Age to own or be in posession of large capacity mags? [Archive]

Sal

02-09-2007, 11:34 PM

ive always been worried about taking my ONE hi-cap out that i own.

i just turned 18 last august, and found two of them while rummaging through some boxes at my dads work, i started playing paintball around the same time when i was 8 so i grabbed them to put them on a paintball gun to make it look realistic, and sadly one of them got JB welded onto a gun, but the other is intact.

i found them in 1999, does anyone know if i could legally "replace" the one thats JB welded up? i still have all of the mag other than the spring, but the follower and floorplate are still on it, i dont remember what i did with the spring. im just worried since this mag could be considered "de-milled" or destroyed, buying all new parts for it might be considered manufacturing a new hi-cap, since the original magazine is non functioning.

although somewhat pointless as i dont own a gun that takes these mags, it would just be nice to know if i had a reason to dig out the two mags, and possibly re-furbish the JB welded one.

Hopi

02-10-2007, 08:36 AM

SunshineGlocker

02-10-2007, 10:35 AM

You need to be seven years, two months, eleven days old.

SemiAutoSam

02-10-2007, 10:59 AM

I don't think there is any age you are required to be to possess hi cap mags if you happen to find a high cap mag.

There is nothing in the law that forbids a person or actual human from finding a high cap mag and from using it.

11Z50

02-10-2007, 11:40 AM

I think that if you are driving around in a high-crime area and the cops are out in force, and you have an empty full-cap mag of any kind in plain view, you will have issues. No matter what age, if the cops contact you in a public place, and you are in possession of a full-cap, you will probably lose it, if you live in the big city.

In your home, on your property, or at the range I don't think the cops would have any standing to even contact you if you were merely in possession of any full-cap, no matter what age. The law was so watered down before it was finally passed and signed it's almost completely unenforceable. Absent other illegal activities, I can't see where LE could develop sufficient PC to even contact a citizen about mere possession of a full-cap.

If they observe you buy, sell, trade, or loan a full-cap to or from another, you may have a problem. Just to be safe, I disassembled any excess full-caps I have into repair parts to keep my others running indefinitely. There is no way that LE can prove a mag is post-ban since you can update and repair any full-cap you had pre-2000. You can replace parts as you wish, including all the parts! ;) The burden of proof is on the State to prove you are in violation, not the other way around.

tenpercentfirearms

02-10-2007, 11:59 AM

guimus

02-10-2007, 01:41 PM

ca penal code 12020(a)(2) reads:
"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."

That's all folks. VERY limited law. But if you happen to 'find' a whole bunch of standard capacity mags, you should anticipate law enforcement 'attention'. Especially if you look too young to have reasonably purchased them. They can't prove anything, and likely won't try, but that doesn't mean they won't make your life difficult (i.e. hold them and your firearms for investigation, causing you to jump through lots of hoops to (maybe) get them back.)

11Z50

02-10-2007, 03:59 PM

That is just plain silly. Law Enforcement has no authority to take my legally possessed high capacity magazine and I will let them know so. They can't just take your property without due process and unless they can prove right there on the spot I illegally possess the magazine, they are not taking anything.

10%, I 'aint talking about TAFT. Let me break this down for you:

1) Take a lawfully possessed 30-rd mag and place it on the passenger seat of your vehicle in plain view.

2) Drive to Compton. cruise around after midnight in one of the designated "Gang Areas". Blow thru a yellow light, or do something minor to get the Po-lice to stop you.

3) When the Coppers contact you and see the mag in plain view, you will be asked to get out of the vehicle. The alacrity the LEOs use will vary.

4) They will seize the mag, and search your vehicle with out consent. You will be detained during this warrantless, and very legal search.

5) If they find nothing illegal, they will ask you about the mag. They may or may not give it back. Their suspicion is enough to seize potential contraband pending further investigation. You may or may not have legally acquired the mag, depending on the results of their investigation.

In the course of this process, you will not be happy. Here's my point: Don't do something like that. The Cops love to do things when you give them the chance.

rorschach

02-10-2007, 09:29 PM

Now if someone who was born after 2000 has such magazines, they've got problems.

Not entirely true, read post #4.

naimad

02-10-2007, 09:52 PM

hoffmang

02-10-2007, 10:48 PM

Post those details.

If a cop tries to take your hi-cap, ask him what Penal Code section he would charge you with.

Possession of large-capacity magazines is not a crime in California at all.

If an officer seizes your large-capacity magazine after you've pointed the above out, please warn him that you will be driving to an alternative LEA and filing theft charges there (CHP, Sheriff.)

-Gene

ngoway

03-27-2007, 12:58 AM

Just to be clear... if I have an SKS and I have pre-ban high cap mags... Can I use them at a range without problems?

CalNRA

03-27-2007, 01:32 AM

Just to be clear... if I have an SKS and I have pre-ban high cap mags... Can I use them at a range without problems?

yes. but then with an SKS and a detachable standard cap magazine the DOJ would threaten you with all kinds of boogieman threats if you don't surrender your property to them so they can play with it.

basically you can even BUY them in state, the person that is in trouble is NOT YOU, but the seller, who either offered for sale, or also imported them into the state.

Now you have not broken a single law. The seller is in deep water. So for God's sake don't SELL any 30 rounders in California.

randy

03-27-2007, 01:38 AM

Is it correct if you didn't live here before 2000 you can't have hi caps no matter how old you are?

CalNRA

03-27-2007, 01:46 AM

Is it correct if you didn't live here before 2000 you can't have hi caps no matter how old you are?

well, according to the Bradies and the Democrats, no. you shouldn't even own a gun.

According to the law, yes. You could have found them after you moved to the state. could.

A lot of houses with attics in the state. It's amazing what you can find in the garages, attics, tool sheds of previous owners.

03-27-2007, 02:29 AM

well, according to the Bradies and the Democrats, no. you shouldn't even own a gun.

According to the law, yes. You could have found them after you moved to the state. could.

A lot of houses with attics in the state. It's amazing what you can find in the garages, attics, tool sheds of previous owners.

Really, it is true - when I was a young boy I went into the attic and found piles upon piles of drum mags of ever caliber for every weapon. Well that was a lie, I did find this really cool boat though. Like a 3 foot boat (you could fit like 5 Barbies in the seats), hand made, with leather sits, glass windshield, the whole nine yards. no engine though... I remember I always wanted an engine for it so I could take it to a pond and drive it... well sail it, what ever. This is when I was like 5, my father said a remote controlled engine would be too expensive. So instead he got me this really crappy gas powered helicopter. What made it so crappy is - it didn't have a remote control, it was the cheapest one at the store. So first time I put gas in it and let it fly - I lost the f*cker. At least my dad didn't loose too much money. Now that reminds me of another story!

My Sicilian grandfather from NY came to visit me in CA. There was this old man down the street that built model airplanes for a hobby, his garage was filled with them - he took them to shows, competitions, real serious hobby. It is like the guy who has a few Glocks to a guy who has an AK of every nation, both stamped and milled receivers, and of every caliber. It would take this guy around a year to crank out a plane. He molded them, sanded them down, painted them, put the mechanics in them, all him self. If he was going to sell one of these things they would most likely go for at least $7,000. They had around a 5" - 7" wing span. So one day my grandfather and I (I was very young then as well, around 8) were talking a walk and we walked by his house. We stopped and talk to him and my grandfather asks if I can have one of his airplanes. The man replied, "no" My grandfather asked to buy one for me, the man replied, "no." My grandfather grew pretty angry and when we got home my mother explained to him that the air planes were a big deal and they were quite expensive. My grandfather replied, "Why does an old man need all those toys? He should give them to a child!" I still wonder till this day what would happen if the man said "$7,000" to my grandfather. I bet he would of most likely took it as an insult.

The old man died (my grandfather actually just died around 8 months ago), widow still lives at the house. I wonder what happened to all those airplanes.

Now would you rather read my old childhood stories or another 3 page thread about "hi-cap mag" legality issues? man... it isn't rocket science here. my new responce to all the high cap mag questions is going to be : Stop suggesting illegal behavior. -leelaw

xenophobe

03-27-2007, 02:38 AM

If you're too young to have bought them yourself, if DOJ nabs you at the range, the question you should be asking yourself is, will your parents lie for you? :p

"oh yeah, we knew he had them since 99" lol

Bishop

03-27-2007, 07:31 AM

1) Take a lawfully possessed 30-rd mag and place it on the passenger seat of your vehicle in plain view.

2) Drive to Compton. cruise around after midnight in one of the designated "Gang Areas". Blow thru a yellow light, or do something minor to get the Po-lice to stop you.

3) When the Coppers contact you and see the mag in plain view, you will be asked to get out of the vehicle. The alacrity the LEOs use will vary.

4) They will seize the mag, and search your vehicle with out consent. You will be detained during this warrantless, and very legal search.

5) If they find nothing illegal, they will ask you about the mag. They may or may not give it back. Their suspicion is enough to seize potential contraband pending further investigation. You may or may not have legally acquired the mag, depending on the results of their investigation.

While this is an infringement of our rights, we have to appreciate that police officers are finding themselves hobbled legally. Hence they've found questionably legal ways of enforcing the laws on people whom they feel should go to jail. I'm kinda ok with this. If a cop pulls someone over in a low rider and finds the car full of gang members with fifty loaded regular capacity mags or drums or beta mags, they're going to do all they can to confiscate, investigate, and lose those mags and that ammo. In their minds, they're doing the right thing. I know it's not really their decision, but I'm glad they do these things sometimes. Stop hobbling the police, and I'll start to mind these minor infringements.

By the way; californians are able to order replacement parts for your pre-ban mags. You can buy the internals, and the mag bodies to replace existing parts for the mags you bought before the ban, found on the street, or had given to you by your dad in 1999 because he knew the ban was coming. If you buy extra parts you can't assemble them into mags, but may keep them unassembled in case you must replace parts in the future (AFAIK).

DarthSean

03-27-2007, 01:33 PM

I was 17 & 11 months when the ban went into effect. Would that be convincing enough to claim I snapped up a couple mags ahead of time to beat the ban?

Spicy McHaggis

03-27-2007, 03:40 PM

Before the ban, you didn't have to be 18 to purchase magazines of any size and you certainly didn't have to be 18 to own them. I got my first rifle at ten; however, it had a tube magazine (.22). Someone else could have gotten a rifle at age ten from their parents and they could have given them 30-rounders.

Just remember this, It is not illegal to own hi-cap mags! To quote a previous post, quote for emphasis - "ca penal code 12020(a)(2) reads: 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."

blackrazor

03-29-2007, 04:06 PM

Just remember this, It is not illegal to own hi-cap mags! To quote a previous post, quote for emphasis - "ca penal code 12020(a)(2) reads: 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."

Huh. I never looked at the law on high cap mags so closely before, but now that I do, I realize that it doesn't say it's illegal to "buy" a high cap mag. Is this for real? In other words, if someone wants to sell me a high cap mag, the only person breaking the law is the seller? I assume this also means I can "hand down" my high cap mags to my kids, right? The law doesn't say anything about it being illegal to "inherit" or "receive" a high cap mag.

Wulf

03-29-2007, 04:14 PM

hoffmang

03-29-2007, 04:57 PM

He chose not to and is estopped. The DA trumped up a large-capacity charge, but trumping up charges is not false arrest sadly.

-Gene

blkA4alb

03-29-2007, 05:11 PM

I assume this also means I can "hand down" my high cap mags to my kids, right? The law doesn't say anything about it being illegal to "inherit" or "receive" a high cap mag.

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."

Sal

03-29-2007, 06:09 PM

i had another one.

if you ordered a parts kit, and the seller ships it with an assembled hi-cap would that be legal to keep and use?

you didnt manufacture, you didnt import.

it doesn't say causes to be imported, only causes to be manufactured.

i mean heck, even if you ordered just the mags and they showed up, wouldnt that be 100% legal?

hoffmang

03-29-2007, 08:00 PM

The exact question of whether you imported in that situation is a bit gray at present.

-Gene

blackrazor

03-30-2007, 07:01 AM

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."

Yes, illegal to "give", but not illegal to receive, or buy. I don't think "inheriting" is the same thing as "giving". And even if it is, who cares if you break the law after you're dead? Is it even possible the break a law when you're dead? What are they going to do... throw your dead body in jail? Take away your gun rights "for life"?

Let's say you leave a box full of high caps in the workshop, and tell your son to open the box upon your death. You die, he opens the box, and owns all the mags. You tell me who's broken the law.

thomye

03-30-2007, 08:49 AM

here's a funny story. i worked at UPS a while back. my first year back in 1989, i loaded trailers (feeders is what they called them) out of Cerritos going to San Diego. At any rate, i remeber several huge boxes broke open and piles and piles of hi cap mags poured out. because of the way UPS belts are designed, many of these got smashed.

typically, once this happens, all loose contents are taken to this area where they are pieced together and put in new boxes. Since this shipment was now all scattered, they built new boxes and based on the invoices managed to salvage 3 out of the 4 boxes that were broken. The rest were put into totes and thrown away. back then, the procedure was to take overflow and send them off somewhere but i think the supervisor at the time didn't want to deal with it so he dumped them. I would say it was over 50 mags. me being new and not knowing any better, i thought that was procedure (to throw away all excess overflow). At any rate, the next day i got to thinking that those magazines were possibly useful. I wasn't into guns at that time but i knew someone who might want them so i jumped in the dumpster but wouldn't you know it, they were all gone. haha :(

well fortunately for me, i found out who pulled them and he ended up giving me some of them. :) years later when i became a supervisor there, i reported it since by then i knew what i had done was wrong but the manager was pretty cool and just told me that since i didn't know any better and that it was in the dumpster, it wasn't my issue. i guess someone elses trash is another mans treasure.

now the saddest part of all. i have them in a box in my mothers garage somewhere but i have no idea where... it would be year long excavation to find them. i'm not too concerned about getting them as i have no registered AR's to use them with. oh well, i thought it was a funny story and someday, when war hits our soil, i'll have them. :)

SemiAutoSam

03-30-2007, 08:58 AM

Are you aware that you do not need to own or use them in a registered AR ?

A "Featureless" AR build would be quite legal to use them in.

