PDA

View Full Version : What current court cases are out there for HI Cap Mag's?


Mike61982
10-22-2010, 11:35 AM
The title says it all. I've been doing some research and I keep on comming up empty. I'm looking for some court cases involving HI CAP Mag's. Can someone help me out please. :cool2:

dantodd
10-22-2010, 11:38 AM
AFAIK there are no cases challenging California's large capacity magazine law.

BlindRacer
10-22-2010, 11:46 AM
No cases that I know of, but I think for the reason that it's not advantageous to pursue at this point. Without scrutiny covered by Nordyke, there is no guarantee on things like standard/hi cap mags.

As well as other causes like CCW's being higher priority.

To put it another way..."Gene knows, but it's strategically disadvantageous to say, but you'll like the outcome at an undeterminable point in the future and it will work towards an undisclosed follow up case that is currently in development." - yellowfin. A standard/hi cap mag case would probably be considered an 'undisclosed follow up case'.

hoffmang
10-22-2010, 12:52 PM
CGF has successfully defended at least two individuals who were wrongly charged with possession of large-capacity magazines (which is not a crime.)

CGF does have a planned challenge to the large-capacity magazine import and sales ban in California, but it's not yet time to talk about it as it takes some background set up work that is underway.

-Gene

Chatterbox
10-22-2010, 3:55 PM
The title says it all. I've been doing some research and I keep on comming up empty. I'm looking for some court cases involving HI CAP Mag's. Can someone help me out please. :cool2:

Well, there is Heller 2 which is an assault weapons/high-cap case on a Federal level. If that succeeds, I'd say there would be a clear path to challenge CA laws.

dantodd
10-22-2010, 4:01 PM
I sort of forgot that Large Capacity Magazines were on the Chinese menu that is Heller II

Munk
10-22-2010, 5:16 PM
CGF has successfully defended at least two individuals who were wrongly charged with possession of large-capacity magazines (which is not a crime.)

CGF does have a planned challenge to the large-capacity magazine import and sales ban in California, but it's not yet time to talk about it as it takes some background set up work that is underway.

-Gene

It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling when I hear that good things are in the works. It's also great that the people doing them are tactically inteligent enough to keep it on the downlow so as to not give the opposition a heads up on the gameplan.

(although, I am DYING to know what it is and if I could help lol. Being an owner of several pre-ban hicaps, I still feel squeemish about taking them to the range because of some jerk's ignorance of the law.)

HowardW56
10-22-2010, 5:20 PM
It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling when I hear that good things are in the works. It's also great that the people doing them are tactically inteligent enough to keep it on the downlow so as to not give the opposition a heads up on the gameplan.

(although, I am DYING to know what it is and if I could help lol. Being an owner of several pre-ban hicaps, I still feel squeemish about taking them to the range because of some jerk's ignorance of the law.)

I don't hesitate to take my grater than 10 round capacity magazines to the range, or anywhere else.

I've never been questioned...

I did have a rangemaster look at me and laugh when I dumped a 30 round P-226 mag into a silouette at 7 yards... We know each other fairly well and I told him, "I just couldn't resist"

It was a waste of ammo, and non-productive, but it was fun...

GettoPhilosopher
10-22-2010, 8:04 PM
It's all a matter of precedent. We have to make a cogent, concise, compelling argument for our view of the 2A, and we have to do it and win those arguments one step at a time.

You can't just jump from "right to bear arms for self-defense" to "repeal the NFA and give me my SBR silenced M4s with C-Mags!", and any attempt to try would just get bad precedent set against us.

It's chess, not checkers.

CHS
10-23-2010, 9:55 AM
They are *standard capacity* magazines, not *high capacity*. The 10 round limit creates an arbitrary *reduced capacity* magazine category. Most newer and contemporary handguns come with *standard capacity* magazines which hold more than 10 rounds.


While I do fully agree with you, it is important to refer to devices the way the law refers to them in order to reduce confusion and to be technically accurate.

