AW's, Hi-cap mags and Government FUD.
 

I will state the obvious when I say that we are all well aware that our Gov. doesnt always tell the truth and may even resort to less then nice tactics when you call them on it. I was reminded of this when I went to purchase an OLL soon after finding out that it was legal to do so.

I was told by 3 of the first four gun dealers that I attempted to make my legal purchase from that it was not legal. I shared with them what I learned here on Calguns and that If they felt the information was not accurate, then to contact DOJ. Then after talking them into contacting DOJ, they admitted that it that maybe it was legal, but that DOJ said it was a grey area and strongly recommended that they avoid this transaction. The dealers were then no longer interested in my business.

One dealer advised me that DOJ said that, if they sold a reciever to me and then I configured it illegally, that the dealer would be held liabile. Another dealer told me that DOJ made it perfectly clear that they frown on this type of sale and that he didnt need DOJ up his a** dinging him for every little paperwork infraction. (WTF?)

This brings me to what I see as more of this type of behavior regarding High Capacity Magazines.

Taken from an official DOJ "Information Bulletin" dated 12-09-1991 to all california firearms dealers about new or changed firearms laws for the year2000, (including high capacity magazines), it says;

"This statute does not prohibit the possesion of large capacity magazines. It restricts only their manufacture, importation,sale,lending, or transfer."

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/9904.pdf

Wait a minute. Transfer? Really? Lets look at the actual statute taken from the CA legal info website.

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

SECTION 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.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve

Transfer? I saw nothing about transfer in the actual statute, did you?

If thats the case, then it would appear that any violation of law would be exclusively by the seller, importer, etc., and not in any way by the person that purchases or possesses the Hi-Cap mag. It says nothing about transfer, purchase, find, etc.

What about conspiracy?

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

SECTION 182. (a) If two or more persons conspire:
(1) To commit any crime.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve

Ok, im not a lawyer and dont pretend to know the ins and outs, case law, etc. But wouldnt a conspiracy to commit a crime require that all of the involved parties actually be committing or planning to commit a crime? What if one of the two parties is doing absolutely nothing Illegal? How can that person be guilty of anything if he did nothing wrong him/herself? Knowledge of a crime does not equate to committing a crime, does it? I believe CA law requires no obligation to report a crime, so there appears to be no provision to prosecute you for knowing someone is illegally selling a hi-cap mag? This seems to be a very poorly written law to say the least!

The reason I bring this up is out of legal curiousity and my irritation of the :bofud:that our Gov. is so kind as to provide us with. I would not purchase HI cap mags myself in CA. because I personally would not want to be involved in any way with anyone else committing a crime, even if im not comitting a crime myself.

So before someone gets their knickers in a twist and starts blasting me, I do not condone this activity. Nor would I want to test this uneducated theory in court either! I just want to hear every one else's opinion on this. Any attornerys present?

What say the great minds of Calguns?

Can you give an example of a transfer that would not involve one of the prohibitions in the PC?

I would say the biggest problem is that we are in the absurd position of having to wonder what bureaucrats who don't give a crap about whether you're in this country legally or not have to say about a bent piece of metal with a spring inside.

Sorry to inform you, the WAIS links don't work - I think it was based off of your session, thus once it times out the info's gone.

This works, but it's the whole chapter: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=12020-12040

However:

" (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."

What you mean by transferring would be giving or lending, I believe.

The word transfer is not in the statute. The word transfer is in the DOL BOF bullitin only. And my point isnt whether the porhibitions in the statute would constitute a transfer, my point is that without the word transfer in the statute, all of the wording in the statute pertains only to the seller....unless the purchaser imports the mags. No question the seller is committing a crime, but is the buyer?

Thats the truth! And we know how much crime and violence is reduced by magazines holding less then 10 rounds as well!


My point is, that if the actual word transfer were in the statute, it would encompass the buyer as well as the seller, because it can be contrued as it taking two to perform this action. If transfer were in the statute, it would make both parties committing a crime, instead of just the seller. The word transfer is not, so would someone explain to me how the possesor or purchaser would be committing a crime?

Ah, this question again then.

The issue is that it's impossible to have something that's completely legal if it's illegal on ONE side of the transaction. When purchasing from a prohibited seller, you are committing "conspiracy" to sell. Because this is a general prohibition against selling, you are stuck looking for an exempted class of seller.

The only truly iron clad seller out there is armored car companies, which have a codified exemption from any crime when selling magazines. At present, I am unaware of any armored car companies which are selling mags, but they legally could sell any size mag they wanted, per PC. In person, over the internet, anything.

