PDA

View Full Version : Legally Working Around Large-Cap Mag Limit Idea


Helpful_Cub
12-29-2012, 11:50 PM
I was pondering Librarian's post on Large Cap Magazines when the lack of details in the law dawned on me.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709

There are exceptions in 12020(b), (b)(19)-(32) notably
Quote:
(b)(21) exempts CA-licensed FFLs

So to legally be exempt from this law I just need to be a CA-licencsed FFL. Per wikipedia we can see which FFL types are available. I currently have an FFL3 for C&R firearms. However the law does not ask for any specific type of FFL. In fact the law clearly shows FFL to be plural "FFLs". Therefore they mean more than one or re-stated, all FFL types.

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

Then to get the "CA-licensed" part I would assume that refers to the getting a COE from CA which isn't to terribly hard to do.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=267367

So with an FFL (any type) and a COE in hand it should be possible to get a "Large-Capacity Magazine Permit" from CA Dept. of Justice allowing a normal person to get standard sized magazine. If the permit get rejected then there's grounds for a lawsuit since FFL type is undefined therefore it should be another easy win for us.

What do you'll think about this approach? I know its not a quick or cheap process, but since I carry my C&R anyways a COE is something like $22 and then the permit is free from what I can tell. Does this approach seem feasible to our law friends? Should I try it to see what happens or should I wait for someone with more legal horse power to probe around at the Dept of Justice before I try this?

Thanks and let me know what you think!

wildhawker
12-30-2012, 12:07 AM
A California Dealer is a commercial FFL.

-Brandon

Librarian
12-30-2012, 12:18 AM
12020 (b)(21) is now 32410 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/32410.html) Section 32310 does not apply to the sale or purchase of any
large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to
Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive.
and 26700 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26700.html) is As used in this division, and in any other provision listed
in Section 16580, "dealer," "licensee," or "person licensed pursuant
to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive" means a person who satisfies
all of the following requirements:
(a) Has a valid federal firearms license.
(b) Has any regulatory or business license, or licenses, required
by local government.
(c) Has a valid seller's permit issued by the State Board of
Equalization.
(d) Has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of
Justice pursuant to Section 26710.
(e) Has a license issued in the format prescribed by subdivision
(c) of Section 26705.
(f) Is among those recorded in the centralized list specified in
Section 26715.
or, as Brandon said, a commercial dealer.

sreiter
12-30-2012, 2:33 AM
yes, but, iirc from business law or accounting, a going concern only need show profit once in 5 years... so, theoretically, you could hang a shingle, do no business for 5 years, open a new business, transfer mags, etc to it, and keep going that route.... if paying for licenses, etc doesnt bother you.

Gray Peterson
12-30-2012, 2:43 AM
Didn't someone say not to post "workarounds" in 2A or anywhere on Calguns? I seem to remember that...

Bill Carson
12-30-2012, 3:12 AM
Didn't someone say not to post "workarounds" in 2A or anywhere on Calguns? I seem to remember that...

This

ClarenceBoddicker
12-30-2012, 4:23 AM
yes, but, iirc from business law or accounting, a going concern only need show profit once in 5 years... so, theoretically, you could hang a shingle, do no business for 5 years, open a new business, transfer mags, etc to it, and keep going that route.... if paying for licenses, etc doesnt bother you.

First off, ATF won't let you keep an active FFL unless you are a legitimate business. Legitimate means you have to be actively engaged in business ie buying & selling. No you can't get an FFL for personal collecting except for an 03 collectors FFL. The ATF audits FFLs at least once a year for all aspects of compliance with all laws & regulations. CA's FTB/BOE is very aggressive in going after taxes from businesses. They usually bill you quarterly for their estimated figures for what your business should be doing in sales compared to averages. At best you would have to pay sales & state income taxes for goods you many not have not sold. Even if you could pass the ATFs muster, you would end up paying a whole lot in fees & taxes. Cheaper to move out of CA. Another factor is CA will be working to ban most if not all semi-autos & maybe even lowering magazine capacities to 7 or 5 rounds. Buy some kits & block them to 10 rounds. If you decide to move to a free state, unblock them when you leave.

Kharn
12-30-2012, 4:24 AM
yes, but, iirc from business law or accounting, a going concern only need show profit once in 5 years... so, theoretically, you could hang a shingle, do no business for 5 years, open a new business, transfer mags, etc to it, and keep going that route.... if paying for licenses, etc doesnt bother you.A C&R FFL is not allowed to engage in business, it is for hobbyists only.

Ford8N
12-30-2012, 4:32 AM
Didn't someone say not to post "workarounds" in 2A or anywhere on Calguns? I seem to remember that...

^^^^^^^^

VAReact
12-30-2012, 5:27 AM
Didn't someone say not to post "workarounds" in 2A or anywhere on Calguns? I seem to remember that...

Please, people...this x 1000000.

SilverTauron
12-30-2012, 6:44 AM
Well I suppose it was a great idea until the OP posted it here.Now,he may as well have phoned Feinsteins office and told her of a potential loophole she should consider before introducing an AWB.

