Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-19-2013, 11:50 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 669
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Ccw with "pre ban" mags

I am curious about this topic. Figuratively if I was in possession of glock 19 15 round magazines before 2000 could you legally use them in your ccw? If this is legal would and you used your weapon in self defense would the DA make a field day out of this? Just curious. Thanks for the info guys!
  #2  
Old 01-19-2013, 11:53 PM
Ed_Hazard's Avatar
Ed_Hazard Ed_Hazard is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LosAngele/310
Posts: 5,144
iTrader: 158 / 100%
Default

Legal is legal. Non issue like useing hollow points instead of FMJ.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sic Boy
And I bet Jobs surfs porn. If he doesn't, I'll eat a live baby on stage at the next Apple event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22
Don't F with those guys... they can probably use their teabag to inflict blunt force trauma.


  #3  
Old 01-20-2013, 5:55 AM
Sir Stunna Lot's Avatar
Sir Stunna Lot Sir Stunna Lot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 799
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If a DA wants to bust you, he will bust regardless. But as penal codes are concerned, there's nothing restricting you for using "pre ban" mags. But I would suggest asking your IA just to have their blessings.
  #4  
Old 01-20-2013, 10:30 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreppin916 View Post
I am curious about this topic. Figuratively if I was in possession of glock 19 15 round magazines before 2000 could you legally use them in your ccw? If this is legal would and you used your weapon in self defense would the DA make a field day out of this? Just curious. Thanks for the info guys!
Working strictly with the syntax of your question, if YOU legally possessed the mags, I could not use them in MY CCW weapon, unless we were at a shooting range and you temporarily, while I was in your presence, loaned them to me. (P.C. 32415)

Now, if you legally posssessed the mags prior to 2000, and used them in your CCW weapon, you would not be in violation of the law. If you then used your weapon in self defense, presuming "legal" ammunition, you have done nothing for which the DA can bust you. (P.C. 32310).

Your biggest initial problem may be with responding law enforcement. They may see the mag and take you in for further discussions. You may also be asked to show that you owned the weapon prior to Jan 1, 2000. If you didn't (and the OAG Registry records you didn't) your day will worsen.

All that aside, if you empty your mag into and around the perp, I would expect you to be sued by the survivors, indicted by the DA for reckless endangerment and have your IA pull your LTC due to lack of gun control.

Mitigate the issue--carry 10.

Cheers,

JR

Last edited by Dvrjon; 01-20-2013 at 12:27 PM..
  #5  
Old 01-20-2013, 7:26 PM
Sir Stunna Lot's Avatar
Sir Stunna Lot Sir Stunna Lot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 799
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Your biggest initial problem may be with responding law enforcement. They may see the mag and take you in for further discussions. You may also be asked to show that you owned the weapon prior to Jan 1, 2000. If you didn't (and the OAG Registry records you didn't) your day will worsen.


Cheers,

JR
Red herring. One could technically own mags for a different handgun, and not the one carrying (which can be acquired past 2000). No legal requirement to prove one's innocent, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove a crime has been committed. Not to mention there has not been any case on this specific topic yet. If leo ask you anything, have them talk to your lawyer.
  #6  
Old 01-26-2013, 12:11 AM
Ninety's Avatar
Ninety Ninety is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: OC , AZ
Posts: 3,827
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Working strictly with the syntax of your question, if YOU legally possessed the mags, I could not use them in MY CCW weapon, unless we were at a shooting range and you temporarily, while I was in your presence, loaned them to me. (P.C. 32415)

Now, if you legally posssessed the mags prior to 2000, and used them in your CCW weapon, you would not be in violation of the law. If you then used your weapon in self defense, presuming "legal" ammunition, you have done nothing for which the DA can bust you. (P.C. 32310).

Your biggest initial problem may be with responding law enforcement. They may see the mag and take you in for further discussions. You may also be asked to show that you owned the weapon prior to Jan 1, 2000. If you didn't (and the OAG Registry records you didn't) your day will worsen.

All that aside, if you empty your mag into and around the perp, I would expect you to be sued by the survivors, indicted by the DA for reckless endangerment and have your IA pull your LTC due to lack of gun control.

Mitigate the issue--carry 10.