Actually, knowledge of a crime without reporting it is punishable as the same crime.That is federal law. For example, a witness to a rape that does not report it is subject to the same punishment as the rapist. I like that law.
A person selling hi cap mags as rebuild kits for legally owned pre ban mags in NOT commiting a crime. I don't see how the seller can be responsible for what the buyer does with them with this as a disclaimer. Like if I sold you a gallon can of gasoline and you used it to blow up your neighbors house. How can I be held responsible without the knowledge of it's intended use?
I once was told by a local gun shop that all AK's and AR's are illegal. I guess they were afraid of losing their FFL. I guess don't blame them due to all the FUD nowadays, but I don't give them my business anymore.
Go to Kerly's or the Gun Vault. but the Vaults prices are pretty high. They seem to be capatolizing on the president elect.

Wait - Really?

Why aren't any of us starting an armored car business???

and if its incorporated, we could get around personal liability as we were following the law, only the COMPANY could be sued or "arrested" as teh officer were following laws...


DAMN MAN - we could have all the high caps we want! (for a year until they pass another law).


what is required to start an armored car service?

Well, I always thought the law said that as well and I would agree with you hands down. However, what comes to mind is a case several years ago about this guy from long beach named Strohmeyer and his friend Cash.

Strohmeyer lured a 7 year old girl into a restroom at a casino in Primm Nevada and raped and killed her. His friend, Cash, went into the bathroom and saw Strohmeyer struggling with her and walked back out. He did nothing. He made no report, etc.

Well, my thinking was that Cash was just as guilty and should get the same punishment. He was not charged with anything. I remember watching the interviews with Law Enforcement as this was a really big case. They made noise about forwarding it to the DA and that they didnt know if tehy were going to charge him or not, but then came back and said that there is no laws requiring anyone to report a crime or lend aid to anyone. I thought that this was crazy and that it must be a Nevada thing at the time.

Here is an excerpt from the link below...

"However, Cash, 18, will not be charged in the case unless authorities gather new evidence indicating that Cash knew ahead of time that the attack on Sherrice was going to occur or that he participated in the killing. The witness's inaction in stopping the slaying and his failure to report what he saw in the restroom of the Primm Valley hotel does not constitute a criminal act, local police and prosecutors said.
"If in fact he saw what was happening and saw that she was alive and didn't stop it ... if that was all he did and nothing else, then it is not a crime," Clark County District Attorney Stewart Bell said. "It may be a crime in the eyes of God, but not in the eyes of the Nevada Legislature."
Metropolitan Police Department Lt. Wayne Petersen confirmed Monday that Sherrice was alive at the time that Cash said he observed Strohmeyer sexually assaulting the girl. Petersen echoed Bell's statements about legal liability in reporting or stopping a crime.
"If you look out your window and see a robbery occurring and you do not report it to police, or you don't do anything to stop it, that is not a crime," Petersen said."

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...s/5483593.html

If this is a federal law, then why did they not charge him in Federal court? And if its a federal law, is it a law that was enacted after this incident? Where can I find a link to the statute?

I think the wording in the statue for "give" pretty much covers transfer.

As far as an FFL being held crimminally liable if the purchaser were to illegally configure an OLL...this is total nonsense...any semi auto the store sold could theoretically be turned into an assault weapon or machine gun. I am also sure there is a way to turn non semi auto receivers into assault weapon as well if somebody really wanted to take the time.

MP - are you sure of the dates on your 1st post? In 1991 DOJ knew hi caps would be banned in 2000? Probably 1999, yes?

I'd say DOJ gave accurate, albeit speculative advice. If some schmo buys a stripped upper and configures it incorrectly might he civilly sue the gun store? Could be, as in "It's their fault for not telling me". And they frown on the sale and will be vindictive SOBs on their inspections - yes and wouldn't put it past them. So I don't know if it's quite FUD - is it FUD if it could be true? Semi - FUD? :shrug:

Regarding conspiracy - my friend asks for a ride to the bank. I say OK, he walks in and out and I drop him off at his girlfriend's place. As I'm watching TV later that night SFPD pushes in my door and hooks me up. Have I commited a crime? Conspiracy? I'm no attorney, but I'd say no. So if someone has no idea that +10 mags are not legal for sale, give, lend etc and I give one to him has a conspiracy occurred? Presuming mere possession is legal of course.

I wonder - how would someone prove a person knew hi caps were illegal or does that even need to be proven in court? Is there a presumption everyone knows? Ignorance of the law no excuse?

[QUOTE=DocSkinner;1871764]Wait - Really?