In the state of California the law refers to magazines that hold more than 10 rounds to be "Large Capacity". The law doesn't define the name for any other magazine, so it would be accurate to just call them magazines or even "standard/normal/regular/plain" magazines.

This is why we call them High Capacity, Large Capacity, or HiCap.

While it is (to us gun nuts) wrong, it is still technically and legally correct and we should use the states terminology.

Librarian
10-23-2010, 11:20 AM
While I do fully agree with you, it is important to refer to devices the way the law refers to them in order to reduce confusion and to be technically accurate.

In the state of California the law refers to magazines that hold more than 10 rounds to be "Large Capacity". The law doesn't define the name for any other magazine, so it would be accurate to just call them magazines or even "standard/normal/regular/plain" magazines.

This is why we call them High Capacity, Large Capacity, or HiCap.

While it is (to us gun nuts) wrong, it is still technically and legally correct and we should use the states terminology.

Just following on, 'standard capacity' is firearm-specific. For a vanilla John Moses Browning 1911 pistol, anything greater than 7 rounds is 'high capacity'; my Sig P245 has 'standard capacity' magazines of 6 rounds.

California's restriction is firearm-neutral, and the legal term is "large-capacity", including the dash.

IrishPirate
10-23-2010, 11:26 AM
It's chess, not checkers.

best analogy ever....

yellowfin
10-23-2010, 1:14 PM
While it is (to us gun nuts) wrong, it is still technically and legally correct and we should use the states terminology.Except that repeating the lie somewhat acknowledges it as if true. Feeding the lie is a mistake.

CHS
10-23-2010, 1:57 PM
Except that repeating the lie somewhat acknowledges it as if true. Feeding the lie is a mistake.

I don't really believe that it does acknowledge the lie as true. But I do see your point.

The problem is, if that is the case, what do we call "Large-Capacity" magazines in the context of a legal discussion so that people know what we are talking about, and how do we distinguish them from 10rd (or less) magazines?

Do we just from now on call them >10 and 10/<10?

Mstrty
10-23-2010, 2:28 PM
Except that repeating the lie somewhat acknowledges it as if true. Feeding the lie is a mistake.

True.

Any inaccuracy left unchallenged becomes the truth:eek:

hoffmang
10-23-2010, 3:50 PM
Except that repeating the lie somewhat acknowledges it as if true. Feeding the lie is a mistake.

In this case (unlike so called assault weapons), this is true. It is a large-capacity magazine just like I own a powerful car or a light truck.

What's really at issue is whether the state can control how large your magazine is - not what it's called.

-Gene

Librarian
10-23-2010, 8:32 PM
The "technical accuracy" you refer to should be reserved for legal briefings, courtrooms and legislation. Outside that framework, we can (and should) call them what they are - the *standard capacity* magazines, i.e., they are a part of the *standard* equipment of the particular handgun model.

Again, I point out the *standard capacity* magazine of my Sig P245 is 6 rounds.

Your desire to nullify the inaccuracy of the legal term is at the cost of introducing a different inaccuracy.

Librarian
10-23-2010, 9:38 PM
So, I don't see where the "different inaccuracy" comes from (again, not disagreeing, just not seeing it).

My take on your argument is that you suggest we should call those things the state calls "large-capacity magazines" by a different term "standard capacity magazines". As you note, even a "high capacity magazine" for my Sig could not aspire to California's "large-capacity" definition.

So, the substitution I see you suggesting - and I may be wrong - doesn't work well, in my opinion.

To a large extent this is a clip/magazine discussion again. Here on Calguns we're generally trying to work in the legal arena, so the correct legal term is the appropriate one for most discussions.

I find myself unsympathetic to the argument that accepting the reality of the legal definition is somehow endorsing it or succumbing to propaganda -- even though marginalizing firearms in every way possible is the tactic clearly being used by anti-gun foolish people.

JeffM
10-23-2010, 9:50 PM
My take on your argument is that you suggest we should call those things the state calls "large-capacity magazines" by a different term "standard capacity magazines". As you note, even a "high capacity magazine" for my Sig could not aspire to California's "large-capacity" definition.