All a OLL Rifle needs to have is no Pistol Grip and no other "Evil Features" like a flash hider.

here's a funny story. i worked at UPS a while back. my first year back in 1989, i loaded trailers (feeders is what they called them) out of Cerritos going to San Diego. At any rate, i remember several huge boxes broke open and piles and piles of hi cap mags poured out. because of the way UPS belts are designed, many of these got smashed.

typically, once this happens, all loose contents are taken to this area where they are pieced together and put in new boxes. Since this shipment was now all scattered, they built new boxes and based on the invoices managed to salvage 3 out of the 4 boxes that were broken. The rest were put into totes and thrown away. back then, the procedure was to take overflow and send them off somewhere but i think the supervisor at the time didn't want to deal with it so he dumped them. I would say it was over 50 mags. me being new and not knowing any better, i thought that was procedure (to throw away all excess overflow). At any rate, the next day i got to thinking that those magazines were possibly useful. I wasn't into guns at that time but i knew someone who might want them so i jumped in the dumpster but wouldn't you know it, they were all gone. haha :(

well fortunately for me, i found out who pulled them and he ended up giving me some of them. :) years later when i became a supervisor there, i reported it since by then i knew what i had done was wrong but the manager was pretty cool and just told me that since i didn't know any better and that it was in the dumpster, it wasn't my issue. i guess someone elses trash is another mans treasure.

now the saddest part of all. i have them in a box in my mothers garage somewhere but i have no idea where... it would be year long excavation to find them. i'm not too concerned about getting them as i have no registered AR's to use them with. oh well, i thought it was a funny story and someday, when war hits our soil, i'll have them. :)

-aK-

03-30-2007, 09:07 AM

-aK-

03-30-2007, 09:10 AM

Are you aware that you do not need to own or use them in a registered AR ?

A "Featureless" AR build would be quite legal to use them in.

All a OLL Rifle needs to have is no Pistol Grip and no other "Evil Features" like a flash hider.

This is wrong.

A 30 round detachable magazine would constitute "Evil Features" and is bad juju.

If you have pistol grip you need a fixed ten round magazine.

A fixed 30 round magazine and a pistol grip is also illegal.

Be careful.

Technical Ted

03-30-2007, 09:12 AM

This is wrong.

WRONG A 30 round detachable magazine would constitute "Evil Features" and is bad juju. WRONG

If you have pistol grip you need a fixed ten round magazine.

A fixed 30 round magazine and a pistol grip is also illegal.

Be careful.
You are 1/3rd wrong. Read Sam's last line again and nowhere, NOWHERE in 12276.1 does it list detachable magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds as a characteristic of assault weapons.

SemiAutoSam

03-30-2007, 09:29 AM

Yes if you have a PG you can only run a fixed or Bullet Button with no more than a 10 round mag.

Using 30 round mags however is perfectly legal if you do not have a PG and use a standard mag release. with no other evil features. I didn't suggest using a fixed 30 round mag with a PG I realise that this is against the PC.

You will see by having a look at the law I have listed below that once you take the PG our of the equation and the rifle has no other evil features you may have 30 round mags.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

This is wrong.

A 30 round detachable magazine would constitute "Evil Features" and is bad juju.

If you have pistol grip you need a fixed ten round magazine.

A fixed 30 round magazine and a pistol grip is also illegal.

Be careful.

-aK-

03-30-2007, 10:02 AM

You are 1/3rd wrong. Read Sam's last line again and nowhere, NOWHERE in 12276.1 does it list detachable magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds as a characteristic of assault weapons.

I apologize for my bad punctuation.

A 30 round detachable magazine would constitute "Evil Features" and is bad juju,
if you have pistol grip.

If you have a pistol grip you need a fixed ten round magazine.

I guess I should have worded it this way.

And, Yes the ten round limit for fixed mag is there as Sam just posted above.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was trying to avoid confusion rather then cause more.

Technical Ted

03-30-2007, 10:16 AM

And, Yes the ten round limit for fixed mag is there as Sam just posted above.
Read my post again and you'll see that the word "detachable" is italicized for emphasis. The law says nothing about 30 rd detachable magazines being an "evil feature". Yes, I've understood that fixed magazines over 10 rds are illegal for--oh, say going on eight years.

-aK-

03-30-2007, 10:53 AM

I re-read the original post and you are right. I am wrong.

-aK-

03-30-2007, 10:57 AM

Sam's statement was correct.

I just read it wrong. doh..

turinreza

03-30-2007, 11:55 AM

King$nake

06-26-2007, 09:19 PM

Just make a citizen's arrest for theft. Tell the officer, turn around and
place your hands on the hood. YOu are under arrest for theft of my property.

lol then when he refuses you can take him in for resisting arrest...haha

but seriously though I can possess High Capacity AR Magazines, just can't use them? Would it be illegal theoretically if somebody went out of state and purchased hi-capacity mags and brought them back to cali, as long as they are never inserted into a firearm? Could they be a souveneir?

Jicko

06-26-2007, 09:40 PM

but seriously though I can possess High Capacity AR Magazines, just can't use them?

You can possess them ONLY if you own it before the 2000 ban. If you DO NOT OWN any back then, you CANNOT possess them in CA!

Would it be illegal theoretically if somebody went out of state and purchased hi-capacity mags and brought them back to cali, as long as they are never inserted into a firearm? Could they be a souveneir?

"brought them back to cali" <- this IS the illegal act according to the law.... you are IMPORTING.... whether you use it or not.... it is ILLEGAL.

*Follow the white rabbit, it is all in my signature* READ UP!!

bwiese

06-26-2007, 09:40 PM

lol then when he refuses you can take him in for resisting arrest...haha

but seriously though I can possess High Capacity AR Magazines, just can't use them? Would it be illegal theoretically if somebody went out of state and purchased hi-capacity mags and brought them back to cali, as long as they are never inserted into a firearm? Could they be a souveneir?

AWW, JEEZUS, DEAR LORD, NOT THIS SH*T AGAIN.

Idiotic crap like this really gives us credibility in public eye, which does occassionally stray here.

You're question smells bad on its face and I can tell you're trying to game things.

It's not only illegal theoretically, it's illegal practically. And things that are 'theoretically' illegal are indeed illegal.

"Theoretically", high-speed neutrons can break up uranium nuclei. We've never seen it with the naked eye, but ask the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki about 'theory'.

Yes, what you've proposed is illegal - importation of a hicap mag is illegal whether or not you're putting it in a firearm or up someone's hiney.

phish

06-26-2007, 09:43 PM

:beatdeadhorse5:

http://www.bittermancircle.com/my%20images/BeatDeadHorse.gif

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

dychen

06-26-2007, 09:49 PM

......importation of a hicap mag is illegal whether or not you're putting it in a firearm or up someone's hiney.

Although the later would be alot more amusing :D

XDshooter

06-26-2007, 10:09 PM

phish

06-26-2007, 10:11 PM

hoffmang

06-26-2007, 10:39 PM

How about this. You buy some hi-cap mags from somebody and then plead the 5th. That way they won't know who sold them and since you didn't break any laws by buying them, everything is okay.

You wouldn't have a 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself as buying is not illegal. As such, you could be charged with obstruction of justice if you didn't answer the question of who you bought them from.

It is not wise to advocate illegal behavior unless you have an articulable and plausible argument about how something is legal based on either a law or judicial precedent.

-Gene

Jicko

06-27-2007, 01:14 AM

kantstudien

06-27-2007, 06:36 AM

Daddy gave me high-caps when I was still in the womb!

XDshooter

06-27-2007, 09:00 AM

You wouldn't have a 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself as buying is not illegal. As such, you could be charged with obstruction of justice if you didn't answer the question of who you bought them from.

It is not wise to advocate illegal behavior unless you have an articulable and plausible argument about how something is legal based on either a law or judicial precedent.

-Gene

I'm not advocating anything illegal since like you mentioned, buying is not illegal. That would be on the seller.

Sorry for bringing anything up. This is just like someone saying to "find" some magazines. Both are not illegal by what the law says, but you know someone will bring up the word SPIRIT.

Surveyor

06-27-2007, 02:48 PM

This thread should be closed and deleted..... and people who "suggested" illegal activites should be warned...

Not contributing to the community and making us all look BAD.... "a bunch of gun nuts trying to bent the law..."

+100 This thread will only serve three purposes;

1. Making us all look bad.

2. Giving people bad ideas.

3. Pissing Bill off.

peepshowal

06-27-2007, 03:38 PM

Really, it is true - when I was a young boy I went into the attic and found piles upon piles of drum mags of ever caliber for every weapon. Well that was a lie, I did find this really cool boat though. Like a 3 foot boat (you could fit like 5 Barbies in the seats), hand made, with leather sits, glass windshield, the whole nine yards. no engine though... I remember I always wanted an engine for it so I could take it to a pond and drive it... well sail it, what ever. This is when I was like 5, my father said a remote controlled engine would be too expensive. So instead he got me this really crappy gas powered helicopter. What made it so crappy is - it didn't have a remote control, it was the cheapest one at the store. So first time I put gas in it and let it fly - I lost the f*cker. At least my dad didn't loose too much money.

Now would you rather read my old childhood stories or another 3 page thread about "hi-cap mag" legality issues? man... it isn't rocket science here. my new responce to all the high cap mag questions is going to be : Stop suggesting illegal behavior. -leelaw

ts,
Since the helicopter story made me laugh so hard, I'd like to read more of your childhood stories. Oh, and also since this mag issue has been beaten to death.

Smokeybehr

06-27-2007, 07:16 PM

Ibtl!

Quiet

06-27-2007, 07:45 PM

From CA DOJ BOF FAQ.

If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers.

(PC Section 12020 (b)(19-29))

hoffmang

06-27-2007, 08:55 PM

Just 'cause the DOJ FAQ says it doesn't mean its correct.

12020 (a) (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.

-Gene

blackrazor

06-27-2007, 09:23 PM

curious... it seems that "peace officers" are exempt from the "high capacity" magazine restrictions... does this extend to officers "selling" or "lending" high capacity mags? If so, then it should be legal for any person to buy a high capacity magazine from any LEO, since neither party would be breaking the law. Of course, I suppose it doesn't really matter; as far as we are concerned there are no laws regulating the purchase or possession of high caps, so if somebody wants to sell you one, you can safely assume that it is legal for them to do so (after all, it isn't really your concern what laws they may or may not be breaking).

hoffmang

06-27-2007, 11:27 PM

These are the exceptions:

(19) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large-capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.
(23) The importation of a large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000, lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with the large-capacity magazine previously lawfully possessed in the state.
(24) The lending or giving of any large-capacity magazine to a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071, or to a gunsmith, for the purposes of maintenance, repair, or modification of that large-capacity magazine.
(25) The return to its owner of any large-capacity magazine by a person specified in paragraph (24).
(26) The importation into this state of, or sale of, any large-capacity magazine by a person who has been issued a permit to engage in those activities pursuant to Section 12079, when those activities are in accordance with the terms and conditions of that permit.
(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.
(28) The lending of large-capacity magazines by the entities specified in paragraph (27) to their authorized employees, while in the course and scope of their employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's armored vehicle business.
(29) The return of those large-capacity magazines to those entities specified in paragraph (27) by those employees specified in paragraph (28).
(30) (A) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(B) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for use by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(C) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for export or for sale to government agencies or the military pursuant to applicable federal regulations.
(31) The loan of a large-capacity magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production.
(32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes:
(A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production.
(B) For export pursuant to federal regulations.
(C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations.

-Gene

jerryg1776

06-27-2007, 11:32 PM

lol then when he refuses you can take him in for resisting arrest...haha

but seriously though I can possess High Capacity AR Magazines, just can't use them? Would it be illegal theoretically if somebody went out of state and purchased hi-capacity mags and brought them back to cali, as long as they are never inserted into a firearm? Could they be a souveneir?

What if your buddy imports them into Cali when he visits you, and you tell him he has committed a crime, a serious crime! In his haste he throws them out in the first trash can he sees (yours of course) and leaves the state scared and crying, afraid that the BoFfers will arrest him. Its Monday morning, trash day and you see them in there and think... hey those are aluminun, they should be recycled so you dig them out but forget or never get around to taking them to the recycler. Hmmmmm

Or even better, we can get kenpo to buy them in AZ, stand at the border line, and toss them into the state. Technically he is not importing (at most he is exporting from AZ which is not illegal) them into the state as he has not entered the state. Then we can be there and just pick them up off the ground, you know keep Kali litter free like the good concerne citizens that we are. Hell if they cant keep illegals from crossing the border, who cares if a few standard cap mags jump over.... hahahahah

OSS

06-28-2007, 12:02 AM

Am I safe in saying that I should not take my legally purchased before the ban standard capacity magazines across state lines, (Nevada, and Montana) and return with them to California? Being that I cant prove I owned them before I left the state. I do a fair amount of visiting those states because I have family there and I like to go shooting. I believe I will have to buy some magazines in Nevada and leave them there. I should be able to transport them to Montana from Nevada without a problem.

hoffmang

06-28-2007, 12:21 AM

If you owned large-capacity magazines in California before 1/1/2000, you can leave and re-import them with no restrictions. If you ever possessed them in CA before 1/1/2000, you can always possess them in California at any time and you can also import those - and only those. See exception number 23 above.

-Gene

bwiese

06-28-2007, 01:08 AM

Am I safe in saying that I should not take my legally purchased before the ban standard capacity magazines across state lines, (Nevada, and Montana) and return with them to California?

Absolutely not! I do it all the time - I fly out of/back into CA with a variety of guns (including reg'd AWs) and their hicap mags that I acquired before 1/1/2000.

Being that I cant prove I owned them before I left the state.

It's kinda the other way around: *they* have to prove that you illegally acquired or imported them on or after 1/1/2000 cutoff date.

The law is almost unenforceable, however, except for stupid people that talk too much, do idiotic things with idiotic friends, and/or those who import or construct unique hicap magazines for guns that didn't exist reasonably before the cutoff date, or were possibly made out of materials/styles peculiar to post-2000 mags (and even then, since it's legal to repair a magazine regardless of style of parts or markings on replacement marks, there's still a tremendously high burden of proof).

I do a fair amount of visiting those states because I have family there and I like to go shooting.

Similar here: I go to NV and OR (via ID) frequently. And I don't travel to places where I can't have a gun, so I bring lots of guns and mags - it's called "family vacation".

I believe I will have to buy some magazines in Nevada and leave them there.

Nonsense. You have legit, legal hicap mags. Use them and enjoy them to their fullest legal extent.

In fact you might find a minor bit of diffuculty in buying hicap mags in NV because vendors may make the assumption you're illegally gonna import them into CA.

I should be able to transport them to Montana from Nevada without a problem.

Yes, because outside of CA (and 2 or 3 other screwed up states) they have the same legal status as Kleenex, chocolates, Elmer's Glue and apples - that is, nothing special, no controls. But you can transport your own CA-originated, CA-legal hicap mags anyway so this is moot.

