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
  #41  
Old 01-23-2013, 3:16 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
  #42  
Old 01-23-2013, 4:40 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

People have been arrested for possession of large capacity magazines in the Southern California area. We've defended them and charges get dropped when the DA realizes that simple possession is not illegal.

-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
  #43  
Old 01-23-2013, 6:12 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,545
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
People have been arrested for possession of large capacity magazines in the Southern California area. We've defended them and charges get dropped when the DA realizes that simple possession is not illegal.

-Gene
Thanks, Gene, that's helpful. It doesn't sound like these got anywhere near arraignment/hearing, is that correct? Also, do you know if there was any consideration as to whether the mag was "legal", or was the sole focus on the lack of basis for charging possession?

Thanks, again.

JR
  #44  
Old 01-23-2013, 7:32 PM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

So in other words call Gene and he'll help us out. Yet another example of gun control legislation that makes absolutely no sense.
  #45  
Old 01-23-2013, 10:17 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Thanks, Gene, that's helpful. It doesn't sound like these got anywhere near arraignment/hearing, is that correct? Also, do you know if there was any consideration as to whether the mag was "legal", or was the sole focus on the lack of basis for charging possession?

Thanks, again.

JR
One can get arraigned, but it doesn't generally get much further if you have competent firearms counsel.

-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
  #46  
Old 01-24-2013, 6:30 AM
olefirefighter olefirefighter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I believe that IF you have a legal mag, then it should be legal - problem comes up when you are having to explain to an LEO and WHY did they stop you?? I really see more problems than most people would want. Iam assuiming you have gone to a lot of trouble to get your CCW - why risk loosing it over a pissing match on a mag AND if you are involved in a shooting and have to go to court - you can bet you pay check that the other side is going to make a HUGE deal out of that mag..

not worth the risk
  #47  
Old 01-25-2013, 10:59 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 795
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Im concerned now with using my standard capacity magazine because I have changed the body and some have pointed out this is not legal. I wish the CA laws were more clear on this. I am trying to follow the law to a T and cannot because of this mess. I guess im not bring that magazine to the range anymore. I dont think losing my permit is worth the extra 5 rounds. Yes those rounds could save my life. But I guess that just means I need to train more on reloading quicker!
  #48  
Old 01-25-2013, 11:11 PM
Ninety's Avatar
Ninety Ninety is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: OC , AZ
Posts: 3,995
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.
  #49  
Old 01-27-2013, 8:48 AM
Zedrek's Avatar
Zedrek Zedrek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,804
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You should keep shooting until the threat has ceased. If the person is no longer a threat and you keep shooting then you will run into trouble.
  #50  
Old 01-28-2013, 7:34 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,545
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.
  #51  
Old 01-29-2013, 5:03 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,545
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreppin916 View Post
Im concerned now with using my standard capacity magazine because I have changed the body and some have pointed out this is not legal. I wish the CA laws were more clear on this. I am trying to follow the law to a T and cannot because of this mess. I guess im not bring that magazine to the range anymore. I dont think losing my permit is worth the extra 5 rounds. Yes those rounds could save my life. But I guess that just means I need to train more on reloading quicker!
I have yet to see any statute cited which makes replacement of a large-capacity magazine body illegal.

The statutes anticipate that parts wear out and these magazines may require maintenance and repair. Clearly, sections 32425(a) and (b) allow the transfer of large-capacity magazines to and from gunsmiths for the purpose of maintenance, repair and modification. The type of work is not constrained or limited by statute. If a magazine can only be repaired by replacement of the body, then that is what the gunsmith would do. If the gunsmith can make that modification, then so can you. You are not manufacturing a magazine.

To ensure future success, I would advise the following (would the "innocent until guilty" crowd please look away). It will be to your advantage to keep ready any and all records which show that you repaired the magazine by changing out the body. Keeping the old broken body, or showing that it was destroyed may also be helpful. Retain these documents until such time that your attorney may need them.

