PDA

View Full Version : LCAV Model Law for California,prohibiting the possession of large capacity magazines.


Steyr_223
01-02-2011, 5:16 PM
Has this been reviewed and discussed before? No way this is legal..

LCAV Model Law
PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES
(LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN CALIFORNIA)
September 2010

Sec. 3 Prohibition on possession of large capacity magazines
(a) No person, corporation, or other entity in the City/County∗ may possess a large capacity
magazine.
(b) Any person who, prior to the effective date of this chapter, was legally in possession of a
large capacity magazine shall have 90 days from such effective date to do either of the following
without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the large capacity magazine from the City/County;
(2) Surrender the large capacity magazine to the Police/Sheriff’s Department for
destruction; or
7 Penal Code § 12020(a)(2), (b). A “large capacity

(3) Sell or transfer the large capacity magazine lawfully in accordance with Penal
Code § 12020.
http://www.lcav.org/publications-briefs/model_laws/LCAV_Model_LCAM_Possession_Ban.pdf

lgm118icbm
01-02-2011, 5:18 PM
No exemption for law enforcement.... I'm sure their local PD would love that!

Steyr_223
01-02-2011, 5:21 PM
No exemption for law enforcement.... I'm sure their local PD would love that!

The Exemptions for LEOs and others are covered in Section 4..

safewaysecurity
01-02-2011, 5:21 PM
I just can't take them seriously with writing like that... it looks like the writing of a 4th grader for a mock congress or something.

Cokebottle
01-02-2011, 5:24 PM
Exactly.
No understanding of property ownership rights.

Nope... We say it's illegal so you either have to move or turn them in.

It's almost like someone tried to ban brains and the LCAV was the first in line to turn theirs in.

Window_Seat
01-02-2011, 5:24 PM
I don't take the LCAV as seriously as anyone else in this business does, and not too many will when CGF pounces on their agenda enough times and (legally) b|+<# slaps them for fun. Unfortunately it will cost $$ (for us) when it happens.

The sad thing is that they know that they are an organization that is very much against legal & lawful gun ownership.

It's almost like someone tried to ban brains and the LCAV was the first in line to turn theirs in.

:laugh: :rofl:

Erik.

Southwest Chuck
01-02-2011, 5:33 PM
No exemption for law enforcement.... I'm sure their local PD would love that!

Not true:

Sec. 4 Exceptions
Section 3 shall not apply to the following:9
(a) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United
States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to possess a
large capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties; ............

And this:

.......(m) Any person lawfully in possession of a firearm that the person obtained prior to January
1, 2000 if no magazine that holds 10 or less rounds of ammunition is compatible with that
firearm and the person possesses the large capacity magazine solely for use with that
firearm.11
Sec.

Aren't they generous :rolleyes:

nick
01-02-2011, 6:12 PM
Well, there's a state preemption, for one. That being said, until LCAV and those who take up their "models" get seriously (as in at least financially) slapped for knowingly trying to (and occasionally succeeding) pass illegal laws, they'll keep doing it.

Exile Machine
01-02-2011, 6:23 PM
1) Looks like rebuild kits will still be good to go --and--
2) those who are illegally in possession of large capacity mags would be unaffected. :D

-Mark

97F1504RAD
01-02-2011, 6:30 PM
Didn't this happen in Richmond and it got shot down already?

Southwest Chuck
01-02-2011, 6:37 PM
1) Looks like rebuild kits will still be good to go --and--
2) those who are illegally in possession of large capacity mags would be unaffected. :D

-Mark

:rofl2: Ya Think ??? Thank you LCAV for protecting all of us :King:

:puke:

rromeo
01-02-2011, 6:55 PM
That's funny that they only ask for legally owned magazines to be handed in. Even they realize that criminals will continue to break the law.

hoffmang
01-02-2011, 8:17 PM
It was passed below the radar in Emeryville and once they were pre-lit lettered on it, they repealed it.

-Gene

M. Sage
01-02-2011, 8:21 PM
Won't fly due to preemption laws. It'll cost stupid local governments a lot of money, though.

BRoss
01-02-2011, 8:28 PM
Didn't this happen in Richmond and it got shot down already?


Yes, our firm, on behalf of the NRA and CRPA Foundation, forced Richmond to repeal its LCAV “large capacity magazine” ban. Here is the article from www.calgunlaws.com (http://www.calgunlaws.com):


FACED WITH IMMINENT LAWSUIT, RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL REPEALS MAGAZINE BAN

12-2-09: The Richmond City Council voted last night to repeal its ill-advised ordinance banning the possession of magazines that hold over ten rounds. The City opted to repeal the ordinance (initially passed in 2007 but apparently never enforced) in the face of a pre-litigation demand letter recently served on the City by lawyers for the NRA and CRPA Foundation. The letter pointed out that the City’s ordinance was preempted by state firearm laws.

The City Council’s decision came after being advised by the City Attorney, who studied the authorities cited in the demand letter, that the law was not legally defensible.