Go use and enjoy your legally-owned hicaps in MT, NV, etc. Shoot the hell out of 'em. C'mon back into CA with 'em. Relax.

blackrazor

06-28-2007, 01:11 AM

Tweak338

06-28-2007, 01:23 AM

What about inheriting Hi-Caps??
no law against it.

bwiese

06-28-2007, 01:50 AM

the following is legal:

"The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of... any large-capacity magazine... by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state."

Which means that entities operating armored vehicles can "sell, give, loan, and import" large capacity magazines in CA legally. Also, anybody can legally *buy* or *receive* any large capacity magazine.

Therefore, I don't see anything illegal about an armored vehicle business travelling to Nevada, buying 1000 "high capacity" magazines, import them back into this state, and selling them to anyone they please. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You may have found a legislatively-unaddressed issue.

I will be reading up on this tomorrow when I have the chance, will have to look on the receiving side. Both sides of the transaction have to be legal.

Also, I think there are some Calgunners that have some nontrivial positions in armored-car companies :)

hoffmang

06-28-2007, 02:43 AM

Bill,

I've read this in depth but missed the armored car exception.

There is NO LAW against buying a large-capacity magazine or possessing a large-capacity magazine.

The law:

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.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this
state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by
entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws
of this state.

1. 12020 (a) (2) does not apply to the sale of any large-capacity magazine by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.
2. 12020 (a) (2) does not apply to the import of any large-capacity magazine to or by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.
3. The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 exempts (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2006/2pet/6invit/2006-0457.pet.ami.inv.html) Fedex and UPS from being importers should an armored vehicle businesses wish to have large-capacity magazines imported into the state by Common Carrier.

I've always advocated recognizing that purchasing large-capacity magazines is not illegal and thanks to Blackrazor reading the law a bit closer, I think this is a hole to drive an armored truck through...

-Gene

hoffmang

06-28-2007, 02:52 AM

A couple of other points...

An 01 FFL (Wes are you listening?) can already buy large capacity magazines. He can then sell them to an armored vehicle business who can then sell them to anyone they'd like.

Also, this loophole is a violation of the dormant commerce clause as it discriminates against interstate commerce by allowing a California business to sell to California residents and out of state residents when an out of state business can not sell to California residents. The controlling case is the interstate wine case - Granholm v. Heald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granholm_v._Heald)

So, who here runs an armored vehicle business?

-Gene

adamsreeftank

06-28-2007, 03:53 AM

shwing

:D

tiki

06-28-2007, 07:17 AM

So, who here runs an armored vehicle business?
-Gene

Why?

(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large-capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.

Aren't there more of those? :D

Edit: After checking the California 2007 edition of "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail" by John Machtinger, pp. 127-128 lists the armored car and peace officer exceptions.

Quiet

06-28-2007, 07:59 AM

I'm confused and I give up. :p
Stupid CA law. :mad:

So, do I keep my mouth shut and look the other way, when I run into non-exempt people with hi-cap mags for guns (for example. FN Five-seveN USG & Springfield Armory XD-45 Compact) that were not made prior to 01-01-2000 and they tell me they had them before the ban?

:Pirate:

blackrazor

06-28-2007, 08:47 AM

I've always advocated recognizing that purchasing large-capacity magazines is not illegal and thanks to Blackrazor reading the law a bit closer, I think this is a hole to drive an armored truck through...

heh heh you're welcome. Reading laws very closely is what I do, I don't see any flaw in my logic on this one. Now we've got a way to import AND purchase high capacity mags, totally legal on both ends. Not to mention, I'm sure some of the armored car people could make a nice profit as well, giving them quite an incentive to make some monthly out-of-state group buys :)

of course, the ULTIMATE loophole is gaining a majority of the vote in Alpine country, which I'm still looking into. When that happens... oooooh yeah.

hoffmang

06-28-2007, 09:02 AM

tiki,

A close reading of the LEO exceptions only allow the "sale to" where armored car businesses are allowed the "sale to or by."

-Gene

blackrazor

06-28-2007, 09:14 AM

Hey boys and girls! Today's magic word is "by". I think we need to find a calgunner who operates an armored car business and give him an opportunity to make some extra money on the weekends. He could slap a big magnetic sign on his truck saying something like "Bob's friendly CA high cap mag shop" and dress up like the Good Humor man playing a little jingle as he drives his armored car around to gun shows and shooting ranges. "High cap mags! Mags for sale! Get your high caps right here!"

proraptor

06-28-2007, 10:01 AM

Wow this is an amazing find.....Someone is going to make a ton of money!

tenpercentfirearms

06-28-2007, 10:24 AM

Nevermind, you guys are all crazy and are all going to jail! ;)

I wonder what it is like to be an anti-gunner and read these threads at calguns? I bet it could be down right scary.

bwiese

06-28-2007, 10:39 AM

I'll start digging in PC later tonite and see what, if anything, comes up.

We need to make sure there's no issues on the receipient side, no other controlling licensure matters, etc.

We need to ensure that it's not 'half-legal' - legit on one side, problem on the other side of transaction.

Jicko

06-28-2007, 10:59 AM

I am going to outfit my SUV with plates :D

It would be a "soccer-mom, kid-to-school delivery armored car"....

I will outfit it with a MMG AR w/ a BETA mag.

Ooops... now, my kid would need to walk that final 1000ft to school....

JawBone

06-28-2007, 11:01 AM

from: www.chp.ca.gov/pdf/chp863.pdf

CA. Code of Regs, Title 13

§ 1111. General Requirements.
General requirements for issuance or renewal of an armored car license are as follows:
(a) Eligibility for License. A license to operate privately owned armored cars may be issued only to:
(1) Persons or firms regularly hired to transport money or other valuables that require special security
(2) Financial institutions
(3) Armored car dealers or manufacturers
(4) Collectors of vehicles of historic value or special interest and originally designed, manufactured, or equipped as armored cars
(5) Other persons or entities that can show legitimate need...

Or perhaps find an armored car collector with a license and a "historic" armored car? Might be a better candidate. (aka a Curio and Relic Armored Car License:43:)

proraptor

06-28-2007, 11:23 AM

This is hilarious....AM is probably reading this right now going.....DAMNIT!

Diablo

06-28-2007, 11:47 AM

Couldn't this be interpreted as from armored vehicle personnel to armored vehicle personnel? :confused:

tiki

06-28-2007, 12:30 PM

tiki,

A close reading of the LEO exceptions only allow the "sale to" where armored car businesses are allowed the "sale to or by."

-Gene

Ok, sorry. I got excited.

tiki

06-28-2007, 12:39 PM

from: www.chp.ca.gov/pdf/chp863.pdf

CA. Code of Regs, Title 13

§ 1111. General Requirements.
General requirements for issuance or renewal of an armored car license are as follows:
(a) Eligibility for License. A license to operate privately owned armored cars may be issued only to:
...(4) Collectors of vehicles of historic value or special interest and originally designed, manufactured, or equipped as armored cars
...

Or perhaps find an armored car collector with a license and a "historic" armored car? Might be a better candidate. (aka a Curio and Relic Armored Car License:43:)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2001-Ford-E-350-Armored-Car-Level-3-Armor_W0QQitemZ230147108105QQihZ013QQcategoryZ8076 3QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

tenpercentfirearms

06-28-2007, 02:40 PM

was there a age restriction back before jan 1 2000 that restricted people under the age of 21 to purchase high caps.pistol mags for a ruger can go in the carbine. the carbine has been manufactured since 1998.can some under the age of 21 by mags for the ruger carbine.i think yes

There are no age restrictions on magazines.

megavolt121

06-28-2007, 05:55 PM

Nevermind, you guys are all crazy and are all going to jail! ;)

I wonder what it is like to be an anti-gunner and read these threads at calguns? I bet it could be down right scary.

Do we see an Armored Scooter coming to town soon? :D

The Soup Nazi

06-28-2007, 06:15 PM

If I paint my dad's minivan in metallic or weld plates to it, does it make it armored?

M. Sage

06-28-2007, 06:58 PM

So... all we need is an armored car?

FWIW, if it's a diesel, it wouldn't even have to run to be licensable, since diesels are smog-exempt. Sounds like you could license a bare chassis, as long as it's from an armored car and has the correct VIN on it. :43:

hoffmang

06-28-2007, 07:30 PM

You do have to get an armored car permit from CHP. I expect it has to run to get over to an inspection point.

-Gene

Wulf

06-28-2007, 07:56 PM

Dillon's Catalog this month has a really cool armored Tahoe that has a mini gun that pops up out of the roof. That's the ticket.

tiki

06-28-2007, 09:00 PM

Dillon's Catalog this month has a really cool armored Tahoe that has a mini gun that pops up out of the roof. That's the ticket.

And throw in whats on the cover too. ;)

blackrazor

06-29-2007, 08:23 AM

First things first guys. If someone here knows Chuck Michel, it would probably be a good idea to contact him and get the legal stamp of approval (I sure as hell am not going to be able to get a letter from the DOJ on this one). Once we have a decent lawyer confirm that I'm right, we need to find an armored car who's willing to play ball, or one of us needs to become and armored car operator.

Then, after we've taken care of all the details, we can dress up our armored car like the Good Humor truck full of high cap mags and travel around to gun shows and shooting ranges playing a little jingle :)

megavolt121

06-29-2007, 09:09 AM

blackrazor

06-29-2007, 09:59 AM

I'm sorry, but when was the last time we got a DOJ letter that actually meant something?

I got one that meant something in August 2005.

hoffmang

06-29-2007, 10:02 AM

The last letters of substance were coming out of DOJ (then FD) in First Quarter 2006.

This concept is being socialized with the right folks.

-Gene

.223

06-29-2007, 10:24 AM

This thread reeks of win. Seriously, I feel like I'm awash in a sea of pure win.

Free bump.

Wulf

06-29-2007, 11:20 AM

blackrazor

06-29-2007, 12:03 PM

Right now one of the few ways a person could get busted on the mag law aside from self incrimination or a complicated interstate sell-buy-transport-bust sting operation from the DOJ, would be to be found with a mag that didn't exist prior to 2000, to not have been alive prior to 2000, or to never have been in the state prior to 2000 to possess a high-cap. Any scheme which results in even a handful of mags piercing that year 2000 bubble, would seem to create reasonable doubt for possession of a post 2000 design, a 6 year old kid with a high cap, or a recent immigrant with a highcap.

I disagree, the ONLY way a person can be busted right now is via a DOJ sting operation. Even if they caught you with a magazine they could PROVE you didn't have before Jan 1st 2000, they'd still have no case, because the "I bought this mag last week" defense is legit; it's the seller who broke the law (unless he operates an armored car business, in which case nobody broke the law). The purpose of this armored car loophole I have suggested is not to protect the buyers of high cap mags, but to protect the sellers. The buyers (us) are already in the clear no matter what, so long as you don't construct, import, sell or loan within the state of CA.

This thread reeks of win. Seriously, I feel like I'm awash in a sea of pure win.

I WIN! I'M A WINNER THAT'S WHAT I DO, THAT'S ALL I DO! THAT'S MY JOB, I WIN! I ALWAYS WIN! AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

JawBone

06-29-2007, 12:31 PM

:80:magsmagsmags:tt2:

DRM6000

06-29-2007, 12:34 PM

Something like this, even if it never went large scale, would make the mag ban totally irrelevant.

Right now one of the few ways a person could get busted on the mag law aside from self incrimination or a complicated interstate sell-buy-transport-bust sting operation from the DOJ, would be to be found with a mag that didn't exist prior to 2000, to not have been alive prior to 2000, or to never have been in the state prior to 2000 to possess a high-cap. Any scheme which results in even a handful of mags piercing that year 2000 bubble, would seem to create reasonable doubt for possession of a post 2000 design, a 6 year old kid with a high cap, or a recent immigrant with a highcap.

didn't hi-cap mags post-94, pre-2004, have "le or export only" stamped on them? non-le couldn't buy them correct? so in theory, one couldn't have bought one after '94. i know one could have replaced a body with a marked one, dad gave a kid a pre-94 mag before 2000, etc.

i know this issue has been discussed, but i can't remember the facts of it all.

shawnyteee

06-29-2007, 01:17 PM

so where do you find these high capacity 120 round drum magazine? :winkiss:

well I'm happy to have read this. The renters that have stayed in my house when I was little, happen to have own a pistol and couple of rifles. My mom happen to gone through the garage upper storage when I was 14 and had found a pistol and rifle parts. Sadly, she through away the pistol in a black trashcan (shes anti gun).

Well getting to the point. There are still gun parts left and to my luck 3 hicap magazines to my disposal.. 2 seem permanently damage ( crush by park car ) (me :( ) but the other seems fixable.

Fjold

06-29-2007, 01:20 PM

. There are still gun parts left and to my luck 3 hicap magazines to my disposal.. 2 seem permanently damage ( crush by park car ) (me :( ) but the other seems fixable.

You can replace all the parts of the crushed magazines and legally rebuild them.

M. Sage

06-29-2007, 05:50 PM

You do have to get an armored car permit from CHP. I expect it has to run to get over to an inspection point.

-Gene

Even with the antique ones? I was assuming they wouldn't bother with the inspection on a "C&R"...

Oh, well. My bad.

adamsreeftank

06-30-2007, 01:47 AM

...The buyers (us) are already in the clear no matter what, so long as you don't construct, import, sell or loan within the state of CA.

...

What about conspiracy? You may not be committing a crime by purchasing a standard cap mag, but you may be guilty of conspiracy in the crime of selling the mag.

blackrazor

06-30-2007, 10:40 AM

What about conspiracy? You may not be committing a crime by purchasing a standard cap mag, but you may be guilty of conspiracy in the crime of selling the mag.

Perhaps, but it would be a long shot, especially if that was all you had when the case went to a jury. I don't think you would get 12/12 people to agree that you were involved in a conspiracy because you bought a high capacity magazine in CA. Furthermore, this charge only works if they were able to figure out who sold you the mag; no selling party in custody = no conspiracy. The prosecutor would also have to show that the selling party (assuming through some miracle they knew who it was) knew it was illegal to sell you the mag, and I'm willing to bet that a majority of the population who own "high capacity" magazines in CA don't even know that it's illegal to sell them.... so again no conspiracy.

But the point is, none of this matters since as far as I can tell you can always buy mags legally (on both ends) from any licensed operator of an armored car. You can also find and keep high capacity mags (definately no conspiracy there), and as far as I can tell there's nothing illegal about taking possession of high cap mags your grandfather left in that box in the attic before he died.