Why aren't any of us starting an armored car business???


them armored trucks is expensive

then there is the whole insurance thing

then the minute you have everything set the board of equalization will swoop in and say you are not a retail buisness

and the local da will try to harrass you for starting a buisness just to "skirt*" the law (*any time you comply with the law but they don't like it)


the problem i see is if the ffls excuse is that you could configure it illegally how could they sell any semi automatic centerfire anything without someone possibly configuring it illegally?

Huh how did armored cars get in this mix? I missed something but I read em all and they (armored cars) keep coming up...

Whoops, sorry...Yes it was December 1999. And you have brought up another good point. If knowing that the person selling the mags was committing a crime, even though his part was not illegal...and, that fits the definition of conspiracy, then who has the burden of proof? The person who bought the Mags or the Government?

That would mean that unless they caught the seller and he fingered those he sold to, or the purchaser opened his pie hole and admitted he conspired, there would be no recourse for the government to prosecute? (technically anyway, which wouldnt matter because they would prosecute anyway at taxpayers expense).

Again, dont anyone get me wrong, I wouldnt do it or be fooled into thinking that it wouldnt be an ugly situation, but this really is a poorly written law...not to mention unproductive and plain stupid......

[QUOTE=bohoki;1872351]

couldn't sell shotguns either - some one could saw off teh barrel and have a NFA...

I don't think that's correct. Generally, a party who is necessary to the commission of a crime is not a co-conspirator with other necessary parties. This is common in drug crimes: the law punishes sale of illegal drugs and possession of illegal drugs. The penalties for sale are much higher. Sale requires a purchaser. But only the seller is guilty of sale. The purchaser is only guilty of possession, not conspiracy to sell. If possession or receipt is not illegal, the purchaser is not guilty of anything.

Thats what I thought as well.

There's a hole in the high-cap magazine laws. 12020(a)(2) makes a criminal anyone who "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.". 12020(b) then says "Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:", and 12020(b)(27) then says "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."

The key point being that "by or to", it say that 12020(a) "does not apply to...[t]he sale of..., or importation of...any large-capacity magazine...by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses" Since 12020(a) is what outlaws the sale of high capacity magazines, it seems pretty clear that armored car services can import and sell high cap magazines, legally.

As to why none of us has bothered doing it, yet, it's expensive and a pain, and frankly, post-Heller, we'd probably just rather mount a direct legal challenge, anyway (not to mention that the current law is pretty much unenforceable). But, if we do lose that challenge, I'd bet eventually we'll set up an armored car service just because we can.

-TQ

Here is a little Hi-cap NON-FUD from LASD of all places :eek:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=144878

Seems some of these armored car businesses in the non-blue parts of Cali would like extra business...


Any calgunners out in the deep red of California want to talk to your local Armored car service?

I already have some really old pre-ban hi caps myself but would love to have more and legally be able to have more...

So your saying if I worked for a armor car company and they give me hi-caps as a bonus for doing a great job, I am good to go? :)

Just kidding.

Thanks for the info cuz I was wondering what the armored deal was all about.. Thanks

There are a few FFL's in CA who have been working on getting an Armored car buisness togeather so that full capacity magazines can be sold.

There are a few problems;

#1 it takes a TON of money to get the ball rolling

#2 it takes a TON of money to get the ball rolling

#3 it takes a TON of money to get the ball rolling

so... they are working on making as much money as possible right now so that they can grow the business to the point where they can do it.

Well, I can tell you Gene and I'll do it in the long term if we can't overturn the law to begin with. It's just a little busy time now both on CGF and at work to be dragged off to jail and have to defend it. All the good gun lawyers are busy with cases right now... ;)

-TQ

I understand (being a broke arse bum myslef...), but the amount of money to be made...


plus if all gun related businesses and other businesses owned/ran by gun rights supporters USED the service, it would be a very viable business in both lights.

While I haven't read the relevant PC and don't intend to, I have always thought that the Achilles heel of the armored car company exception is the licensing. You'll spend all that money, and then as soon as you sell a standard-cap mag to a non-employee you will find your license cannot be renewed. I rather suspect that the law allows the DoJ, or whoever the issuing agency is, to refuse to renew with enough discretion that you won't be able to fight it. They might even be able to revoke it. At best, they'll have to trump up some bogus reason, but when has that ever been any kind of obstacle? Even if there is an avenue to fight it, that costs a lot more lawyer money, so the economic bar to try gets even harder and the required amount of sales to pay for it is larger.

That means that unless you can recap all that money before loss of license, it's an economic loser, and in the worst case you lose it the day after the DoJ gets wind of your ice-cream/hi-cap mag truck sales. Is there anything in the PC that suggests that won't happen?