Cheers,

JR

Don't the police usually "empty their mag" When they fire? Why would a civilian who does the same thing need to worry about reckless endangerment?
__________________
NRA Member
The Constitution does not bestow wisdom. It's up to the body politic to be wise. -Patriot
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke
I'd much rather go to my grave never needing my gun, than go there wishing I had it.
- Phil Dalmolin

The Battle of Athens was illegal too.
  #7  
Old 01-28-2013, 8:34 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninety View Post
Don't the police usually "empty their mag" When they fire? Why would a civilian who does the same thing need to worry about reckless endangerment?
"Don't police empty their mag..."? Not in California. We have environmental laws prohibiting excessive lead in the air.

Even in New York City, two officers recently fired only 16 rounds to stop a gunman...9 of the 16 hit bystanders. When stopping a knife-wielder in August, they fired only 12 times. They had hi-cap mags and could have emptied them.....but I digress.

"Why would a civilian who does the same thing need to worry about reckless endangerment?"

If a law enforcement officer is involved in a shooting, the shooting will be reviewed for line-of-duty and in-policy determination. Usually, they are found acceptable; if not, they can be turned over to the DA for prosecution.

When the survivors of the shot individuals sue for wrongful death or violation of civil rights, the law enforcement officer is then covered and indemnified by the agency. This means lawyers and judgement payments come from the agency, not the individual.

If you, as John Q. Public, caps somebody on your CCW, you are on your own.

First, the local police investigate to determine if your shooting was within policy and "justified". They either arrest you or let you walk. Then the DA of the jurisdiction can review the case and leave it alone or have you arrested and prosecuted. If you empty the mag and spray the locals, you can be tagged with reckless endangerment and a bunch of other stuff. All defense is on your dime.

If the local cops and DA let you walk, then the survivors can sue in civil court for "wrongful death". (Can you spell "O.J."?). This is also on your dime. Any findings and penalty assessments (they can't send you to jail) will be decided by a jury of your peers. At this point, it is probably important to be able to show restraint in your use of deadly force. Emptying the mag should be a tort attorney's best friend. But the really BFF is emptying an evil, high-capacity, BANNED magazine, which is no longer available for purchase in this state! (Please, no diatribes about the fairness of the law. It exists and attorneys will use it.)

Oh, and why are you on your own?

Section 4 of the Standard Application you signed says, in pertinent part:

"The licensee is responsible for all liability for, injury to, or death of any
person, or damage to any property which may result through any act or
omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license.
In the event any claim, suit, or action is brought against the agency that
issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of,
or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief
officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action."


So. You are alone out there. Worse, you will be alone when you come back.

From a non-attorney who is not dispensing legal advice, I believe it is your right to carry whatever is legal. I also believe it is in your best interests to carry only those things which are readily available to your peers (members of the jury) and to use them sparingly and judiciously "in the defense of yourself and your family."

Cheers.
  #8  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:35 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona/California
Posts: 7,607
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninety View Post
Don't the police usually "empty their mag" When they fire?

Um, NO. I investigated several officer involved shootings as a field supervisor and watch commander, somewhere between 10-12 over the years. Not once did the officers "empty the mag" and the average was 3-4 rounds fired. That doesn't include the shootings I was in, where the least fired was a double tap, and the most was 8 rounds, 5 from a shotgun and 3 from my handgun against 3 armed suspects. One had an AK, one had a 9mm, and the other had a .32 auto. The guys with the AK and 9mm fired first.

Why would a civilian who does the same thing need to worry about reckless endangerment?

There in no crime of "reckless endangerment" in California. It is a term reserved for TV and movies. You will be required to account for, and justify every round you fire, just like I was. That's the way it should be.
I investigated a lot of citizen/homeowner shootings over the years. Only once was the homeowner arrested, and that was because he basically executed a prowler. He tampered with the crime scene and there was zero justification to shoot. A neighbor saw him put the finishing shot into him after he was down.

Back to the OP's question....if you legally own the magazines, and your permit doesn't specifically restrict their use, you can use them.
__________________

"Holy Crud, nothing seems to change on CalGuns.

LASD Retired
1978-2011

NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
FPC Supporter

Last edited by Ron-Solo; 02-22-2013 at 8:33 PM..
  #9  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:30 PM
moneyhauler moneyhauler is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninety View Post
Don't the police usually "empty their mag" When they fire? Why would a civilian who does the same thing need to worry about reckless endangerment?
Because the Praetorian Guard are held to a different set of laws than the one us mere plebians have to deal with.
  #10  
Old 02-22-2013, 6:40 PM
Cali-Glock's Avatar
Cali-Glock Cali-Glock is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sierra Nevadas
Posts: 2,860
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