You know what I'm waiting for? I can't wait to see the DOJ post some BS memo about the legalities of armored car operators selling, giving and importing high cap mags. Then we REALLY will know who's reading this website (like we don't already). Ridiculous.

Stay legal, stay safe.

1911_sfca

06-30-2007, 11:31 AM

What about conspiracy? You may not be committing a crime by purchasing a standard cap mag, but you may be guilty of conspiracy in the crime of selling the mag.

BINGO. We have a winner.

Please stop discussing how to flout the law. You guys are creating a conspiracy right here on calguns, on breaking 12020.

I'm not talking about the whole armored car thing (keep that up, it is ridiculously entertaining). But talking about buying high cap mags now, importing them from out of state etc.. it is really unbecoming for Calguns.

Do you realize that if you get pulled over and start into some lame *** explanation about how you are "theoretically" not breaking the law, you will probably spend the night in a "theoretical" jail?

And you are going to make a citizens arrest for theft of your (illegally bought) high cap mag? Bahahahaha. Good luck with that.

bwiese

06-30-2007, 12:12 PM

I think we should refrain from BS discussions of 'finding' hicaps since that just smells bad.

I think we should temoprarily restrain discussion of the High Capacity Armored Car Service pending a bit more analysis, but it looks promising.

phish

06-30-2007, 01:44 PM

I think we should refrain from BS discussions of 'finding' hicaps since that just smells bad.

good luck with that, people have short memories

M. Sage

06-30-2007, 02:07 PM

Do you realize that if you get pulled over and start into some lame *** explanation about how you are "theoretically" not breaking the law, you will probably spend the night in a "theoretical" jail?

What kind of lame explanation? What explanation at all? What cop is going to say "OMGWTF!? WHUR DIDZ THIEZ HICAPPS COM FRUM?!" Why are they going to see them? Why would they care? The way the law is written, I don't see how they could honestly do anything besides assume the magazines are legally-possessed.

Better question is: if someone were to get asked questions, who is dumb enough to answer "well, you see, it's complicated, but..."? Hell no. "They're totally legal, officer. Can I go now?"

Law is made up of technicalities. If someone is technically not breaking a law, then they're not breaking it at all, no matter how close to the edge they come. I don't see any "theoretical" innocence above. I see the possibility for theoretical guilt, which is different.

blackrazor

06-30-2007, 02:22 PM

And you are going to make a citizens arrest for theft of your (illegally bought) high cap mag? Bahahahaha. Good luck with that.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, so I'll just keep saying it until it sinks in. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BUY HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES IN CALIFORNIA. Period.

That's a fact, it's not up for debate, buying a high cap mag isn't a conspiracy, and it doesn't reflect badly on anyone to discuss it, it's just a direct reading of the law. So stop wussing out about discussing something you think "the man" might not like. Geeez.

You guys are creating a conspiracy right here on calguns, on breaking 12020.

BZZZZT! I think we have a winner for BS statement of the week! You cannot be brought up on conspiracy charges simply for discussing something (aside from advocating or planning acts of violence), even that thing is illegal (and what we're discussing isn't even illegal). You must take some sort of ACTION before you can be charged with conspiracy, free discussions are protected by the 1st amendment and there are multiple court cases which back this up; ask any lawyer and he'll tell you the same thing.

What cop is going to say "OMGWTF!? WHUR DIDZ THIEZ HICAPPS COM FRUM?!"

LOL!! Nearly fell out of my chair reading that one!

Law is made up of technicalities. If someone is technically not breaking a law, then they're not breaking it at all, no matter how close to the edge they come. I don't see any "theoretical" innocence above.

Well said.

I think we should temoprarily restrain discussion of the High Capacity Armored Car Service pending a bit more analysis, but it looks promising.

Huh? What for? Remember that if it hadn't been for our open discussion of loopholes in the high cap law in the first place, I never would have put forth the idea of going through the Armored Vehicle "service". I fail to see how shutting up and refusing to discuss promising ideas is going to help any us. Staying silent and afraid is exactly what the DOJ wants.... no thanks. Open discussion is where these ideas come from and how they gain momentum in the community.

The Soup Nazi

06-30-2007, 02:30 PM

Yeah, but thats what we're here for, flouting the law. INTENT has no backing in a law, its what the law says and what it enforces. The assault weapon's ban true intent was to disarm us of specific types of semi automatic weapons. Too bad the law doesn't prevent us from obtaining such firearms legally even though the INTENT was to do so. Kind of like how raising taxes has the INTENT of raising the standard of living. What it does and why it was instituted can be two very different things.

Fate

06-30-2007, 02:33 PM

Then, after we've taken care of all the details, we can dress up our armored car like the Good Humor truck full of high cap mags and travel around to gun shows and shooting ranges playing a little jingle :)

LMAO, talk about "kids" running from all directions with money in hand...

That's classic.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

06-30-2007, 02:39 PM

Even though there is ambiguity in the statute, when all is said and done, I'm not sure the armored vehicle business angle is going to lead to anything.

Everything hinges on whether the preposition "by" in PC 12020(b)(27) ("to or by") modifies all of the otherwise prohibited activities that precedes it (sale, giving, lending, importation, purchase).

If it does, then the lending of a large capacity magazine by an armored vehicle business is not prohibited. But if that were the case, then PC 12020(b)(28) and (29) permitting the lending of large capacity magazines by armored vehicle businesses to their employees (and return of the magazines to the business by the employees) would be superfluous.

So I think we can definitely say that "by" was not intended to modify "lending" which leaves open the possibility that "by" was not necessarily intended to modify each of the other activities, in particular "sale."

If you look at the LEO exception, the Legislature is a little more clear in excepting "sales to" and "purchases by" LEOs. The FFL exception is a little less clear, it excepts "[t]he sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071." I think this means (or at least was intended to mean) sales to or purchases by FFLs and not "sales to or by" FFLs. Law enforcement can make the similar argument with respect to the armored vehicle exception, i.e., "by" modifies only some of the otherwise prohibited activities, including "purchase" but not "sale."

Yes this is an ambiguous statute which, literally construed, excepts sales of large capacity magazines by armored vehicle businesses. Was that intended by the Legislature? I don't think so.

I guess my point is that there are arguments on both sides but is there really any risk-free way to test the statute? I think you'd need to find some armored vehicle business that is willing to be the guinea pig in a prosecution, not sure if there is anyone who would be wiling to put it on the line.

Over and above that there is a question in my mind that the purchaser in the transaction might face some criminal liability under "aiding and abetting" principles (but I don't have the background to make an assessment of that).

Anyway this is an interesting issue.

(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.
***
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
***
(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt
of, or importation into this state of, a large-capacity magazine by a
sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with
Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a
firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by
a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
***
(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this
state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by
entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws
of this state.
(28) The lending of large-capacity magazines by the entities
specified in paragraph (27) to their authorized employees, while in
the course and scope of their employment for purposes that pertain to
the entity's armored vehicle business.
(29) The return of those large-capacity magazines to those
entities specified in paragraph (27) by those employees specified in
paragraph (28).

blackrazor

06-30-2007, 03:14 PM

Yes this is an ambiguous statute which, literally construed, excepts sales of large capacity magazines by armored vehicle businesses. Was that intended by the Legislature? I don't think so.

The intentions of the legislature, as mentioned just a little while ago, are irrelevant, what is written and law is all that matters. If intention was important, they never would have needed to rewrite Roberti-Roos in the first place with SB23, since the original intention of the AWCA was to outlaw "all assault weapons". Obviously that didn't last long.

It's interesting that you bring up the legislatures language regarding the LEO exemptions, the way I read that section, it only backs up my theory that the legislature is writing non-sensical/unenforcable laws. The LEO exemption says that "purchases by" LEO's are exempted... but if you read the law carefully, purchases were never regulated in the first place, NOT EVER NOT AT ALL. So a purchase exemption is totally unnecessary, and shows that the people who wrote these laws don't even understand what they've written. With the armored car loophole, they have once again failed to understand the consequences of what they have written, and now here we are, ready to take advantage of another one of their endless stream of F@$#-ups.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

06-30-2007, 05:59 PM

Well, I'm not sure I agree that intention is not relevant where there is ambiguity in a statute, that's usually one of the circumstances when it is relevant. I wouldn't put a lot of weight into "purchase by LEO" either, that just clarifies that a sales transaction involving an LEO purchaser is legit.

But again the debate about how the law is written is largely academic because as a practical matter you are going to have a hard time finding an armored vehicle business that is going to be the test case for the "loophole." Would you really want to defend a large cap magazine sale prosecution with the silly "law says armored vehicle businesses can sell large cap magazine to Joe Blow" defense? I think this is one of those instances where the "literal interpretation" argument wouldn't make it too far in front of most trial judges. The law bans the sale of large cap magazines, you can sell them to LEOs and armored car businesses because they have a legislatively sanctioned use for them in the course of their business, but the sale of large cap mags by armored car businesses to Joe Blow just doesn't make any sense and most (it's more like all but since there is a remote possibility I'll say most) trial judges aren't going to buy that interpretation.

blackrifle

06-30-2007, 06:47 PM

You can replace all the parts of the crushed magazines and legally rebuild them.

I've heard two different things with this. One is that is needs to be crushed or "inoperable". The other thing I heard is that the old parts need to be discarded.

Anyone have a DEFINITE regulation on this one? Bill?

adamsreeftank

07-01-2007, 12:12 AM

(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this
state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by
entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws
of this state.

When I read the above text, it sure seems like the word sale was an error or a typo. It makes sense that an armored car service would give or lend magazines to its employees for their job, but why would they sell them magazines? Do armored car companies sell their employees guns? They are not exempted from FFL requirements, so why would they need to sell magazines.

I suppose the intention was that there was no restriction on selling magazines to the armored car companies, but when they wrote the text, they mistakenly combined the two activities of selling mags to the car companies and the companies lending the mags to their employess for their jobs.

If you apply the rules of logic to the legal text, the following should be an equivalent description:

The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, TO entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state, OR the sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, BY entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.

XDshooter

07-01-2007, 12:25 AM

No need for such a long interpretation. Just pick out the words that will aply to us.

(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this
state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by
entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws
of this state.

So,

The sale of any large-capacity magazine by entities
that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant
to the laws of this state.

The only problem that I can see is "pursuant to the laws of this state". There might be some sort of laws that govern armored car businesses that prohibit them from selling to civilians or some other statute that makes the sale illegal.

When I read the above text, it sure seems like the word sale was an error or a typo. It makes sense that an armored car service would give or lend magazines to its employees for their job, but why would they sell them magazines? Do armored car companies sell their employees guns? They are not exempted from FFL requirements, so why would they need to sell magazines.

I suppose the intention was that there was no restriction on selling magazines to the armored car companies, but when they wrote the text, they mistakenly combined the two activities of selling mags to the car companies and the companies lending the mags to their employess for their jobs.

If you apply the rules of logic to the legal text, the following should be an equivalent description:

The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, TO entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state, OR the sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, BY entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.

WokMaster1

07-01-2007, 08:48 AM

When I read the above text, it sure seems like the word sale was an error or a typo. It makes sense that an armored car service would give or lend magazines to its employees for their job, but why would they sell them magazines? Do armored car companies sell their employees guns? They are not exempted from FFL requirements, so why would they need to sell magazines.

I suppose the intention was that there was no restriction on selling magazines to the armored car companies, but when they wrote the text, they mistakenly combined the two activities of selling mags to the car companies and the companies lending the mags to their employess for their jobs.

If you apply the rules of logic to the legal text, the following should be an equivalent description:

The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, TO entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state, OR the sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, BY entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.

That might be true as to making a mistake but I'm curious as to what they can do. It's already been passed into law. Besides they had all those layers of checks & balances, so called experts that scrutinize the words & meanings. Did one of them or a few of them in charge of this paragraph fall asleep at the wheel?

The legal question is can you go back & change a word/meaning of a law without legislative proceedings? I don't see any difference here from the OLL & "detachable" magazine situations.

This is what I can see, if an armored car company
"Zero Liability Armored Transport Co" :D buys & issues a buttload of hi-cap magazines to arm its guards' issued Black Star Rifles (Mud, I hope you're hearing this!) They used their mags hard & every 6 months have a garage sale to the general public (aka Calgunners;)). They are following the laws to the letter, just like the situation with OLL, Maglocks & BB.

p/s I heard from rumors that Gene is the CEO of the armor car company.:43:

.223

07-01-2007, 11:21 AM

I see what you did there :chris:

tenpercentfirearms

07-01-2007, 11:23 AM

But again the debate about how the law is written is largely academic because as a practical matter you are going to have a hard time finding an armored vehicle business that is going to be the test case for the "loophole." Would you really want to defend a large cap magazine sale prosecution with the silly "law says armored vehicle businesses can sell large cap magazine to Joe Blow" defense?

I just had lunch with a guy who very well is going to buy an armored car company just for the sole purpose of selling high capacity magazines. He is the type that I don't think he was blowing smoke.

.223

07-01-2007, 12:44 PM

Assuming the literal interpretation of the law is correct in this case, can you imagine how lucrative this could be? There are enough people interested on calguns alone to fund the armored car business itself.

hoffmang

07-01-2007, 01:49 PM

For the LEO's here, what would you charge the following people with?

1. A buyer at his mailbox with a large capacity magazine in it bought from an in state FFL?

2. A buyer at his mailbox with a large capacity magazine in it bought from an in armored car service?

3. A buyer in posession of a large capacity magazine with a 2007 date stamp on it?

4. A CA FFL selling large capacity magazines on his website?

5. A CA Armored car service with large capacity magazines on his website?

1-3 have no chargeable PC. The only way you can charge and end buyer with 12020 is to catch him importing or have PC to believe that he has imported.

4 and 5 are chargeable with 12020, but they have an affirmative defense in (b). Poor drafting and the rule of lenity means that legislative intent doesn't get into it. The words mean what they say on the page and if there is another arguable interpretation, the tie goes to the accused. Plus, the two other sections on lending don't support a reading against buying and selling. If those sections were about buying and selling, they would.

-Gene

Jicko

07-01-2007, 02:09 PM

Do LEO file charges or the DA file charges?

For the LEO's here, what would you charge the following people with?

-Gene

bwiese

07-01-2007, 02:47 PM

Do LEO file charges or the DA file charges?

LE's really recommend charges based on evidence and prob cause for arrest.

The DA formally charges you with higher or lower charges - whatever they think will stick - or dismisses charges if they can't make a case, ain't worth their time, cops screwed up, etc.