Cheers,

JR

And let's not worry too much about whether a "replacement" is technically a "repair", as the entire automotive support industry will crumple.
  #52  
Old 02-17-2013, 8:59 AM
Brass Balls's Avatar
Brass Balls Brass Balls is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 547
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
In 2005, the CA AG provided the informal guidance in the letter located here:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ...2005-11-10.pdf
That link is well worth reading, thanks Dvrjon.
  #53  
Old 02-19-2013, 9:15 PM
BrokerB's Avatar
BrokerB BrokerB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Folsom , outside the walls
Posts: 2,317
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

one of my 3 carries in sac county is a pre barbaric laws and has many 15 rounders .not illegal . although i could understand many police being misinformed and jumping up and down if there was ever a day they had to count past 10 on my mags . if the extremely hopefully never chance i had to use 15 + rounds thats going to be a real nasty day for all involved. Maybe i should carry the 30rounders in glove box now . Im sure the law would have vapors with that
  #54  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:03 PM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 547
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

My recent experience with G 19 and yes a high capacity magazine in it .
Just outside of Imperial sand dunes I get pulled over by CHP ..No lights on my small utility trailer hauling some motorcycles back to Sac .

Rather then dig through my fanny back I hand it to him with pistol and ccw/id in it .
Comes back hands me a fix it ticket and fanny back . Go's on to tell me if I'm going to carry that pistol to at least have a round in the chamber ....

Last edited by becxltoo984; 02-21-2013 at 11:06 PM..
  #55  
Old 02-22-2013, 4:46 AM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,333
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
My recent experience with G 19 and yes a high capacity magazine in it .
Just outside of Imperial sand dunes I get pulled over by CHP ..No lights on my small utility trailer hauling some motorcycles back to Sac .

Rather then dig through my fanny back I hand it to him with pistol and ccw/id in it .
Comes back hands me a fix it ticket and fanny back . Go's on to tell me if I'm going to carry that pistol to at least have a round in the chamber ....
Nice CHP'r!

I'm willing to bet he was an older mature officer, not a wet behind the ears, gung-ho, rookie!
__________________
Quote:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.
--Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. --Groucho Marx
  #56  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:00 AM
sjb269 sjb269 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Morgan Hill
Posts: 295
iTrader: 4 / 83%
Default

Im not an attorney...

With that being said, Here's my playbook

If God forbid you or I have to use our Firearm for self defense...When the cavalry arrives, Speak slowly, move even slower, Offer your Identification, CCW permit, and state, " I was in fear for my life" and watch the officer write that down in his little notebook. Then say, " I would like to speak to an attorney before I make any further statements. The end.

This includes the shooting of an intruder in my home. Rule #1 DON'T VOLUNTEER INFORMATION TO THE PD WHEN YOU ARE A INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING PRIOR TO CONSULTING WITH AN ATTORNEY.
If the PD try's to intimidate you and threaten you with arrest...so be it, keep your mouth shut!


oops, a little off topic, but relevant if found to have + 10 round mags in gun you own.
Aside from saying good morning to an officer in a coffee shop, speaking to them with out counsel present when the subject of an investigation of any kind is foolish.

Edit, I am not implying you remain a total mute, just keep explanation of possession of a + 10 mag succinct and polite. Know the laws regarding such to be able to speak intelligently about it.

Last edited by sjb269; 02-22-2013 at 9:12 AM.. Reason: add info
  #57  
Old 02-22-2013, 5:40 PM
Cali-Glock's Avatar
Cali-Glock Cali-Glock is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sierra Nevadas
Posts: 2,919
iTrader: 2 / 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
  #58  
Old 02-22-2013, 6:35 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ramblin' Man
Posts: 7,977
iTrader: 10 / 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.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target

Last edited by Ron-Solo; 02-22-2013 at 7:33 PM..
  #59  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:24 PM
Sacmedic Sacmedic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: No. California
Posts: 198
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
My recent experience with G 19 and yes a high capacity magazine in it .
Just outside of Imperial sand dunes I get pulled over by CHP ..No lights on my small utility trailer hauling some motorcycles back to Sac .

