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, 10:50 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 746
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, 10:53 PM
Ed_Hazard's Avatar
Ed_Hazard Ed_Hazard is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LosAngele/310
Posts: 5,146
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, 4:55 AM
Sir Stunna Lot's Avatar
Sir Stunna Lot Sir Stunna Lot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 816
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, 9:30 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,291
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 11:27 AM..
  #5  
Old 01-20-2013, 9:40 AM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 536
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Surely your joking right ? " Black Talon Ammo" from the 90's is somehow illegal ?
  #6  
Old 01-20-2013, 11:24 AM
deerhntr270's Avatar
deerhntr270 deerhntr270 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 264
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Check with IA.
  #7  
Old 01-20-2013, 11:24 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,291
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 11:28 AM..
  #8  
Old 01-20-2013, 12:08 PM
Shane916 Shane916 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,073
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Legal yes, however I forsee the mags creating more problems with any LE contact.
  #9  
Old 01-20-2013, 12:13 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 1,912
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.
  #10  
Old 01-20-2013, 12:15 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*
  #11  
Old 01-20-2013, 12:22 PM
Noggles Noggles is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 201
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Fud. I carry 17 round mags because it is legal.
  #12  
Old 01-20-2013, 12:24 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*
  #13  
Old 01-20-2013, 1:11 PM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 536
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 ....
  #14  
Old 01-20-2013, 1:20 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*
  #15  
Old 01-20-2013, 1:31 PM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 536
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 ....
  #16  
Old 01-20-2013, 1:36 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*
  #17  
Old 01-20-2013, 3:55 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 746
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!
  #18  
Old 01-20-2013, 4:42 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
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
  #19  
Old 01-20-2013, 6:26 PM
Sir Stunna Lot's Avatar
Sir Stunna Lot Sir Stunna Lot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 816
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.
  #20  
Old 01-20-2013, 8:30 PM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,239
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.
  #21  
Old 01-20-2013, 10:26 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is online now
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,737
iTrader: 6 / 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.
__________________
Don't have anything clever to say at this time...
  #22  
Old 01-20-2013, 10:33 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 746
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 .
  #23  
Old 01-20-2013, 11:42 PM
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.
  #24  
Old 01-21-2013, 12:32 AM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 536
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))
  #25  
Old 01-21-2013, 9:29 AM
Lumpy8's Avatar
Lumpy8 Lumpy8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bakersfield, Ca
Posts: 308
iTrader: 17 / 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)
  #26  
Old 01-22-2013, 1:40 PM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,239
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?
  #27  
Old 01-22-2013, 3:07 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,111
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

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

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.


  #28  
Old 01-22-2013, 6:13 PM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,239
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 6:15 PM..
  #29  
Old 01-22-2013, 8:10 PM
Lumpy8's Avatar
Lumpy8 Lumpy8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bakersfield, Ca
Posts: 308
iTrader: 17 / 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)
  #30  
Old 01-22-2013, 8:48 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 Lumpy8 View Post
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 act of purchasing is not directly prohibited - but I think it's sensible to assume that it would be chargeable either as aiding and abetting per Cal Penal Code s. 31:

Quote:
31. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it
be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act
constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not
being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all
persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age
of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to
commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion
the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit
any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel
another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so
committed.
or as conspiracy per Cal Penal Code s. 182, since it is a crime for the seller to "keep[s] for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or . . give[s], or lend[s]" (Penal Code s. 32310) a large capacity magazine without a specified exemption.

So, the short answer is, "yes".
__________________
"[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)
  #31  
Old 01-22-2013, 8:54 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)
  #32  
Old 01-22-2013, 9:23 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 2,829
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.
  #33  
Old 01-22-2013, 10:43 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,111
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

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

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.


  #34  
Old 01-22-2013, 10:48 PM
Sir Stunna Lot's Avatar
Sir Stunna Lot Sir Stunna Lot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 816
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think a good rule of thumb is:

if you legally own X number of 10+ rounds mag before 2000, then you can do whatever you want to do with them as long as in the end, you dont end up with more mags then what you started with.
  #35  
Old 01-23-2013, 5:29 AM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 1,912
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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. 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?

And within the last 3 years.
It is my understanding that there is a 3 year statute of limitations on this confounded ignorant law.

Sooo... it may be possible for a 22 year old to currently be "legal" with a standard capacity magazine.
__________________
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.
  #36  
Old 01-23-2013, 9:08 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,291
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In 2005, the CA AG provided the informal guidance in the letter located here:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ...2005-11-10.pdf

From this, all magazine parts (including bodies) can be replaced. Note the cautions in some of the responses. Local DAs have power to interpret and prosecute. It would be prudent to keep records of changes.

You don't have to prove your innocence, and I agree with not talking freely to the police, as you might inadvertently admit to a crime. But this letter rides in my range bag along with other documentation. While it's not something I would immediately offer in a discussion with LEOs, it is somewhat comforting to know I have something with me which may help mitigate the issue, if needed.

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD". California has changed Attorney Generals since the issuance of this letter (the AG in place in 2005 (Lockyer) is now the State Treasurer, and the AG after him (Brown) is now the Governor), and the new AG (Harris) does not appear to have specifically endorsed (or refuted) the 2005 letter.

Cheers,

JR

Last edited by Dvrjon; 01-23-2013 at 9:46 AM.. Reason: added Note
  #37  
Old 01-23-2013, 11:01 AM
SacTown's Avatar
SacTown SacTown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 1,782
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Curious if anyone has any first hand experience with any LEOs while CCWing a 10+ round magazine. Some LEOs, upon being notified that you are indeed legally conceal carrying, may want to take temporary possession of the firearm and unload it for officer safety, etc. At that time they would undoubtedly realize that you are in possession of a 10+ round magazine. I completely understand that if you are in legal possession of the said 10+ round magazine, it is perfectly legal. Just wondering if any LEOs have tried questioning anyone about it or anything of the sort and if they did, what did you tell them? Would you simply just tell them to talk to your lawyer and that would be the end of it?
__________________
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM
  #38  
Old 01-23-2013, 11:03 AM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,591
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.
  #39  
Old 01-23-2013, 12:01 PM
weteachsafety weteachsafety is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just a rumor that someone was arrested a few months ago in San Diego for posession of a large cap mag. This info came from my FFL dealer who is a reliable source. There may not be a law about posession. Not all of the details here. If a magazine was produced after a ban and was never manufactured before a ban of sale, prosecutors might try to show purchase of the mag. We are trying to get more info on how things play out. Call ca doj. I am not an attorney but if someone is convicted I am concerned that it could become common law after appeals process.
  #40  
Old 01-23-2013, 2:47 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,291
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by weteachsafety View Post
Just a rumor that someone was arrested a few months ago...came from my FFL dealer who is a reliable source. Call ca doj. I am not an attorney but if someone is convicted I am concerned that it could become common law after appeals process.
I'm lost. First, rumors from "a reliable source"?

You don't even know if someone was arrested and you're worried about a conviction? ("Common Law" or "case law"? -- There is a difference).

BTW: CA DOJ doesn't make local prosecution decisions--the (city/county) DA does.

It would be helpful if you could get back in touch with your reliable source dealer and obtain some facts.

Best,

JR
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 7:10 PM.




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.