Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   CBS: Police can confiscate high cap mags/clips as public nuisance (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=717981)

Hot Holster 03-05-2013 5:32 PM

CBS: Police can confiscate high cap mags/clips as public nuisance
 
Sorry if this has been posted already. I did a search and nothing came up.

A proposed municipal ordinance is in the works;
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/...blic-nuisance/

njineermike 03-05-2013 5:41 PM

This has lawsuit written all over it.

Ninety 03-05-2013 5:47 PM

Mag Ban L.A. - City meeting 2/22
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=709700

audio
http://www.lacity.org/government/Ele...aCategory=1814
needs windows

but this would be a follow up or just the time it takes the media to report on things..

stitchnicklas 03-05-2013 5:52 PM

clear 4th amendment violation

wildhawker 03-05-2013 5:52 PM

Calguns Foundation told the City we'd be happy to sue them over this, if passed. Also, magazines which are lawfully possessed are not a public nuisance.

Bsandoc40 03-05-2013 6:00 PM

Unrealistic. Unlawful. Unintelligent.

But I do have some questions....

If, for some miracle, this ordnance does take effect, how does LEOs .. "the rank & file" guys feel about putting their lives even more in danger with confiscation?

How many citizens would react violently to "gestapo"-like tactics this type of ordnance MIGHT bring?

This one is easy... Are Anti-gunners and liberals running out of idiotic ideas?

0nTarg3t 03-05-2013 9:57 PM

if mags are a public nuisance then wtf are the police using them

Shotgun Man 03-05-2013 10:28 PM

Lordy cakes! The government is truly out of control. With all their problems, they want to confiscate magazines, and Carmen Trutanich, a politician we were told to support, spearheads the movement? I thought when you became a lawyer you took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States?

winnre 03-05-2013 10:32 PM

I was advised at CCW class to NOT carry mags over ten rounds, even if you have legal ones that are larger. Why? Because of this.

YES it is illegal. But....
YES you will get arrested;
YES you can lose your CCW;
YES you may get cleared in court, but
YES it will cost you time, money, and heartache to do it.

Shotgun Man 03-05-2013 10:43 PM

It is time to deflate completely. Our governing powers no longer have any credibility.

whlgun 03-05-2013 11:06 PM

Good thing I don't own any.

JDay 03-05-2013 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker (Post 10725083)
Calguns Foundation told the City we'd be happy to sue them over this, if passed. Also, magazines which are lawfully possessed are not a public nuisance.

Are you guys suing the state over the 10+ round magazine summary destruction as a nuisance law? Seems like this would be the better route to go instead of suing individual cities.

http://law.justia.com/codes/californ...0-32390/32390/

Quote:

2011 California Code
Penal Code
PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34370]
ARTICLE 1. Rules Governing Large-Capacity Magazines
Section 32390

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.
(Added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. Effective January 1, 2011. Operative January 1, 2012, by Sec. 10 of Ch. 711.)

wildhawker 03-05-2013 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnre (Post 10728026)
I was advised at CCW class to NOT carry mags over ten rounds, even if you have legal ones that are larger. Why? Because of this.

YES it is illegal. But....
YES you will get arrested;
YES you can lose your CCW;
YES you may get cleared in court, but
YES it will cost you time, money, and heartache to do it.

What complete and utter garbage information. Tell whoever told you that to call Jason Davis and that CGF will pick up the tab for their education just so they stop spreading nonsense at their classes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDay (Post 10728302)
Are you guys suing the state over the 10+ round magazine summary destruction as a nuisance law? Seems like this would be the better route to go instead of suing individual cities.

http://law.justia.com/codes/californ...0-32390/32390/

You're misreading the PC like City of Los Angeles is:

Quote:

32390. 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.
However:

Quote:

16005. Nothing in the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 is
intended to substantively change the law relating to deadly weapons.
The act is intended to be entirely nonsubstantive in effect.
Every
provision of this part, of Title 2 (commencing with Section 12001) of
Part 4, and every other provision of this act, including, without
limitation, every cross-reference in every provision of the act,
shall be interpreted consistent with the nonsubstantive intent of the
act.
I won't discuss strategy here beyond reiterating what we told Los Angeles at its public hearing:
The people have a fundamental right to keep and bear firearms for self-defense, including those in common use which use magazines having a capacity of greater than 10 rounds.

