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 > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-03-2019, 5:57 PM
eastmanwes eastmanwes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: SFV
Posts: 223
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Flying with standard magazines post freedom weak (importing?)

Anyone have any insight / thoughts on flying out of and back into CA with standard cap mags now that freedom week has done what it did?

-W
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-03-2019, 6:02 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,611
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

TSA and local LE don't care.

That said, there is no current exemption in the law for importing - take it out is legal, bring it back is not.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

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.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-03-2019, 6:06 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 12,302
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

been posts on this if you take them then you must block them to bring back.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-03-2019, 6:35 PM
johnk518's Avatar
johnk518 johnk518 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: HB
Posts: 897
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

but you are correct. . .post freedom is indeed weak.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-03-2019, 8:39 PM
omega's Avatar
omega omega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,049
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xs_jrnmwoU



dont try to bring any mags into NYC
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-04-2019, 5:30 AM
scotty99 scotty99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Newbury Park
Posts: 926
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

If it is true that I can’t return with legally-owned standard cap mags, then wouldn’t it also be true that I could not travel out of state with a registered assault weapon? Or an off-roster handgun?

Are we guessing here, or has any legal authority actually rendered an opinion?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-04-2019, 6:16 AM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 12,302
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

^^^ read the law. No importation of large cap mags. Apples and oranges. RAW or off roster handgun have nothing to do with this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-04-2019, 11:58 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,611
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty99 View Post
If it is true that I can’t return with legally-owned standard cap mags, then wouldn’t it also be true that I could not travel out of state with a registered assault weapon? Or an off-roster handgun?

Are we guessing here, or has any legal authority actually rendered an opinion?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgerly779 View Post
^^^ read the law. No importation of large cap mags. Apples and oranges. RAW or off roster handgun have nothing to do with this thread.
Actually, I think that's an interesting question (forget about off-Roster, no law against bringing those in - e.g. moving here, intrafamilial transfer).

But, 32310
Quote:
32310.


(a) 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 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, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine

is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
and then 30600
Quote:
30600.


(a) Any person who, within this state,

manufactures or causes to be manufactured,

distributes, transports, or imports into the state,

keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who

gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for four, six, or eight years.
The language is quite similar; why is it we think returning with LCMs is prohibited, when we (or, a lot of us) don't think going out of state and returning with a RAW is similarly prohibited?

ETA Moved to CA Laws forum. Tighter rules here ...
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

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.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 05-04-2019 at 12:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-04-2019, 1:59 PM
L84CABO's Avatar
L84CABO L84CABO is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Orcas Island, WA and San Diego
Posts: 5,679
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is there a legal definition of "importing?"

Because taking something that you legally bought here in California on vacation with you out of state and then returning home with your lawfully owned property seems like an overly broad definition of "importing."

Importing to me means that you're bringing something into the state for the first time and that never resided in California to begin with.
__________________
"Kestryll I wanna lick your doughnut."

Fighter Pilot
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-04-2019, 2:41 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Actually, I think that's an interesting question (forget about off-Roster, no law against bringing those in - e.g. moving here, intrafamilial transfer).

But, 32310 and then 30600
The language is quite similar; why is it we think returning with LCMs is prohibited, when we (or, a lot of us) don't think going out of state and returning with a RAW is similarly prohibited?

ETA Moved to CA Laws forum. Tighter rules here ...
Because for RAWs we have this:

Quote:
30670 (a) Section 30600 shall not apply to the importation into this state of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by the registered owner of that assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle if it is in accordance with the provisions of Section 30945.
Quote:
30945. Unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 31000, a person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a .50 BMG rifle under this article may possess it only under any of the following conditions:

(a) At that person’s residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner’s express permission.

(b) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets.

(c) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.

(d) While on the premises of a shooting club that is licensed pursuant to the Fish and Game Code.

(e) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational project that is about firearms and that is sponsored by, conducted under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes education about, firearms.

(f) While on publicly owned land, if the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 30510, 30515, 30520, or 30530, is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.

(g) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between any of the places mentioned in this section, or to any licensed gun dealer, for servicing or repair pursuant to Section 31050, if the assault weapon is transported as required by Sections 16850 and 25610.
...and For >10 round magazines we have this:

Quote:
32420. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation of a large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000, lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with the same large-capacity magazine.
Prop 63 and SB1446 repealed the exemption. We would have to make a follow up challenge to that if we end up with a partial win in Duncan and 32310(a) remains.

