PDA

View Full Version : Hi-Caps/Blocked Issues w/ DOJ


Wiser Owl Tactical
11-19-2012, 4:38 PM
Hey Guys,

We were recently inspected by the San Diego PD. They are telling us some interesting things with our Hi-Cap Permit and blocked mags. They told us that, per the DOJ, we cannot use our hi-cap permit to purchase hi-capacity magazines (such as pmags) and permanently blocking them to 10 rounds. Here is what I received: "importing, sales and possession of permanently converted hi-caps isnít prohibited by the penal code. Thatís not necessarily the same as importing a high capacity magazine (which is controlled) for conversion to ten rounders and eventual sales. "

This is the law:


http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php

"(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following: (A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. (B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device. (C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm. (d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section."

Anybody have any opinion on this?

furyous68
11-19-2012, 4:52 PM
Import the High-Cap rebuild kits (un-assembled mag) and then turn them into 10 rounders? Then, you are not dealing with the importation of high-cap mags, just parts.

bohoki
11-19-2012, 4:57 PM
i swear the police give the same amount of fud as the average gun shop employee

but generally the high cap permit requires logging in and logging out magazines

which is why its a good idea to have an out of state facility to disassemble them for import then build them as a 10 rounder

also doing it that way avoids the letter of the law undefined permanent conversion requirement

of course the fused plastic 22 magazines are not disasembleable

wildhawker
11-19-2012, 5:18 PM
The PD have no jurisdiction unless they're investigating a crime. Ask them if they are. If they say no, then thank them and relate that you appreciate their concern but you have real lawyers for your legal advice. If they say yes, then refer them to your lawyer and tell them that you'll be speaking through counsel and that you are asserting your right to remain silent (then do that).

In any case, if you ever actually have an issue along these lines please do make sure to let CGF and Cal-FFL know about it. If you have any paper documents from a LEA we'd definitely appreciate if you forwarded it/them to us.

-Brandon

Hey Guys,

We were recently inspected by the San Diego PD. They are telling us some interesting things with our Hi-Cap Permit and blocked mags. They told us that, per the DOJ, we cannot use our hi-cap permit to purchase hi-capacity magazines (such as pmags) and permanently blocking them to 10 rounds. Here is what I received: "importing, sales and possession of permanently converted hi-caps isn’t prohibited by the penal code. That’s not necessarily the same as importing a high capacity magazine (which is controlled) for conversion to ten rounders and eventual sales. "

This is the law:


http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php

"(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following: (A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. (B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device. (C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm. (d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section."

Anybody have any opinion on this?

Wiser Owl Tactical
11-19-2012, 5:27 PM
We have a high-capacity magazine permit from the DoJ. They are basically telling us that we cannot sell converted magazines that were hi-caps when we received them. We are just wondering if anybody else has heard this. We have confirmed that other stores in the area are doing the same thing we are and have been approved to do so.

eaglemike
11-19-2012, 5:32 PM
In your first you you said the SDPD told you that's the DOJ policy, right? So - did this come straight from the DOJ, or was this the SDPD telling you this. If SDPD, there is a good chance they are mistaken, and things were changed as they were passed along. There is also a chance Kamela Harris is making life harder every way she can. However, I'd be really interested in seeing the PC that says a hi-cap cannot be altered into a 10 round magazine. There is a chance the DOJ is again making an underground regulation as well.

Wiser Owl Tactical
11-19-2012, 5:36 PM
eaglemike,

Yes, it was the SDPD telling us it is a regulation from DoJ. We will be contacting the DoJ tomorrow and let you guys know what they say.

eaglemike
11-19-2012, 5:40 PM
You might just ask them for the PC. Also ask the SDPD. Not in a harsh way, just "so you know where to look." :)

hoffmang
11-19-2012, 5:50 PM
The LEO in question don't have a legal leg to stand on here. Once you modify the magazines they are no longer large capacity magazines.

-Gene

strongpoint
11-19-2012, 5:54 PM
IANAL, but i've seen all the laws governing magazine capacity. if this is really what cal DOJ is saying, they're trying to enforce a law that's not written down anywhere.

bwiese
11-19-2012, 5:56 PM
Brandon and Gene have beat me to a response.

SDPD really should be looking after a variety of interesting things their own officers own.

diginit
11-19-2012, 7:12 PM
Importing has no meaning in the Ca P.C. Unless the mag is assembled. Reassembly as a permenetly blocked 10 round mag, I cannot find in the ca pc... So it seems to be legal... IMO. But I am not a Lawer... Too bad I am not DOJ...

sergismaximus
11-19-2012, 7:25 PM
:popcorn:

ERC12
11-19-2012, 7:26 PM
im confussed is it legal to own or not

strongpoint
11-19-2012, 7:50 PM
im confussed is it legal to own or not

things you can't do with a >10-capacity magazine, per the law:

* manufacture
* cause to be manufactured
* import into the state
* keep for sale
* offer or expose for sale
* give
* lend

not a word about ownership, possession or use. these things are not illegal.

