View Single Post
Old 08-12-2011, 6:51 PM
Nazrico Nazrico is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default High-Cap Mag Possession = Illegal? (People v. Sun (2007)148 Cal.App.4th 374)

I'm new here and I posted a thread on this, but I thought I could include it here too and let someone figure out where it best belongs:

I wrote:

"Appellate court incorporates "possession" of a high capacity magazine into 12020(a)(2) ....when said statute does not use that word... The statute says: " (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."

So, I noticed that the only published case in California regarding an interpretation of 12020 (a)(2) is generally: People v. Sun (2007)148 Cal.App.4th 374 , 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 696 Available at:

First: "The District Attorney of Orange County appeals from two different orders of the Orange County Superior Court in the above-titled case. In one of these two consolidated cases, the appeal is from an order which dismissed nine counts in the indictment charging violations of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(2), possession of large-capacity magazines." Not a footnote, seemingly a binding published appellate definition in the main text....slightly dicta, but disturbing.

Direct your attention to Footnote 4: "FN 4. Section 12020, subdivision (a)(2) prohibits the possession, importation or offer to sell "any large-capacity magazine." (Emphasis added.)" The court has added "possession" in a published case, thus making this somewhat binding law. Although it's a footnote, which is often dicta, it can also be binding.... (Since the holding wasn't on this topic and it was dismissed for other reasons, this is also disturbing.)

Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this. (I am an attorney, I performed a Lexis search on this topic to see all published cases, and this is what I noticed, but this isn't my area of law).

Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I am not YOUR lawyer, and my observations should not be construed as a legal opinion for you to rely on in any way shape or form. "