Fate

07-06-2007, 05:03 PM

CA Penal Code 12020(a)(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."

Interesting comments on the armored car company. But maybe that's more work than really is necessary.

Words have specific meanings. Take the word "manufactures" for instance. Look it up. Almost universally it means to create or fabricate something out of raw materials (in the case of a magazine...that'd be flat steel/aluminum and wire), usually with machinery.

Is the concept of "assembly or reassembly" really included in the definition of "manufacturing?" Wouldn't building something out of manufactured parts be assembly, not manufacturing? What about putting something back together that was broken down for shipping? I bought a piece of furniture from IKEA once. I assembled it. I didn't manufacture it. That job was done by those crazy Swedes. It wasn't even a bed when it was imported. It was a bunch of tubes, screws and something vaguely resembling wood. A bed in the state I received it...it was not.

And since it is not illegal to import magazine parts (only complete magazines)...is it truly illegal to "assemble or reassemble" those parts into a working magazine?

Happy Liberty Day :patriot:

blackrazor

07-06-2007, 05:23 PM

Unfortunately, your argument holds no water.

First of all, the DOJ has specifically outlined that assembly of a high capacity magazine from its constituent parts is illegal as it would be "manufacture." According to the DOJ, you are in fact manufacturing all that furniture that you bought from IKEA.

But let's just say for a minute you're right, and that you prove in court that you didn't manufacture merely by assembling the parts. Well, you're still screwed, and here's why: if you didn't manufacture the high capacity magazine by assembling it, than it must have already been a high capacity magazine before you assembled it. That means you already broke the law by importing a high capacity magazine. You're damned either way.

Stick with buying high capacity magazines from people whom (you can only assume) are legally allowed to sell them to you; there's nothing illegal about buying high capacity magazines... and nothing illegal about selling them if you legally operate an armored car in this state. As for confirming the legality of the seller's actions, that's his/her responsibility, not yours, so don't worry about it.

Fate

07-06-2007, 05:30 PM

First of all, the DOJ has specifically outlined that assembly of a high capacity magazine from its constituent parts is illegal as it would be "manufacture." According to the DOJ, you are in fact manufacturing all that furniture that you bought from IKEA.
Is that DOJ "opinion" or prosecutable LAW? I'd be interested in seeing it in writing.

But let's just say for a minute you're right, and that you prove in court that you didn't manufacture merely by assembling the parts. Well, you're still screwed, and here's why: if you didn't manufacture the high capacity magazine by assembling it, than it must have already been a high capacity magazine before you assembled it. That means you already broke the law by importing a high capacity magazine. You're damned either way.
Hold on. You start out by saying "let's say you're right" then you ignore that part. If "assembly" is different than "manufacturing" (which we're saying it is for the point of argument), and importing parts is not importing a high cap mag (that is already a firm, legal "given" in the understanding of CA high cap mag law), then how could one make the leap to say you're importing high cap mags if they are nothing more than parts?

MudCamper

07-06-2007, 05:35 PM

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-large-cap-magazines-2005-11-10.pdf

blackrazor

07-06-2007, 05:38 PM

Is that DOJ "opinion" or prosecutable LAW? I'd be interested in seeing it in writing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm usually the first person to call out the DOJ when they start throwing around their opinions as "law." But, the point is, IT DOESN'T MATTER if the DOJ is right or wrong, you're screwed anyway, because either you're manufacturing a high cap mag, or you're importing one, both of which are illegal.

mcubed4130

07-06-2007, 05:47 PM

I'm just waiting patiently until some group of people in California starting advertising the sale of Hi-Caps...

I plan on BUYING alot of them... as has been noted... nothing illegal about possession of a Hi-Cap mag. And nothing illegal about BUYING one - as long as you do so INSIDE of California.

And I'm sure someone inside of California, will be able to legally sell them sooner or later. :D

-M3

Fate

07-06-2007, 05:58 PM

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-large-cap-magazines-2005-11-10.pdf
Interesting that this letter reads very similarly to the OLL ones. Lots of 58 DA buck passing...

Fate

07-06-2007, 06:03 PM

Don't get me wrong, I'm usually the first person to call out the DOJ when they start throwing around their opinions as "law." But, the point is, IT DOESN'T MATTER if the DOJ is right or wrong, you're screwed anyway, because either you're manufacturing a high cap mag, or you're importing one, both of which are illegal.
I was rewriting part of my earlier post and you might've missed it. Importing parts is not importing a complete mag. And if assembly is not manufacturing (as determined in our imaginary case), where's the crime?

blackrazor

07-06-2007, 06:45 PM

I was rewriting part of my earlier post and you might've missed it. Importing parts is not importing a complete mag. And if assembly is not manufacturing (as determined in our imaginary case), where's the crime?

Because basically, you can't have it both ways. If importing parts is not the same as importing a high capacity mag, then by definition you don't have a high capacity mag when you receive your package in the mail, but you most certainly do when you use the assembled mag in your gun. Therefore, somewhere along the way, you MUST have manufactured a high capacity magazine, simply because you brought one into existance when previously there was no such thing (according to you). However, if you then state you didn't manufacture the high capacity magazine because Beretta/HK/Sig/etc. made the parts, then it was, by definition, a high capacity magazine when it was imported to you, and once again you are guilty, this time of importing the high capacity magazine.

So, in summary, if you really believe (and manage to convince others) that you are not manufacturing, then you must admit that you already owned the high capacity magazine before assembly, therefore IMPORTING THE PARTS WOULD BE THE SAME AS IMPORTING A HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE (despite what the DOJ may or may not have said). It won't matter if importing parts "is not importing a complete mag", it will be illegal anyway, and they'll use your own argument to prove it.

Fate

07-06-2007, 09:33 PM

Ah but you've bought in to the idea that manufacturing and assembling are the same thing. But what IF they are not the same?

If they are not, then somewhere along the way, you MUST have manufactured a high capacity magazine, simply because you brought one into existance when previously there was no such thing... doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If assembling is not manufacturing, then there is no validity to the claim of "you MUST have manufactured it because you brought one in to existance" because it existed as pre-manufactured parts that were later assembled.

As for owning a high cap mag out of state, disassembling it and shipping it to yourself for replacement parts, the DOJ letter referenced above states that is completely legal (though the 58 DAs' bunched panties are ominously mentioned). So importing parts is not the same as importing a hi cap mag even according to the DOJ.

The DOJ may claim legislative intent, but what really is the "letter of the law" with regard to the definition of "manufacturing?"

blackrazor

07-06-2007, 10:00 PM

You possess an object, that object is a "high capacity magazine".

Because that object exists and it does not grow on trees or fall out of space, it must have, at some point in time, been manufactured by someone.

So my next question for you is, When and Who manufactured this theoretical high capacity magazine which you possess? (answer however you like)

P.S. i'm not trying to be an A@#$^@$ here or anything, just trying to play devil's advocate... you have to be able to defend yourself against your fellow calgunners before you wind up testing your arguments against the cops, or worse, a judge.

blacklisted

07-06-2007, 10:10 PM

blkA4alb

07-06-2007, 10:12 PM

I found it in a dumpster! Or maybe some man gave it to me! I plead the fif! The fif!

So many amendments to choose from, I can only choose one! I plead the FIF!

Fate

07-06-2007, 10:26 PM

I too am only playing the devil's advocate. This exercise is the same type of "out of the box" thinking that led to OLLs. Whether "manufacture" and "assemble" really are the same thing or not remains to be seen.

But if they are not the same thing, then it doesn't matter if the magazine was once whole, broken into parts and made it's way across the borders in one box (or many for that matter) or whether individual "replacement parts" were acquired from various manufacturers one at a time and then assembled into a complete magazine.

Many things are defined in Article 2, Section 12020. "Manufactures" is not one of them (that I can find).

I have only been asking pointed questions, not recommending actions. :smartass:

*********************
edit....oh man, this thought process is a :dupe: !!!http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=47758

Hunter

07-06-2007, 11:20 PM

....is it truly illegal to "assemble or reassemble" those parts into a working magazine?...:

It sure is according to the DOJ. Just take a look at their opinion letter on relinking links into belts greater than 10 rnds.

blackrazor

07-07-2007, 12:56 AM

It sure is according to the DOJ. Just take a look at their opinion letter on relinking links into belts greater than 10 rnds.

Well, I'm sure that everyone on this board has the good sense to shoot their belts down to a minimum of 11 rounds, at which point you all relink them back to 100+, no problems.

fireblast713

07-07-2007, 01:57 AM

So if someone else illegally imported the mags, and I buy the mags from this person, I am not in violation of the law? Would it be possible for the person illegally importing them to be prosecuted once the mags were in the state? Seems like people are saying it's rather difficult to "prove" they didn't own them pre 2000 or so.

blackrazor

07-07-2007, 09:11 AM

You don't have to "prove" you owned your mags before 2000, hell even the DOJ has said that.

So if someone else illegally imported the mags, and I buy the mags from this person, I am not in violation of the law?

That's right, you didn't break any laws, the other guy did.

Would it be possibly for the person illegally importing them to be prosecuted once the mags were in the state?

Yes, however, the only crimes he could be charged with would be the importation and, in your scenario, the sale of high capacity magazines (to you). Of course, the DOJ would have to bring those charges within a few years of the time of sale, otherwise he would be protected by the statute of limitations.

Hunter

07-07-2007, 09:20 AM

Well, I'm sure that everyone on this board has the good sense to shoot their belts down to a minimum of 11 rounds, at which point you all relink them back to 100+, no problems.

You missed the whole point of my post. This thread is discussing whether one reassembling a high capacity magazine could be seen as "manufacturing" one in the eyes of the law. I was just pointing out that in the eyes of the DOJ it sure is, as they had provided their opinion on the matter back in 2001 when discussing "reassembly" of links. Now that doesn't necessarly make it legal/illegal, just how they see it.

Fate

07-07-2007, 09:44 AM

Now that doesn't necessarly make it legal/illegal, just how they see it.
And it's not like the "DOJ opinion letter" has taken any major credibility hits lately. ;)

ItsPhipps

07-09-2007, 09:07 PM

[QUOTE=blackrazor;668207]You possess an object, that object is a "high capacity magazine".

Because that object exists and it does not grow on trees or fall out of space, it must have, at some point in time, been manufactured by someone.

So my next question for you is, When and Who manufactured this theoretical high capacity magazine which you possess? (answer however you like)
QUOTE]

Defenition of "manufacture" from various dictionaries
-the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, esp. on a large scale
-to work up (material) into form for use
-To make or process a raw material into a finished product, especially by means of a large-scale industrial operation
-To create, produce, or turn out in a mechanical manner
-put together out of artificial or natural components or parts
-to make, originally by hand but now usually by machinery and in large quantities

Definition of "assemble" from various dictionaries
-to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole
-To fit together the parts or pieces of ...a standard capacity magazine?
-create by putting components together

The high capacity magazine body was manufactured by XX company... The high capacity spring was manufactured by XX company... etc.

The high capacity magazine BODY was then imported by XX person into CA, which is not illegal... A high capacity magazine SPRING was imported... etc.

After being imported, the high capacity magazine body, the high capacity spring, and etc. were then assembled by XX person into a functional high capacity magazine. You can't manufacture twice can you? If XX person in fact did manufacture a high capacity magazine then what did the manufacturing company do? Does the definition of manufacture best fit what the company making the parts does? Does the definition of assemble best fit what the person does with the parts that the company manufactured? Again this is just food for thought to get the brain thinking.

Now for the other side, assemble IS one of the first synonyms for manufacture in every thesaurus that I looked up. The same goes for manufacture being a synonym for assemble. It could also be looked at like XX company manufactured high capacity magazine parts and XX person manufactured a high capacity magazine out of those parts which is how I think blackrazor is explaining it. The defenition of assemble fits much better than manufacture in that instance though. What do you guys all think? Anything I missed?

BTW, this is my first post. I love this board and read everything but between my job and the search button I'm always too busy to post.

scewper

07-09-2007, 09:56 PM

So if someone else illegally imported the mags, and I buy the mags from this person, I am not in violation of the law?

That's right, you didn't break any laws, the other guy did.

So, how come we aren't "buying magazines from that bum in the alley?" Say Bob buys a regular capacity magazine from Noob A. Bob somehow gets caught with his new magazine and it's dated after 2000. Bob tells the officer he bought it from Noob A.

What happens to Bob?
What happens to the magazine?

hoffmang

07-09-2007, 10:02 PM

So, how come we aren't "buying magazines from that bum in the alley?" Say Bob buys a regular capacity magazine from Noob A. Bob somehow gets caught with his new magazine and it's dated after 2000. Bob tells the officer he bought it from Noob A.

What happens to Bob?
What happens to the magazine?

Not much happens to Bob. However, the police now will want to know all about the person selling the magazine. Unless he fits under one of the exceptions in the law...

-Gene

blackrazor

07-09-2007, 10:30 PM

itsphipps,

The problem is this. As it currently stands, if you import all the parts needed to build a high capacity magazine, that's OK. But the moment you put them all together, you have, according to the DOJ, "manufactured" a high capacity magazine.

Now, you can argue all you want that you aren't "manufacturing", you're just "assembling". Fine, let's say you convince them (even though you won't). Well, in that case, the importation of all the parts will now be illegal, because if you didn't manufacture the high cap by assembling it, then it was already manufactured when it was shipped to you: Ding! You just illegally imported a high capacity magazine (you're still busted).

If you convince "them" that assembly is not the same as the final step in "manufacture", then the importation of all the needed parts will no longer be legal. You're damned either way.

XDshooter

07-09-2007, 11:06 PM

No need for the Armored Car Service or assembly BS. The PC 12020 does not apply to FFL holders when selling high-cap mags.

Dam, this whole time we all could have legally purchased high-cap mags from dealers. Dang.

Tenpercent, Metroshot, when are you gonna start selling?

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.(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.

12071
(a)(1) As used in this chapter, the term "licensee," "person licensed pursuant to Section 12071," or "dealer" means a person who has all of the following:.......BLAH BLAH BLAH.......

hoffmang

07-09-2007, 11:19 PM

XD,

We've all noticed that actually...

-Gene

XDshooter

07-09-2007, 11:28 PM

XD,

We've all noticed that actually...

-Gene

I don't think so, except yourself as you posted back on page 13. Everyone is still talking about assembling vs manufacturing, or the whole armorer car thing.

I just like to quote the laws directly and highlight the part that applies so that everyone gets the picture.

