View Single Post
Old 06-28-2014, 2:42 AM
NulodPBall NulodPBall is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 197
iTrader: 1 / 100%


Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Lol, this is the embodiment of the wonderful world of attempted "legal advice" on message boards. I think we have the whole spectrum of possible answers covered here.

See Penal Code 32420 for your answer:

Clearly, if you are the owner of a legal large-capacity magazine and travel out of state with it, you can bring it back. This is different from magazine rebuild kits (AB 48, new for 2014), which contains no such provision. The only caveat here is that OP didn't just travel, but changed his residence to a different state entirely. Nonetheless, the plain language of the statute doesn't impose a time limit on how long the magazine can stay out of state, nor does it say anything about changing residency.

My answer is this - although the state has the burden to prove that you violated Penal Code 32310 (i.e., imported after the ban), it would be worth your while to have sufficient proof that you acquired the magazines in California prior to 1/1/2000. If you would be unable to prove this, then I would think seriously regarding whether they are worth bringing back.

Two other things to consider:

- You will not be able to use these large capacity magazines in a firearm with a bullet button, as this would create an illegal assault weapon (i.e., a fixed magazine capable of accepting more than 10 rounds). You can only use such magazine in a featureless firearm or in a Registered Assault Weapon ("RAW").

- Law enforcement officers are enabled to confiscate large capacity magazines that they come across as a nuisance. This is separate and apart from the Penal Code 32310 prohibition. While confiscation as a nuisance doesn't by itself constitute a basis for being arrested or charged with any crime, you will never see the magazine again and it will be destroyed.

As always, see my disclaimer below. I am not your attorney and you may have circumstances that I don't know about that could change how I view the situation.

From The Codex Kalachnikova: "He who would have you surrender your arms does so because he wishes to do something you could prevent by their usage."

Why is the idea of an unarmed elementary school principal lunging at an armed shooter and dying in the process heroic... but the idea of that same principal armed and stopping the armed shooter with her own gun... crazy? –from screen name “Voiceofreason”
Reply With Quote