here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=26890&page=2&highlight=magazine+thread

[EBWhite]

There is no way for the state to prove this unless they set up a sting and sell you magazines or you buy mags at a gun show and they see you do it and drive back across state lines.

You can order mag parts and put one together, yes. (against the law and i do not recommend this) but will you get caught, NO. There is no way to prove any of this.

[shopkeep]

Guys can we finally stop reminding them how silly the mag ban is :D...

[El Capitan]

brush up on your aim and you can hit 'em with the first 10+1 anyway....

[saki302]

There is no way for the state to prove this unless they set up a sting and sell you magazines or you buy mags at a gun show and they see you do it and drive back across state lines.


Actually, if you had taken them apart FIRST, and brought back the parts to rehab your old mags, they can't do a darn thing.
I was very glad I bought a boatload of old crappily refurbed AR mags back in 1998. They were cheap then, for a run down spraypainted mag. Now that mag bodies are cheap, I've been rebuilding them little by little and jsut tossing the old mag bodies. I stripped the paint off one, and when I saw what lay beneath - you'd dump them too.

I wonder what the legality is of turning an existing, grandfathered hi-cap mag into a hi-cap mag for a different pistol- i.e. the old mag dies, and a new mag is reborn from the ashes. I wonder if this is kosher or not...? Say a USP 9mm hi-cap being reconstructed into a USP45 hi-cap mag, and destroying the USP9mm mag(or retaining the old parts in a bucket).

-Dave

[Technical Ted]

I wonder what the legality is of turning an existing, grandfathered hi-cap mag into a hi-cap mag for a different pistol- i.e. the old mag dies, and a new mag is reborn from the ashes. I wonder if this is kosher or not...? Say a USP 9mm hi-cap being reconstructed into a USP45 hi-cap mag, and destroying the USP9mm mag(or retaining the old parts in a bucket).
During the Fed AWB the ATF took the stance that reconfiguring a high cap mag was equivalent to manufacturing a new high cap mag.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter85.txt


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, DC 20226

JUN 22 2000

Dear Mr. Bardwell:

This refers to your letter of May 30, 2000, in which you asked
about modifying a magazine.

As defined in section 921(a)(31) of Title 18, United States Code
(U.S.C.), the term large capacity ammunition feeding device -

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar
device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 [September 13,
1994] that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored
or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber
rimfire ammunition.

It is generally unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a
large capacity ammunition feeding device as provided in 18 U.S.C.
section 922(w).

A 9mm 20 shot magazine manufactured prior to September 13, 1994,
would not be a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined.
You asked about altering such a magazine to accept 14 rounds of
10mm ammunition by modifying the feed lips and possibly the
follower.

- 2 -

Mr. Bardwell

The altered magazine would be a large capacity ammunition feeding
device. The fact that the materials used to construct the 10mm
magazine were made prior to September 13, 994, would not mean that
the 10mm magazine was manufactured prior to that date. A new 10mm
magazine with the capacity of accepting more than 10 rounds of
ammunition would have been manufactured and it would be subject to
the prohibition in section 922(w).

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If you have further questions concerning this matter, please
contact us.


Sincerely yours,

Curtis H.A. Bartlett
Acting Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

[EBWhite]

Saki-

I would not see a problem with it as those magazines are hi caps, doesnt matter what gun they go in. They are legal and can be modified.

Another thing is, you legal own then and you can do what you want. Let them prove you did something wrong, which you did nothing wrong.

[saki302]

During the Fed AWB the ATF took the stance that reconfiguring a high cap mag was equivalent to manufacturing a new high cap mag.


THe funny thing is, I remember Armalite sold AR-10 mag 'kits' which required you to disassemble an M14 mag for the other parts- all during the AW ban!

I'm just curious what the CA DOJ has to say on the matter.

Say, if one sliced up an old AR mag, and reconfigured the baseplate to work on a P90 mag (50rd) for a rhineland arms upper :D
It's a little 'gray', but you'd make sure the old part was still recognizable!

