![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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 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
Sept 8, 2011 ETA Political and Meta-legal items
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() Last edited by Librarian; 08-29-2017 at 4:27 PM.. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
- Rich |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Never initiate force against another. That should be the underlying principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming - you or yours again. - from THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO (Revised Eastern Sect Edition) |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I started a different post - but you may be onto something.
For completeness: Quote:
Quote:
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.)
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() Last edited by Librarian; 04-06-2011 at 8:34 PM.. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Otherwise, even those are subject to this silly law.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
can I put +2 extensions on my legally owned/ obtained high cap glock mags or would this be considered construction of high cap mags?
__________________
Quote:
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() Last edited by Librarian; 08-07-2014 at 12:07 PM.. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor NRA Certified Instructor CA DOJ Certified Instructor Glock Certified Armorer |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yes they can...
Quote:
__________________
Manufacturer of CA AWB Compliance Products since 2009
Hammerhead CA-Legal AR-15 Stock Adapter $29 Backfin Finned Backstrap for MIAD - $25 BackfinFAT Ergo Backstrap for MIAD - $25 Headbutt AR-15 Shotgun Stock Adapter $15 Stealth Compliance Plate for HERA-CQR Stock - $7 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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". |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. " |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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: Quote:
What do you say, winning argument or pipe dream?
__________________
![]() NRA Life Member Honorary Board Member, the Calguns Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. Yes I'm an attorney. No, this post does not contain legal advice or opinion. Read me@RNS ![]() Last edited by Davidwhitewolf; 08-16-2011 at 4:57 PM.. Reason: Added a missing parenthesis, to avoid grammar fits |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() Last edited by Librarian; 05-18-2017 at 11:21 PM.. Reason: Update for 2017 |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
No.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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! ![]() ![]() 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? |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() Last edited by Librarian; 05-18-2017 at 11:22 PM.. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
* reminder, non-lawyer here * PC 18010 Quote:
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 Quote:
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).
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() Last edited by Librarian; 06-29-2014 at 10:20 AM.. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() Last edited by Librarian; 11-14-2012 at 7:23 PM.. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
FOUND A TUTORIAL TO RIVET MAGS
I'm glad to say that's right here on Calguns in the Gunsmithing Forum. Last edited by Librarian; 12-01-2012 at 7:59 PM.. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks for clearing up the hypothetical situation I was asking about.
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I'm not aware of prosecutions on the point.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I believe it is a qualified as it needs to be.
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
But possession is not illegal, and has not been illegal - though the process of acquiring might have been illegal. ETA Law changed for 2017.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() Last edited by Librarian; 05-18-2017 at 11:24 PM.. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. Last edited by mosinitis; 01-30-2014 at 4:16 PM.. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |