-   How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me (
-   -   Magazines: all the answers you need (

Librarian 01-21-2011 9:36 PM

Magazines: all the answers you need
The wiki has a long article: Large-capacity magazine restrictions and there is a long thread here at Calguns but for those people who find themselves unable to click on a link:

Legal Considerations
  1. California restricts certain things about magazines greater than 10 rounds; it has created a silly legal name for them - "large-capacity magazines" - and says we 'regular people' cannot import, sell, buy (effective 2014), or manufacture them. ("Dealer" FFLs may get licenses from DOJ for these activities; curio and relic licensees cannot.) The restriction applies to both centerfire and rimfire weapons.

  2. There was language in 2013's AB 48 that would have banned large-capacity magazines; that language did not become law for 2014. But one other change did occur through that bill: the Penal Code was amended to prohibit 'buy'[ing]' a large-capacity magazine; that had been omitted before.
    2014: There are now some laws in place - Sunnyvale and San Francisco - banning possession of large-capacity magazines; these are being challenged, but while in court, they are still in effect.

    September 19, 2015, the City of Los Angeles ordinance banning possession took effect. The lawsuit challenging this was filed Oct 23, 2015: Bosenko v City of Los Angeles; see the litigation forum for events in the case. ** UPDATE ** Los Angeles has allowed its ban to expire, effective 1 July 2017.
    2017: Current Penal Code requires getting rid of all 'large capacity magazines' before July 1, 2017 - Penal Code 32310(c)
    A lawsuit, Duncan v Becerra, has resulted in an injunction against enforcement of the 'possession' language.
  3. Those who own "large-capacity magazines" are not required to keep records or receipts, and not required to explain how they got them.

  4. The age of the magazine and the age of the gun mean nothing. The critical item is possession of the magazine(s) in California before January 1, 2000.

  5. Yes, you can go out of state and buy magazines of any capacity - but you may not bring "large-capacity magazines" back to CA - that would be importing and that can be charged as a felony. 'Importing' ALSO applies to moving here or visiting here. Buying and disassembling and bringing the magazines back to California after JAN 1, 2014 (AB 48) appears to be illegally importing a 'kit' .

  6. YES, you may keep any 'parts kits' you own before Jan 1, 2014. It appears that acquiring a 'parts kit' by any means is illegal from 2014 forward.

    Separate parts: We do not know, nor can we guess, what is the definition of a 'large capacity magazine conversion kit'. We do not know if just a body, or just a spring, or just a baseplate, or just a follower might be enough. Until we get a court case with clarification - and I promise, such a case will get very prominent discussion! - there is no point in asking the FAQ.

  7. Yes, you can take one of those kits you possessed in California before Jan 1, 2014 and create a 10-round magazine from the parts and some method of blocking the capacity; (Example deleted - bit rot). The modification is supposed to be 'permanent', but there is no guidance on what that means in law, regulation, or court cases. Use your best judgement.

  8. You can have "large-capacity magazines"; no one may give them or sell them to you in California, and you may not give or sell them to anyone else in California; the law changed to be more specific in 2014: you may not buy or receive them. This includes sales from LEO and intrafamilial transfers - that can be charged as a felony. (See also the law change noted above, effective July 1, 2017)

  9. There is no such thing as a "pre-ban" or "post-ban" "large-capacity magazine", and it doesn't matter. Markings on magazines have no legal meaning.

  10. If you acquire large-capacity magazines legally, for example as a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), yes, you may keep those magazines and continue to use them when/if you are no longer a LEO.
If you think your legal question has not been answered, follow the links at the top of this post and read the articles, then re-read items (2) and (3) above several times. Other questions are addressed below.

* Note: it is not a part of the "large-capacity magazine" law, but part of the 'assault weapon' law that says a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is an 'assault weapon'. (This is not a magazine restriction, this is an assault weapon restriction, that happens to include magazine capacity.)