So, the substitution I see you suggesting - and I may be wrong - doesn't work well, in my opinion.

To a large extent this is a clip/magazine discussion again. Here on Calguns we're generally trying to work in the legal arena, so the correct legal term is the appropriate one for most discussions.

I find myself unsympathetic to the argument that accepting the reality of the legal definition is somehow endorsing it or succumbing to propaganda -- even though marginalizing firearms in every way possible is the tactic clearly being used by anti-gun foolish people.

Despite clear, concise, and logical reasoning, there are several people who will chose to throw their tantrums and respond in the classic "But I don't wanna! and you can't make me!" fashion. UOC, "Standard-Capacity", and Gorski-ite drones who can't see beyond their armchairs will continue in the ridiculous pursuit of "freedom" by tilting at windmills.

Librarian
10-23-2010, 10:25 PM
Despite clear, concise, and logical reasoning, there are several people who will chose to throw their tantrums and respond in the classic "But I don't wanna! and you can't make me!" fashion. UOC, "Standard-Capacity", and Gorski-ite drones who can't see beyond their armchairs will continue in the ridiculous pursuit of "freedom" by tilting at windmills.

Little harsh, especially the Gorski reference. We can be different in our ideas and methods without our own internal discord.

harbinger007
10-23-2010, 11:52 PM
Brett discussed the issue in his second post of the California litigation thread. He mentions that he sees three possible routes, etc.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=317860

oni.dori
10-24-2010, 2:46 AM
...possession of large-capacity magazines (which is not a crime.)...


I was under the impression that, that was only true if the possesion of the magazines pre-dated the 1989 CA ban, or if they were disassemled in to their component pieces. Could you please further elaborate? Are you saying that it would be legal for me to posess a fully assembled greater-than-10 round capacity magazine for one of my pistols or rifles, as long as I wasn't transporting them across state lines in to CA or selling them?

ke6guj
10-24-2010, 8:37 AM
I was under the impression that, that was only true if the possesion of the magazines pre-dated the 1989 CA ban, or if they were disassemled in to their component pieces. Could you please further elaborate? Are you saying that it would be legal for me to posess a fully assembled greater-than-10 round capacity magazine for one of my pistols or rifles, as long as I wasn't transporting them across state lines in to CA or selling them?

yes, there is no law that prohibits possession of large-cap mags in CA. How you acquired them might be illegal, but the actual possession of them is not illegal.

nicki
10-24-2010, 10:33 AM
My take is we need to look at our terms. The term "Hi Cap" should be replaced with "standard" or "normal capacity" magazines or "common capacity".

Right now California burdens handgun buyers with having to by "non standard, non common magazines" to comply with the 10 round magazine limit.

The 10 round mag needs to be dealt with, but other things must happen first to lay the groundwork first.

We are not the only state with mag cap limits. New Jersey is 15, Maryland is 20 and Hawaii is 10 for handguns.

The level of "scrutiny" we get will play a big factor. With "rational basis" we are toast, fortunately my gut tells me we are going to get "strict scrutiny" out of the "Nordyke" case.

The Brady Bunch's brief in the Peruta case was a piece of work. I have a feeling that when the judge is through reading theirs, she will use "super turbo charged strict scrutiny" and hammer San Diego that they won't know what hit them.

The big problem we have with above 10 round magazines is fear. Hell the Brady Bunch considers more than 6 rounds hi capacity.

Nicki

Librarian
10-24-2010, 11:37 AM
Claiming that there is a good reason to use the *legal definition* of large capacity magazines with the *non-shooters* is where I disagree.

I do believe we are now in synch.

Apocalypsenerd
10-24-2010, 2:21 PM
Hell the Brady Bunch considers more than 6 rounds hi capacity.

Nicki

I would suggest that the Brady Bunch considers single-shot, break-action weapons "high capacity".

bwiese
10-24-2010, 2:25 PM
What I would like to clarify is that I see the "high capacity" ban as a very effective way of limiting whole classes of weapons by using fear of the average voter.