Helpful_Cub
12-30-2012, 6:49 AM
First of all, thank you for the responses. I wasn't sure how many of them would be constructive.

12020 (b)(21) is now 32410 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/32410.html) and 26700 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26700.html) is or, as Brandon said, a commercial dealer.

I think this was the missing piece from the equation. I didn't know it existed making the law even more complex. So while it may be possible to do all of this other steps, it really would be ridiculous. I guess someone could go into business selling accessories, reloading supplies and ammo without a full FFL1 and that would allow for CA taxes to be collected. However, that would be a lot of extra work beyond just "doing the paperwork".

And for those that missed my first paragraph, I am trying to legally work within the laws given, not circumvent them illegally. This is the same place our beloved bullet button lives. My outline is essentially the same process a full gun store would go through however they get the FFL1 to buy and sell guns. I'm just focused on the magazines which any type of FFL should meet under current CA law.

First off, ATF won't let you keep an active FFL unless you are a legitimate business. Legitimate means you have to be actively engaged in business ie buying & selling. No you can't get an FFL for personal collecting except for an 03 collectors FFL. The ATF audits FFLs at least once a year for all aspects of compliance with all laws & regulations. CA's FTB/BOE is very aggressive in going after taxes from businesses. They usually bill you quarterly for their estimated figures for what your business should be doing in sales compared to averages.

To address this you have to realize I don't want an FFL1 in anyway. Nor would I want to deal in modern guns. The level of pain to get and keep an FFL1 is just to much, however, an FFL3 is tolerable. I'm just trying to keep within current CA law, and not poke at the ATFs hornet nest.

A C&R FFL is not allowed to engage in business, it is for hobbyists only.

The C&R is used only to meet the requirements of CA law. It will not be used for any business transactions. The focus is magazines, not firearms.

Well I suppose it was a great idea until the OP posted it here.Now,he may as well have phoned Feinsteins office and told her of a potential loophole she should consider before introducing an AWB.

Feinstein deals in federal law, this is specifically about working with existing CA law. We have far more wack jobs in Sacramento than in DC. You should be worried that if Feinstein fails someone in CA would pick her bill up and force it on all of us in CA.

Since I really don't feel like going through the pains of getting a business CA license I'll let this idea die. I'm sure there's someone out there that may be able to try this approach but after all of the time and effort invested, it really isn't a work around anymore. To get a CA business license you have to have a store front so essentially you'd have to be a gun store "light" version that can't deal in guns. So you'd have most of the burdens, costs and pains but none of the core business. Making this a failed, potentially legally viable idea. :(

liv4spd
12-30-2012, 7:14 AM
I still dont see how conversations like this are constructive given the current atmosphere we're living in...

spy-d
12-30-2012, 7:57 AM
I have a question...

What kind of a FFL will be needed to open a Transfer Station? It could be big bussness at gunshows. Of course you will need a shop with a Bank Vault type safe. But that maybe somthing to think about.

1859sharps
12-30-2012, 8:39 AM
I have a question...

What kind of a FFL will be needed to open a Transfer Station? It could be big bussness at gunshows. Of course you will need a shop with a Bank Vault type safe. But that maybe somthing to think about.


transfer station?????


to the op....you idea is a whole lot of work, costs, headache to get greater than 10 round mags. In theory, your idea would work (but NOT with a C&R FFL) for the duration of one renewal period of the commercial ffl.

we need to stop look for workarounds. all that energy wasted on work around could be going to either preventing new laws, over turning existing and getting the masses in the middle on our side.

bohoki
12-30-2012, 8:44 AM
if ffl dealers are allowed to buy and sell why don't they i mean how often do you buy magazines from a gunstore that doesnt have an ffl

erik_26
12-30-2012, 10:24 AM
Move to free state, don't even have to go far either.

Oregon, Nevada or Arizona. You wont have magazine capacity restrictions, a roster, or a 10-day wait.

Cheaper gas, cheaper cost of living, cheaper tax.

CSACANNONEER
12-30-2012, 10:32 AM
I do know of non FFLs who have received high cap permits from DOJ. Of course, they have exce[tionally good reasons to get the permits. Just get a DoD contract which requires you to obtain, import and/or manufacture +10 round mags and you should be able to get one too.

Clinton
12-30-2012, 10:34 AM
Mods, please delete this (and any other workaround) thread. We don't need to tell the opposition how to defeat us.

SMR510
12-30-2012, 10:46 AM
Mods, please delete this (and any other workaround) thread. We don't need to tell the opposition how to defeat us.

x2! Please stop rewriting the bills for them!

CSACANNONEER
12-30-2012, 10:52 AM
Mods, please delete this (and any other workaround) thread. We don't need to tell the opposition how to defeat us.

Huh? This thread is ONLY talking about EXISTING CA law. Did you even read it? It does not have any work arounds or even hint at ideas to make any state or federal law more restrictive.

Ignatius F.
12-30-2012, 11:02 AM
They can use this info to modify future legislation. Get it?

CSACANNONEER
12-30-2012, 11:15 AM
What information?



