Magazines: all the answers you need

[Librarian]

The wiki has a long article: Large-capacity magazine restrictions and there is a long thread here at Calguns but for those people who find themselves unable to click on a link:

Legal Considerations

1. California restricts certain things about magazines greater than 10 rounds; it has created a silly legal name for them - "large-capacity magazines" - and says we 'regular people' cannot import, sell, buy (effective 2014), or manufacture them. ("Dealer" FFLs may get licenses from DOJ for these activities; curio and relic licensees cannot.) The restriction applies to both centerfire and rimfire weapons.
   
   
2. UNTIL JULY 1, 2017 It is perfectly legal - no restrictions at all in the Penal Code - to own and possess and use those "large-capacity magazines" in any gun*(see footnote), at any time, under any circumstances where it is legal to use a gun. Ownership, possession and use of "large-capacity magazines" are not crimes in PC; there is no section under which you could be charged.
   

   There was language in 2013's AB 48 that would have banned large-capacity magazines; that language did not become law for 2014. But one other change did occur through that bill: the Penal Code was amended to prohibit 'buy'[ing]' a large-capacity magazine; that had been omitted before.

   2014: There are now some laws in place - Sunnyvale and San Francisco - banning possession of large-capacity magazines; these are being challenged, but while in court, they are still in effect.
   
   September 19, 2015, the City of Los Angeles ordinance banning possession took effect. The lawsuit challenging this was filed Oct 23, 2015: Bosenko v City of Los Angeles; see the litigation forum for events in the case. ** UPDATE ** Los Angeles has allowed its ban to expire, effective 1 July 2017.
   

   2017: Current Penal Code requires getting rid of all 'large capacity magazines' before July 1, 2017 - Penal Code 32310(c)

3. Those who own "large-capacity magazines" are not required to keep records or receipts, and not required to explain how they got them.
   
   
4. The age of the magazine and the age of the gun mean nothing. The critical item is possession of the magazine(s) in California before January 1, 2000.
   
   
5. Yes, you can go out of state and buy magazines of any capacity - but you may not bring "large-capacity magazines" back to CA - that would be importing and that can be charged as a felony. 'Importing' ALSO applies to moving here or visiting here. Buying and disassembling and bringing the magazines back to California after JAN 1, 2014 (AB 48) appears to be illegally importing a 'kit' .
   
   
6. YES, you may keep any 'parts kits' you own before Jan 1, 2014. It appears that acquiring a 'parts kit' by any means is illegal from 2014 forward.
   
   Separate parts: We do not know, nor can we guess, what is the definition of a 'large capacity magazine conversion kit'. We do not know if just a body, or just a spring, or just a baseplate, or just a follower might be enough. Until we get a court case with clarification - and I promise, such a case will get very prominent discussion! - there is no point in asking the FAQ.
   
   
7. Yes, you can take one of those kits you possessed in California before Jan 1, 2014 and create a 10-round magazine from the parts and some method of blocking the capacity; (Example deleted - bit rot). The modification is supposed to be 'permanent', but there is no guidance on what that means in law, regulation, or court cases. Use your best judgement.
   
   
8. You can have "large-capacity magazines"; no one may give them or sell them to you in California, and you may not give or sell them to anyone else in California; the law changed to be more specific in 2014: you may not buy or receive them. This includes sales from LEO and intrafamilial transfers - that can be charged as a felony. (See also the law change noted above, effective July 1, 2017)
   
   
9. There is no such thing as a "pre-ban" or "post-ban" "large-capacity magazine", and it doesn't matter. Markings on magazines have no legal meaning.
   
   
10. If you acquire large-capacity magazines legally, for example as a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), yes, you may keep those magazines and continue to use them when/if you are no longer a LEO.

If you think your legal question has not been answered, follow the links at the top of this post and read the articles, then re-read items (2) and (3) above several times. Other questions are addressed below.


