PDA

View Full Version : legal use of highcaps?


CalgunsRocks
10-23-2007, 2:06 PM
would it be legal one's wife to use her husband's legally posessed high-capacity magazines in home-defense if he is not home?

thanks.

bwiese
10-23-2007, 2:16 PM
would it be legal one's wife to use her husband's legally posessed high-capacity magazines in home-defense if he is not home?

thanks.

Interesting.

The mags have a right to be there (in a home owned/rented by hicap's owner's).
The wife has a right to be there.
Hmm.

Frankly, if it's a good shoot nobody's gonna be looking at the mag.
If it's a bad shoot, the wife has a lot more to worry about than any hicap issue.

Wulf
10-23-2007, 2:35 PM
ohuuuu, that is an interesting question.

The law requires that the mag be "possessed" in the state. It doesn't say that the possession has to be sole or exclusive. If you were married prior to 2000, there would seem to be a strong case that the mags would become joint property and therefore legal for either spouse to use. But what if you got married after 2000? The mag still might become the spouses joint property, but could they use or possess the mags under the high-cap ban? Would the interest in the mags they got via marriage be a illegal transfer under the high-cap ban?

Also, what does it mean when you open the door to having multiple persons having joint ownership of mags prior to 2000. What if Back in 1999 my buddy and I entered into an agreement to jointly possess one another's high-caps. What if I decided I jointly possessed my high caps with my children born prior to 2000?
Does that mean my buddy or my kid can take sole ownership on my death? If I move out of state can I leave the mags with them, relinquishing my claim?

Interesting questions.

Jicko
10-23-2007, 2:36 PM
Aren't those large capacity magazines joint properties? Unless they weren't married before 2000.

Bizcuits
10-23-2007, 2:44 PM
California is a 50/50 state, so she can only claim ownership of half the ammo in the mag. So if it is a 16rd mag, she is only allowed to fire 8rds... :D


Honestly I doubt this would ever be an issue. Ownership of the mags isn't illegal, just everything else about them is. I highly doubt you'd find a DA or Judge who would even realisticly consider wasting time on a woman who used her husbands legal hicaps in self defense.

I find it just as hard to think to think you'd fine a LEO who'd care enough to push the matter passed a spirit of the law lecture...

Remember California is a spirit of the law state. Worst case, you have her argue spirit of the law. "I needed to defend myself and this was all I had of my husbands to do so."

pepsi2451
10-23-2007, 2:50 PM
But what if you got married after 2000? The mag still might become the spouses joint property, but could they use or possess the mags under the high-cap ban?

Interesting.

Anyone know any single chicks with a bunch of high-caps?;)

Shane916
10-23-2007, 3:09 PM
I doubt any DA would prosecute

Spaceghost
10-23-2007, 3:29 PM
There is a reason my glock with high caps is in my nightstand. I really don't think my wife will be able to hit much when firing. However, after she sends 18 rounds at the bad guy, he is going to be running thinking she shot at him a million times.

Wulf
10-23-2007, 3:30 PM
I doubt any DA would prosecute

I've really come to hate "DA would never prosecute it" type of laws. Its those types of laws that a tyrant will use to make everybody a criminal eventually. Its those types of laws that a corrupt DA can use to grind their particular political, sexual preference, racial, or gender ax. Its those type of laws that give us Ca. Style CCW. You know when they passed that law, decent law abiding guys like us were thinking " Yeah, but they'd never prosecute me for carrying for carrying without a permit, that's just something we need to use against undesirables." Or, "Well, the good sheriff wouldn't think to deny a permit to me. He'll only deny people that really shouldn't have a gun." A hundred years later you've got the situation we have now, where you will certainly get jacked up if carrying without a permit, and there's more lottery winners in some counties, than regular joe's found worthy of a permit.

bohoki
10-23-2007, 5:10 PM
California is a 50/50 state, so she can only claim ownership of half the ammo in the mag. So if it is a 16rd mag, she is only allowed to fire 8rds... :D


Honestly I doubt this would ever be an issue. Ownership of the mags isn't illegal, just everything else about them is. I highly doubt you'd find a DA or Judge who would even realisticly consider wasting time on a woman who used her husbands legal hicaps in self defense.

I find it just as hard to think to think you'd fine a LEO who'd care enough to push the matter passed a spirit of the law lecture...

Remember California is a spirit of the law state. Worst case, you have her argue spirit of the law. "I needed to defend myself and this was all I had of my husbands to do so."

but her 8 are at the bottom so she has to expend her husbands 8 to get to hers

Bizcuits
10-23-2007, 6:12 PM
but her 8 are at the bottom so she has to expend her husbands 8 to get to hers


spirit of the law! :) see your learning grasshopper!