OleCuss
11-19-2012, 8:07 PM
things you can't do with a >10-capacity magazine, per the law:

* manufacture
* cause to be manufactured
* import into the state
* keep for sale
* offer or expose for sale
* give
* lend

not a word about ownership,
possession or use. these things are not illegal.

Right.

However, it should be remembered that use may turn your featured firearm into an "Assault Weapon".

strongpoint
11-19-2012, 8:10 PM
Right.

However, it should be remembered that use may turn your featured firearm into an "Assault Weapon".

also true, though "may" should be "will" -- you can't use >10s in a rifle with any SB23 features (AKA a maglocked rifle). but that's a product of the AW law, not the mag capacity law.

jaymz
11-19-2012, 9:50 PM
Have them show you the PC that says you can't convert a legally imported hi-cap into a 10 round magazine.

bohoki
11-19-2012, 10:17 PM
Have them show you the PC that says you can't convert a legally imported hi-cap into a 10 round magazine.

i'm not familiar with all the terms and conditions of the large capacity permit

but i'm pretty sure they have to account for them even though they are not serialed like logging them in from some seller then out to various peace officers,armored car operators

i guess they could mark them as destroyed since they technically are when disassembled

they have to abide by the terms and conditions of the permit or they could lose it

the actual wording in the law allows them to sell large caps to anybody with no legal ramifications they want but if they do their permit can be revoked

wildhawker
11-19-2012, 10:28 PM
Bohoki, please read the PC. Also, refer back to "contact Cal-FFL and CGF."

SJgunguy24
11-19-2012, 10:31 PM
I heard this from Dana (CA DOJ inspector). The issue was using your hi cap mag permit to bring in mags that you normally wouldn't be able to. Then either selling them as kits or blocking them to 10 rounds. There is no law regarding this and they know it. They could revoke the hi cap permit, using the argument that you had no intention of selling to LEO's. But how could they prove intent, and if you sell 1 mag to a cop, you've justified the needs for that permit.
The deal is the DOJ issues those permits to sell mags to cops. Not to buy mags to block or to sell as kits.

wildhawker
11-19-2012, 11:17 PM
1. Dana is and had been retired as far as I know, unless that intel is off a year or change.

2. Dana was often (pretty much always) wrong. I wish he'd remained another year or so... ah, the memories.

3. DOJ is made up of pretty much pure morons until you get to the decision-makers (who don't engage on the record nearly ever).

4. You know you're a redn...idi... CA DOJ... It's bad when BATFE is actually *better and more ethical* than you are. (Hi CA DOJ!)

5. As bad as it is, CA DOJ is still better than SDPD. San Diego PD couldn't enforce WoW, let alone the law.

-Brandon

TKM
11-19-2012, 11:27 PM
The best SDPD officers have retired.

SJgunguy24
11-19-2012, 11:39 PM
Brandon, this was at Reds place maybe 2 years ago. This was from a DOJ inspector not from some P.D. Not that I care, I told him that's not an enforceable law (using the example I stated earlier) and he agreed.
I had enough of those douche bags when they sat on our (valkyrie's) AW permit application for a year without a decision, and that was with agency letters.

Wiser Owl Tactical
11-20-2012, 7:45 PM
Thank you everybody for your comments/concern. We are currently speaking with an attorney, SDPD, and Cal DoJ. We will update you all on the outcome!

SURVIVOR619
11-20-2012, 8:33 PM
Good luck WOT! You guys have a great store!

donw
11-21-2012, 7:29 AM
so...let me see if i have this correct...

currently, i own a S&W 659 with hi cap mags i purchased in 1990...totally and completely LEGAL for me to own and use...

IF i so choose, i may PERMANENTLY alter them to 10, or less, rounds?

not that i wish to, but it might be more easily dealt with than trying to explain to LE why i have hi cap mags?

SilverTauron
11-21-2012, 8:07 AM
Is it not law that "high capacity" magazines in California are a nuisance subject to LE confiscation at all times? The authorities cant arrest someone for owning mags before the ban, but they can seize the magazines no?

eaglemike
11-21-2012, 9:29 AM
Thank you everybody for your comments/concern. We are currently speaking with an attorney, SDPD, and Cal DoJ. We will update you all on the outcome!
I don't know who your attorney is, but if there are any issues, Jason Davis is a good resource. One of the best.

