PDA

View Full Version : HELP - Need to refute CADOJ FUD on tubular magazines for C&R


GunOwner
01-31-2011, 3:18 PM
I am a C&R license holder and recently won an auction for a 50+ year old bolt action .22 caliber rifle with a tube feed. The seller claims he can not ship because he called the CA DOJ Firearms division and they told him since the tubular magazine holds more than 10 rounds he can not ship to CA. Since these types of guns are sold in California every day I assume this is FUD. It would be great if someone could point me to something definitive that I can send to the seller so he will ship. Thanks

ke6guj
01-31-2011, 3:25 PM
here you go,
12020(c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

dantodd
01-31-2011, 3:29 PM
12020(a) generally prohibits the imporation of "Large Capacity" magazines.

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.


Now, what exactly IS a "Large-Capacity Magazine?"

That is defined in 12020(c)(25) which says that "A .22 Caliber tube ammunition feeding device" "shall not be construed" to be a "large-capacity magazine."

12020(c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

You can find the entirety of the Cal Penal Code related to firearms at the CA DOJ website: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.
(d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section.

bwiese
01-31-2011, 4:51 PM
To the OP: can you find out a name of the staffer that gave the bad info?

GunOwner
01-31-2011, 5:13 PM
To the OP: can you find out a name of the staffer that gave the bad info?

I asked the seller to provide it will keep you posted via PM. Also, he is calling the DOJ back to verify what I told him. I asked him to quote the statute and ask them why it would not apply to this .22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine. If the person insists he still can't send it I told him to get a name and ask for a supervisor.

To my knowledge, there are not any special rules regarding this issue that only apply to C&R guns - am I wrong?

TRICKSTER
01-31-2011, 5:16 PM
To my knowledge, there are not any special rules regarding this issue that only apply to C&R guns - am I wrong?

That is correct, there are no exemptions for C&R's. They are the considered the same as any other weapon when it comes to ammunition capacity.

As far as the legality of the tubular mag. Refer the seller to this CA. Firearms Laws pamphlet on the CA DOJ site.
See page 7 http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

A large capacity magazine means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more
than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently
altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds, a tubular magazine that is contained in
a lever-action firearm, or a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device. (Penal Code
12020(c)(25).)

GunOwner
01-31-2011, 5:48 PM
Thanks Trickster - Love your quote from Rand here is where she probably got it:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Numerous searches by numerous people have failed to find this exact quotation in any of Burke's writings,and it is now thought to be a 20th Cen. paraphrase.

Here is an Edmund Burke quote that I believe fits nicely into the above 'paraphrase?':

"It is not enough in a situation of trust in the commonwealth, that a man means well to his country; it is not enough that in his single person he never did an evil act, but always voted according to his conscience, and even harangued against every design which he apprehended to be prejudicial to the interests of his country. This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. That duty demands and requires that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a man's life, that he has always acted right but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence."



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_%27Evil_will_prevail_when_good_men_do_not hing%27#ixzz1CfSHAajr

curtisfong
01-31-2011, 5:54 PM
Only Rand could stretch a single, basic, simple premise into a long winded extended whinge.

GunOwner
01-31-2011, 5:58 PM
Only Rand could stretch a single, basic, simple premise into a long winded extended whinge.

But you have to admit she was more concise than Burke (although I like the completeness of the way he put it).

curtisfong
01-31-2011, 6:08 PM
But you have to admit she was more concise than Burke (although I like the completeness of the way he put it).

Oh, absolutely.