* Note: it is not a part of the "large-capacity magazine" law, but part of the 'assault weapon' law that says a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is an 'assault weapon'. (This is not a magazine restriction, this is an assault weapon restriction, that happens to include magazine capacity.)

That means that

• if your otherwise legal semiautomatic, centerfire rifle has a magazine lock, such as a 'bullet button',
• and you use a "large-capacity magazine" in that weapon, (which, because of the magazine lock is effectively a fixed magazine rifle)
• then you will have manufactured an 'assault weapon'.
• That's a felony. Don't do that.
  
  NOTE: A Registered Assault Weapon (RAW) is already an 'assault weapon', and not included in this problem. If you have a RAW, use any magazine you legally own.

Sept 8, 2011 ETA

Political and Meta-legal items

• No, there is no 'expiration date' or 'sunset' on the magazine law.
• No, there is no possibility the law will be repealed with the Legislature we have in 2015.
• No, there is no current lawsuit in place or planned on the topic - mostly because gun rights litigators in CA have higher priorities. There are lawsuits in progress regarding the Sunnyvale and San Francisco 'possession ban' but not yet any challenges to the State law on large-capacity magazines.

The 'nuisance' language in the renumbered Penal Code: this appears to be worrisome; please see this later post in this thread for a longer discussion.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by thearmedrebel

Okay, so if I move back to California (which is a real possibility) I cannot bring my legally owned standard capacity magazines (17 round Glock magazines and 30 round AR magazines) with me because that would make me an importer. Is that right?

If you possessed them within California prior to the ban, you may bring them back with you.

The way the law is written, if you visited friends in California in 1995 and had your magazines with you, you can legally bring them back today.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by SherwoodMS

An off-topic question: Is it legal to join two 10-round magazines (via bands/clips) in order to make quick changes easier?
I see these bands advertised, but don't know whether it's one of those things that 'everyone else' gets to play with -- just not Californians.

So long as the mags remain separate devices, legal.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by locosway

Sorry, I didn't see it posted yet, but...

Can you take a .40 magazine (10 rounds) and use it in a 9mm gun with 9mm ammo and load it with 12 rounds?

To me this seems like you're creating a hi-cap magazine for the gun you're using it in.

Sure, you can do that.

I would guess that those who wrote the law, whom we know are not well-educated in firearms, did not anticipate that this situation would be physically possible.

You bought it as a 10-rounder. It still works as a 10-rounder. You're making no physical modifications to the factory condition in which you bought it. But I really hope you own a .40 pistol that such a mag fits in, and have it with you when you use such a mag.

[rromeo]

Originally Posted by rogervzv

Does the high-cap 10 round limit apply to rimfires, i.e. 22 rifles? 22 pistols? Or just centerfire calibers?

Yes, rimfires too. According to this: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...e_restrictions which is on the first line of the first post of this thread.

[Librarian]

I started a different post - but you may be onto something.

For completeness:

32310. Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section
32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2000, any
person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured,
imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for
sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine is
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or
in the state prison.

32315. Upon a showing that good cause exists, the Department of
Justice may issue permits for the possession, transportation, or sale
between a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915,
inclusive, and an out-of-state client, of large-capacity magazines.


32390. Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section
32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any large-capacity magazine is a
nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.

and 32400 is the renumbered set of exceptions

32400. Section 32310 does not apply to the sale of, giving of,
lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any
large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and
county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any
law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official
duties, whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by
the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.

32405. Section 32310 does not apply to the sale to, lending to,
transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state
of, a large-capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer, as defined in
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, who
is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of that
officer's duties.

32410. Section 32310 does not apply to the sale or purchase of any
large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to
Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive.

etc.

ETA - the renumbering and associated changes do not take effect until Jan 2012, so this is merely 'interesting' in April of 2011.

But thanks!

(I also deleted my earlier, first reply - coming up with -this- one leads me to worry that one might have been waaaay wrong.)

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by cali_sav81

1st Off, I want to commend and thank you for your work in trying to help keep us unknowings informed! We really need people like you.