Wiser Owl Tactical
11-21-2012, 9:34 AM
Thanks for the info eaglemike!

As far as I understand, hi cap magazine that are pre-ban are legal. However, if you intend to sell them, they must meet current regulation. I would also be sure that you have the proper paperwork to prove that those mags are pre-ban. I'm sure the police can seize the mags whenever. You would then have to fight them in court.

bwiese
11-21-2012, 10:13 AM
WiseOwlTactical...

Please stop spreading FUD crap.

You do NOT need to have paperwork on your pre-2000 hicap mags.

Burden of proof is on prosecution/LE to show the mags are illegal.

CGF has defended several hicap seizures and gotten the mags back.


BTW i have no idea why you are asking a cop about this - that's akin to using a plumber to diagnose digestive problems.

12voltguy
11-21-2012, 10:15 AM
Thanks for the info eaglemike!

As far as I understand, hi cap magazine that are pre-ban are legal. However, if you intend to sell them, they must meet current regulation. I would also be sure that you have the proper paperwork to prove that those mags are pre-ban. I'm sure the police can seize the mags whenever. You would then have to fight them in court.

did you save recepts just in case they had a ban 1-40 years before the ban?
just in case?
it don't work that way, you don't need a recept

paul0660
11-21-2012, 10:28 AM
We were recently inspected by the San Diego PD.

Why? Is that a condition of your use or business permit? Is this common?

Wiser Owl Tactical
11-21-2012, 10:36 AM
Bwiese,

I am not trying to spread crap. I was just saying that it might be in the person's best interest to have some sort of paperwork to prove that they were bought pre-ban. The way it was worded was misconstrued.

As far as asking the SDPD, we did not. They came to us telling us the the DoJ is saying we cannot do what we are doing. We have contacted a lawyer who is speaking the DOJ and SDPD on this issue. We simply wanted to bring attention to the issue in the community. I am sorry if you feel we have misinformed anyone on the regulations. Our apologies. However, in the same regard, we would appreciate a little less hostility. We are working hard to find out the lawful way of doing business.

Casey Adamson
Owner of WO

wildhawker
11-21-2012, 11:42 AM
I think Bill's frustration stems from the content of your suggestions; we have extensive experience in these matters whereas it appears you are at the beginning of the learning curve. While many "regulars" might know better, many who might read (and not post) or stumble into this thread probably won't.

Given that you have an attorney working on it, and an email from me to info@wiserowl.com offering our (CGF, Cal-FFL) direct support, perhaps you might consider that the best option here is to simply let the process run out and report anything substantive and dispositive that you wish to break atty-client and share with the community.

-Brandon

Bwiese,

I am not trying to spread crap. I was just saying that it might be in the person's best interest to have some sort of paperwork to prove that they were bought pre-ban. The way it was worded was misconstrued.

As far as asking the SDPD, we did not. They came to us telling us the the DoJ is saying we cannot do what we are doing. We have contacted a lawyer who is speaking the DOJ and SDPD on this issue. We simply wanted to bring attention to the issue in the community. I am sorry if you feel we have misinformed anyone on the regulations. Our apologies. However, in the same regard, we would appreciate a little less hostility. We are working hard to find out the lawful way of doing business.

Casey Adamson
Owner of WO

Wiser Owl Tactical
11-21-2012, 12:31 PM
Hi Brandon,

Thank for the response and we look forward to getting this issue resolved. However, the only thing I suggested in this forum was to possibly have some sort of paperwork to prove that the mag is pre-ban in order to avoid any legalities. No other 'suggestion' was ever made. We have many experienced people on staff who also suggest the same. We are by no means 'inexperienced'. We simply wanted to get some feedback on what the DOJ is telling us and see if anyone is experiencing the same issue. I understand there may be frustrations with this as I have many myself. Still, there could be a better way to express those feelings rather than using accusations and hostility.

We love Calguns and all the support we have received. I find it a little disheartening to feel attacked in such a way. However, we look forward to our continued business here and giving everybody concerned on an update from our attorney pertaining to the main question posed in this forum. We appreciate everyone who has taken the time to give us an opinion.

Casey Adamson
Owner of WO

formerTexan
11-21-2012, 1:22 PM
Please stop saying "have some sort of paperwork" for pre-ban mags. What if I got a M14 mag in the 80s from my father who served in the 50s? Should I get him to write me a receipt? Might be hard if he's passed...