Any outright ban on the possession of magazines is a violation of the Second Amendment.

If Los Angeles passes any outright ban on the possession of magazines within its jurisdiction, The Calguns Foundation and Cal-FFL will, along with taxpaying residents of LA, sue the City for civil rights violations in federal court and take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

We will absolutely not accept LA scapegoating tens of thousands of law abiding gun owners and retailers in Los Angeles, and countless travelers and visitors, for the evil and insane acts of a few criminals.
-Brandon

JDay 03-05-2013 11:25 PM

Well I know people have had their lawfully owned 30 round magazines confiscated by law enforcement and destroyed due to that state law. There's more than one thread about it happening on here.

Shenaniguns 03-06-2013 8:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnre (Post 10728026)
I was advised at CCW class to NOT carry mags over ten rounds, even if you have legal ones that are larger. Why? Because of this.

YES it is legal. But....
YES you will get arrested;
YES you can lose your CCW;
YES you may get cleared in court, but
YES it will cost you time, money, and heartache to do it.


Fixed that for you.

winnre 03-06-2013 9:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shenaniguns (Post 10729822)
Fixed that for you.

Yes thank you, sorry about that! I wonder if stupid state laws get passed this same way.

morfeeis 03-06-2013 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bsandoc40 (Post 10725157)
Unrealistic. Unlawful. Unintelligent.

But I do have some questions....

If, for some miracle, this ordnance does take effect, how does LEOs .. "the rank & file" guys feel about putting their lives even more in danger with confiscation?

How many citizens would react violently to "gestapo"-like tactics this type of ordnance MIGHT bring?


I just cant see an idea like this ending well....

Dreaded Claymore 03-06-2013 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morfeeis (Post 10731051)
I just cant see an idea like this ending well....

That's the point, it would end badly. That's why we don't ever want it to happen. (at least that's how I interpreted this post)

morfeeis 03-06-2013 3:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreaded Claymore (Post 10733010)
That's the point, it would end badly. That's why we don't ever want it to happen. (at least that's how I interpreted this post)

well that was my 3rd rewrite, all other statements i wanted to post might have landed me behind bars.

RRangel 03-06-2013 5:34 PM

If this attempt at infringement comes to pass we're going to see a lot of people contributing to make a legal example of Los Angeles. :)

mrdd 03-06-2013 7:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnre (Post 10728026)
I was advised at CCW class to NOT carry mags over ten rounds, even if you have legal ones that are larger. Why? Because of this.

YES it is illegal. But....
YES you will get arrested;
YES you can lose your CCW;
YES you may get cleared in court, but
YES it will cost you time, money, and heartache to do it.

This has been discussed before. A nuisance is a civil action. You can't get arrested for it.

volksweegle 03-07-2013 12:40 PM

It is completely unlawful/unconstitutional for a county, city, or other small municipality to pass any laws or ordinances that are stricter then state law. It is in violation of the commerce clause. Once passed it will have an injunction put on it (at least should) because it violates the 4th Amendment rights of citizens that dont live in city limits but have to travel through to get to their destination.

dirty_530 03-08-2013 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildhawker (Post 10725083)
Calguns Foundation told the City we'd be happy to sue them over this, if passed. Also, magazines which are lawfully possessed are not a public nuisance.

Thank you, your work is greatly appreciated!

tcrpe 03-08-2013 9:41 AM

Trutanich is an embarrassment for Los Angeles and those here that promoted him. Who knew?

D'oh!

Maestro Pistolero 03-08-2013 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcrpe (Post 10750799)
Trutanich is an embarrassment for Los Angeles and those here that promoted him. Who knew?

D'oh!