That means that
  • if your otherwise legal semiautomatic, centerfire rifle has a magazine lock, such as a 'bullet button',
  • and you use a "large-capacity magazine" in that weapon, (which, because of the magazine lock is effectively a fixed magazine rifle)
  • then you will have manufactured an 'assault weapon'.
  • That's a felony. Don't do that.

    NOTE: A Registered Assault Weapon (RAW) is already an 'assault weapon', and not included in this problem. If you have a RAW, use any magazine you legally own.

Sept 8, 2011 ETA
Political and Meta-legal items
  • No, there is no 'expiration date' or 'sunset' on the magazine law.
  • No, there is no possibility the law will be repealed with the Legislature we have in 2015.
  • No, there is no current lawsuit in place or planned on the topic - mostly because gun rights litigators in CA have higher priorities. There are lawsuits in progress regarding the Sunnyvale and San Francisco 'possession ban' but not yet any challenges to the State law on large-capacity magazines.

The 'nuisance' language in the renumbered Penal Code: this appears to be worrisome; please see this later post in this thread for a longer discussion.

Librarian 02-22-2011 4:42 PM


Originally Posted by SherwoodMS (Post 5867442)
An off-topic question: Is it legal to join two 10-round magazines (via bands/clips) in order to make quick changes easier?
I see these bands advertised, but don't know whether it's one of those things that 'everyone else' gets to play with -- just not Californians.

So long as the mags remain separate devices, legal.

Librarian 03-06-2011 8:56 PM


Originally Posted by locosway (Post 5952177)
Sorry, I didn't see it posted yet, but...

Can you take a .40 magazine (10 rounds) and use it in a 9mm gun with 9mm ammo and load it with 12 rounds?

To me this seems like you're creating a hi-cap magazine for the gun you're using it in.

Sure, you can do that.

I would guess that those who wrote the law, whom we know are not well-educated in firearms, did not anticipate that this situation would be physically possible.

You bought it as a 10-rounder. It still works as a 10-rounder. You're making no physical modifications to the factory condition in which you bought it. But I really hope you own a .40 pistol that such a mag fits in, and have it with you when you use such a mag.

rromeo 03-17-2011 7:33 PM


Originally Posted by rogervzv (Post 6025452)
Does the high-cap 10 round limit apply to rimfires, i.e. 22 rifles? 22 pistols? Or just centerfire calibers?

Yes, rimfires too. According to this: which is on the first line of the first post of this thread.

Librarian 06-05-2011 12:00 PM


Originally Posted by cali_sav81 (Post 6535795)
1st Off, I want to commend and thank you for your work in trying to help keep us unknowings informed! We really need people like you. :79:

Secondly… I know the constant repetition of answering questions can grow quite irritating, but in SOME casses hopefully u can understand the confusion. So my question is, from reading the very first thread and throughout the rest of it… if its legal to posses or own, but NOT CREATE or "MANUFACTURE" a high cap mag for a pistol OTHER than an AR-pistol… IN CALIFORNIA… But penal code 32310 is exempt for LEO and Peace Officer… Can a relative of mine who is a LEO or PO give, lend, or sell me a high cap mag for me to use at the range for my pistol???


If your relative and you go to a range together, he/she can lend you a large-capacity magazine for that range session.

LEO is not exempt from the prohibition on transferring away from him/herself, except to other LEO.

Librarian 06-15-2011 11:33 AM


Originally Posted by calgunster (Post 6596081)
what about ammo belts...can we have more than 10 rnds linked together?

If they were linked before 2000, you can expend and reload that belt as often as you like.

Otherwise, even those are subject to this silly law.

ETA and near certainly these linked rounds are also subject to the 'possession' ban of 2017.

Vanilla Gorilla 07-01-2011 9:21 AM

can I put +2 extensions on my legally owned/ obtained high cap glock mags or would this be considered construction of high cap mags?

Librarian 07-01-2011 10:55 AM

No, but you can add capacity to your existing legally owned large-capacity magazines.