I honestly don't know what/why you posted that verbiage again in reply #36 after what Bill and others have said.

wildhawker
11-21-2012, 1:23 PM
Hi Brandon,

Thank for the response and we look forward to getting this issue resolved. However, the only thing I suggested in this forum was to possibly have some sort of paperwork to prove that the mag is pre-ban in order to avoid any legalities.

Right, which is both unnecessary and inadvisable.

We have many experienced people on staff who also suggest the same. We are by no means 'inexperienced'.

With all due respect, your experience appears to be failing you here.

We simply wanted to get some feedback on what the DOJ is telling us and see if anyone is experiencing the same issue.

As far as you've related here, DOJ did not itself "tell" you anything. It's so far unproved that DOJ instructed SDPD to act on its behalf.

I understand there may be frustrations with this as I have many myself. Still, there could be a better way to express those feelings rather than using accusations and hostility.

For what it's worth, your very original post is an accusation [without dispositive evidence] ("They are telling us some interesting things with our Hi-Cap Permit and blocked mags. They told us that, per the DOJ, we cannot use our hi-cap permit to purchase hi-capacity magazines (such as pmags) and permanently blocking them to 10 rounds.").

I think Bill's frustration - and I share this with him - is grounded in the fact that we [CGF, Cal-FFL, and our volunteers/members/supporters) are [literally] the ones who have to come behind and clean up the messes, correct the misinformation, and try to bring law enforcement along while doing so.

We love Calguns and all the support we have received. I find it a little disheartening to feel attacked in such a way. However, we look forward to our continued business here and giving everybody concerned on an update from our attorney pertaining to the main question posed in this forum. We appreciate everyone who has taken the time to give us an opinion.

Casey Adamson
Owner of WO

Honestly, I don't see where you're getting "accusations and hostility" here, let alone "attacked." You are receiving some feedback, as you asked, from a crowd that includes some strong but very knowledgable personalities. I'm not sure why you feel that it is an "attack" for some of us to feel that your counsel to "have some sort of paperwork to prove that the mag is pre-ban in order to avoid any legalities" is not in the best interests of your clients; if your lawyer wants to discuss this with me, Bill, or our experienced firearms lawyers, please do forward them my contact information.

-Brandon

Wiser Owl Tactical
11-21-2012, 2:21 PM
Hi Brandon,

I understand what you are saying. You guys work hard for gun owners in this state. If you are suggesting that it is inadvisable to tell clients, I trust you on this. I never said it was mandatory. It just doesn't hurt to be prepared. :)

Our only hope is to get this resolved. We have not been able to get the DOJ on the phone for a conversation. With the help of a lawyer, we hope to talk with them and find a resolution to the main problem. Then, we can inform everyone of the result. The statement that we received from SDPD came directly from a person who works at the DOJ, which I have in writing.

Hopefully we can work together and find out what's going on. The other stuff is simply not relevant and I feel it has gotten out of hand with finger pointing. We really do appreciate your time and help, Brandon and Bill. You guys do great work for our community and I look forward to our future conversations and advocacy efforts.

Casey Adamson
Please email me any further concerns.
Casey@wiserowl.com

curtisfong
11-21-2012, 5:36 PM
Please stop saying "have some sort of paperwork" for pre-ban mags. What if I got a M14 mag in the 80s from my father who served in the 50s? Should I get him to write me a receipt? Might be hard if he's passed...

I honestly don't know what/why you posted that verbiage again in reply #36 after what Bill and others have said.

He's basically saying it cant HURT to have that documentation handy if you get in trouble. However, IMO it might be better to keep the information to yourself; it is better to force the prosecution to PROVE you obtained them illegally, rather than reveal your cards and potentially give the prosecution an opportunity to find fault with your "evidence". Not to mention the fact that merely possessing said documentation might embolden you to make claims to LEO that would be better left unsaid.

I am not a lawyer, of course, but I can see a whole bunch of pitfalls to doing anything but COMPLETELY REFUSING to disclose to LEO how you obtained any >10 rd mags.... until you have legal representation (if it comes to that).

12voltguy
11-21-2012, 5:51 PM
He's basically saying it cant HURT to have that documentation handy if you get in trouble. However, IMO it might be better to keep the information to yourself; it is better to force the prosecution to PROVE you obtained them illegally, rather than reveal your cards and potentially give the prosecution an opportunity to find fault with your "evidence". Not to mention the fact that merely possessing said documentation might embolden you to make claims to LEO that would be better left unsaid.