7x57

I forgot about the Armored car companies being able to sell hi-caps. It would seem to me that the way to do this, since the ban law doesnt include purchasing or possesing hi-caps, is to talk to one of these companies and talk them into selling you some. If they have major stones, they can do this.

BOTH parties would be perfectly legal...but they would be unlikely to do this. Legal or not, just like the Ca gun dealers I mentioned...they probably dont want any Gov agerncy up their A**es.

Another point, if its not illegal to purchase or posses hi-caps, as appears the case, then it wouldnt matter which ones you had,...including newer guns such as the XD.

Do I have the time or funds to test this legal issue out in court? Ah NO! So I wont be trying this....but if someone does get dinged for hi-caps without their being some other issues (like transporting a 1000 pounds of Meth), then I dont see how they can get convicted....

Why so much?

I've seen "armored" car companies to cash pick-ups/drop offs in my city with a simple cargo van (non armored) with only a safe bolted in the back.

Where is the law if any detailing what makes an official "armored car company"?

What I can find seems to be VC - for example, Armored cars can have red lights and sirens, in other VC sections.

Employees pretty much need Guard Cards with Firearms Permits, at least the drivers and delivery persons.

Beyond that, seems like just any business license.

If someone wants to start an armored car company, I'll get a guard card and such to serve as an SD sales guy if need be. Don't think there'd be any part of the law specifying that I must ever set foot in an armored car... ;)

I can see it now......

"Mad Cap's Armored Car Service" booths at every gun show....

Any one want to see about partnering with an existing Armored car service?


http://www.iacoa.com/dsearch1.asp?op=1&st=ca

IACOA Member Directory Search: California

Dunbar Armored -

Contact: * - (410) 584-9800

LA Federal Armored Services Inc. -

Contact: Anthony Ash - (213) 624-2646

Malca-Amit Armored, Inc. -

Contact: Michael Singh - (718) 525-6400

Sectran Security Inc. -

Contact: Vaho Ohaman - (562) 948-1446

United States Armored Company -

Contact: Dino Guadagni - (888) 265-7800

Via Mat International (USA) Inc. -

Contact: Joe Nuebling - 718 868-1500

Another AW question
 

I have read most every list offered by Calif/DOJ and other reference sources.
I ask this question because so far it has become totally clear to me.

Even though a Thompson semi-auto has a pistol grip and a fore arm grip, earlier models could accomidate large capacity magazines, both mentioned as a consideration in definition of an Assault Weapon.

No where can I find the Thompson on the list of banned weapons. Can someone who is more knowlegable than I am tell me, are these guns legal or illegal to own in California?

They are probablly not very accurate at any kind of range but the .45 cal has a bit of punch. I'd just like to know so as to continue my casual education in the subject area...

Thanks in advance...

You are thinking of the federal misprision of felony statute. See 18 U.S.C. 4. That statute only applies when the underlying crime is also a federal crime. Also, the misprision of felony statute has been construed narrowly to comport with the constitution such that it requires the person accused to have furthered concealment of the underlying felony or accepted a benefit for not reporting it.

A semi-automatic Thompson is not listed by name as an assault weapon. Its ability to accept a magazine greater than ten rounds is not the issue in determining if it is an assault weapon.

The fact that it can accept a detachable magazine while so called "evil features" (the pistol grip and forward pistol grip) are installed, is what makes it an assault weapon.

If those grips were uninstalled, and a sharkfin style rear grip was used instead of a pistol grip, no magazine lock would be required.

A more popular method of achieving California compliance is a mag lock, such as the ever popular bullet button. The bullet button does nothing to prevent a magazine that accepts greater than ten rounds from being installed, regardless of the type of firearm it's installed on. ARs and AKs with bullet buttons can still accept magazines that hold more than ten rounds. To install such magazines, however, would be to illegally manufacture an assault weapon.

If you want a California legal semi-automatic Thompson, you must either remove the offending features enumerated in PC12276.1, or install a magazine lock. I believe someone on this board has invented a Thompson bullet button as a matter of fact. Once installed, you can only use 10 round (or less) capacity magazines with that firearm.

Just because you are an "armored car" company doesn't mean you have to be a good one. I would assume if you were a terrible "armored car" company you would have a proper license for a few hundred bucks, register as a business and a tax i.d. Then throw a $30 lock box in the trunk of your Camry and some magnetic decals next to it and your good to go. I wouldn't trust you hauling my cash, neither should the paper boy, and you would be a laughing stock but you sure have an "armored car" company! I guess also since you would be the owner, and driver of said "armored car" and thus have the possibility of carrying large sums of cash, it would also make a damn good case to get a CCW approved. Hmmmmmmm.