Rather then dig through my fanny back I hand it to him with pistol and ccw/id in it .
Comes back hands me a fix it ticket and fanny back . Go's on to tell me if I'm going to carry that pistol to at least have a round in the chamber ....
Yes!! Always carry one in the chamber. Otherwise...it's an expensive hammer.
  #60  
Old 02-23-2013, 7:18 AM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
My recent experience with G 19 and yes a high capacity magazine in it .
Just outside of Imperial sand dunes I get pulled over by CHP ..No lights on my small utility trailer hauling some motorcycles back to Sac .

Rather then dig through my fanny back I hand it to him with pistol and ccw/id in it .
Comes back hands me a fix it ticket and fanny back . Go's on to tell me if I'm going to carry that pistol to at least have a round in the chamber ....
Good advice, always keep a round in the chamber when carrying. If you keep it in a fanny pack and decide to leave it somewhere with kids, then you might unchamber the round. Preferably you keep the gun on your persons at all times, so you won't have to unchamber. Lastly, the only guys I know who still wear fanny packs are those with guns in them I'd recommend a holster for two reasons. Much faster to get too when you need it and not as obvious that you're carrying.
  #61  
Old 02-23-2013, 7:36 AM
Mesa Defense's Avatar
Mesa Defense Mesa Defense is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 809
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
If you legally own the magazines you should use them. I do.

-Gene
This. +1
  #62  
Old 02-23-2013, 1:30 PM
moneyhauler moneyhauler is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 21
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.
  #63  
Old 02-23-2013, 4:29 PM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 4,531
iTrader: 41 / 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
__________________
Just upgraded to help beat Hillary.
  #64  
Old 02-24-2013, 3:49 PM
medicdude's Avatar
medicdude medicdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

What if I found one or two on the ground at the range? Any questions asked there?
  #65  
Old 02-24-2013, 6:58 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,557
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by medicdude View Post
What if I found one or two on the ground at the range? Any questions asked there?
The guy who lost them will call the range and ask if they had been found.

'I found them' is one of the 'OMG, did you really say that and expect anyone to believe it?' lines. That reaction does not refute that it happens sometimes, but that narrative is simply not needed. See the Magazine Qs link in my .sig, below.
__________________
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.


  #66  
Old 06-09-2013, 8:31 PM
nightside's Avatar
nightside nightside is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have removed my info until I've hired an attorney. I'll reposted it after they ok my info. I'll keep you posted

Last edited by nightside; 06-09-2013 at 10:12 PM..
  #67  
Old 07-16-2013, 10:21 PM
neuron neuron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 180
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Pre-Ban Mags

It seems that you can possess and use >10 round mags if you owned them in California prior to 01/01/2000. If you did not, you can neither possess or use them. You cannot, for example, buy, import, or manufacture in California any >10 round mags after 01/01/2000. Doing any of that is a felony.

You could expect that if you are found in possession of >10 round mags you could be suspected and charged for illegal possession. It's not clear how the authorities could prosecute you for that if you contended that you legally possess the mags prior to 01/01/2000. It would be useful to have dated receipts of purchase, but if you don't have them, the burden of proof that you didn't would be on the State. Of course, if you didn't reside in Ca prior to 01/01/2000, the State would be justified in assuming that your possession of the mags is illegal. Also, if the specific mags were clearly manufactured after 01/01/2000, you will be in trouble.

Folks have opined about mag "rebuild kits." If you legally possess a >10 round pre-ban mag, you may "rebuild" it. The problem is purchasing new components to convert a 10-round mag to >10 round capacity with these new components. That would clearly be illegal.

That's just my take on this. IANAL, but the lawyers among us may wish to comment...
  #68  
Old 07-16-2013, 10:26 PM
nightside's Avatar
nightside nightside is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Attorney hired...... No thanks to the one I talked to from this site
  #69  
Old 07-17-2013, 9:27 PM
Lumpy8's Avatar
Lumpy8 Lumpy8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bakersfield, Ca
Posts: 311
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neuron View Post
It seems that you can possess and use >10 round mags if you owned them in California prior to 01/01/2000. If you did not, you can neither possess or use them. You cannot, for example, buy, import, or manufacture in California any >10 round mags after 01/01/2000. Doing any of that is a felony.