CalNRA
10-23-2007, 7:50 PM
hmm.

I hereby propose an exemption to the "high" cap magazine import ban, extending the exemption to women. Such that women will be allowed to own regular capacity magazines.





any politician who is against it is sexist, anti-women, and will be sued, tarred, and feathered.

:D

NRA UR2
10-23-2007, 8:25 PM
A few states(Florida. Texas) have answered that question by amending their CCW law...Ifyou feel your life is threatened by the perp, you have the legal right to shoot the SOB..no questions asked.

thomasanelson
10-23-2007, 9:16 PM
[QUOTE=Bizcuits;804164]California is a 50/50 state, so she can only claim ownership of half the ammo in the mag. So if it is a 16rd mag, she is only allowed to fire 8rds... :D


Yeah, but what's yours is hers and what's hers is hers so I think she owns all 16rds.:p

rayra
10-23-2007, 10:36 PM
everything else is joint property, why the heck wouldn't the mag be. If the spouse owns it legally, then its legal. And any DA that would attempt to prosecute on the matter should be hounded from the office they are abusing.

robitrocks
11-25-2007, 11:04 AM
I've really come to hate "DA would never prosecute it" type of laws. Its those types of laws that a tyrant will use to make everybody a criminal eventually. Its those types of laws that a corrupt DA can use to grind their particular political, sexual preference, racial, or gender ax. Its those type of laws that give us Ca. Style CCW. You know when they passed that law, decent law abiding guys like us were thinking " Yeah, but they'd never prosecute me for carrying for carrying without a permit, that's just something we need to use against undesirables." Or, "Well, the good sheriff wouldn't think to deny a permit to me. He'll only deny people that really shouldn't have a gun." A hundred years later you've got the situation we have now, where you will certainly get jacked up if carrying without a permit, and there's more lottery winners in some counties, than regular joe's found worthy of a permit.

No kidding. Whether or not the DA will prosecute sometimes depends on what side of the bed they woke up on. Thank God for the DAs that have common sense, but for those of us that live by more "subjective" DAs, good luck.

peekay331
11-25-2007, 11:19 PM
even assuming she technically violated the laws by possessing a hi-cap magazine, it would be superceded by her defense of duress...

hoffmang
11-25-2007, 11:56 PM
12020 (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.

When she grabs your large-capacity magazine she didn't import, keep or offer for sale, or give or lend it. You may not be able to give it to her but that's a stretch in a community property state. If she picks it up and uses it, you didn't really lend it either.

I think even a crazy DA wouldn't have much of a case. She took property that was half hers and used it. Possession never changed. An unmarried SO may be slightly different here, but...

-Gene

saki302
11-26-2007, 2:12 AM
Speaking of which,

If you croak, and your kid finds a box full of hi-cap mags, I'm assuming he can keep them? :D
Using our Calguns 'find' exemption :D

-Dave

Wulf
11-26-2007, 5:47 AM
I think even a crazy DA wouldn't have much of a case. She took property that was half hers and used it. Possession never changed. An unmarried SO may be slightly different here, but...

-Gene

But that doesn't answer the question of the interest in a pre-marriage highcap that transfered during a post-2000 marriage.

Theoretically, since half a mag isnt a real entity, during a divorce, the ex would get half of the highcaps and you'd negotiate for any odd numbers. At the end of the day, marriage plus divorce would result in the transfer of high-caps.

Which also makes me think that if you do get divorced, you should cut all the mags in half, they you could just order replacement repair parts and be back up to your full count. Of course if she did the same thing, there would be twice as many highcaps in the state as a result....who broke the law? As I've said before....stupid stupid law.

tyrist
11-26-2007, 8:16 AM
There is no way anyone would prosecute her for using a high capacity magazine for a immediate defense of life situation.

hoffmang
11-26-2007, 9:56 AM
Operation of law, like marriage and divorce, is not a giving or lending. There is a colorable argument that inheritance of otherwise legally owned large-capacity magazines is not prohibited by the statute.

-Gene

ar15barrels
11-26-2007, 10:15 AM
California is a 50/50 state, so she can only claim ownership of half the ammo in the mag. So if it is a 16rd mag, she is only allowed to fire 8rds...

:rofl2:

mike452
11-26-2007, 2:25 PM
Interesting.

Anyone know any single chicks with a bunch of high-caps?;)


My neighbor! She has leather skin and missing some yellow teeth. :D

3GunFunShooter
11-26-2007, 3:20 PM
LOL!!!
Got to love this thread!