Once over 10 rounds, there's no legal difference.

(I don't own any extensions, since I hear they have an annoying feature - they fall off sometimes.)


Aug 7, 2014 Addendum

Remembering that we do not know for certain, magazine 'extensions' are designed to add capacity to an existing magazine, so they are a really good candidate to qualify for a 'large capacity magazine conversion kit'.

If that were to be so - and I think the CYA position should be that it is - such extensions would be illegal to buy, sell or import in 2014.

Exile Machine 08-11-2011 5:36 AM


Originally Posted by Citadelonline (Post 6941516)
hi cap mags cannot be loaned.

Yes they can...


Originally Posted by CA PC 12020
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:

(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.

So lending is OK if the borrower is not prohibited from having guns and ammo, and the place is not off limits, and you stay close to the lender.

Citadelonline 08-11-2011 6:48 AM

Subparagraph (B) allows for an exception to the lend restriction in very specific and restricted terms, i.e the true owner must be physically present at all times during the duration of the loan. ("remains in the accessible vicinity")
Which for all practical circumstances would limit the actual use to a range or other property where a firearm may be legally discharged, and both lender and borrower are present.

I'm fairly certain the asker had a somewhat longer "loan" in mind, as in the traditional and broad sense of the term "borrow".

Davidwhitewolf 08-16-2011 4:41 PM

Nazrico, welcome and interesting! Looks like the question was answered in that thread you posted.

I have another question:

A buddy of mine, an international rimfire steel competitor, was wondering if, as a non-California resident, bringing his greater-than-ten-rounds rimfire magazines to a rimfire match in California and then leaving would not constitute "importing," on the following grounds:


In Europe, bringing weapons into a country for a sporting event (read: match) is not considered importing at all, and no import paperwork is required. You ARE required to take your weapons back out of the country, though, within a few days of the end of the match.

So, the question is, is bringing a hi cap magazine into California for a match, then leaving the state right after the match "Importing" or not?

If I drive my car to California, visit Disneyland, and them drive home, have I "Imported" my car into California? I would submit, and common sense would suggest, that a temporary visit is exactly that, and not a case of importation at all.

If I remember correctly, the Cal. DMV does have a definition, of sorts, of "Importation" for motor vehicles, such that if you bring your car into California for over a certain amount of time, you need to change the license and license it in California. If the vehicle is in the state for less than that amount of time,, you do not have to re-license it, as you are only visiting..

It seems to me that the argument that bringing an item into California, and then taking that item back out of the state a few days later constituting "Importation" is very weak.

Your thoughts?
I told him I didn't think that would fly (especially given this post by Librarian in this thread) but I thought his argument intriguing enough to toss it out here for consideration.

What do you say, winning argument or pipe dream?

Librarian 08-16-2011 5:06 PM

There is simply no exception in the law for competitors.

That would expose the weakness of the law as a practical measure; can't have that.

Librarian 10-28-2011 9:53 AM


Originally Posted by Saym14 (Post 7400607)
so if it is not explicitly spelled out in law it should be legal. ?

That's the way it's supposed to work, but see below ...


Originally Posted by dw149a (Post 7401818)
Librarian, Thanks for your insight. this is definitely a very grey area as the law is silent concerning the details. My thought is that if it is not expressly forbidden, then it is permissible. I'm just trying to use interpretation & manipulating powers for good!

The good advice you will see here is intentionally biased towards keeping people out of jail.

The risk you take must be balanced with the reward you expect; once informed, each person needs to decide whether to accept the risk.

Here are the risks:
a very, very small chance of detection and apprehension, but if convicted
at least a year in prison (if felony 3 years) [and each questioned magazine could be charged as a separate offense!]
legal expenses
loss of second amendment rights
loss of job
loss of reputation
and other effects of imprisonment on the interpersonal relationships with friends and family (variable).

That's no light catalog.