I am not a lawyer, of course, but I can see a whole bunch of pitfalls to doing anything but COMPLETELY REFUSING to disclose to LEO how you obtained any >10 rd mags.... until you have legal representation (if it comes to that).

can't go back in time......I did not save recepts from over 20 years ago

dieselpower
11-21-2012, 6:07 PM
Is it not law that "high capacity" magazines in California are a nuisance subject to LE confiscation at all times? The authorities cant arrest someone for owning mags before the ban, but they can seize the magazines no?

The LE still needs to justify the contact, if I have read the threads here correctly. They can not just walk into (onto) a range and start taking magazines.

rromeo
11-21-2012, 6:24 PM
I have a receipt for some of my magazines. I bought a gun a few months after the '94 ban was signed, and the lady that owned the store was so happy for me that it still had pre-ban mags, she wrote it on the receipt. That paper has been in the gun case ever since.

RickD427
11-21-2012, 10:38 PM
The LE still needs to justify the contact, if I have read the threads here correctly. They can not just walk into (onto) a range and start taking magazines.

Dieselpower,

SilverTauron is onto to something here (please refer to post #28).

The law became very cloudy on January 1 with the re-codification of California's weapon laws. There wasn't supposed to be any substantive changes, but it appears that there has been with regard to large-capacity magazines. Hoffmang may want to chime in on this topic. It does look like like someone in Sacramento dealt from the bottom of the deck.

Here's how it goes:

Penal Code Section 32310 is the new section governing the Importation, Sale and Manufacture of large-capacity magazines. The new law pretty much copied the old. There is no criminal sanction for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines.

Penal Code Section 32390 defines large capacity magazines as "Nuisances" and makes them subject to confiscation and summary destruction by law enforcement under section 18010. The law does provide a number of exemptions from the "nuisance" provision (refer to sections 32400-32450 and 17700-17745), however none of these exemptions cover the typical case where a person lawfully acquired a large-capacity magazine and continues to possess it.

You are correct that LEOs need to have lawful standing to seize a large-capacity magazine, but they would have such standing if they observe a person in possession of a "nuisance" device.

The flip side of this is that if a LEO seizes your large-capacity magazines, you would have to sue the agency for their return. That places the burden of proof on you to show they are not a nuisance, and that would be a difficult task given the penal code provisions above.

Librarian
11-21-2012, 11:36 PM
The 'nuisance' thing seems to have been either deliberate or a drafting omission error in SB23.

See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=9175187#post9175187

G17GUY
11-22-2012, 12:30 AM
The statement that we received from SDPD came directly from a person who works at the DOJ, which I have in writing.


Awsome.

But why pay a lawyer to call DOJ and get an answer over the phone? You might get one answer Monday and someone with a different answer Tuesday.

The best answers from the DOJ are in writing, and that’s because they are always wrong. And you already have one?

So if your lawyer does not know the law, and cannot give you advice on the issue, why use him?

Give a copy of the letter to Brandon, let him and the steamroller draft a response telling the SDPD to MYOB, and move on.

gbarbo001
11-22-2012, 5:00 AM
Boy, after reading this string, am I glad I moved to North Carolina. I took one of my ARs into my local gun shop in order to have the CA bullet button replaced with the regular button. No one on either side of the counter had ever seen one. I was an instant celebrity. People were like: "really? ALL ARs have to have one of these annoying buttons?" It's good to live in a free state.

dieselpower
11-22-2012, 9:27 AM
Dieselpower,

SilverTauron is onto to something here (please refer to post #28).

The law became very cloudy on January 1 with the re-codification of California's weapon laws. There wasn't supposed to be any substantive changes, but it appears that there has been with regard to large-capacity magazines. Hoffmang may want to chime in on this topic. It does look like like someone in Sacramento dealt from the bottom of the deck.

Here's how it goes:

Penal Code Section 32310 is the new section governing the Importation, Sale and Manufacture of large-capacity magazines. The new law pretty much copied the old. There is no criminal sanction for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines.

Penal Code Section 32390 defines large capacity magazines as "Nuisances" and makes them subject to confiscation and summary destruction by law enforcement under section 18010. The law does provide a number of exemptions from the "nuisance" provision (refer to sections 32400-32450 and 17700-17745), however none of these exemptions cover the typical case where a person lawfully acquired a large-capacity magazine and continues to possess it.

You are correct that LEOs need to have lawful standing to seize a large-capacity magazine, but they would have such standing if they observe a person in possession of a "nuisance" device.

The flip side of this is that if a LEO seizes your large-capacity magazines, you would have to sue the agency for their return. That places the burden of proof on you to show they are not a nuisance, and that would be a difficult task given the penal code provisions above.

Yes, I know all of that.

The 'nuisance' thing seems to have been either deliberate or a drafting omission error in SB23.

See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=9175187#post9175187

This is the thread I spoke of.