Secondly… I know the constant repetition of answering questions can grow quite irritating, but in SOME casses hopefully u can understand the confusion. So my question is, from reading the very first thread and throughout the rest of it… if its legal to posses or own, but NOT CREATE or "MANUFACTURE" a high cap mag for a pistol OTHER than an AR-pistol… IN CALIFORNIA… But penal code 32310 is exempt for LEO and Peace Officer… Can a relative of mine who is a LEO or PO give, lend, or sell me a high cap mag for me to use at the range for my pistol???

No.

If your relative and you go to a range together, he/she can lend you a large-capacity magazine for that range session.

LEO is not exempt from the prohibition on transferring away from him/herself, except to other LEO.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by calgunster

what about ammo belts...can we have more than 10 rnds linked together?

If they were linked before 2000, you can expend and reload that belt as often as you like.

Otherwise, even those are subject to this silly law.

[Vanilla Gorilla]

can I put +2 extensions on my legally owned/ obtained high cap glock mags or would this be considered construction of high cap mags?

[Librarian]

No, but you can add capacity to your existing legally owned large-capacity magazines.

Once over 10 rounds, there's no legal difference.

(I don't own any extensions, since I hear they have an annoying feature - they fall off sometimes.)

========

Aug 7, 2014 Addendum

Remembering that we do not know for certain, magazine 'extensions' are designed to add capacity to an existing magazine, so they are a really good candidate to qualify for a 'large capacity magazine conversion kit'.

If that were to be so - and I think the CYA position should be that it is - such extensions would be illegal to buy, sell or import in 2014.

[locosway]

Originally Posted by beanz2

Two questions, please. I have been practicing a lot of dry fires with my handgun at home when I noticed lately I can stuff 11 snap caps in a few of the magazines that were blocked to 10 rounds. The magazines were blocked by the shop I bought the gun from and I had never been able to put more than 10 rounds when they were new. Are they legal to keep? Or do I need to destroy them? They are way past warranty if there was ever one.

Second question, if I change the caliber of my AR rifle from 5.56 to 7.62x39, can I rebuild my 5.56 magazines into 7.62x39 magazines if I can reuse the spring and baseplate?

Thanks for the replies in advance.

There's nothing illegal about owning that magazine, and there's nothing illegal about purchasing such magazines either. So if there was some sort of error, or the parts are worn, there's nothing illegal going on.

Now, if you modified them to accept more than 10, or you did some voodoo magic, then there might be an issue. Now, if you're using a mag that holds 11 rounds in a BB'd rifle, then that's a no-no, even if you did buy them as 10 rounders.

You can rebuild 10 rounds magazines into any other caliber. You just can't rebuild a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds into a magazine of another caliber that holds more than 10 rounds. Any magazines that you own which hold more than 10 rounds can only be rebuilt to accept the same caliber and work in the original gun.

[Exile Machine]

Originally Posted by Citadelonline

hi cap mags cannot be loaned.

Yes they can...

Originally Posted by CA PC 12020

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:

(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:

(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:

(A) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.

(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.

So lending is OK if the borrower is not prohibited from having guns and ammo, and the place is not off limits, and you stay close to the lender.

[Citadelonline]

Subparagraph (B) allows for an exception to the lend restriction in very specific and restricted terms, i.e the true owner must be physically present at all times during the duration of the loan. ("remains in the accessible vicinity")
Which for all practical circumstances would limit the actual use to a range or other property where a firearm may be legally discharged, and both lender and borrower are present.

I'm fairly certain the asker had a somewhat longer "loan" in mind, as in the traditional and broad sense of the term "borrow".

[Nazrico]

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

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=465779

I wrote:

"Appellate court incorporates "possession" of a high capacity magazine into 12020(a)(2) ....when said statute does not use that word... The statute says: " (2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine."

So, I noticed that the only published case in California regarding an interpretation of 12020 (a)(2) is generally: People v. Sun (2007)148 Cal.App.4th 374 , 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 696 Available at: http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/84196#B0003

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

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

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

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

[Davidwhitewolf]

Nazrico, welcome and interesting! Looks like the question was answered in that thread you posted.