I recall that some had more trepidation over that support than others. Nuff said.

mag360 03-09-2013 5:29 AM

won't the city have to PROVE that the magazine was not legally owned prior to 2000? I mean short of watching you drive home from Reno with them, having mags for a gun that didn't exist prior to 2000 or admitting to manufacture they've got a tough row to hoe.

desertexplore 03-09-2013 5:34 AM

Tagged

jimx 03-09-2013 9:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDay (Post 10728435)
Well I know people have had their lawfully owned 30 round magazines confiscated by law enforcement and destroyed due to that state law. There's more than one thread about it happening on here.

Wow. More info and links please.

Donk310 03-09-2013 8:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volksweegle (Post 10741841)
It is completely unlawful/unconstitutional for a county, city, or other small municipality to pass any laws or ordinances that are stricter then state law. It is in violation of the commerce clause. Once passed it will have an injunction put on it (at least should) because it violates the 4th Amendment rights of citizens that dont live in city limits but have to travel through to get to their destination.

I think it's just unlawful for state, county and city laws to be more lenient, not stricter. But I could be wrong.

RRangel 03-10-2013 7:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donk310 (Post 10765366)
I think it's just unlawful for state, county and city laws to be more lenient, not stricter. But I could be wrong.

Yes, you're wrong. Cities have to be mindful of state preemption and the Constitution.

javalos 03-10-2013 2:56 PM

Sue them, be happy to contribute to Calguns more money for them to do this. L.A. is awash in gang violence and their solution is to go after law abiding citizens, these people must be mentally ill.

Wherryj 03-10-2013 10:10 PM

I personally find the Prius to be a public nuisance. Am I free to destroy them even if they are legally owned?

I thought that it was widely regarded that freedom comes with the need to tolerate many things which might be inconvenient.

Window_Seat 03-10-2013 11:47 PM

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...9mud0Ohom7IwL4 http://www.blogcdn.com/noticias.aoll...430vm02181.jpg https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...6EuPgInfY4ysEI http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001..._2_xlarge.jpeg

Partners working very well together. ;)

Erik.

hoffmang 03-11-2013 7:54 PM

Trutanich. Whose partner was he?

I digress.

Confiscation of common arms was the original sin that lead to the passage of both the Second and Fourteenth Amendment.

-Gene

PS. I realize Trutanich's ex-partner is equally frustrated with him but, common.. really?

Corbin Dallas 03-11-2013 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotgun Man (Post 10728000)
Lordy cakes! The government is truly out of control. With all their problems, they want to confiscate magazines, and Carmen Trutanich, a politician we were told to support, spearheads the movement? I thought when you became a lawyer you took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States?

GO back to your instructor and have them show you case law that supports this ridiculous suggestion.

Window_Seat 03-12-2013 1:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang (Post 10781789)
Trutanich. Whose partner was he?

I digress.

Confiscation of common arms was the original sin that lead to the passage of both the Second and Fourteenth Amendment.

-Gene

PS. I realize Trutanich's ex-partner is equally frustrated with him but, common.. really?

OK, maybe I got a bit carried away, but I... nevermind... :D

Erik.

Calpat 03-12-2013 2:06 AM

Having pre-ban Mags would make this an Xpostfacto law would it not? I read the Constitution and it is the law of the land.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

winnre 03-12-2013 8:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calpat (Post 10784836)
Having pre-ban Mags would make this an Xpostfacto law would it not? I read the Constitution and it is the law of the land.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

What about the pre-ban BMF Activators?

p7m8jg 03-12-2013 8:28 AM

This law will go nowhere. Thought up by those ignorant of the Constitution and precedent - covers most of those in Sacratomato.

Venomns 03-12-2013 2:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p7m8jg (Post 10785752)
This law will go nowhere. Thought up by those ignorant of the Constitution and precedent - covers most of those in Sacratomato.

Maybe... But we need to start acting. When people in government start trying to pass ridiculous laws like this based on mis-information, we need to ACT. VOTE THEM OUT. Help spread the information about these people when the time comes for re-election... They are suppose to be working FOR US... not against.
Term limits should be a must as well... ok.. off my soapbox. :D


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.