-Dave

[blackrazor]

Also, remember that you don't have to prove you imported/bought/etc. any mags before Jan 1, 2000. As of today, you only have to prove that you acquired your magazines before Feb 14, 2003. Even if they try you with a felony, the standard statute of limitations for a crime punishable by a maximum sentence of 1 year in state prison is 3 years, meaning that if you imported a high cap mag in 2002, you are immune from prosecution. Remember, they can only prosecute you for the action of importing or buying the mag, not possession. After Jan 1, 2000, the importation would be the crime, and if that crime occurred more than 3 years ago, you're A-OK.

[Bling Bling 2.0]

Well it's really the best of both worlds so to speak, at least for the interim. The anti's are happy that you can't walk into a local gun store and walk out with 50 AR 15 hi-caps. And we're happy that they passed such a stupid and unenforceable law that allows us to keep our grandfathered magazines and replace the parts as needed to keep them functioning.

I was young in 2000 and didn't really understand what was happening. I thought that SB 23 was really just about hi-caps and AK/AR's. I was only able to get 3 AW's, but I picked up a lot of hi-caps for rifles I didn't own, but wanted. Then I found out about the features part of SB 23 and the hk94 and G3 hi-caps I got are pretty much useless to me since I didn't get one. I'll hold on and eventually build a feature-less hk94 clone or something.

The crappy part is that I bought cheap mini 30 mags and none of them work with my mini 30 which I bought about 2 years ago. So now I'm stuck with the 10 rounders even though I went out of my way to get hi caps back in the day.

[EBWhite]

Good idea black. Thats why the three ways they can catch you are.
1) watching you buy at an LV gun show and following you back into california with it
2) undercover sting of selling it to you locally
3) intercepting it in the mail

All of those are very unlikely to happen, but they do happen. The sad part is their law is soo flawed that criminals bring hundreds of these magazines enter the state each week.

[ohsmily]

The sad part is their law is soo flawed that criminals bring hundreds of these magazines enter the state each week.

First of all, where is evidence of that...
but most importantly...how would you write it to prevent CRIMINALS from bringing them into the state? The whole point is, criminals don't abide by the laws...Your statement is buying into the Lefties' framework of more gun control = less gun crime. Criminals don't follow the laws.

There is another way of looking at your statement which is that otherwise law abiding gun owners are being made into criminals by bringing full cap mags into this state. I agree with this tragic scenario b/c some gun owners ARE doing this and breaking the law. But, you clearly meant the first scenario and it doesn't hold up to logic.

[EBWhite]

I agree with you. Ban all magazines and criminals will still have them.

What i mean is that people are made criminals by a stupid law. Yes, i'm betting that 100's of mags enter the state every week by people the state labels as criminals. However, most of these people just want to have fun and go shooting. They bring mag parts in and assemble them. Yes, illegal, but they dont and wont get caught. Few get caught in the few scenarios i mentioned but most do not.

[lazyman]

You can order mag parts and put one together, yes. (against the law and i do not recommend this) but will you get caught, NO. There is no way to prove any of this.

well if you order all the parts to your house they could use your financial statements to argue that all the parts to build a highcap were sent to your house. hell maybe they can do some kind of crazy forensic stuff to figure out what kind of mag you have. I really believe that there is some kind of way to tell. I would highly recommend that anyone stay away from this idea. replacing parts fine, building new mags is a no no becareful!! the thought police are everywhere:eek:

[Brass Balls]

Did anyone give standard capacity magazines to their kids before 1/1/2000 ? :)

[Creeping Incrementalism]

The crappy part is that I bought cheap mini 30 mags and none of them work with my mini 30 which I bought about 2 years ago. So now I'm stuck with the 10 rounders even though I went out of my way to get hi caps back in the day.