If everyone has noticed, let's get the ball roling before the DOJ tries to amend the laws again.

hoffmang

07-09-2007, 11:45 PM

XD,

Not all the posted messages in this thread have stayed posted...

Bear with. Things are happening to move this little doozy forward.

And if DOJ moved to amend the laws... Well, that would be icing on the cake if you think it through. Just make sure you have lots of cash or credit available...

-Gene

XDshooter

07-09-2007, 11:54 PM

Good point Gene.

I'll drop a grand on mags. Well maybe not that much, but a lot.

fireblast713

07-10-2007, 06:32 AM

Nefarious

07-10-2007, 06:51 AM

What if I bought hi-cap mags from someone and they have date stamps from after 2000? If the person I bought them from illegally imported them, but I legally purchased them, am I now subject to suspicion of importing hi capacity magazines? From what I understand I haven't broken the law buying the hi-capacity magazines, but they have post 2000 date stamps which sure looks incriminating...

You cannot buy a "complete" hi-cap mag. It would need to be broken down into parts to be used to replace your legally owned pre-ban hi-cap.
Assuming you already owned pre-ban mags, and are simply using the new - 2000 date stamp - mag parts as replacement parts ... your fine.

If im wrong, I will be flamed, ridiculed , and unoficially banned from posting for a couple of weeks :)

Edit: I just went back a couple of posts and see why you stated your question the way you did. You either had them before the ban, or you didnt... I would leave it at that. Whos to say you did not already own that mag, and used post ban replacement parts to repair?? No one. You can buy replacement parts from lots of places. Some people recommend, though, that you smash the body of the old and keep that with you on your trips .. when you take your "repaired" mag

.223

07-10-2007, 07:38 AM

Good point Gene.

I'll drop a grand on mags. Well maybe not that much, but a lot.

I'd be first in line for a 90 round drum mag :cool2:

blackrazor

07-10-2007, 08:05 AM

You cannot buy a "complete" hi-cap mag.

Why not? Please show me where it's illegal to buy a hi-cap mag. It doesn't look you've read this thread...

XDshooter

07-10-2007, 01:30 PM

So, does this mean to have belted ammo linked more than 10 rounds, I have to pay my FFL to assemble it for me. :p

Sweet business opportunity.

GET YOUR 250 ROUND LINKED AMMO!!!!

.22guy

07-10-2007, 01:41 PM

So, that means there is a small possiblity we could buy from a dealer, up until the DOJ (or BOF?) ammends the law?

The Soup Nazi

07-10-2007, 01:54 PM

So, that means there is a small possiblity we could buy from a dealer, up until the DOJ (or BOF?) ammends the law?

I thought that was the legislature's job? Otherwise if the DOJ could do that we would've been SOL on the lowers.

.22guy

07-10-2007, 02:18 PM

Ok, so the legislature tightens the reins. At any rate, I bet it would take a gutsy dealer to sell the things.

mcubed4130

07-10-2007, 02:23 PM

And I'll bet that once the right legal safeties are in place... a gutsy dealer will appear. :D

-M3

.22guy

07-10-2007, 02:30 PM

Man, would sure hope so. On my wishlist would be 10/22 mags, AR and AK, and M-1 carbine mags.

SemiAutoSam

07-10-2007, 02:33 PM

Ive been looking for replacement Bingham 10/22 30 round mags.

there either very expensive or just not available.

I used them 25 years ago and neglected that they would always be around.

anyone have a line on these single stack steel mags ?

Man, would sure hope so. On my wish list would be 10/22 mags, AR and AK, and M-1 carbine mags.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-10-2007, 04:14 PM

And I'll bet that once the right legal safeties are in place... a gutsy dealer will appear. :D

Maybe not "gutsy" but "foolish"!:D Here's the FFL exception language:

"The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071."

If your interpretation is that both "to" and "by" modify "sale" (meaning that a "sale by" an FFL is excepted) that's fine. But if you're interpreting it that way, then shouldn't both "to" and "by" modify "purchase" as well? Of course, but "purchase to" doesn't make any sense.

This suggests that "to" modifies only one (sale) and "by" modifies the other (purchase) (there is a parallel construction here, "sale" and "to" are one one side of "or" and "purchase' and "by" are on the other).

The legislature intended to restrict commerce in hi-cap mags. The rule of lenity isn't going to help where there is no persuasive explanation why the legislature would have excepted sales of hi-caps by FFLs (or by armored car businesses). In other words, if the competing interpretation of an ambiguous statute is not reasonable in light of legislative intent, the rule of lenity does not apply.

I really think you'd be a fool to be the guinea pig for the armored car/FFL "loopholes".

hoffmang

07-10-2007, 04:43 PM

"or" means "or". Your analysis depends on some transitive quality of the English language that doesn't actually exist.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-10-2007, 05:00 PM

"or" means "or". Your analysis depends on some transitive quality of the English language that doesn't actually exist.

-Gene

I'll remember that next time I purchase a hi-cap mag to an FFL.:rolleyes:

fireblast713

07-10-2007, 05:05 PM

You either had them before the ban, or you didnt... I would leave it at that. Whos to say you did not already own that mag, and used post ban replacement parts to repair?? No one. You can buy replacement parts from lots of places. Some people recommend, though, that you smash the body of the old and keep that with you on your trips .. when you take your "repaired" mag

What if I say threw away the mag body? I mean who honestly keeps a broken mag body in their gear bag? The burden of proof is on them, but they could still hassle me couldn't they? I mean I am sitting with a post 2000 hi-cap magazine, even if I did legally rebuild it from a preban or purchase it legally from someone who imported it.

SemiAutoSam

07-10-2007, 05:11 PM

How about this: Person A that lives in California drives to the border and meets person B that lives in a adjoing state person A tosses payment for a magazine over the state line to person B then Person B tosses 1 paid for 30 round magazine to person A which is standing on the California side of the border.

Has a crime been committed ?

If so how and by who ?

hoffmang

07-10-2007, 05:12 PM

M. Sage

07-10-2007, 05:40 PM

Things are happening to move this little doozy forward.

-Gene

I love it when he says that.

Nefarious

07-10-2007, 06:11 PM

What if I say threw away the mag body? I mean who honestly keeps a broken mag body in their gear bag? The burden of proof is on them, but they could still hassle me couldn't they? I mean I am sitting with a post 2000 hi-cap magazine, even if I did legally rebuild it from a preban or purchase it legally from someone who imported it.

Yes the burden of proof is on them. And yes your right.. not alot of people are going to carry around a smashed up useless mag body :D. Does it help to "look" or be "older" when your out with a handfull of 30rnd'ers ... sure. Would you get more looks and possibly harassed if you were some younger kid with post 2000 date code marked bodies ... sure.

Burden of Proof

Nefarious

07-10-2007, 06:14 PM

SemiAutoSam

07-10-2007, 06:35 PM

Person B is not in the jurisdiction where the law had been enacted. California law is not binding on a citizen from Nevada or Oregon or Arizona is it. Did person A cause the magazines importation or was it already located in the state when he became in possession of it?

That depends. Is Person B an illegal, which would give him more rights than person A .. and ultimately make him immune to any legal persecution ;)

XDshooter

07-10-2007, 06:52 PM

"The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071" does not equal "The sale to or purchase by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 of any large-capacity magazine."

-Gene

Exactly. What you have written is probably what they meant to write. Good thing for us is that the writers of these laws had a lapse of intelligence that day.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-10-2007, 07:04 PM

"The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071" does not equal "The sale to or purchase by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 of any large-capacity magazine."

-Gene

Or, "The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071" does not equal "The sale to or by or the purchase to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 of any large-capacity magazine."

All I know is I wouldn't want to be the defendant in a prosecution for sale of hi-cap mags where literally my only defense is "or means or," my interpretation leads to a nonsensical construction ("purchase to" an FFL), and I am advocating an exception to the "no sale of hi-cap mags" that basically eviscerates the rule, without being able to articulate any reason whatsoever why the legislature would except sales of hi cap mags by FFLs to ordinary citizens. YMMV but the risks of successful prosecution don't seem worth it at all.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-10-2007, 07:07 PM

Exactly. What you have written is probably what they meant to write. Good thing for us is that the writers of these laws had a lapse of intelligence that day.

I think this is how most judges would interpret the exception: sales to or purchases by FFLs are ok.

.22guy

07-10-2007, 07:14 PM

This discussion is making my head hurt....:41: :)

virulosity

07-10-2007, 07:14 PM

I have a question that I think hasn't been covered yet:
What if you have accidentally destroyed a plastic 10/22 magazine that is impossible to rebuild? Can you replace it?

Also, you are not "importing" if you are not the person that payed the UPS, FedEx, etc. to deliver the package correct?

XDshooter

07-10-2007, 07:47 PM

I think this is how most judges would interpret the exception: sales to or purchases by FFLs are ok.

It doesn't matter what they try to interpret the laws, it's what they actually say.

Nefarious

07-10-2007, 07:57 PM

Person B is not in the jurisdiction where the law had been enacted. California law is not binding on a citizen from Nevada or Oregon or Arizona is it. Did person A cause the magazines importation or was it already located in the state when he became in possession of it?

LMAO!! SAS I was just being a smart arse :D

But to answer.
"Technically" It was already in the state per your scenario. Now would that fly? I dont think so. Did person A cause the importation? I can see arguments for both sides. Who wants to be our test case?

SemiAutoSam

07-10-2007, 08:01 PM

http://www.section525.com/xpage/sectionfinger.gifYeah I knew that.

LMAO!! SAS I was just being a smart arse :D

But to answer.
"Technically" It was already in the state per your scenario. Now would that fly? I dont think so.

hoffmang

07-10-2007, 08:15 PM

I think this is how most judges would interpret the exception: sales to or purchases by FFLs are ok.

And again, you are ignoring an "or." The plain language of the statute says that sales by CA FFL's are exempted from the ban. The rule of lenity gets you past any of the hand waving you are trying.

-Gene

1911_sfca

07-10-2007, 09:22 PM

So, that means there is a small possiblity we could buy from a dealer, up until the DOJ (or BOF?) ammends the law?

If an FFL started selling high-cap mags to the public, they would suddenly find that they no longer have a high-cap magazine license. DOJ would not have to amend the law; they will just pull the permit.

1911_sfca

07-10-2007, 09:28 PM

All I know is I wouldn't want to be the defendant in a prosecution for sale of hi-cap mags where literally my only defense is "or means or," my interpretation leads to a nonsensical construction ("purchase to" an FFL), and I am advocating an exception to the "no sale of hi-cap mags" that basically eviscerates the rule, without being able to articulate any reason whatsoever why the legislature would except sales of hi cap mags by FFLs to ordinary citizens. YMMV but the risks of successful prosecution don't seem worth it at all.

+1. Sorry guys but I won't be donating $1,000 to the high-cap mag seller's ("or" buyer's) legal defense fund. But good luck and fight the good fight! :rolleyes:

hoffmang

07-10-2007, 09:30 PM

And if DOJ pulls the import permit there is a long OAH process they have to go through. Plus, there are other not even questionable ways for certain folks to import magazines and sell them to FFLs making the FFL import permit moot. Read a little higher and think through the legislative intent on certain exceptions.

You may not feel like being a part of the team, but we'll make it happen without you.

-Gene

SemiAutoSam

07-10-2007, 09:32 PM

Oh come on 1911 thats real Jacked Up. LOL
http://www.fullsizechevy.com/454ss/jackass.gif

+1. Sorry guys but I won't be donating $1,000 to the high-cap mag seller's ("or" buyer's) legal defense fund. But good luck and fight the good fight! :rolleyes:

hoffmang

07-10-2007, 09:35 PM

This thread is such a repeat of OLLs..

-Gene

mcubed4130

07-10-2007, 09:38 PM

This thread is such a repeat of OLLs..

I wasn't even on this board then... and I was thinking the same thing.

:D

-M3

hoffmang

07-10-2007, 09:40 PM

+1. Sorry guys but I won't be donating $1,000 to the high-cap mag seller's ("or" buyer's) legal defense fund. But good luck and fight the good fight! :rolleyes:

So 1911, you have a ghost of an argument about sellers, but where exactly do you find it illegal to buy? Quote me some Penal Code for the charging sheet.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-10-2007, 10:01 PM

This thread is such a repeat of OLLs..

-Gene

I think the hi-cap mag selling "loopholes" are going to play out about as well as the "DoJ is going to list OLLs then we can register and build up full-featured AWs" strategy.:p

hoffmang

07-10-2007, 10:12 PM

I think the hi-cap mag selling "loopholes" are going to play out about as well as the "DoJ is going to list OLLs then we can register and build up full-featured AWs" strategy.:p

Then you think we'll get new legislation closing the loophole and leaving everyone with the ability to have purchased magazines date stamped as late as 2007.

Glad you agree.

-Gene

bwiese

07-10-2007, 10:13 PM

Iare going to play out about as well as the "DoJ is going to list OLLs then we can register and build up full-featured AWs" strategy.:p

That was a hope. When the OLL stuff started we figured only around 500 would come thru before the hammer would come down and the DOJ would just get in touch with every mfgr and find out upcoming makes/models.

For the panic of creating a few hundred new AWs because they were caught asleep at the wheel, we got 50,000+ unregulated self-loading rifles, perhaps an even better result.

Not only that, we got AB2728 that protected a fleet of other rifles from being declared AWs.

blacklisted

07-10-2007, 10:21 PM

This thread is such a repeat of OLLs..

-Gene

I agree.

Keep us updated, and let us know if you need help with anything. ;)

1911_sfca

07-10-2007, 11:00 PM

So 1911, you have a ghost of an argument about sellers, but where exactly do you find it illegal to buy? Quote me some Penal Code for the charging sheet.

-Gene

It really depends a lot on the circumstances. Many hypothetical loopholes have been explored in this thread. The most likely charge is 182(a)1 / 12020. Depending on your explanation and/or attitude, you would probably be cited and released, with the mag(s) being confiscated as evidence or for further investigation.

The most likely outcome of exploring these loopholes, if successful, is to cause the legislature to tighten up the law so that high cap mags become contraband, and their possession illegal, just like rest of the weapons listed in 12020. In today's political climate (I just saw a story on the news about escalating gun violence, blah blah), I don't think that would be too hard.

Of course, I could be wrong. Like I said, good luck and I hope that whoever decides to be a test case does not get locked up or suffer too much inconvenience or loss of livelihood.

blkA4alb

07-10-2007, 11:08 PM

It really depends a lot on the circumstances. Many hypothetical loopholes have been explored in this thread. The most likely charge is 182(a)1 / 12020. Depending on your explanation and/or attitude, you would probably be cited and released, with the mag(s) being confiscated as evidence or for further investigation.