I have another question:

A buddy of mine, an international rimfire steel competitor, was wondering if, as a non-California resident, bringing his greater-than-ten-rounds rimfire magazines to a rimfire match in California and then leaving would not constitute "importing," on the following grounds:

In Europe, bringing weapons into a country for a sporting event (read: match) is not considered importing at all, and no import paperwork is required. You ARE required to take your weapons back out of the country, though, within a few days of the end of the match.

So, the question is, is bringing a hi cap magazine into California for a match, then leaving the state right after the match "Importing" or not?

If I drive my car to California, visit Disneyland, and them drive home, have I "Imported" my car into California? I would submit, and common sense would suggest, that a temporary visit is exactly that, and not a case of importation at all.

If I remember correctly, the Cal. DMV does have a definition, of sorts, of "Importation" for motor vehicles, such that if you bring your car into California for over a certain amount of time, you need to change the license and license it in California. If the vehicle is in the state for less than that amount of time,, you do not have to re-license it, as you are only visiting..

It seems to me that the argument that bringing an item into California, and then taking that item back out of the state a few days later constituting "Importation" is very weak.

Your thoughts?

I told him I didn't think that would fly (especially given this post by Librarian in this thread) but I thought his argument intriguing enough to toss it out here for consideration.

What do you say, winning argument or pipe dream?

[Librarian]

There is simply no exception in the law for competitors.

That would expose the weakness of the law as a practical measure; can't have that.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Saym14

so if it is not explicitly spelled out in law it should be legal. ?

That's the way it's supposed to work, but see below ...

Originally Posted by dw149a

Librarian, Thanks for your insight. this is definitely a very grey area as the law is silent concerning the details. My thought is that if it is not expressly forbidden, then it is permissible. I'm just trying to use interpretation & manipulating powers for good!

The good advice you will see here is intentionally biased towards keeping people out of jail.

The risk you take must be balanced with the reward you expect; once informed, each person needs to decide whether to accept the risk.

Here are the risks:
a very, very small chance of detection and apprehension, but if convicted
at least a year in prison (if felony 3 years) [and each questioned magazine could be charged as a separate offense!]
legal expenses
loss of second amendment rights
loss of job
loss of reputation
and other effects of imprisonment on the interpersonal relationships with friends and family (variable).

That's no light catalog.

Before assuming that risk, I would certainly consult my own attorney and pay for good advice.

[Librarian]

The links are in the wiki article - PC 12020. (New 32310)

Since possession and use is not a crime (in 2011), there is nothing for which you can be arrested if that's all you do.

ETA look also at the 'history' section of the Wiki article; I added a snip from the bill analysis that describes what the legislature thought it was doing with that part of the bill.

[Librarian]

Just a procedural note:

This thread hopes to answer the big FAQs about magazines (and I confess myself bemused at the questions that get posted in it!).

Questions and answers are 'in scope' but long conversations deserve their own threads.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Displacement

I'm in the military and I'm moving to California in a few weeks. I have many hi capacity magazines for the M4 and M9 that were issued to me by the Army and I use them only for work. I don't own either of those weapon systems. What would I have to do to not get in trouble for this.

Your Uncle issued them to you, and expects you to have them.

I'd buy a ticket to the court hearing where a Federal judge explained that to any CA LE agency, but that's an explicit exemption to the goofy law.

Just don't use them in privately owned weapons that have 'features' - see footnote in first post.

[Citadelonline]

Originally Posted by spencerk

I purchased a firearm with 2 11 round magazines and i wish to know if they are legal for me to own. This thread has only further confused me. The details are as follows: the magazines are the ones that came with the firearm prior to 2000 and are the original factory mags. The gun was sold to me on consignment at a local gunstore and the owner or this store tells me it is legal for me to purchase the firearm and posess/use the mags that came with it because they were the original mags that came with the firearm and came with rhe firearm prior to the ban. He also told me this is the only legal way to get a hicap mag in ca nowadays and is becoming a very rare occurrence. I am inclined to believe him but worried because of how confusing the laws are written. Im in gunsmithing school and can make a block if necessary but would like to own the hicap mags if legally possible. Was i correctly informed? Or should i go to the shop and grab some aluminum to start milling out...