So the mags are so poorly constructed that they don't work with the gun at all? I always wonder why it is so hard to construct a reliable magazine, and why it seems no reliable ones were ever made for the Mini-30. It seems so simple, compared to something like my Japanese car, which is far more complex and always works flawlessly.

[saki302]

Also, remember that you don't have to prove you imported/bought/etc. any mags before Jan 1, 2000. As of today, you only have to prove that you acquired your magazines before Feb 14, 2003. Even if they try you with a felony, the standard statute of limitations for a crime punishable by a maximum sentence of 1 year in state prison is 3 years, meaning that if you imported a high cap mag in 2002, you are immune from prosecution. Remember, they can only prosecute you for the action of importing or buying the mag, not possession. After Jan 1, 2000, the importation would be the crime, and if that crime occurred more than 3 years ago, you're A-OK.

Hahaha- is that really true? If so, that's f-in hilarious!

Buy your crap, bury it in the desert for 4 years, and then go get it!
not that it really helps me now- I still have about 4-5 types of mags and belts I have no use for yet!

-Dave

[jtv3062]

THe funny thing is, I remember Armalite sold AR-10 mag 'kits' which required you to disassemble an M14 mag for the other parts- all during the AW ban!

I'm just curious what the CA DOJ has to say on the matter.

Say, if one sliced up an old AR mag, and reconfigured the baseplate to work on a P90 mag (50rd) for a rhineland arms upper :D
It's a little 'gray', but you'd make sure the old part was still recognizable!

-Dave
if the m14 mag can still be used in a m14 then your ok I remember reading about this in a gun mag a few years ago.

[ohsmily]

Hahaha- is that really true? If so, that's f-in hilarious!

Buy your crap, bury it in the desert for 4 years, and then go get it!
not that it really helps me now- I still have about 4-5 types of mags and belts I have no use for yet!
-Dave

I would not take Blackrazor's statement about the statute of limitations as truth until someone provides proof of that. The statute of limitations for a felony is almost certainly longer than 3 years...so, until proven otherwise, I wouldn't put this "3 year plan" into effect.

(no offense razor, just want to get the facts straight).

[dwestfall]

I always thought that the statute of limitations period started when law enforcement first becomes aware the crime -- ie begins investigating?

[s281c]

I would not take Blackrazor's statement about the statute of limitations as truth until someone provides proof of that. The statute of limitations for a felony is almost certainly longer than 3 years...so, until proven otherwise, I wouldn't put this "3 year plan" into effect.

(no offense razor, just want to get the facts straight).

3 years is correct, but I was always told that the clock starts when you're charged...................

[ohsmily]

3 years is correct, but I was always told that the clock starts when you're charged...................

That is a WHOLE different situation...

the 3 year clock starts FOR WHAT once you're charged? To start trial?
(i happen to know that this varies depending on what type of crime it is, and further it gets more complex about the right to a speedy trial)

Blackrazor is saying they only have 3 years to arrest and charge you before the SOL runs. I disagree.

[s281c]

That is a WHOLE different situation...

the 3 year clock starts FOR WHAT once you're charged? To start trial?
(i happen to know that this varies depending on what type of crime it is, and further it gets more complex about the right to a speedy trial)

Blackrazor is saying they only have 3 years to arrest and charge you before the SOL runs. I disagree.


Sorry I re-read what I typed, and I wasn't very clear...............The majority of Felonies have a SOL of 3 years, but the SOL doesn't start when you committ the crime, but when the crime is uncovered and you are charged.

So in other words I disagree with Blackrazor also.

[saki302]

Oh well- sounded too good to be true :D

-Dave

[blackrazor]

The statue of limitations deals with when the crime was committed. Of course it doesn't have anything to do with when the crime was discovered, if that were the case it would be completely useless. One of the main purposes for SOL is that if someone commits a crime, that they do not have to worry about prosecution for the rest of their life. The other reason has to do with the fact that the evidence for a crime gets very "foggy" when the crime was committed years ago. Both of these lines of reasoning clearly show that the SOL deals with when the crime was committed, not the discovery.