So we would be charged with conspiracy to commit which crime regarding 12020? What would you charge me with in 12020?

So the magazines are confiscated for evidence, and when you find nothing to charge me on do you plan on keeping them?

The most likely outcome of exploring these loopholes, if successful, is to cause the legislature to tighten up the law so that high cap mags become contraband, and their possession illegal, just like rest of the weapons listed in 12020.

So just like the OLLs you expect the legislature to just outlaw the possession of previously legally owned magazines? I don't think so.

Of course, I could be wrong. Like I said, good luck and I hope that whoever decides to be a test case does not get locked up or suffer too much inconvenience or loss of livelihood.

Thanks for the kind words, those who first act are well equipped to deal with any repurcussions.

hoffmang

07-10-2007, 11:26 PM

You'd charge the buyer with conspiracy to sell. That would end up being a joke at my lawyer's water cooler...

"Your honor, get this..."

-Gene

1911_sfca

07-10-2007, 11:29 PM

So we would be charged with conspiracy to commit which crime regarding 12020? What would you charge me with in 12020?

I expect your charge would be conspiracy to commit 12020(a)2. Once again, it would depend on the circumstances and who was arresting / charging you, and other factors.

So the magazines are confiscated for evidence, and when you find nothing to charge me on do you plan on keeping them?

I just told you what the charge would be, at least if I were arresting you, so no, those mags would not be returned. If you are successful fighting the charge in court, or the charge is dropped, and you do not get your magazine(s) back, I suppose you could sue the police department / DA to have it/them returned. In the end, you might prevail. Or you might go to state prison.

So just like the OLLs you expect the legislature to just outlaw the possession of previously legally owned magazines? I don't think so.

I hope you're right. Just out of curiousity, what do you think happened to all those nunchaku / shuriken / pen knives / cane swords / multiburst trigger activators / military practice handgrenades that were legally owned before 12020 was passed?

Not trying to throw water on your parade, but I just hope everyone thinks through the ramifications of trying this type of stunt before going through with it. In the end, if you feel that it is a matter of principle and liberty and you're willing to throw your own fortunes and freedom on the line, well then I admire your tenacity and wish you the best.

hoffmang

07-10-2007, 11:35 PM

Cane swords et al. were banned in 1923 to keep them away from the "inferior races" or did you know that already? Since then the judicial system has come to understand both the 5th and 14th amendment a little better. You're aware of 1983 act liability? Some of us can afford to push those cases for fun...

Outlawing possession of previously owned property would be quite amusing...

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-11-2007, 06:47 AM

Then you think we'll get new legislation closing the loophole and leaving everyone with the ability to have purchased magazines date stamped as late as 2007.

Glad you agree.

-Gene

No I don't agree, because there is no "loophole," and second, the legislature could just enact clarifying legislation (i.e., sales to and purchases by FFLs are ok, not "sales by" or "purchases to" FFLs) and say it's declaratory of existing law.

The "purchase to" anomaly is what really torpedoes the "sales by" interpretation in my opinion: you can't explain "purchase to", you can't make it go away, and legislative intent will not be on your side when you try to argue that the statute allows sales of hi-caps by FFLs. This is not a good place to be if you're stuck in court as a criminal defendant for selling hi-cap mags. If someone is willing to risk their personal freedom and money to do this, it's their choice, but I can't see any sane reason why they would.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-11-2007, 06:57 AM

For the panic of creating a few hundred new AWs because they were caught asleep at the wheel, we got 50,000+ unregulated self-loading rifles, perhaps an even better result.

Not only that, we got AB2728 that protected a fleet of other rifles from being declared AWs.

I suppose these are the "consolation prizes" but it's hard for me to get excited about breaking open a fixed 10-round mag OLL to do a reload. (By the way your spin on AB2728 is interesting coming from the guy who sent out press releases trying to get the DOJ to list!;))

Fate

07-11-2007, 07:46 AM

I suppose these are the "consolation prizes" but it's hard for me to get excited about breaking open a fixed 10-round mag OLL to do a reload. (By the way your spin on AB2728 is interesting coming from the guy who sent out press releases trying to get the DOJ to list!;))
Who breaks open their action anymore? That's so 2006.

Nefarious

07-11-2007, 07:59 AM

Who breaks open their action anymore? That's so 2006.

When I was your age, I remember when we used to have to break open the action to reaload our OLL's :D

luvtolean

07-11-2007, 08:09 PM

HOLY....sweet Jesus. :eek::eek:

I've been giggling like a little girl.

I had been ignoring this thread because usually it was "What if I found one"...but just, holy crap there are some gun banners peeing their Depends right now...

I will need several grand liquid if this is true.

blackrazor

07-11-2007, 09:55 PM

Good going guys, I like what I'm reading here. The AW ban in next to dead, I think we'll be breaking out the champagne in a few weeks. We should have high cap OLL party sometime, maybe the SoCal folks could meet up at ASR or something.

tenpercentfirearms

07-11-2007, 10:19 PM

You are all going to go to jail. This is as stupid as selling off list AR15 lowers. You will never find an FFL to take this risk. :rolleyes:

Ford8N

07-11-2007, 10:31 PM

This cracks me up, you guys are just shredding the AW laws. :punk:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-12-2007, 11:41 AM

If an FFL started selling high-cap mags to the public, they would suddenly find that they no longer have a high-cap magazine license. DOJ would not have to amend the law; they will just pull the permit.

If unrestricted sales of hi-cap mags by FFLs are already permitted under PC 12020(a)(21), you have to wonder why an FFL would need to apply for a permit under PC 12079 to sell hi-caps to someone out-of-state in the first place.

Why would an FFL need to make a showing of "good cause" for permission to sell hi-cap mags out of state when supposedly no permission at all is required for the unrestricted in-state sale of hi-cap mags to whomever wants to buy them?

Why would there be a record-keeping requirement in the hi-cap mag regs for out-of-state sales but not for in-state sales?

Why isn't there also a permit requirement for out-of-state hi-cap mag sales by armored car businesses?

Fate

07-12-2007, 12:14 PM

hoffmang

07-12-2007, 01:13 PM

If unrestricted sales of hi-cap mags by FFLs are already permitted under PC 12020(a)(21), you have to wonder why an FFL would need to apply for a permit under PC 12079 to sell hi-caps to someone out-of-state in the first place.

Why would an FFL need to make a showing of "good cause" for permission to sell hi-cap mags out of state when supposedly no permission at all is required for the unrestricted in-state sale of hi-cap mags to whomever wants to buy them?

Why would there be a record-keeping requirement in the hi-cap mag regs for out-of-state sales but not for in-state sales?

Why isn't there also a permit requirement for out-of-state hi-cap mag sales by armored car businesses?

1. CA FFL's can not import new magazines into the state without a permit. That's the only reason they need a permit. They clearly have never needed a permit to sell magazines out of state.

2. California's armored car services have excellent lobbyists as they VERY CLEARLY have an exemption to the ban on import. "(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state."

You'll notice that there are no record keeping requirement of armored car services at all.

-Gene

XDshooter

07-12-2007, 02:03 PM

I can't wait to harass some turners employees about this. :p

J/K.

When this does happen it will be by the same FFLs that sell OLLs.

Please guys, resist the temptation to rape us on the prices. PLEASE. :o

blackrazor

07-12-2007, 02:35 PM

Since then the judicial system has come to understand both the 5th and 14th amendment a little better. You're aware of 1983 act liability? Some of us can afford to push those cases for fun...

Outlawing possession of previously owned property would be quite amusing...

Isn't this exactly what Hawaii did when they outlawed possession of high capacity pistol mags? As far as I know, HI sucessfully outlawed the possession of "previously owned property" and no one has challenged/defeated that law. Who's to say the same thing can't happen here?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-12-2007, 02:52 PM

They clearly have never needed a permit to sell magazines out of state.

Then why is a permit required for both importation and exportation (PC 12079, 11 CCR 5480(a))? This is explicitly a 2-way permit. The FFL needs permission to import hi-cap mags from out-of-state sellers, and the FFL also needs permission to sell hi-cap mags to out of state buyers. If FFLs "clearly have never needed a permit to sell magazines out of state" then why do the statute and regulations require one? The only explanation is that FFLs do not otherwise have some blanket exemption to sell hi-cap mags.

hoffmang

07-12-2007, 03:25 PM

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-12-2007, 03:57 PM

That DOJ got the word exportation into the regulations concerning permits doesn't mean they have an actual legal basis in the code.

Do you need an exportation permit when you as a citizen leave the state with a pre-2000 magazine? The answer of course is no. So why does an FFL who doesn't have an import permit need permission to do something that is not prohibited by law?

DOJ can put restrictions on its permit, but they can't create restrictions that are not there in the Penal Code.

-Gene

Permits are required for the "sale between a person licensed pursuant to 12071 and an out-of-state client, of large capacity magazines." "Between" contemplates 2-way sales transactions, from an out-of-state seller to an in-state FFL on the one hand, or from an in-state FFL to an out-of-state buyer on the other. "Exportation" in the regs isn't the mere physical transporting of a hi-cap mag out of state (no you don't need a permit for that); it's the sale of the hi-cap mag to an out of state buyer, and the statutory basis for the regulation is the "sale between" language of PC 12079. If the Legislature meant to require permits for "importation" only then they could have just said so instead of "sale between."

But again, getting back to the big picture, there is no persuasive explanation why the Legislature would enact a statute restricting the sale of hi-cap mags then undermine that statute by allowing FFLs unfettered ability to sell them to anyone, anywhere. This will be hugely problematic for anyone on the wrong end of a hi-cap mag sale prosecution. The FFL exemption is susceptible of 2 interpretations and only one can be reconciled with legislative intent.

blackrazor

07-12-2007, 04:10 PM

But again, getting back to the big picture, there is no persuasive explanation why the Legislature would enact a statute restricting the sale of hi-cap mags then undermine that statute by allowing FFLs unfettered ability to sell them to anyone, anywhere. This will be hugely problematic for anyone on the wrong end of a hi-cap mag sale prosecution. The FFL exemption is susceptible of 2 interpretations and only one can be reconciled with legislative intent.

Therein lies the beauty of the armored car exemption. The law specifically goes out of it's way to mention that armored car operators are totally exempt from prohibitions regulating importation and sale of high cap mags. It's right there in black and white, laws don't get any clearer than that. And it never has been illegal to purchase a high cap mag in CA, so the armored car loophole solves everything. Hell, armored car personnel don't even need a DOJ issued high capacity magazine permit to sell or import high cap mags. I'll be the first to admit that it's difficult to decipher the legislative intent behind allowing a free for all exemption for armored car personnel... but legislative intent isn't really important. If all Americans were required to follow the "intent" of the legislature, there would be no law at all... it is neither expected nor required that we second guess the intentions of the legislature.

hoffmang

07-12-2007, 04:12 PM

The 12079 issue is interesting but it still means that the legislature didn't draft the FFL language correctly.

What you may be arguing is that the armored car service has a much clearer and wider ability to buy or sell as they are not licensed under 12070.

-Gene

And Jinx - Blackrazor and I posted at the same moment.

blackrazor

07-12-2007, 04:18 PM

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-12-2007, 04:39 PM

What you may be arguing is that the armored car service has a much clearer and wider ability to buy or sell as they are not licensed under 12070.

The way I read the armored vehicle business exemption (in conjunction with the accompanying exemptions for the the lending of hi-cap mags to and from its employees), armored car business are certainly less restricted in their ability to acquire hi-cap mags, whether by purchase, importation, gift or loan. The acquisition, however, is not for re-sale or commerce (have any armored car businesses ever been engaged in the sale of hi-cap mags as part of its business?), but instead for use in the day to day activities of the armored vehicle business. The employees need to be armed. The employer may acquire hi-cap mags and then may lend them to its authorized employees for use "while in the course and scope of their employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's armored car business." The employees may later return the hi-cap mags to their employer.

The armored vehicle business exception, like the FFL exception, was not drafted perfectly and is also susceptible of conflicting interpretations. And like the FFL exemption, one interpretation (the one advocating the blanket exemption for sale of hi-cap mags by armored car businesses) leads to incongruities which I noted in a previous post in this thread (i.e., if "lending by" armored car businesses is generally exempted, why would you need a separate exemption for the business to lend hi-caps to its own employees?), and cannot be reconciled with legislative intent. What possible reason would there be an exemption for sales by armored car businesses to anyone, anywhere? Especially if there is no precedent for armored car businesses to even be engaged in the sale of hi-cap mags.

hoffmang

07-12-2007, 06:49 PM

Fabio,

Just like in your commentary on the Rulemaking where you found lots of reasons to read into it the interpretation most favorable to BoF, interpretations that time has shown were in the end proven incorrect, you would very much like to skip the fact that the actual words say one fully supportable thing. The sale by armored car services of large-capacity magazines is exempt. You're trying to add lots of words that are "spirit" of the law and not actually there in 12020. A very simple explanation for the "lend" exceptions for employees is that there is otherwise not a lend exception and armored car services certainly wouldn't be selling those to their employees with the long history of public policy frowning on "company store" activities.

Your desire to play devils advocate has me curious. Do you still hold yourself out as being 20 years of age? Where did you get to know the political preferences of certain California Superior Court judges if you don't mind the credibility check?

I'm pretty easy to google should you care in reverse.

-Gene

hoffmang

07-12-2007, 06:51 PM

Gene,

I'm still curious to hear your take on the Hawaii magazine ban. As far as I can tell, that law created criminals out of people for continuing to own previously legal property, and the state offered no grandfather clause or buyback... what makes you so sure the same thing can't happen here, and if it can't, how did it happen in Hawaii?

I think that a gun owner in Hawaii missed an excellent opportunity to invalidate that law. I can tell you for a fact that the AW and large-capacity magazine regulations are written to avoid takings issues to get the one final hold out vote that was necessary to pass SB-23 based on that issue.

-Gene

tenpercentfirearms

07-12-2007, 08:42 PM

Please guys, resist the temptation to rape us on the prices. PLEASE. :o

This is the way I figure it. I sell OLLs for about $170. I will sell high caps for $170. I don't want to discriminate. :D

blkA4alb

07-12-2007, 08:44 PM

This is the way I figure it. I sell OLLs for about $170. I will sell high caps for $170. I don't want to discriminate. :D

Well that only sounds reasonable enough to me! ;)

mcubed4130

07-12-2007, 08:55 PM

This is the way I figure it. I sell OLLs for about $170. I will sell high caps for $170. I don't want to discriminate. :D

Ten, sounds good. Please put me down for (10) Beta C - 100rnd mags - at $170 each.