You're playing political correctness (admittedly on our side) with the terminology & naming conventions.

We will be far more harmed by Californians getting popped by misunderstanding legal terms that were redefined for pro-gun-feel-goodism than any public benefit of terminology avoidance.

Nobody's voting on hicap mags anymore anyway.

N6ATF
10-24-2010, 2:28 PM
Anything that has a high capacity for deterring or stopping crime would be banned in the Brady Campaign's utopia (for criminals).

oni.dori
10-24-2010, 4:22 PM
yes, there is no law that prohibits possession of large-cap mags in CA. How you acquired them might be illegal, but the actual possession of them is not illegal.

Ok, just to be clear, I can have fully functional and assembled, greater-than-10 round magazine, and take it to the range and use it in my rifle to shoot, have it in the gun I keep next to the bed for personal protection, or use it as an open carry mag without it being illegal in the state of California?

Librarian
10-24-2010, 4:56 PM
Ok, just to be clear, I can have fully functional and assembled, greater-than-10 round magazine, and take it to the range and use it in my rifle to shoot, have it in the gun I keep next to the bed for personal protection, or use it as an open carry mag without it being illegal in the state of California?

Yes. See the wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions).

But unless you were/are exempt (principally LEO), to legally own it you should have possessed it here in CA before 2000.

HowardW56
10-24-2010, 5:04 PM
Ok, just to be clear, I can have fully functional and assembled, greater-than-10 round magazine, and take it to the range and use it in my rifle to shoot, have it in the gun I keep next to the bed for personal protection, or use it as an open carry mag without it being illegal in the state of California?

What kind of rifle? ANy features that could make it an AW?

gemini1
10-24-2010, 5:42 PM
Just following on, 'standard capacity' is firearm-specific. For a vanilla John Moses Browning 1911 pistol, anything greater than 7 rounds is 'high capacity'; my Sig P245 has 'standard capacity' magazines of 6 rounds.

California's restriction is firearm-neutral, and the legal term is "large-capacity", including the dash.


Ok just want to clear something. So assuming your pistol has a 10 round standard cap mag, having a 15 round mag is high cap, but this does not make it illegal if the 15 round mag was acquired before 2000, correct?

Librarian
10-24-2010, 6:04 PM
this does not make it illegal if the 15 round mag was acquired before 2000, correct?

Correct. Perfectly legal to own, possess and use.

ETA: That is, if it had been possessed in CA before 2000 - owning it in Georgia or wherever before 2000 and then bringing it to CA in or after 2000 would be 'importing', a forbidden activity.

IntoForever
10-24-2010, 6:20 PM
CGF does have a planned challenge to the large-capacity magazine import and sales ban in California, but it's not yet time to talk about it as it takes some background set up work that is underway.

-Gene

:notworthy:

oni.dori
10-24-2010, 9:54 PM
What kind of rifle? ANy features that could make it an AW?
No, I mean a legal AR, AK, Mini-14, or M1a. Something of that nature.

Yes. See the wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions).

But unless you were/are exempt (principally LEO), to legally own it you should have possessed it here in CA before 2000.

2000? I thought they were outlawed in 1989 in the AWB that was passed.

dantodd
10-24-2010, 10:00 PM
2000? I thought they were outlawed in 1989 in the AWB that was passed.

This is the pertinent statute.

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:

(1) ...

(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.

socal-shooter
10-24-2010, 10:03 PM
noob question;

if i went to the range with a buddy that had leo credentials, would i be able to use my pre

ban mags in my rifle w/bullet button as long as he is shooting it as well?

dantodd
10-24-2010, 10:08 PM
noob question;

if i went to the range with a buddy that had leo credentials, would i be able to use my pre

ban mags in my rifle w/bullet button as long as he is shooting it as well?

No. You and your buddy would be committing a felony if you attached a magazine with greater than a 10 round capacity to a bullet buttoned rifle.

12276.1(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

(1) ...