Any insight would be appreciated.

Your dealer is wrong.
Hi cap magazines are not illegal for you to own, but what matters is how and when you took possession. If they were sold to you after January 1, 2000, (unless you fall under the very few exemptions, eg. law enforcement personnel) the seller is in violation of the law. The law makes no exceptions for original factory or after market magazines even if they were sold with the firearm prior to the 2000 ban.

Your FFL should have held the magazines or modified them to accept only 10 rounds before you took possession.
You are going to be told to keep the mags as is and that it is not a violation to "buy" a Hi cap magazine since that term does not appear in the statute, but the spirit of the law infers otherwise.

Where you go from here is up to you, but to comply with the spirit of the law, your options are to either return the 11 rd mags to the seller and have them modify them so he/she can at least try to return to compliance with the letter of the law or 2: modify/block them yourself or 3: disassemble them.

As it stands, the gun shop you dealt with is in violation of state law. And while you can't "take back" a violation, if it were a shop I did business with I would make them aware of the hi cap mag ban statute and allow them to at least try to correct the mistake. Once they are informed on hi cap mag laws, they need to decide which option is the better alternative.

While it shouldn't be your burden to inform businesses of state law, if they're a good gun shop they should appreciate your help and concerns.
Mistakes/misinterpretations happen.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by sully007

Question: if you take a large-capacity mag apart to clean and then put it back together have you just become a felon by assembling a large-cap mag in the fine state of California?

No.

[banacek]

Originally Posted by jgraham7897

I have read the original post multiple times and am pretty sure I am safe but just want to make sure. When I bought my Glock 22 I worked as Federal Correctional Officer and got the Law Enforcement package. I also purchased a couple extra 15 round magazines. I am no longer working in this field. Am I safe to continue using my 15 round magazines?

After reading several of these threads and posts on this topic, it appears that active LEO's can purchase and keep for their own use (even after they're no longer a LEO):

1 -- An unlimited number of off-list handguns (such as Gen 4 Glocks), correct?
2 -- An unlimited number of hi-cap magazines, even if purchased after 2000, correct?
3 -- And are also exempt from the importation rule, so that they can legally bring new hi-cap magazines into CA from other states for their own use, correct?

As an active LEO who expects to be in a new non-LEO position relatively soon, I guess it would be a smart thing to buy all the hi-cap magazines I can afford now while I still can! Even if I don't yet own the gun for them to be used in! (Unfortunately, me and my peers have received three surplus letters in the last two years. Being told by your employer that you are a "surplus employee" doesn't leave you feeling all warm and fuzzy!)

But here's my real concern... I'm not concerned about being stopped and questioned about my guns or magazines at the range or anywhere else. My concern is this... some years down the road, as private citizens of CA, what if either my wife or I had to use one of our guns in a SD or HD situation and the gun was fully loaded with a hi-cap magazine (ie a 15-17 round Glock)? Especially my wife?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by banacek

But here's my real concern... I'm not concerned about being stopped and questioned about my guns or magazines at the range or anywhere else. My concern is this... some years down the road, as private citizens of CA, what if either my wife or I had to use one of our guns in a SD or HD situation and the gun was fully loaded with a hi-cap magazine (ie a 15-17 round Glock)? Especially my wife?

Do you not believe point 2 in the first post?

It is perfectly legal - no restrictions at all in the Penal Code - to own and possess and use those "large-capacity magazines" in any gun*(see footnote), at any time, under any circumstances where it is legal to use a gun. Ownership, possession and use of "large-capacity magazines" are not crimes in PC; there is no section under which you could be charged.