Before assuming that risk, I would certainly consult my own attorney and pay for good advice.

Librarian 02-09-2012 8:33 PM

Just a procedural note:

This thread hopes to answer the big FAQs about magazines (and I confess myself bemused at the questions that get posted in it!).

Questions and answers are 'in scope' but long conversations deserve their own threads.

Librarian 02-22-2012 4:36 PM


Originally Posted by Displacement (Post 8089027)
I'm in the military and I'm moving to California in a few weeks. I have many hi capacity magazines for the M4 and M9 that were issued to me by the Army and I use them only for work. I don't own either of those weapon systems. What would I have to do to not get in trouble for this.

Your Uncle issued them to you, and expects you to have them.

I'd buy a ticket to the court hearing where a Federal judge explained that to any CA LE agency, but that's an explicit exemption to the goofy law.

Just don't use them in privately owned weapons that have 'features' - see footnote in first post.

Citadelonline 06-17-2012 3:11 AM


Originally Posted by spencerk (Post 8768041)
I purchased a firearm with 2 11 round magazines and i wish to know if they are legal for me to own. This thread has only further confused me. The details are as follows: the magazines are the ones that came with the firearm prior to 2000 and are the original factory mags. The gun was sold to me on consignment at a local gunstore and the owner or this store tells me it is legal for me to purchase the firearm and posess/use the mags that came with it because they were the original mags that came with the firearm and came with rhe firearm prior to the ban. He also told me this is the only legal way to get a hicap mag in ca nowadays and is becoming a very rare occurrence. I am inclined to believe him but worried because of how confusing the laws are written. Im in gunsmithing school and can make a block if necessary but would like to own the hicap mags if legally possible. Was i correctly informed? Or should i go to the shop and grab some aluminum to start milling out...

Any insight would be appreciated.

Your dealer is wrong.
Hi cap magazines are not illegal for you to own, but what matters is how and when you took possession. If they were sold to you after January 1, 2000, (unless you fall under the very few exemptions, eg. law enforcement personnel) the seller is in violation of the law. The law makes no exceptions for original factory or after market magazines even if they were sold with the firearm prior to the 2000 ban.

Your FFL should have held the magazines or modified them to accept only 10 rounds before you took possession.
You are going to be told to keep the mags as is and that it is not a violation to "buy" a Hi cap magazine since that term does not appear in the statute, but the spirit of the law infers otherwise.

Where you go from here is up to you, but to comply with the spirit of the law, your options are to either return the 11 rd mags to the seller and have them modify them so he/she can at least try to return to compliance with the letter of the law or 2: modify/block them yourself or 3: disassemble them.

As it stands, the gun shop you dealt with is in violation of state law. And while you can't "take back" a violation, if it were a shop I did business with I would make them aware of the hi cap mag ban statute and allow them to at least try to correct the mistake. Once they are informed on hi cap mag laws, they need to decide which option is the better alternative.

While it shouldn't be your burden to inform businesses of state law, if they're a good gun shop they should appreciate your help and concerns.
Mistakes/misinterpretations happen.

Librarian 07-29-2012 11:30 PM


Originally Posted by sully007 (Post 9027921)
Question: if you take a large-capacity mag apart to clean and then put it back together have you just become a felon by assembling a large-cap mag in the fine state of California?


banacek 08-22-2012 10:08 AM


Originally Posted by jgraham7897 (Post 6545346)
I have read the original post multiple times and am pretty sure I am safe but just want to make sure. When I bought my Glock 22 I worked as Federal Correctional Officer and got the Law Enforcement package. I also purchased a couple extra 15 round magazines. I am no longer working in this field. Am I safe to continue using my 15 round magazines?

After reading several of these threads and posts on this topic, it appears that active LEO's can purchase and keep for their own use (even after they're no longer a LEO):

1 -- An unlimited number of off-list handguns (such as Gen 4 Glocks), correct?
2 -- An unlimited number of hi-cap magazines, even if purchased after 2000, correct?
3 -- And are also exempt from the importation rule, so that they can legally bring new hi-cap magazines into CA from other states for their own use, correct?