If you don't believe me, just go and look at any case that was dismissed based on the SOL. Every time it references the fact that the crime itself was commmitted greater than "x" number of years ago (the charges are usually brought right after the discovery of the crime).

So... let's say they find a picture of you smoking a joint at Woodstock in 1969. The crime of smoking pot has now been *discovered* in 2006... are you seriously saying that you wouldn't be protected by the SOL? c'mon....

[ohsmily]

The statue of limitations deals with when the crime was committed. Of course it doesn't have anything to do with when the crime was discovered, if that were the case it would be completely useless. One of the main purposes for SOL is that if someone commits a crime, that they do not have to worry about prosecution for the rest of their life. The other reason has to do with the fact that the evidence for a crime gets very "foggy" when the crime was committed years ago. Both of these lines of reasoning clearly show that the SOL deals with when the crime was committed, not the discovery.

If you don't believe me, just go and look at any case that was dismissed based on the SOL. Every time it references the fact that the crime itself was commmitted greater than "x" number of years ago (the charges are usually brought right after the discovery of the crime).

So... let's say they find a picture of you smoking a joint at Woodstock in 1969. The crime of smoking pot has now been *discovered* in 2006... are you seriously saying that you wouldn't be protected by the SOL? c'mon....

I am going to settle this today (ask a law professor about it). I think you are WRONG. YES, many civil causes of action have a statute of limitations, but that is CIVIL. BUT, criminal law is different. My evidence class starts in 20 min.

[klmmicro]

ohsmiley, I look forward to hearing your results!

[blackrazor]

ohsmiley, I look forward to hearing your results!

ditto. If your law professor says I'm wrong, then I'm assuming this means you can be charged for any crime, no matter how long ago it occured, so long as it was "discovered" recently. That would seem to negate the whole point of the SOL.

[grammaton76]

ditto. If your law professor says I'm wrong, then I'm assuming this means you can be charged for any crime, no matter how long ago it occured, so long as it was "discovered" recently. That would seem to negate the whole point of the SOL.

Another point would be, if they notice you doing something when you're a minor, can they wait until after you turn 18 so they can charge you as an adult?

Say something like that Woodstock example came up, and you were 15. You're 50 now, and they decide to haul you in on it.

It would be weird seeing a 50 year old guy dragged into trial as a minor based on something he did when he was 15...

[69Mach1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/statute_of_limitations.htm

[ohsmily]

OK...
First, there is a different SOL for various crimes. As a rule of thumb, the more serious the offense, the longer the SOL. For example, there is no statute of limitations for murder. If you committed a murder 50 years ago, charges can be filed today and you can be prosecuted.

Second, the SOL starts to run at the time of commission of the crime. Thus, FOR EXAMPLE, if the gov't had evidence that someone had illegally imported a magazine in 2004 and the SOL for that crime is 5 years, they have till 2009 to file charges against someone. After 2009, charges based on the evidence of the crime they discovered in 2004 can't be brought. (Again, these are fake numbers).

I will look up the SOL for the full capacity magazine violations after class (or during if it is going slow) and get more clarification after class.

[blackrazor]

if what you're saying is true, then

1. The Cornell law website is wrong.

2. What is the point of saying "the SOL starts to run at the time of commission of the crime or the time of discovery of the crime, whichever is LATER", when every crime is ALWAYS "discovered" after it has been committed? The discovery is ALWAYS later, so why mention anything about the commission of the crime? This makes no sense!

[ohsmily]

I will clarify after class, I only had 1 minute before class to talk to her...

[bwiese]

There's another issue (perhaps not specific to, or even related to this situation) w/regard to SOLs...