:43:

-M3

SemiAutoSam

07-12-2007, 09:19 PM

Here ya go. You dont need carpet you need a SAM MAG.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/C-MAG12.jpg

Ten, sounds good. Please put me down for (10) Beta C - 100rnd mags - at $170 each.

:43:

-M3

tenpercentfirearms

07-12-2007, 09:20 PM

Then why is a permit required for both importation and exportation (PC 12079, 11 CCR 5480(a))? This is explicitly a 2-way permit. The FFL needs permission to import hi-cap mags from out-of-state sellers, and the FFL also needs permission to sell hi-cap mags to out of state buyers. If FFLs "clearly have never needed a permit to sell magazines out of state" then why do the statute and regulations require one? The only explanation is that FFLs do not otherwise have some blanket exemption to sell hi-cap mags.

Ok, I just read PC 12079 and don't see anything that is applicable. Lets read it for ourselves instead of taking you word for it. 12079. (a) Upon a showing that good cause exists, the Department of
Justice may issue permits for the possession, transportation, or
sale between a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 and an
out-of-state client, of large capacity magazines.
(b) For purposes of this section, "large capacity magazine" shall
have the same meaning as that set forth in paragraph (25) of
subdivision (c) of Section 12020.You will note this section really doesn't apply to us, but actually regulates what the DOJ can do. For example, can I be charged with violating PC 12079? No. This section only gives the DOJ authority to issue permits. That is it. In fact, this section doesn't even give the DOJ authority to establish conditions for the permit, they just may issue them.

I couldn't find the 11 CCR 5480(a) you were referring to. I think you meant 11 CCR 978.40(a). Here are the relevant sections978.40 Requirements for Large Capacity Magazine Permits Pursuant to Penal Code Section
12079
(a) This article applies to Penal Code section 12079 permits for the out of state importation
and exportation of large capacity magazines as defined in Penal Code section 12020
(c)(25). Importation and exportation includes the transportation of magazines as
necessary to complete a transfer to or from an out of state source. and 978.43 Large Capacity Magazine Permit Record Keeping
Permittees shall maintain acquisition and disposition transaction records of the importation and
exportation of large capacity magazines. Records shall include transaction date, transaction
volume; and the name, address, and Federal Firearms License number (if any) of the out of
state transferee or transferor. Records must be maintained at the dealership for three years and
be made available to representatives of the Department of Justice or any other law enforcement
agency upon request. First, we must note this only has to deal with people who hold a high capacity magazine permit and only applies to importation and exportation. There is nothing in CCR 978.40 that says anything about sales once in the state. So your statement of The only explanation is that FFLs do not otherwise have some blanket exemption to sell hi-cap mags. is blatantly false since PC 12020(a)(21) clearly states, (21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by
a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.

So here is how this is going to work. I am going to import some magazines and I am going to sell them to some of you Joe Citizens. The DOJ is going to get upset and pull my high cap magazine permit. I will not longer be able to import or export magazines. When this happens, I will simply buy them from an armored car company and continue to sell them without the permit.

The beauty of it all is I live in Kern County so the odds of the DOJ getting any of my local LEAs or DA to come after me will probably be quite slim. And if they do, then I know you guys will be more than happy to help me fight my case. Assuming I don't really keep my prices at $170 per magazine.

So then the DOJ will get the legislature to fix the loop hole. The only problem is Jerry Brown already thinks there are enough laws on the books so he won't ask for it. So the anti-gunners will try and fix the law, but as soon as the new legislation hits committee, it will be an admittance that our interpretation is correct and the damage will be done. Everyone will have "bought" their high caps instantly with cash and suddenly millions of magazines will be in the state that wouldn't have otherwise.

This is 2005 all over again. The good news is I was so stressed in 2005 I lost some weight, so I am looking forward to it.

What are the odds C Products is going to pull my next order and threaten to report their magazines stolen? :rolleyes:

hoffmang

07-12-2007, 09:41 PM

M. Sage

07-12-2007, 10:15 PM

So... it actually is a good thing that I'm holding off on buying 10-rounders for my next rifle? I'm hoping for some 30s.

AJAX22

07-12-2007, 10:23 PM

Dang does this mean that my crates of prebans won't be as cool as they used to be?

give em heck Ten :chris:

tenpercentfirearms

07-12-2007, 11:56 PM

Ten,

Just FYI that Glen, I mean Fabio is correct that 11 CCR 978.40(a) is now 11 CCR 5480(a) due to the recent renumber. Other than that, not so much.

See: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf

-Gene

What happened to you Gene? Just because the DOJ says they want to have a renumber doesn't make it so. The OAL still doesn't recognize 5480, so I don't either. Another case of submarine renumbering.

hoffmang

07-12-2007, 11:58 PM

:smilielol5:

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-13-2007, 07:26 AM

You will note this section really doesn't apply to us, but actually regulates what the DOJ can do. For example, can I be charged issue permit with violating PC 12079? No.

The hook here is PC 12020(b)(26) which exempts imports and out-of-state sales by FFLs with permits from the general restriction against importation and sales in PC 12021(a)(2). So no, you can't be charged with violating PC 12079 but you can be charged with violating PC 12020(a)(2) because without a permit, you will not be able to establish that you are within the PC 12020(b)(26) exemption.

I'm sorry but the "PC 12079 doesn't apply to us, it's just a statute that authorizes some optional perrmit procedure that is just a meaningless exercise in futility because we don't need it anyway" isn't very compelling to me. But you're probably right that the risk of prosecution in Kern County is lower than most other counties.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-13-2007, 07:29 AM

Your desire to play devils advocate has me curious. Do you still hold yourself out as being 20 years of age? Where did you get to know the political preferences of certain California Superior Court judges if you don't mind the credibility check?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about...when did I say I was 20 years old? Double that and you'd be in the ballpark. Which judges are you referring to?

tenpercentfirearms

07-13-2007, 07:58 AM

The hook here is PC 12020(b)(26) which exempts imports and out-of-state sales by FFLs with permits from the general restriction against importation and sales in PC 12021(a)(2). So no, you can't be charged with violating PC 12079 but you can be charged with violating PC 12020(a)(2) because without a permit, you will not be able to establish that you are within the PC 12020(b)(26) exemption.

I'm sorry but the "PC 12079 doesn't apply to us, it's just a statute that authorizes some optional perrmit procedure that is just a meaningless exercise in futility because we don't need it anyway" isn't very compelling to me. But you're probably right that the risk of prosecution in Kern County is lower than most other counties.

LOL. How can I be charged with PC 12020(a)(2) if I already have a permit issued in PC 12020(b)(26) so I legally import magazines? That is just a plain stupid statement.

If I don't have an actual high capacity magazine permit, then obviously I can't import magazines. Why you bring that up is beyond me. However, I am still clearly exempt as a simple CFD holding FFL licensed per 12071 and this is stated in PC 12020(b)(21) from selling and buying them (even though buying them is not illegal in the first place).

Get with the progam Fabio. You are just throwing back rebuttles that have nothing to do with our situation. FFLs will soon be selling high capacity magazines. The only thing the DOJ can do to stop it is revoke their high capacity permits, but even that requires 978.44 Large Capacity Magazine Permit Revocations
(a) Large capacity magazine permits shall be subject to revocation for failure to comply
with record keeping requirements specified in section 978.43 of these regulations or for
failure to comply with The Dangerous Weapons’ Control Law commencing with Penal
Code section 12000 relative to large capacity magazines.
(b) All procedures and hearings related to the revocation of a large capacity magazine
permit shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with section
11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Don't come back and tell me that it is illegal for Joe Citizen to import them. No crap. I am going to import them. If the DOJ shuts down my high capacity magazine permit, someone else exempt will import them and I will buy them from them. If they shut down all high capacity magazine permits, then we will buy them from an armored car company that needs no permit.

What would be nice is if the DOJ just looks at this and says, "Yeah, the legislature screwed up again. Oh well, we have real criminals to catch. I needed some standard capacity magazines too. Good job Calguns!" :D

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-13-2007, 08:00 AM

Just like in your commentary on the Rulemaking where you found lots of reasons to read into it the interpretation most favorable to BoF...you would very much like to skip the fact that the actual words say one fully supportable thing.

It's a little more subtle than that: the actual words say two supportable things. The statute is ambiguous meaning it is susceptible of 2 different interpretations. If anything, it seems like you are the one who is trying to skip that particular fact. What I'm saying is that the trial judge or appellate court in a hypothetical prosecution is going to have to resolve the ambiguity and in doing so needs to consider legislative intent and also the large cap magazine laws as a whole. If one interpretation leads to incongruities ("purchases to"), redundancies (throw-away permit requirements), and cannot be reconciled legislative intent, that interpretation is going to meet some judicial resistance. That interpretation may be supportable grammatically (as is the competing interpretation) but it doesn't have anything else going for it.

tenpercentfirearms

07-13-2007, 08:04 AM

It's a little more subtle than that: the actual words say two supportable things. The statute is ambiguous meaning it is susceptible of 2 different interpretations. If anything, it seems like you are the one who is trying to skip that particular fact. What I'm saying is that the trial judge or appellate court in a hypothetical prosecution is going to have to resolve the ambiguity and in doing so needs to consider legislative intent and also the large cap magazine laws as a whole. If one interpretation leads to incongruities ("purchases to"), redundancies (throw-away permit requirements), and cannot be reconciled legislative intent, that interpretation is going to meet some judicial resistance. That interpretation may be supportable grammatically (as is the competing interpretation) but it doesn't have anything else going for it.

Sorry, I can't follow the intent of the law, I can only follow the law. Anymore strawmen you want to throw out there because that one was just rebuked in one sentence. If you want more I can tell you how any half way decent lawyer knows this and so does the judge and if the judge just starts disregarding procedures of law, he isn't going to last long.

The only ambiguity here is created by you. The law is very clear, it is not illegal to purchase high capacity magazines. The law is very clear, FFL holders and high capacity magazine permit holders are exempt from the law that makes it illegal to sell high capacity magazines. Therefore, if I were to sell a high capacity magazine to anyone, no crime would have been committed. Sorry, it really is that easy.

Now the tricky part is getting people to understand they cannot sell, trade, or give away magazines once they buy them from a licensed dealer. No eBay sales, no general gun show sales, and no sales at the gun range from your buddy. We are going to have to be very vocal that the only people who can sell these things are permitted licensees. We need to remind everyone of that right now.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-13-2007, 08:04 AM

Hey tenpercent, the point is if you (not meaning you particularly but FFLs in general) sell hi-cap mags out of state without a permit you can be prosecuted under PC 12020(a)(1).

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

07-13-2007, 08:06 AM

Sorry, I can't follow the intent of the law, I can only follow the law. Anymore strawmen you want to throw out there because that one was just rebuked in one sentence.

That's great, have fun purchasing hi-cap mags to FFLs! The law says you can do that!

tenpercentfirearms

07-13-2007, 08:22 AM

Hey tenpercent, the point is if you (not meaning you particularly but FFLs in general) sell hi-cap mags out of state without a permit you can be prosecuted under PC 12020(a)(1).

LOL!!! NO THAT IS NOT THE POINT. That is your point. I do not need to sell magazines out of state. I want to bring them in, not send them out. Congratulations, as I predicted, you would come back with some factoid completely irrelevent to our discussion. LOL. Seriously, how completely unrelated to this discussion was your "point"??? Get a clue.

That's great, have fun purchasing hi-cap mags to FFLs! The law says you can do that!

LOL again!!! This is better than watching good TV. I suggest we post the exemption again and instead of using your flawed skills of sentence construction, we use my more logical series of construction.

(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by
a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.

So we can put it together in 4 ways.

1. The sale to a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071. That makes sense.

2. The sale by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071. That makes great sense and is our main point that you seem to be missing.

3. The purchase to a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071. Congratulations, your one construction that doesn't make sense.

4. The purchase by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071. This makes grammatical sense.

So you take the one construction of that section that doesn't make grammatical sense and you try to use it as some great proof this won't work. Well I just showed you the other three constructions that clearly show it will work.

I already know your rebuttle. Here it is so you don't even have to bother.

Hey tenpercent, the point is if you manufacture hi-cap mags without selling them or exporting them to law enforcement or the military you can be prosecuted under PC 12020(a)(1). :rolleyes:

blkA4alb

07-13-2007, 10:27 AM

:smilielol5:

hoffmang

07-13-2007, 01:36 PM

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about...when did I say I was 20 years old? Double that and you'd be in the ballpark. Which judges are you referring to?

The posts that I was referring to were:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=593361&postcount=24 (which can be taken as tongue in cheek but isn't 100% clear.)
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=222242&postcount=7

The second thread makes a lot more sense when read in context with the first post being tongue in cheek.

-Gene

blackrazor

07-13-2007, 02:31 PM

Actually, the more you try to look at this with the eyes of an outsider, the more reasonable this proposal starts to look. Let's pretend for a minute that the leftist legislature in this state isn't composed of a bunch of total *****@$^@. You could look at the high cap magazine provisions of SB23 as having the *intention* of simply outlawing the mass unregulated sale of high caps in this state, but NOT meaning to prohibit the sale and purchase of high caps altogether. If the legislature had truly intended to stop John Q Citizen from purchasing high caps, they would have easily left in language outlawing the "purchase" of high capacity magazines... just as they did in the SAME bill when they oulawed the purchase of "assault weapons." Leaving off the purchases prohibition clearly was not a simple mistake, but must have been done DELIBERATELY by legistlature. So since the legislature went OUT OF THEIR WAY to keep the purchase of high capacity magazines legal, we can only assume that their intent was to continue allowing average citizens to buy them. So, where does John Q. Citizen go to buy his high capacity magazines? Why, his local FFL of course, who, by no coincidence, is exempt from the prohibition of selling and importing high capacity mags. It all makes sense; the state didn't want to ban the purchase and sale of high caps, it simply wanted these transactions to go through regulated channels, i.e. licensed dealers.

Despite their track record of overwhelming incompetence in the past, I don't believe the legislature could have screwed things up this badly. There are just too many coincidental "loopholes" in the high cap provisions of SB23 for me to believe that it was all a simple mistake.

Of couse, it is always hard to guess the intention of the legislature and that is why, as I've said before, it is not the intention but the letter of the law that counts. Now, in our case, I know that the letter of the law is on our side, and I think you can argue that even the intent of the law (as irrelevant as it is) is also on our side... what more do you want?