As an active LEO who expects to be in a new non-LEO position relatively soon, I guess it would be a smart thing to buy all the hi-cap magazines I can afford now while I still can! Even if I don't yet own the gun for them to be used in! ;) (Unfortunately, me and my peers have received three surplus letters in the last two years. Being told by your employer that you are a "surplus employee" doesn't leave you feeling all warm and fuzzy!) :(

But here's my real concern... I'm not concerned about being stopped and questioned about my guns or magazines at the range or anywhere else. My concern is this... some years down the road, as private citizens of CA, what if either my wife or I had to use one of our guns in a SD or HD situation and the gun was fully loaded with a hi-cap magazine (ie a 15-17 round Glock)? Especially my wife?

Librarian 08-27-2012 11:21 AM


Originally Posted by Complex210 (Post 9211553)
There was a recent "rewording" in the CA penal code that changed section 32390, which now reads:

Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section
32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any large-capacity magazine is a
nuisance and is subject to Section 18010

Does this mean confiscation, or charges as well?

Posted this earlier - - but reposted here:

* reminder, non-lawyer here *

PC 18010

18010. (a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale,
giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a
nuisance under any of the following provisions:
(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.
That also appears to mean that J. Random Officer is not the agent of seizure - there would need to be an arrest and the case referred to attorney-level to 'bring an action to enjoin ... possession ...'.

I don't think the 'nuisance' language is going to be a problem, but probably it will take a court case to sort it out.

I suggest including large-capacity magazines in the nuisance/confiscation language is a drafting error in the law.

Everything else that is a 'nuisance' is a felony to possess - it's old PC 12029

Except as provided in Section 12020, blackjacks, slungshots, billies, nunchakus, sandclubs, sandbags, shurikens, metal knuckles, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles as defined in Section 12020, and any other item which is listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12020 and is not listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12028 are nuisances, and the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of, importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, or possession of, any of the foregoing items. These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary destruction whenever found within the state. These weapons shall be destroyed in the same manner as other weapons described in Section 12028, except that upon the certification of a judge or of the district attorney that the ends of justice will be subserved thereby, the weapon shall be preserved until the necessity for its use ceases.
12020 (a) used to have just (1), describing those nuisance items. The magazine ban law was added at 12020(a)(2).

That " any other item which is listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12020 " should have read
" any other item which is listed in subdivision (a)(1) of Section 12020 ",
but 12029 was forgotten in SB23. (Or deliberately omitted and we missed getting that fixed, if we could have had such a technical change inserted).

Librarian 11-14-2012 7:19 PM


Originally Posted by Scuba Steve33 (Post 9724580)
Another example being military (if stationed in CA) if I understand this correctly?

If your Uncle issues those magazines to you, yes. If you then separate in CA and Uncle allows you to keep them, that's fine.

If you bought them yourself, for non-duty weapons, at some other duty station, and then came to CA, no. Similarly, if you separated outside of CA, cannot bring in the large-capacity mags you may have been issued.

Buying, for example, your own MagPul mags for your issued M4 hasn't been tested. I suspect, if kept with your duty gear and used only with your issued weapon, there would be no complaint.

OldLincoln 12-01-2012 7:34 PM

Instructions for Rivit & Epoxy Glock Mag
I'm glad to say that's right here on Calguns in the Gunsmithing Forum.

So, for those who need to create a 10-rounder from a large-capacity parts kit, here's a thread on how to do it.

Thanks for un-burying that!

// Librarian

CGN Staff 01-09-2013 9:46 PM


Originally Posted by sb5265 (Post 10164576)
I am a CA resident, CCW holder and purchased a new Glock 19 and 8 15-round magazines in 1997 from a local (OC) gun shop. I recently purchased another Glock 19. I have retained all the original paperwork and sale receipt for my 1997 gun and magazine purchase. My understanding is that I may legally use the 15 round mags in either gun. Is that correct?