First - for two of my CCW guns I own and have only ever owned standard capacity magazines. They were purchased legally and continue to be legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Your biggest initial problem may be with responding law enforcement. They may see the mag and take you in for further discussions. You may also be asked to show that you owned the weapon prior to Jan 1, 2000. If you didn't (and the OAG Registry records you didn't) your day will worsen.
Second: In the 1990s I purchased a fair number of mags for guns I did not yet own (and in most cases still do not own) - those mags were purchased here in California legally and continue to be legal.
__________________
1 Corinthians 2:2

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." - Mal Reynolds

"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games."- Ernest Hemingway
  #11  
Old 01-20-2013, 10:40 AM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 533
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Surely your joking right ? " Black Talon Ammo" from the 90's is somehow illegal ?
  #12  
Old 01-20-2013, 12:24 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
Surely your joking right ? " Black Talon Ammo" from the 90's is somehow illegal ?
Damn! Thanks for the catch... Had to blast out of here to get supplies for the Game, and was not paying attention. (Go '9ers!) Let's forget about BTs.

Black Talons were never outlawed, just "L.E. Only". Current Win Ranger SXT is a close second in design.

Cheers.

JR

Last edited by Dvrjon; 01-20-2013 at 12:28 PM..
  #13  
Old 01-20-2013, 1:13 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 1,845
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Working strictly with the syntax of your question, if YOU legally possessed the mags, I could not use them in MY CCW weapon, unless we were at a shooting range and you temporarily, while I was in your presence, loaned them to me. (P.C. 32415)

Now, if you legally posssessed the mags prior to 2000, and used them in your CCW weapon, you would not be in violation of the law. If you then used your weapon in self defense, presuming "legal" ammunition, you have done nothing for which the DA can bust you. (P.C. 32310).

Your biggest initial problem may be with responding law enforcement. They may see the mag and take you in for further discussions. You may also be asked to show that you owned the weapon prior to Jan 1, 2000. If you didn't (and the OAG Registry records you didn't) your day will worsen.

All that aside, if you empty your mag into and around the perp, I would expect you to be sued by the survivors, indicted by the DA for reckless endangerment and have your IA pull your LTC due to lack of gun control.

Mitigate the issue--carry 10.

Cheers,

JR


Fail
Our legal system is supposed to be assumed innocent until proven otherwise.
You do not have to (and should not even attempt to) prove that you owned the magazine prior to 2000. It is on them to prove you didn't.
Get a lawyer & shut up.
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
  #14  
Old 01-23-2013, 4:16 PM
hasserl's Avatar
hasserl hasserl is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,877
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
Fail
Our legal system is supposed to be assumed innocent until proven otherwise.
You do not have to (and should not even attempt to) prove that you owned the magazine prior to 2000. It is on them to prove you didn't.
Get a lawyer & shut up.
This
  #15  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:29 PM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 3,880
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
Surely your joking right ? " Black Talon Ammo" from the 90's is somehow illegal ?
I hope not I've got at least 5 boxes each of 9mm 45acp 44mag. Bought em cheap when they were declared cop killers
__________________
  #16  
Old 01-20-2013, 12:24 PM
deerhntr270's Avatar
deerhntr270 deerhntr270 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 263
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Check with IA.
  #17  
Old 01-20-2013, 1:08 PM
Shane916 Shane916 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Legal yes, however I forsee the mags creating more problems with any LE contact.
  #18  
Old 01-20-2013, 1:15 PM
paul0660's Avatar
paul0660 paul0660 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ukiah
Posts: 15,706
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Mitigate the issue--carry 10.
You sound serious, Jon.

Carry what you can, shoot only ten, unless you need to save your life with the extras.

Back to the DVR for you.

I am sure that is what you meant.
__________________
*REMOVE THIS PART BEFORE POSTING*
  #19  
Old 01-20-2013, 1:22 PM
Noggles Noggles is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 200
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Fud. I carry 17 round mags because it is legal.
  #20  
Old 01-20-2013, 1:24 PM
paul0660's Avatar
paul0660 paul0660 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ukiah
Posts: 15,706
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noggles View Post
Fud. I carry 17 round mags because it is legal.
Not illegal is the term.
__________________
*REMOVE THIS PART BEFORE POSTING*
  #21  
Old 01-20-2013, 2:11 PM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 533
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noggles View Post
Fud. I carry 17 round mags because it is legal.


Agree ...

In My G 19 I have and use Glock 17 mags that I bought back in 1998 ...
Completely legal Period ! and yes I have A Sac County CCW ....
  #22  
Old 01-20-2013, 2:20 PM
paul0660's Avatar
paul0660 paul0660 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ukiah
Posts: 15,706
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
Agree ...