You could expect that if you are found in possession of >10 round mags you could be suspected and charged for illegal possession. It's not clear how the authorities could prosecute you for that if you contended that you legally possess the mags prior to 01/01/2000. It would be useful to have dated receipts of purchase, but if you don't have them, the burden of proof that you didn't would be on the State. Of course, if you didn't reside in Ca prior to 01/01/2000, the State would be justified in assuming that your possession of the mags is illegal. Also, if the specific mags were clearly manufactured after 01/01/2000, you will be in trouble.

Folks have opined about mag "rebuild kits." If you legally possess a >10 round pre-ban mag, you may "rebuild" it. The problem is purchasing new components to convert a 10-round mag to >10 round capacity with these new components. That would clearly be illegal.

That's just my take on this. IANAL, but the lawyers among us may wish to comment...
Where in the penal code does it say it is illegal to buy?
__________________
“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal” - Aristotle (384-322BC)
  #70  
Old 07-17-2013, 9:37 PM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fair Oaks
Posts: 617
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default P7 M13

One of my carry guns is a HK P7-M13. The gun was discontinued before this silly issue of magazine capacity ever arose. Mine is on my carry permit and there are no commercially available magazines other than the original, factory 13 round magazines. These are what I have and what I carry. I legally possess them and it has not been an issue so far. . .
  #71  
Old 07-17-2013, 9:48 PM
Ninety's Avatar
Ninety Ninety is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: OC , AZ
Posts: 3,995
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neuron View Post
It seems that you can possess and use >10 round mags if you owned them in California prior to 01/01/2000. If you did not, you can neither possess or use them. You cannot, for example, buy, import, or manufacture in California any >10 round mags after 01/01/2000. Doing any of that is a felony.

You could expect that if you are found in possession of >10 round mags you could be suspected and charged for illegal possession. It's not clear how the authorities could prosecute you for that if you contended that you legally possess the mags prior to 01/01/2000. It would be useful to have dated receipts of purchase, but if you don't have them, the burden of proof that you didn't would be on the State. Of course, if you didn't reside in Ca prior to 01/01/2000, the State would be justified in assuming that your possession of the mags is illegal. Also, if the specific mags were clearly manufactured after 01/01/2000, you will be in trouble.

Folks have opined about mag "rebuild kits." If you legally possess a >10 round pre-ban mag, you may "rebuild" it. The problem is purchasing new components to convert a 10-round mag to >10 round capacity with these new components. That would clearly be illegal.

That's just my take on this. IANAL, but the lawyers among us may wish to comment...

Fixed it for you Librarians sig Link
__________________
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.
  #72  
Old 07-17-2013, 9:52 PM
USMC VET's Avatar
USMC VET USMC VET is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sacramento Area
Posts: 1,017
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

My boss has had his LTC for a long time and he's got his gen 2 g21 with his pre ban 13 rnd mags. Never has a problem when renewing his license.
__________________
SO MANY GUNS....never enough money

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
  #73  
Old 07-18-2013, 2:54 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,545
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy8 View Post
Where in the penal code does it say it is illegal to buy?
The Penal Code is silent on this, but we discussed all that in January 2013.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...9&postcount=30

JR
  #74  
Old 07-18-2013, 3:10 PM
QuarterBoreGunner's Avatar
QuarterBoreGunner QuarterBoreGunner is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West Oakland, low crawling up on Emeryville and Berkeley.
Posts: 8,985
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

Oh is it Thursday already?
__________________
/Chris

I have a perfect Burning Man attendance record: zero.

You do know there are more guns in the country than there are in the city.
Everyone and their mums is packin' round here!
Like who?
Farmers.
Who else?
Farmers' mums.
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 12:59 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.