Last edited by champu; 05-04-2019 at 2:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-04-2019, 3:03 PM
scotty99 scotty99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Newbury Park
Posts: 926
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Because for RAWs we have this:





...and For >10 round magazines we have this:



Prop 63 and SB1446 repealed the exemption. We would have to make a follow up challenge to that if we end up with a partial win in Duncan and 32310(a) remains.


The absolute ban on importation of SCMs makes sense if possession in the state is illegal for everyone. If the ruling survives the 9th, I can’t see how a ban on traveling with legally-owned property could possibly remain in effect.

However, that would be in a world where things make sense, and unfortunately this is California.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-04-2019, 3:37 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty99 View Post
The absolute ban on importation of SCMs makes sense if possession in the state is illegal for everyone. If the ruling survives the 9th, I can’t see how a ban on traveling with legally-owned property could possibly remain in effect.

However, that would be in a world where things make sense, and unfortunately this is California.
Right, when 32310 was just parts (a) and (b), 32420 made sure that 32310 didn't ban traveling with legally-owned property.

When 32310 parts (c) and (d) were added, 32420 was rendered useless, so it was repealed at that time.

If the striking of 32310 in its entirety is ultimately upheld, then the fact that 32420 was repealed doesn't matter.

If (what I happen to opine is the more likely outcome) the 9th circuit affirms the district court's striking of 32310 (c) and (d) (but for other than 2nd amendment reasons), overturns the decision to strike of 32310 (a) and (b), and we aren't granted cert by SCOTUS, then we're in a wonky place (ban on travel with legal to own property) because 32420 is gone.

Just because it's wonky doesn't mean it isn't the law until we do something about it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-04-2019, 4:51 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,762
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Actually, I think that's an interesting question (forget about off-Roster, no law against bringing those in - e.g. moving here, intrafamilial transfer).

But, 32310 and then 30600
The language is quite similar; why is it we think returning with LCMs is prohibited, when we (or, a lot of us) don't think going out of state and returning with a RAW is similarly prohibited?

ETA Moved to CA Laws forum. Tighter rules here ...
PEN 36300 bans importation of “assault weapons”, not “REGISTERED assault weapons”. LCMs aren’t registered, so their general import is banned.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 05-04-2019 at 4:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:18 AM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 617
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019."

I would argue that this is exactly the sort of nonsense that that order sought to prevent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-05-2019, 6:50 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
"IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019."

I would argue that this is exactly the sort of nonsense that that order sought to prevent.
I don't want to get into the "total immunity for all time so long as you bought at least one magazine" argument, but that order doesn't really address the "re-import" problem. At the very least, it definitely does not protect people who simply owned magazines since before 2000 from prosecution if they leave the state and come back with them.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-05-2019, 10:14 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,744
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Actually, I think that's an interesting question (forget about off-Roster, no law against bringing those in - e.g. moving here, intrafamilial transfer).

But, 32310 and then 30600
The language is quite similar; why is it we think returning with LCMs is prohibited, when we (or, a lot of us) don't think going out of state and returning with a RAW is similarly prohibited?

ETA Moved to CA Laws forum. Tighter rules here ...
Librarian. There is at least two distinct issues here. The one being what is meant by "import" in 32310 and the other is, even if the outcome of the Duncan appeal determines the statute to be constitutional on its face is it void for vagueness as applied. I only address the application.

As applied to a person who legally possesses a LCM within the state, but leaves and later returns with the LCM is ambiguous. Where the plain language of a statute is ambiguous given its textual context, the courts will seek to construe it according to rules of statutory construction as a general rule. However, an accused is entitled to due process, which includes fair notice of what may result in criminal charges. The most basic definition of "to import" is to "bring in" and I tend to think of imported cars and wines; things originating outside of the country that are brought into it. Not things that originate in the States, are shipped overseas, and for some reason brought back. Unlike a civil statute, statutory construction won't save an impermissibly vague criminal law. A law abiding citizen shouldn't have to familiarize themselves with changes in the law in order to understand its command.

This is much like the Rule of Lentity, which holds that where an accused proffers a reasonable definition of an ambiguous criminal statute the court will apply the statute most favorably to the accused over that offered by the prosecution. The principal limitation on the rule of lenity is that the ambiguity or uncertainty must be grevious, since most statutes are ambiguous to some degree.