In My G 19 I have and use Glock 17 mags that I bought back in 1998 ...
Completely legal Period ! and yes I have A Sac County CCW ....
And, you can have them taken away.
__________________
*REMOVE THIS PART BEFORE POSTING*
  #23  
Old 01-20-2013, 2:31 PM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 533
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul0660 View Post
And, you can have them taken away.
Hey Paul the DVR is calling again ....
  #24  
Old 01-20-2013, 2:36 PM
paul0660's Avatar
paul0660 paul0660 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ukiah
Posts: 15,706
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
Hey Paul the DVR is calling again ....
Ah, a new conversation begins.

Bring your A game.
__________________
*REMOVE THIS PART BEFORE POSTING*
  #25  
Old 01-20-2013, 4:55 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 669
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

thanks for all the info guys! I was actually given the magazine in 1996 from my grandfather but it sounds like their may be some issues depending on who is interpreting the issue at hand. Ill stick with x2 10 round magazines instead and yes my 9'ers are going to the SB!
  #26  
Old 01-20-2013, 5:42 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

If you legally own the magazines you should use them. I do.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
  #27  
Old 01-20-2013, 9:30 PM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I own preban mags from back in 98'. Personally I carry my 13 rd mags because I figure, if in the slim chance I ever have to use my gun in self defense. I'd rather have too many rounds, than not enough. It's legal and if they want to go after me, than so be it. I'll be alive.
  #28  
Old 01-20-2013, 11:26 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,445
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I run pre-ban "high" caps in my all my CCW guns. They are legal to use, so what why sweat it? Supertac hit it pretty much on the head. If you end up popping someone with your gun, the capacity of your magazines is going to be the least of your issues.
__________________
"You are asking how a watch works, when you should just mind the time."

- Alejandro Gillick
  #29  
Old 01-20-2013, 11:33 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 669
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The only thing I am worried about is that the body of the magazine and the follower have been replaced ( floorplate and spring still original ) and to LEO it "looks" like a gen4 glock 19 magazine. But like many have stated no one has ever said they wished they had less rounds in a gun fight. If the weapon comes out the magazine probably wont be my top priority .
  #30  
Old 01-22-2013, 10:23 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 2,473
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreppin916 View Post
The only thing I am worried about is that the body of the magazine and the follower have been replaced ( floorplate and spring still original ) and to LEO it "looks" like a gen4 glock 19 magazine. But like many have stated no one has ever said they wished they had less rounds in a gun fight. If the weapon comes out the magazine probably wont be my top priority .
I think you may have an issue. My understanding is you can replace mag springs, but not the body of the mag. In the strictest sense of things you have built a new mag.
  #31  
Old 01-22-2013, 11:43 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,504
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
I think you may have an issue. My understanding is you can replace mag springs, but not the body of the mag. In the strictest sense of things you have built a new mag.
That's just an example of how useless the law is.

Suppose your cousin Cletus drops an axe on one of your 30-round AR mags, puncturing the body and preventing the follower from rising more than half way.

Certainly, you can pull the baseplate, spring and follower off the damaged body, and install those in a new body.

Later on, the baseplate drops off and the spring escapes with it into the snow; certainly you can replace those pieces, leaving just the follower from the original mag.

Later, you get a bad reload that does a case rupture down through the mag - follower gets trashed. You can replace the follower.

Now there are no original parts. All legal.

And yet, it appears to be wrong to run over an existing legal mag, completely destroying it, and then assemble a kit into a complete mag.

Such clarity of thought went into the law!
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
  #32  
Old 01-21-2013, 12:42 AM
JoeP JoeP is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Stanislaus County, CA
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I feel it's the day to day LEO contact that could be the bad part, not the defensive shooting with it. In a defensive situation, like others have said, that mag is going to be the least of your worries. Now a regular LEO contact could become an issue quick, it just takes the wrong cop and you have yourself in a legal situation. I feel like that legal situation could lead to your IA revoking your permit (temporarily or permanently) and maybe even confiscating your firearm (temporarily). Yes the extra 5 rounds would be really nice peace of mind, but not losing your permit is also equally important. I'd hate to be the one to test the situation, since it's uncharted territory it's hard to say what would happen.