ETA - Law changed for 2017.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Complex210

There was a recent "rewording" in the CA penal code that changed section 32390, which now reads:

Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section
32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any large-capacity magazine is a
nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.

Does this mean confiscation, or charges as well?

Posted this earlier - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...87#post9175187 - but reposted here:

* reminder, non-lawyer here *

PC 18010

18010. (a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale,
giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a
nuisance under any of the following provisions:
...
(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.

That also appears to mean that J. Random Officer is not the agent of seizure - there would need to be an arrest and the case referred to attorney-level to 'bring an action to enjoin ... possession ...'.


I don't think the 'nuisance' language is going to be a problem, but probably it will take a court case to sort it out.

I suggest including large-capacity magazines in the nuisance/confiscation language is a drafting error in the law.

Everything else that is a 'nuisance' is a felony to possess - it's old PC 12029

Except as provided in Section 12020, blackjacks, slungshots, billies, nunchakus, sandclubs, sandbags, shurikens, metal knuckles, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles as defined in Section 12020, and any other item which is listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12020 and is not listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12028 are nuisances, and the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of, importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, or possession of, any of the foregoing items. These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary destruction whenever found within the state. These weapons shall be destroyed in the same manner as other weapons described in Section 12028, except that upon the certification of a judge or of the district attorney that the ends of justice will be subserved thereby, the weapon shall be preserved until the necessity for its use ceases.

12020 (a) used to have just (1), describing those nuisance items. The magazine ban law was added at 12020(a)(2).

That " any other item which is listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12020 " should have read
" any other item which is listed in subdivision (a)(1) of Section 12020 ",
but 12029 was forgotten in SB23. (Or deliberately omitted and we missed getting that fixed, if we could have had such a technical change inserted).

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve33

Another example being military (if stationed in CA) if I understand this correctly?

If your Uncle issues those magazines to you, yes. If you then separate in CA and Uncle allows you to keep them, that's fine.

If you bought them yourself, for non-duty weapons, at some other duty station, and then came to CA, no. Similarly, if you separated outside of CA, cannot bring in the large-capacity mags you may have been issued.

Buying, for example, your own MagPul mags for your issued M4 hasn't been tested. I suspect, if kept with your duty gear and used only with your issued weapon, there would be no complaint.

[OldLincoln]

FOUND A TUTORIAL TO RIVET MAGS

I'm glad to say that's right here on Calguns in the Gunsmithing Forum.

So, for those who need to create a 10-rounder from a large-capacity parts kit, here's a thread on how to do it.

Thanks for un-burying that!

// Librarian

[CGN Staff]

Originally Posted by sb5265

I am a CA resident, CCW holder and purchased a new Glock 19 and 8 15-round magazines in 1997 from a local (OC) gun shop. I recently purchased another Glock 19. I have retained all the original paperwork and sale receipt for my 1997 gun and magazine purchase. My understanding is that I may legally use the 15 round mags in either gun. Is that correct?

Correct.

[Dtt255]

Originally Posted by Librarian

No.

You may not legally import those large-capacity magazines as complete mags. You may not re-assemble them inside CA.

USE is not the issue in this case - importation seems to be.

Thanks for clearing up the hypothetical situation I was asking about.

[Librarian]

Federal law does not currently address magazines. Therefore, TSA has no business concerning itself with magazines transported by travelers.

This thread is about California law only.

That said, TSA is not known for knowing its own regulations, or its limitations.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by heyjerr

I have three questions.

1. Based on current item #7 of the original post to this thread:
-- "Yes, UNTIL JAN 1, 2014 (AB 48) you can take one of those kits and create a 10-round magazine from the parts and some method of blocking the capacity; one example here. The modification is supposed to be 'permanent', but there is no guidance on what that means in law, regulation, or court cases. Use your best judgement."

Are you saying that if you own kits right now but wait until after 1/1/14 you can no longer assemble them into 10/30s? I'm assuming that is an incorrect conclusion and that the statement is in need of a minor reword.