Regardless of whether the statute can successfully be brought for bringing magazines back in, the problem comes down to who can risk being a test case. Even if you can afford the attorney fees, loss of time from work, and he accompanying stress, many will take the safe road. The State very well knows that, I suspect, and is thereby encouraged to intentionally pass vague laws.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.

Last edited by Chewy65; 05-05-2019 at 10:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-05-2019, 1:40 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 617
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
I don't want to get into the "total immunity for all time so long as you bought at least one magazine" argument, but that order doesn't really address the "re-import" problem. At the very least, it definitely does not protect people who simply owned magazines since before 2000 from prosecution if they leave the state and come back with them.
Wouldn't re-importation only be an issue because of 32310 (d), which is enjoined at the moment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-05-2019, 2:06 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,611
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Wouldn't re-importation only be an issue because of 32310 (d), which is enjoined at the moment.
No, importing is part of 32310(a), which is NOT enjoined.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

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.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-05-2019, 9:13 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,744
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The more I look into it, the stronger it seems that Penal Code section 32301 would be void for vagueness were charges to be brought under it for the "re-importation" of a large capacity magazine. The statute provides with, with exceptions,

Quote:
any person in this state who imports into the state. . . any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
It does not say that a person in this state who "re-imports" into the state" may be punished and "re-imports" is not the same as "imports". See Websters,

Quote:
Definition of reimport (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : to bring (something, such as merchandise) back to the place or country from which it was imported
//Drug prices are often cheaper in Canada … . That inspired Congress to pass a law … permitting drugs from American manufacturers to be reimported back to the U.S. from Canada at Canadian prices.
— John Calfee
//Ford's two remaining UK plants are … making engines which are exported to other EU countries for final assembly. Ford then reimports many of these engines in completed vehicles for sale in the UK.
— The Irish Times
//reimported goods
2 : to import (something, such as files or data) again
//… locate the songs that will not play and manually drag them into the … window to reimport them.
— CNET.com
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-05-2019, 11:16 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,140
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
The more I look into it, the stronger it seems that Penal Code section 32301 would be void for vagueness were charges to be brought under it for the "re-importation" of a large capacity magazine. The statute provides with, with exceptions,



It does not say that a person in this state who "re-imports" into the state" may be punished and "re-imports" is not the same as "imports". See Websters,
Chewy,

You raise a good question of legislative intent. There's a strong semantic inference that "Re-Importation" is simply a form of "Importation" and not something distinct from "Importation."

If the legislature intended for "Re-Importation" to be something different, then there would have been no purpose served by former Penal Code section 32420 which exempted folks who lawfully possessed large-capacity magazines in the state, then removed them, and later returned with them, from punitive sanctions from "Importation."
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-06-2019, 1:10 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,744
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Chewy,

You raise a good question of legislative intent. There's a strong semantic inference that "Re-Importation" is simply a form of "Importation" and not something distinct from "Importation."

If the legislature intended for "Re-Importation" to be something different, then there would have been no purpose served by former Penal Code section 32420 which exempted folks who lawfully possessed large-capacity magazines in the state, then removed them, and later returned with them, from punitive sanctions from "Importation."
Hey Rick,

Of course re-importation is importation, but the operative question is what does the law punish. If it meant to forbid reimportation, the legislative body ( the voters) is supposed to know how to make itself clear.

You are getting into statutory construction, the first rule of which is it isn't done where the meaning of statutory language is plain in textual context. If you have to compare present to former versions to decipher that meaning, you have an ambiguous statute. The same is true if you have to look at exemptions to the predecessor that no longer apply. Where a criminal statute is ambiguous, the statute is void for vagueness. An accused is entitled to fair notice of that for which he may be charged.

So look at the text of 32310 and ask how it should be construed based only on the plain meaning of its language. If it can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, it will be strictly construed against the prosecution and in favor of the accused.

if I ever had to guess why 32420 treated leaving the state with LCMs legally possessed in the state prior to 2000 and returning with them as importation, I imagine it was because it was either the first time they would have been illegally brought into the state, since any prior importation would have been legal, or they may never have been imported should they have been manufactured in California.

if you really want to puzzle this out, ask yourself why the law makers would even be concerned that anyone would leave the state and return with an LCM, if possession itself was illegal. The electorate wasn't counting on Freedom Week and a flood of LCMs being legally imported into the State. Well, it may be legal.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.