Dtt255 01-31-2013 7:51 PM


Originally Posted by Librarian (Post 10385760)

You may not legally import those large-capacity magazines as complete mags. You may not re-assemble them inside CA.

USE is not the issue in this case - importation seems to be.

Thanks for clearing up the hypothetical situation I was asking about.

Librarian 06-18-2013 3:18 PM

Federal law does not currently address magazines. Therefore, TSA has no business concerning itself with magazines transported by travelers.

This thread is about California law only.

That said, TSA is not known for knowing its own regulations, or its limitations.

Librarian 11-19-2013 1:29 PM


Originally Posted by heyjerr (Post 12773009)
I have three questions.

1. Based on current item #7 of the original post to this thread:
-- "Yes, UNTIL JAN 1, 2014 (AB 48) you can take one of those kits and create a 10-round magazine from the parts and some method of blocking the capacity; one example here. The modification is supposed to be 'permanent', but there is no guidance on what that means in law, regulation, or court cases. Use your best judgement."

Are you saying that if you own kits right now but wait until after 1/1/14 you can no longer assemble them into 10/30s? I'm assuming that is an incorrect conclusion and that the statement is in need of a minor reword.

2. In my own thread I've asked if it's legal to take a 30rd PMAG kit and make it into a 10 round mag for my 7.62x39 upper. I have a feeling it is unwise as the body has a 5.56x45 marking on it and, if limited to hold ten 7.62x39 rounds, would end up holding more than ten 5.56 rounds in it.

3. I bought three 10rd mags specifically for my 7.62x39 upper. They look nearly identical to my 5.56 mags. I plan on marking these so I never mix them up but is there something else I should do to avoid trouble? (mark the mags with "7.62", never bring 5.56 rounds to the range at the same time)? This last bit seems like overkill but lets face it, this is CA.


Originally Posted by Jel (Post 12799696)
A bit similar to heyjerr's question, I'm also a bit confused as to what is legal AFTER JAN 1, 2014. If we have rebuilds will we be required to dispose, destroy, turn in, or relocate them to another state?

I believe the answers to these questions are not yet known.

Acquiring new parts kits after Jan 1 2014 is now clouded, since we cannot distinguish 'rebuild' from 'conversion' kits (at least, I don't know how to make that distinction in a way I am sure is legal.)

Bad law makes bad interpretation. Here, if I err I prefer to err on the side of 'too restrictive', since that result does not lead to a risk of arrest. Others may take the same information and reach different conclusions in their own circumstances.

Librarian 11-20-2013 8:52 PM


Originally Posted by nukechaser (Post 12809592)
Is modifying a factory 10 round to hold 10+ rounds considered manufacturing?


I'm not aware of prosecutions on the point.

Librarian 11-20-2013 9:08 PM


Originally Posted by Darryl Licht (Post 12810084)
In your opinion how should those of us who do shoot in other states handle this scenario? Do I need to disassemble each mag prior to returning to Calif to avoid being accused of illegal importation? Then re=assemble them once home and put into the safe for the next outta state shoot?

I value your opinion on this one...

The new law has made it unclear; before 2014, parts kits are just 'parts', and keeping them disassembled here, taking them out of state to re-assemble, use, and disassemble before return was not very controversial.

In 2014, importing kits becomes illegal. The law does not address possession of previously acquired kits - or re-importing them.

I haven't heard that any agency plans to set up 'magazine checkpoints'; failing that, detection seems low probability. But the punishment, if convicted, could be as much as three years in county jail (PC 1170(h)).

Personally, I would no longer do those out of state and back trips; easy for me to say - I don't do them now.

Librarian 12-02-2013 12:58 PM


Originally Posted by Darryl Licht (Post 12891039)

When do you anticipate clarification on rebuild vs. conversion kit wording?