2. In my own thread I've asked if it's legal to take a 30rd PMAG kit and make it into a 10 round mag for my 7.62x39 upper. I have a feeling it is unwise as the body has a 5.56x45 marking on it and, if limited to hold ten 7.62x39 rounds, would end up holding more than ten 5.56 rounds in it.

3. I bought three 10rd mags specifically for my 7.62x39 upper. They look nearly identical to my 5.56 mags. I plan on marking these so I never mix them up but is there something else I should do to avoid trouble? (mark the mags with "7.62", never bring 5.56 rounds to the range at the same time)? This last bit seems like overkill but lets face it, this is CA.

Originally Posted by Jel

A bit similar to heyjerr's question, I'm also a bit confused as to what is legal AFTER JAN 1, 2014. If we have rebuilds will we be required to dispose, destroy, turn in, or relocate them to another state?

I believe the answers to these questions are not yet known.

Acquiring new parts kits after Jan 1 2014 is now clouded, since we cannot distinguish 'rebuild' from 'conversion' kits (at least, I don't know how to make that distinction in a way I am sure is legal.)

Bad law makes bad interpretation. Here, if I err I prefer to err on the side of 'too restrictive', since that result does not lead to a risk of arrest. Others may take the same information and reach different conclusions in their own circumstances.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by nukechaser

Is modifying a factory 10 round to hold 10+ rounds considered manufacturing?

Probably.

I'm not aware of prosecutions on the point.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Darryl Licht

In your opinion how should those of us who do shoot in other states handle this scenario? Do I need to disassemble each mag prior to returning to Calif to avoid being accused of illegal importation? Then re=assemble them once home and put into the safe for the next outta state shoot?

I value your opinion on this one...

The new law has made it unclear; before 2014, parts kits are just 'parts', and keeping them disassembled here, taking them out of state to re-assemble, use, and disassemble before return was not very controversial.

In 2014, importing kits becomes illegal. The law does not address possession of previously acquired kits - or re-importing them.

I haven't heard that any agency plans to set up 'magazine checkpoints'; failing that, detection seems low probability. But the punishment, if convicted, could be as much as three years in county jail (PC 1170(h)).

Personally, I would no longer do those out of state and back trips; easy for me to say - I don't do them now.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Darryl Licht

Librarian:

When do you anticipate clarification on rebuild vs. conversion kit wording?

No clue.

Since reasonably informed opinion suggests DOJ need not promulgate any regulations on this, I don't foresee more information until we get a court case.

Not helpful.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by ifilef

Is that statement without qualification?

I believe it is a qualified as it needs to be.

Originally Posted by ifilef

What about legal semi-automatic rifles that do not have a bullet-button? Must they be feature-less to comport with the law yet still house detachable legally acquired LCM's?

Since the bit you quote is about a semi-auto, centerfire rife that DOES have a magazine lock, the question seems inapposite; the thread is about magazines, not featureless OLLs (which, indeed, CAN use legally-owned LCMs so long as the featureless rifle does not also have a magazine lock).

Originally Posted by ifilef

If both apply, I don't get the reasoning. In the former, the State has at least a bullet button to purportedly lengthen the time between switching mags and a limit to 10 round magazines. In the latter, no bullet button so can switch mags theoretically quicker and also use lawfully acquired LCM's in the process. Is it less lethal to kill some innocents with a feature-less rifle? Apparently so...assuming the perpetrator is complying with the law with respect to ownership and/or possession. This is why I never got or understood why having 'evil features' was somehow worse than having an arguably more destructively lethal firearm without them. Ggggeeeesssssh...dumb (politics).

The nightmare continues, of course. The legislators never envisioned OLLs or featureless rifles. A particularly tricky people, those gun owners!

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Barang

So after January 01, 2014 even lgs that does SSE can't not block/convert a "high cap" magazine into 10 round (for handguns)?