Last edited by Chewy65; 05-06-2019 at 1:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-06-2019, 8:41 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,140
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Hey Rick,

Of course re-importation is importation, but the operative question is what does the law punish. If it meant to forbid reimportation, the legislative body ( the voters) is supposed to know how to make itself clear.
A very common, "boilerplate" expression that I often read in appellate decisions goes something like this:

"If the legislature intended for the statute to provide (what it says), then it will have to state so more explicitly"

Statutes are formed as a result of the legislative process, which often involves a multitude of competing objectives, and the morphing of terms to achieve sufficient votes for passage. The result is often the antithesis of clarity.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-06-2019, 9:39 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,744
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
A very common, "boilerplate" expression that I often read in appellate decisions goes something like this:

"If the legislature intended for the statute to provide (what it says was intended), then it will have to state so more explicitly"


Statutes are formed as a result of the legislative process, which often involves a multitude of competing objectives, and the morphing of terms to achieve sufficient votes for passage. The result is often the antithesis of clarity.
I tried to fix that.
The way I look at it, statutes always provide what the say and the problem is what they say is not what they intend the statute to provide. As for the legislative process, while the initiative is a form of legislative process, I wonder if the average voter is even less informed and paying less attention than our legislators.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-06-2019, 10:39 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,140
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I tried to fix that.
The way I look at it, statutes always provide what the say and the problem is what they say is not what they intend the statute to provide. As for the legislative process, while the initiative is a form of legislative process, I wonder if the average voter is even less informed and paying less attention than our legislators.
You wonder??

I stopped wondering that years ago.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain

Last edited by -hanko; 05-06-2019 at 3:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-06-2019, 6:30 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,762
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I tried to fix that.
The way I look at it, statutes always provide what the say and the problem is what they say is not what they intend the statute to provide. As for the legislative process, while the initiative is a form of legislative process, I wonder if the average voter is even less informed and paying less attention than our legislators.
I would consider that a problem, if the general populace was writing the Proposal. However, much like traditional action by the Legislature, the language is put together by consultants and special interest groups (see Prop 63). The advantage (?) of true legislative bills, even those drafted by outside interests, is that they are scrubbed by the Legislative Counsel’s Office, to include a review of existing statutes and primary impact.

The general populace doesn’t read or understand the Propositions (again, see Prop 63), but they follow the emotional guidance of the sponsors: “Safety for All”.

That gets you 63% of the vote for stoopid stuff.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-06-2019, 6:30 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Regarding legislative intent of the language in 32310 (a), keep in mind that it and 32420 were part of the same bill (1999 SB23). At the time, for reference, the sections were 12020(a)(2) and 12020(b)(23) respectively. So the legislature was not trying to ban people from leaving and then returning with their magazines when the law was originally written.

The question then becomes, was the legislative intent of repealing 32420 specifically to make sure people doing so could be charged with a wobbler for importing instead of just an infraction for possession? (i.e. did they intend to make leaving and coming back a separate, worse, crime than staying put?) Or were they simply removing it because they felt it didn’t make sense anymore, because of 32310(b),(c)?

Either way, nothing happens automatically. Maybe the complaint or relief request can be amended at some point in time to say, “if 32310(a)(b) stay, but you get rid of (c)(d), can you please undo the repeal of 32420 so that we’re not in this goofy position?”
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-11-2019, 3:42 PM
eastmanwes eastmanwes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: SFV
Posts: 223
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L84CABO View Post
Is there a legal definition of "importing?"

Because taking something that you legally bought here in California on vacation with you out of state and then returning home with your lawfully owned property seems like an overly broad definition of "importing."

Importing to me means that you're bringing something into the state for the first time and that never resided in California to begin with.
This was my area of concern, if I own something already and am bringing it back into the state I do not feel that I am ‘importing’ anything at all.

Not trying to be the guinea pig either.

-W
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-11-2019, 3:55 PM
eastmanwes eastmanwes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: SFV
Posts: 223
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Just read thru the meat of this thread, thanks for all the info and thought processes everyone.

-W
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-11-2019, 4:18 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 12,302
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

^^ Bringing back large cap mags is importing do not delude yourself. Do it at your own risk. You will likely get away with it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:55 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.