Technically it's legal as its been pointed out, there's nothing saying you can't, but your definitely risking a possible situation. Whether you want to risk that as a trade off for possibly saving your life is your choice. I'm not the kind of guy to blaze trails so I wouldn't. I like to stay under the radar, my firearm and my permit is far too important to me to risk it. To me being able to carry only 10 rounds is way better than going back to being able to carry 0.
  #33  
Old 01-21-2013, 1:32 AM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 533
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/La...e_restrictions

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of
it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California
peace officers, or licensed dealers.

(PC Section 12020 (b)(19-29))
  #34  
Old 01-21-2013, 10:29 AM
Lumpy8's Avatar
Lumpy8 Lumpy8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bakersfield, Ca
Posts: 300
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/La...e_restrictions

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of
it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California
peace officers, or licensed dealers.

(PC Section 12020 (b)(19-29))

I understand that it is not illegal to purchase/buy. The seller is the person breaking the law, no?

So, if there is a transaction between you and me, you the seller, me the purchaser, you the seller is breaking the law, not me the purchaser.
__________________
“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal” - Aristotle (384-322BC)
  #35  
Old 01-22-2013, 2:40 PM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy8 View Post
I understand that it is not illegal to purchase/buy. The seller is the person breaking the law, no?

So, if there is a transaction between you and me, you the seller, me the purchaser, you the seller is breaking the law, not me the purchaser.
I could be wrong, but once you put the magazine back together and you put it in your gun it's illegal. If you purchased the magazine after 2000. Actually between 2000 and 2004 all standard capacity magazines were stamped LE/Military use only. Wasn't till the Federal ban was lifted, that the mag rebuild kits we see today became available without the stamping. Granted they will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you purchased and put together the magazine together after 2000. From what I heard it's impossible to enforce. Could be FUD though.

I think age may become a factor in the event they decide to prosecute or you have a LEO encounter. If you say that you bought them back in 99' before the ban and your currently 22 years old. Might be a little difficult to say under Oath or for them to believe you that you road your bicycle to a local gun store and bought some mags with your lunch money. Again, they'll have to prove it and as in all laws it's gauged on the Reasonable Person doctrine. Would a reasonable person believe that to be true?
  #36  
Old 01-22-2013, 4:07 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,504
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertac916 View Post
I could be wrong, but once you put the magazine back together and you put it in your gun it's illegal.
Two steps here.

If you get a parts kit after 2000, and re-assemble it inside CA as a 11+ magazine, that part is a crime.

Using it thereafter is not, just as using a legally obtained 11+ mag is legal (e.g. retired LEO or had in state prior to 2000).
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
  #37  
Old 01-22-2013, 7:13 PM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Two steps here.

If you get a parts kit after 2000, and re-assemble it inside CA as a 11+ magazine, that part is a crime.

Using it thereafter is not, just as using a legally obtained 11+ mag is legal (e.g. retired LEO or had in state prior to 2000).
Thanks, so they could get you for putting the mag together, but not the use of it. Has there been any case law? LEO's I spoke with said no case law theyre aware of.
Thanks again

Last edited by Supertac916; 01-22-2013 at 7:15 PM..
  #38  
Old 01-22-2013, 9:54 PM
blakdawg's Avatar
blakdawg blakdawg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Butte/Santa Clara counties
Posts: 1,505
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertac916 View Post
I could be wrong, but once you put the magazine back together and you put it in your gun it's illegal. . . . Might be a little difficult to say under Oath or for them to believe you that you road your bicycle to a local gun store and bought some mags with your lunch money.
Simply assembling a new large capacity magazine is illegal, even for a person who doesn't even own a gun.

And no criminal suspect/defendant should ever say anything about how old a magazine is or where it came from other than "I don't want to answer questions and I want to talk to my lawyer."
__________________
"[T]he liberties of the American people [are] dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box . . without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country." -- Frederick Douglass (1892)
  #39  
Old 01-23-2013, 12:03 PM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rosamond, Ca
Posts: 10,575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy8 View Post
I understand that it is not illegal to purchase/buy. The seller is the person breaking the law, no?

So, if there is a transaction between you and me, you the seller, me the purchaser, you the seller is breaking the law, not me the purchaser.
And that is where they get you with a conspiracy charge. The seller cannot commit his crime of selling the magazine without a willing buyer. Thus the willing buyer is an actual participant in the conspiracy to commit the crime.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
  #40  
Old 01-22-2013, 9:10 PM
Lumpy8's Avatar
Lumpy8 Lumpy8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bakersfield, Ca
Posts: 300
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

So, is it against the law for a individual to purchase a complete magazine?

Yes or No?

I read this whole article and saw nowhere where it is?
__________________
“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal” - Aristotle (384-322BC)
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:17 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.