I understand what you mean and agree that most of these threads should be deleted. However, this thread does not contain anything that is not already law. No viable work arounds (except mine which will always be an exception no matter what). No viable loop holes mentioned. No wording (which is not already law) to include in proposed new laws. So, what's the problem? Get it?

Ignatius F.
12-30-2012, 11:46 AM
CSAC, The "this" info was meant as information from this type of post in general. We're in agreement and no disrespect was meant.

Uxi
12-30-2012, 11:49 AM
I appreciate opsec, but security through obscurity never works.

Librarian
12-30-2012, 11:55 AM
The OP wasn't asking anything shady.

How do you suppose something like the bullet-button surfaced? It's important to play 'what if we follow the law in an unexpected way'.

Turns out the mesh of definitions he didn't know about kills the idea, but now he, and others, know that stuff exists. It's always good for folks to read the Penal Code for new ideas.

Do have your favorite headache remedy at hand if you take that route ...

CSACANNONEER
12-30-2012, 12:06 PM
CSAC, The "this" info was meant as information from this type of post in general. We're in agreement and no disrespect was meant.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, this thread was started at a time when similar threads are asking about possible new laws and bans the nobody can answer. But, educated discusion on internet forums will give the antis more and better terminology to include in possible upcoming legislation. While that type of discussion is better left off internet forum and other public media, this thread, in particular, has not crossed that line and, was not ment to be a place for that type of discussion.

ddandoy
12-30-2012, 1:36 PM
Didn't someone say not to post "workarounds" in 2A or anywhere on Calguns? I seem to remember that...

+10

Moonshine
12-30-2012, 1:41 PM
In terms of high cap bans in California I'm confident whatever they pass will be air tight. They have experts working on this and its possible the Feds may ban mags over 10 rounds and make this a moot point.

erik_26
01-01-2013, 6:56 PM
I forgot, another way to get around the law is to become a LEO. Then you will have LTC, be exempt from magazine capacity restrictions and exempt from the roster.

You will still be bound to the bullet button except on a duty rifle with a department letter (unless you already have a raw).

CDFingers
01-02-2013, 5:04 AM
Try as I might, I am unable to develop a defense against a magazine size limit law, and I'll tell you why.

First, I am unable to develop solid ideas that classify a magazine as "arms" so as to protect a magazine using the Second Amendment. My reasoning is that using a ten round or a twenty round magazine does not in any way affect the operation of the gun. It works the same regardless of how many rounds still reside in the magazine.

Second, Congress by law may regulate interstate commerce. Any magazine made in one state and sold to another, just like a deluxe model cheese straightener made in one state shipped to another may be regulated.

Third, any magazine made in California designed to be sold in California would be subject to regulation by our lege, just like any deluxe model cheese straightener.

The only argument I can come up with is "I don't like it." I can develop reasons for that notion, like I want a zillion rounds in my magazines in order to fight off the eleven member biker gang all Californians fear. ;-) That is a values based premise, and it's weak, opposed easily by any law limiting magazine capacity.

I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I don't think it's an argument I can win, trying to oppose a ban on magazine capacity. I mean, I can oppose it easily, but opposition alone does not guarantee victory.

Since I am unable to come up with a strong defense against a limit on magazine size, I'll have to fight other battles.

I welcome any ideas I have over looked. Please post them.

CDFingers

therealnickb
01-02-2013, 5:11 AM
Reginald Denny

Colonel Monk
01-02-2013, 8:24 AM
Doesn't matter, it's not workaround anyway.

As an FFL, you need a legitimate business need to apply for the "Large Capacity" Magazine Permit.

You're not going to be able to get one unless you are serving LE of Defense customers.

Totally agree with the other posters though, we should not be prefacing any thread on this forum with "legally working around" ANYTHING.

Goosebrown
01-02-2013, 9:23 AM
I think STFU on workarounds and the flaws in laws is paramount. Stop talking about it till the fight is past that point. We have a lot of creative folks that will do what it takes to live to the letter of the law. There isn't any point in letting THEM make that letter of the law worse than they are already.

STFU!

paul0660
01-02-2013, 9:33 AM
03 is not a California license anyway.

Bhobbs
01-02-2013, 9:35 AM
I'm still waiting in the big work around that was discussed here a few years ago.

stix213
01-02-2013, 12:15 PM
The OP wasn't asking anything shady.

How do you suppose something like the bullet-button surfaced? It's important to play 'what if we follow the law in an unexpected way'.

Turns out the mesh of definitions he didn't know about kills the idea, but now he, and others, know that stuff exists. It's always good for folks to read the Penal Code for new ideas.

Do have your favorite headache remedy at hand if you take that route ...

This ^^^

While it is important we don't say stuff like "I hope SB47 won't cover <this>." We need to be able to be able to discuss existing law in order to establish legal work arounds like has happened with SSE, OLL, repair kits, etc. I'm sure there is more stuff possible we just haven't thought of yet too.

Also, what ever happened to the Gene's Magazines business that was going to exploit international trade law or something along those lines?