Magazines: all the answers you need UPDATED April 2019
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 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
Sept 8, 2011 ETA Political and Meta-legal items
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. ETA - The Penal Code was renumbered effective Jan 1 2012 - for magazines see http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...r=5.&article=1., PC 32310 and following. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
can I put +2 extensions on my legally owned/ obtained high cap glock mags or would this be considered construction of high cap mags?
|
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. |
Quote:
ETA: new code number is 32415, effective 12 Jan 2012 Quote:
|
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". |
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: Quote:
What do you say, winning argument or pipe dream? |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
* reminder, non-lawyer here * PC 18010 Quote:
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 Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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. |
Instructions for Rivit & Epoxy Glock Mag
FOUND A TUTORIAL TO RIVET MAGS
I'm glad to say that's right here on Calguns in the Gunsmithing Forum. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
I'm not aware of prosecutions on the point. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. 17705 (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). |
Quote:
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'. |
Quote:
Quote:
Please read the sticky here - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=904677 |
Quote:
- executed before it crosses into CA OR - accomplished by an FFL with the correct permit (LC Mag) before delivery to the consumer then, yes. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.magazineblocks.com/magent...d-and-xdm.html |
Quote:
As far as the law goes, how can I prove that I received it blocked? Thanks |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.