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

There is no exception for a police officer. The only exception would be if the gun was a registered assault weapon; but then it would almost certainly not have a bullet button on it.

oni.dori
10-24-2010, 10:11 PM
CGF has successfully defended at least two individuals who were wrongly charged with possession of large-capacity magazines (which is not a crime.)

CGF does have a planned challenge to the large-capacity magazine import and sales ban in California, but it's not yet time to talk about it as it takes some background set up work that is underway.

-Gene



:notworthy:

Yes, I agree. Bless you all. From my personal experience, it can be so very disheartening for a gun owner/rights supporter in CA with all the crap laws, lawmakers, and politicians running rampant in our system and controlling it. It really boosts my faith in the (seemingly few) good people in this state. Thank you again. I wish I could do more for our cause than I am currently able to.

socal-shooter
10-24-2010, 10:11 PM
thank you

but being a leo he could own a rifle that didnt even have a bullet button and used hi-cap mags right?

since he could do that i didnt think anything else mattered..

oni.dori
10-24-2010, 10:16 PM
No. You and your buddy would be committing a felony if you attached a magazine with greater than a 10 round capacity to a bullet buttoned rifle.


How would that be a felony if the mag was one that was legally obtained and owned before 2000? I would believe that it would be legal, since the mag is technically a legal one.


There is no exception for a police officer. The only exception would be if the gun was a registered assault weapon; but then it would almost certainly not have a bullet button on it.

From what I have read in the law, and from what my step brother (a local LEO) has informed me, one of the few exemptions are LEO's. They are the only ones according to the law, aside from military personell, that are able to order "high cap" mags.

eaglemike
10-24-2010, 10:17 PM
thank you

but being a leo he could own a rifle that didnt even have a bullet button and used hi-cap mags right?

since he could do that i didnt think anything else mattered..
This is not automatic. Requires department approval, in writing.... for an otherwise "assault weapon."

socal-shooter
10-24-2010, 10:19 PM
oh, thanks guys

and pardon my ignorance

oni.dori
10-24-2010, 10:20 PM
This is the pertinent statute.

Ok, I see the law. I mean, I cannot deny that it is it, since it is sitting right in front of me. However, I am even more confused now, because I was always under the understanding that having no greater than a 10 round magazine was part of what stipulated in the AWB that was passed in CA in 1989 (and part of the characteristics that made an "assault weapon" as well).

Librarian
10-24-2010, 10:31 PM
How would that be a felony if the mag was one that was legally obtained and owned before 2000? I would believe that it would be legal, since the mag is technically a legal one.

It isn't the magazine that is the issue - if a semi-auto mag-fed gun with 'features' is modified so it does not accept 'detachable magazines', as with a bullet button, then one cannot use 10+ round magazines in it - dantodd posted the PC Originally Posted by 12276.1(a)(2)
12276.1(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

(1) ...

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.Combine the mag and the rifle, you have manufactured an 'assault weapon'.

Don't do that.

Librarian
10-24-2010, 10:34 PM
Ok, I see the law. I mean, I cannot deny that it is it, since it is sitting right in front of me. However, I am even more confused now, because I was always under the understanding that having no greater than a 10 round magazine was part of what stipulated in the AWB that was passed in CA in 1989 (and part of the characteristics that made an "assault weapon" as well).

The 'large-capacity' magazine law was part of SB 23, in 1999.

Time to go read the Wiki, my friend - start with the FAQs, linked below.

dantodd
10-24-2010, 10:37 PM
From what I have read in the law, and from what my step brother (a local LEO) has informed me, one of the few exemptions are LEO's. They are the only ones according to the law, aside from military personell, that are able to order "high cap" mags.

Yes. LEO can purchase large-capacity magazines. But they cannot attach them to a rifle that has a bullet button. Any magazine attached to a gun with a BB on it becomes a "fixed magazine" per statute. Any gun with a fixed magazine of greater than 10 rd. capacity is an assault weapon. A LEO can usually get an AW permit but each gun has to be registered, he can't go around making AWs out of random guns because he has a permit for one gun.