The decision by the City to repeal the ordinance restores the rights of Richmond residents, as well as those traveling through the City, to possess magazines that were acquired and possessed pursuant to state law. The decision should also send a message to other municipalities considering the adoption of similar ordinances, not only those banning magazines, but also ordinances infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in general. Surrounding cities should recognize that such laws will be struck down as preempted under the landmark decision in Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, a successful NRA lawsuit that fortified the legal doctrine of implied preemption as a restriction on local gun control measures.

Should the City of Richmond or any other jurisdiction try to adopt alternative proposals that seek to regulate the possession of firearm magazines, the legal groundwork laid in preparation for this suit will allow for a swift challenge to those measures in court.

The repeal of the City’s ban on large-capacity magazines will become final once the City Council approves the measure on second reading. The second reading is currently scheduled to take place on Tuesday, December 15th.

hoffmang
01-03-2011, 12:02 AM
Yes, our firm, on behalf of the NRA and CRPA Foundation, forced Richmond to repeal its LCAV “large capacity magazine” ban. Here is the article from www.calgunlaws.com (http://www.calgunlaws.com):


Richmond! Thanks as my memory failed me above for the correct locale.

-Gene

jdberger
01-03-2011, 1:52 AM
Richmond! Thanks as my memory failed me above for the correct locale.

-Gene

You had me pretty wound up there, for a minute.

We all know (or should) that Emeryville Chief of Police Ken James is a shill for LCAV. He's also the point man on the Firearms Committee for the California Police Chiefs Association. Interestingly, both LCAV and CPCA are recipients of Gun Control Grants from The Joyce Foundation.

It wouldn't be beyond ol' Ken to try to underground a magazine ban in E'ville.

Ford8N
01-03-2011, 5:37 AM
You had me pretty wound up there, for a minute.

We all know (or should) that Emeryville Chief of Police Ken James is a shill for LCAV. He's also the point man on the Firearms Committee for the California Police Chiefs Association. Interestingly, both LCAV and CPCA are recipients of Gun Control Grants from The Joyce Foundation.

It wouldn't be beyond ol' Ken to try to underground a magazine ban in E'ville.

How much did that City Attorney bill the city to review that proposed ordinance? Do the tax payers know how much Ken James just cost the the city for proposing something that will get shot down either at the Council level or in court? In an indirect way the LCAV has cost the tax payers of Emeryville some serious money. Do they even care or are they STUPID?

spgripside
01-03-2011, 9:22 AM
In an indirect way the LCAV has cost the tax payers of Emeryville some serious money. Do they even care or are they STUPID?
That is how LCAV does things. Offering free legal help to institute such illegal BS laws, without mentioning or paying for the associated legal costs when the law is fought and shot down.

bwiese
01-03-2011, 10:31 AM
Any mag ban attempt will result in a Prop H grade preemption fight.
.
NRA/CRPA Foundation attorney Chuck Michel has already taken
multiple residual instances of local variants of these laws off the
books already (sent demand letter, opposition acquiesces, etc.)
.
The fact there are hicap mag laws on the books already at the
state level can help (politically) reduce any perceived need for
this (i.e., "WTF are we wasting time on this crap when we're
broke and the state already regulates them?")
.
We went thru this drill in Berkeley when Loni Hancock wanted to
ban already banned hicap mags after the Lovelle Mixon murder
of 4 Oakland cops (appears several were NRA members and quiet
Calgunners). [Oakland PD management refused to give info on
whether the SKS involved actually was an 'assault weapon'.]
The effort died.

N6ATF
01-03-2011, 12:16 PM
You had me pretty wound up there, for a minute.

We all know (or should) that Emeryville Chief of Police Ken James is a shill for LCAV. He's also the point man on the Firearms Committee for the California Police Chiefs Association. Interestingly, both LCAV and CPCA are recipients of Gun Control Grants from The Joyce Foundation.

It wouldn't be beyond ol' Ken to try to underground a magazine ban in E'ville.

Good time to repost the petition... http://www.petitiononline.com/FIREpckj/petition.html

wash
01-04-2011, 1:24 PM
How much did that City Attorney bill the city to review that proposed ordinance? Do the tax payers know how much Ken James just cost the the city for proposing something that will get shot down either at the Council level or in court? In an indirect way the LCAV has cost the tax payers of Emeryville some serious money. Do they even care or are they STUPID?
The cost is not an issue for the City Council, it's not their money and they don't care.

What will create change is when we take up their time.

They didn't like it at all when we spoke at their city council meeting, they just don't want to be bothered. The more LCAV gets calgunners (and other gun rights activists) riled up, the less these city councils are going to want to deal with them.

We have to take everything they do very seriously, we really need to make it painful for everyone that listens to LCAV.

rromeo
01-04-2011, 1:30 PM
The Oakland city council meeting was quite awesome by the way. I wasn't surprised that they ignored all rational arguments for not passing the ordinance, but you guys were great up there.

dfletcher
01-04-2011, 2:15 PM
Does LCAV's little ditty name any penalty for noncompliance or subsequent possession? What if I aquired all my hi cap magazines illegally, but 3 years and two days ago - do I get to keep them? Their law speak of only "legally possessed" hi caps.

It seems to me they're no different than drug dealers - the first taste is free but after that, you have to pay and pay for that product. I can hear them as they leave court - "You feel bad now but don't worry - next time around it's gonna feel so good" ....