It would appear that the LGS must have the large-capacity magazine permit, which allows them to import LCMs and subsequently work on them, if that is a business they choose to be in.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by greentriple

To posses you must receive. Thus, if it's a magazine that is initself identifiable as post 2000 in manufacturing to posses it would presume you RECIEVED it pre-2014 thus unlawfull to posses.

That is my question, lads.

'Receive' is a 2014-effective addition to PC; it used to be the case that while 'selling' was a crime, 'buying' was not a crime. That, of course, was a silly element in a very silly law.

But possession is not illegal, and has not been illegal - though the process of acquiring might have been illegal. ETA Law changed for 2017.

[mosinitis]

I have read the information at http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...t_Restrictions and in this thread and have searched the forums for information related to curio and relic firearms and the large capacity magazine law of 2000, but I haven't been able to find any information about it. So, I started looking into the California penal code that pertains to large capacity (more than 10 round) magazines. CAL. PEN. CODE § 12020 seems to be the pertinent legislation for this topic. I have provided the pertinent sections of that penal code below.

(a)Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:

(2)Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.

(b)Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:

(7)Any firearm or ammunition that is a curio or relic as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations and which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the items pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto. Any person prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition who obtains title to these items by bequest or intestate succession may retain title for not more than one year, but actual possession of these items at any time is punishable pursuant to Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Within the year, the person shall transfer title to the firearms or ammunition by sale, gift, or other disposition. Any person who violates this paragraph is in violation of subdivision (a).

I looked into all of the sections mentioned in subdivision (b) part (7) above to make sure that there wasn’t something that made mention of a curio/relic not
being able to have a large capacity magazine and, in turn, making subdivision (a) applicable. The first, Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations simply states the following requirements of a firearm to be considered a curio/relic.

Curios or relics: Firearms which are of special interest to collectors by reason
of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons. To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:
(a) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current
date, but not including replicas thereof;
(b) Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, State, or
Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum
interest; and
(c) Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value
from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their
association with some historical figure, period, or event. Proof of
qualification of a particular firearm under this category may be established by
evidence of present value and evidence that like firearms are not available
except as collector's items, or that the value of like firearms available in
ordinary commercial channels is substantially less.

Sections 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code (CAL. PEN. CODE § 12020 : California Code) and Section 8100 and 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code are all related to, in a nutshell, being a sane person that doesn’t have a felony.

So, with all of this said, it would seem to me that any curio/relic firearm that has a large magazine capacity (i.e. greater than 10 rounds) would not be illegal to buy, sell or transfer even after 1/2000. I am really trying, as a law abiding citizen, to figure this stuff out. If anyone has any additional insight into this or links to legislation that would contradict or supersede my understanding, I would greatly appreciate the help.

[heyjerr]

Originally Posted by AwfAxis

I was born and raised in California, but after 51 years, escaped to Nevada. I've since started competing in USPSA, IDPA, AP and Steel matches.

I am going to take a RO class in Ridgecrest next month, and in the future, may attend some NorCal competitions.

However, I use a Limited rig which includes all 20 rnd mags. As a non-resident coming in to CA for a day or two, am I in violation bringing in my equipment? Is this "Importing"?

Thanks,

Dave

Yes it is. I'm pretty sure the NorCal competitions are used to working with only 10 round mags by now. You might want to check and see if they don't actually prevent you from using your regular mags because it gives you an edge. Hopefully they have FAQs that address this issue very clearly.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by mosinitis

So, with all of this said, it would seem to me that any curio/relic firearm that has a large magazine capacity (i.e. greater than 10 rounds) would not be illegal to buy, sell or transfer even after 1/2000. I am really trying, as a law abiding citizen, to figure this stuff out. If anyone has any additional insight into this or links to legislation that would contradict or supersede my understanding, I would greatly appreciate the help.

Doesn't work.

It helps if you use the current Penal Code numbering - the links are at the wiki article - 32310 is the restriction on large-capacity magazines, and the exceptions begin at 32400.

Old 12020 (b)(7) is not an exemption to the magazine law; it refers to the weapons themselves. This is one of the places where the renumbering and restructuring has actually made things clearer.