No clue.

Since reasonably informed opinion suggests DOJ need not promulgate any regulations on this, I don't foresee more information until we get a court case.

Not helpful.

Librarian 01-04-2014 8:44 PM


Originally Posted by ifilef (Post 13127063)
Is that statement without qualification?

I believe it is a qualified as it needs to be.


Originally Posted by ifilef (Post 13127063)
What about legal semi-automatic rifles that do not have a bullet-button? Must they be feature-less to comport with the law yet still house detachable legally acquired LCM's?

Since the bit you quote is about a semi-auto, centerfire rife that DOES have a magazine lock, the question seems inapposite; the thread is about magazines, not featureless OLLs (which, indeed, CAN use legally-owned LCMs so long as the featureless rifle does not also have a magazine lock).


Originally Posted by ifilef (Post 13127063)
If both apply, I don't get the reasoning. In the former, the State has at least a bullet button to purportedly lengthen the time between switching mags and a limit to 10 round magazines. In the latter, no bullet button so can switch mags theoretically quicker and also use lawfully acquired LCM's in the process. Is it less lethal to kill some innocents with a feature-less rifle? Apparently so...assuming the perpetrator is complying with the law with respect to ownership and/or possession. This is why I never got or understood why having 'evil features' was somehow worse than having an arguably more destructively lethal firearm without them. Ggggeeeesssssh...dumb (politics).

The nightmare continues, of course. The legislators never envisioned OLLs or featureless rifles. A particularly tricky people, those gun owners!

Librarian 01-16-2014 10:59 AM


Originally Posted by Barang (Post 13216424)
So after January 01, 2014 even lgs that does SSE can't not block/convert a "high cap" magazine into 10 round (for handguns)?

It would appear that the LGS must have the large-capacity magazine permit, which allows them to import LCMs and subsequently work on them, if that is a business they choose to be in.

heyjerr 01-31-2014 8:30 AM


Originally Posted by AwfAxis (Post 13330314)
I was born and raised in California, but after 51 years, escaped to Nevada. I've since started competing in USPSA, IDPA, AP and Steel matches.

I am going to take a RO class in Ridgecrest next month, and in the future, may attend some NorCal competitions.

However, I use a Limited rig which includes all 20 rnd mags. As a non-resident coming in to CA for a day or two, am I in violation bringing in my equipment? Is this "Importing"?



Yes it is. I'm pretty sure the NorCal competitions are used to working with only 10 round mags by now. You might want to check and see if they don't actually prevent you from using your regular mags because it gives you an edge. Hopefully they have FAQs that address this issue very clearly.

mosinitis 02-01-2014 10:07 AM

Does this mean that up until 2012, CAL. PEN. CODE § 12020 was still in force, meaning that it was legal up through 2012 to buy, sell or transfer a firearm with a high capacity magazine as long as the firearm qualified as a curio/relic? Again, I really appreciate the help.

EDIT: I checked out PC 16590 which states, As used in this part, “generally prohibited weapon” means any of the following: Subdivision (l) of PC 16590states, A large-capacity magazine, as prohibited by Section 32310.. In turn, as you pointed out, PC 17705 is the replacement for PC 12020 (b) 7, and it states the following.

(a) The provisions listed in Section 16590 do not apply to any firearm or ammunition that is a curio or relic as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations and that is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the items under Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

This seems to state that the designation of a firearm as a "generally prohibited weapon" as described in all of the subdivisions of section 16590 (PC 16590) do not apply if the firearm is a curio/relic. This would then mean that subdivision (I) of PC 16590 (large-capacity magazine) would not apply to curio/relic firearms. So, even though PC 16590 has replaced 12020(b)(7), it is stating exactly the same thing as 12020(b)(7).