The continued concealment, posession, use, etc. of whatever was illegal could be regarded as an 'ongoing act' or continuation of a conspiracy stretching out the specific incident into the current day. Perhaps (or not?) the continued use/possession of a smuggled-in hicap mag, esp if there were continuing acts so as to mask it (i.e., finding old floorplates to mount) as not being a new mag to avoid issues of mag imporation charges may cause things to be carried forward and not die off due to SOL.

I may or may not be wrong, but I also seem to recall that conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor ("Hey, let's go to Reno and get hicap mags- pay me $$ and I'll smuggle 'em back in") can be charged as a felony. [Some RKI please correct me if wrong!]

[blacklisted]

I may or may not be wrong, but I also seem to recall that conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor ("Hey, let's go to Reno and get hicap mags- pay me $$ and I'll smuggle 'em back in") can be charged as a felony. [Some RKI please correct me if wrong!]

Hey, I heard that on one of the Dirty Harry sequels!

[blackrazor]

The continued concealment, posession, use, etc. of whatever was illegal could be regarded as an 'ongoing act' or continuation of a conspiracy stretching out the specific incident into the current day.

Don't think that's possible, by definition, conspiracy always has to involve two or more people, i.e. you cannot conspire with yourself.

[chickenfried]

I believe the Bible says that's a no-no.
i.e. you cannot conspire with yourself.

[ryang]

Second, the SOL starts to run at the time of commission of the crime. Thus, FOR EXAMPLE, if the gov't had evidence that someone had illegally imported a magazine in 2004 and the SOL for that crime is 5 years, they have till 2009 to file charges against someone. After 2009, charges based on the evidence of the crime they discovered in 2004 can't be brought. (Again, these are fake numbers).It sounds like you are mixing apples and oranges here when you say "starts to run at the time of commission" and "crime they discovered". Let's repeat some key terms:

1. Date a crime occurred.
2. Date a crime has been discovered.
3. Date SOL starts and ends.

Usually SOL starts the date the crime occurred. However there are some crimes that by nature are difficult to detect. In those cases (like embezzlement) SOL starts the date the crime was discovered.

Both of these examples refer to one-time crimes. There is no concept of SOL running out on posession crimes while you still posess. So in this specific case, SOL does not apply. As long as you posess a hi-cap mag that you did not continuously own since 1999 you are in violation of this law and can be prosecuted.

[blackrazor]

There is no concept of SOL running out on posession crimes while you still posess. So in this specific case, SOL does not apply.

You seem to have missed the boat. The law has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with possession. Possession of high capacity magazines is not regulated, in any way whatsoever, in CA. Therefore, the SOL does apply, since the crime itself, the crime of "importation" (or manufacture, trade, etc.), took place at some time in the past.

As long as you posess a hi-cap mag that you did not continuously own since 1999 you are in violation of this law and can be prosecuted.

NO. Possession is not and CANNOT be a crime, you cannot be prosecuted for it.

[swhatb]

It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, cause to be manufactured, import into the state, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any large-capacity magazine. (Penal Code § 12020(a)(2).)
so is that a misdeminor or felony? it's probably unenforceable, but would you want to get caught? i don't think so!

[swhatb]

what does sol have to do with this? i don't get it.

[Jedi]

what does sol have to do with this? i don't get it.

Ok, let me break it down:

Subject imports standard capacity magazine into CA, in violation of CPC 12020(a)(2).
Subject "hides" the illegally imported standard capacity magazines for a time period exceeding the statute of limitations.
After the statute of limitations has passed, subject pulls out the illegally imported standard capacity magazines.


The idea here is that possession of illegally imported or manufactured standard capacity magazines is not illegal under CPC 12020(a)(2). Therefore, the only violation of law was the importation or manufacture which is not prosecutable after the statute of limitations has expired.

Clear as mud?

[ohsmily]

That is clear

The question now is "how long is the SOL". I made a cursory search on Westlaw to try and find the SOL for this class of crimes, but I didn't turn up any results (but I didn't spend much time). I have a feeling, the SOL will be quite lengthy...but we'll see.

[phish]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks3.jpg