Librarian 02-01-2014 10:13 PM


Originally Posted by mosinitis (Post 13339391)
This seems to state that the designation of a firearm as a "generally prohibited weapon" as described in all of the subdivisions of section 16590 (PC 16590) do not apply if the firearm is a curio/relic. This would then mean that subdivision (I) of PC 16590 (large-capacity magazine) would not apply to curio/relic firearms. So, even though PC 16590 has replaced 12020(b)(7), it is stating exactly the same thing as 12020(b)(7).

I think that's close, but not exact.

A 17705 curio and relic is exempt from the 'generally prohibited weapon' category - but other than that designation in 16590, I don't see where 'generally prohibited weapon' gets used in PC.

That both large capacity magazines and C&R guns are listed there does not connect the two via 'magazine'.

Librarian 03-24-2014 10:30 PM


Originally Posted by MikeR (Post 13721386)
Curious about this too, or even selling all the parts except one? ie Selling everything except the spring.

Answered before your post.

Originally Posted by inbox485 (Post 13698201)
I'm not seeing anything indicating that a structured transfer would be different than a single transfer.

Until someone is prosecuted, we won't really know.

Please read the sticky here -

Librarian 03-27-2014 6:43 PM


Originally Posted by franklyfresh (Post 13743980)
Confirming that it is okay to buy a 17 round magazine limited to 10 round capacity from out of state, so long as the limit is permanent?

If the conversion is either
- executed before it crosses into CA OR
- accomplished by an FFL with the correct permit (LC Mag) before delivery to the consumer
then, yes.

Librarian 04-11-2014 2:36 PM

No, your eyes are not deceiving you - a couple hundred posts are gone.

Those were principally discussing the formerly legal behaviors with parts kits; since 2014, possession and continued use to repair existing LCMs (or other magazines), or to convert to 10-round mags, is about all that remains.

inbox485 04-11-2014 2:52 PM


Originally Posted by Librarian (Post 13854753)
No, your eyes are not deceiving you - a couple hundred posts are gone.

Those were principally discussing the formerly legal behaviors with parts kits; since 2014, possession and continued use to repair existing LCMs (or other magazines), or to convert to 10-round mags, is about all that remains.

Might be worth a brief snip about importing individual parts or the ambiguity of leaving and coming back with kits following out of state use. I know it is unsettled question marks, but having people know they are in muddy water might be a good idea.

4x4Trooper 04-26-2014 10:46 AM


Originally Posted by LovingTheYear1911 (Post 13962095)
Let's say I am going to do a PPT on a XDm that comes with a 13 round magazine. The previous owner gives it to me but disassembled. I take the 13 round magazine and epoxy it to only hold 10 rounds. The gun/magazine were purchased by the previous owner in 2013 but I did the PPT in 2014.

Questions are:

1) By me blocking the mag to hold 10 rounds, can I keep it legally?

2) It doesn't matter that I blocked the mag, in 2014 all 'large capacity' mags are banned, even if you blocked them to hold 10 rounds.

Thanks guys. I tried reading up on the laws but got lost.

It's illegal for him to transfer the disassembled mag to you, and illegal for you to receive it. Block it BEFORE you receive it, and you are legal. It's not a large capacity mag once it's permanently blocked, so it's legal.

LovingTheYear1911 04-26-2014 10:49 AM


Originally Posted by 4x4Trooper (Post 13962122)
It's illegal for him to transfer the disassembled mag to you, and illegal for you to receive it. Block it BEFORE you receive it, and you are legal. It's not a large capacity mag once it's permanently blocked, so it's legal.

So as long as he blocks it before I receive it, I am good?

As far as the law goes, how can I prove that I received it blocked?


4x4Trooper 04-26-2014 10:53 AM


Originally Posted by LovingTheYear1911 (Post 13962140)
So as long as he blocks it before I receive it, I am good?

As far as the law goes, how can I prove that I received it blocked?


As long as it's permanently blocked, you are good. You don't need to prove anything, though. If it makes you feel better have him write you a receipt. Burden of proof is on the state to prove you received it unblocked.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.