#1
|
|||
|
|||
Purchased a legal high-cap handgun magazine, can I use it legally?
During the week-or-so opening for high cap mags in this state, let’s assume I purchased one.
Now, that that legal opening has closed, can I legally use the high-cap magazine that I legally own? Specifically for CCW use, with a license. Tried searching for something pertaining to this and couldn’t find anything. Opinions? Any legal links to say yay or nay? |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Ask your IA. Some don't care others do.
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls. What doesn't kill me, better run |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
acquired lawfully = use lawfully just remember that if a LEO takes it it will be claimed public nuisance and you will never see it again.
and always remember ITS SHUT THE FK UP FRIDAY everyday when talking to LEO.
__________________
Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
you're mixing two concepts. "legally": it is still legal to own and use lawfully acquired magazines. "policy": as regarding use in CCW that could be up to the issuing authority to place restrictions/conditions on use of certain items such as magazines, changing out triggers etc. Has nothing to do whether it's legal. But it depends on who issues your CCW, the rules are not common statewide. If you broke the rules, it's not a "crime" to be charged but you could have your CCW revoked.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Your issuing agency may have policies that prohibits use with the handgun that is listed on the carry permit they issued you. So, you need to check you issuing agency's policies on this issue, because violating their policy could result in your permit not being renewed or revoked. Also be aware that... It is legal to take your legal large capacity out of CA, but it is not legal to bring them back to CA and the only way they can be legally be brought back to CA, by a non-exempt person, is if they are permanently altered into 10 or less round magazines.
__________________
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001). Last edited by Quiet; 11-24-2021 at 8:28 AM.. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
All posts dedicated to the memory of Stronzo Bestiale "You want my sister but now scam my Glocks too? How about my sister? what can she do now? Still virgin and need Glcok." ---ARegularGuy NRA Patron Member |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Check with local laws outside your county. I think LA has a max 10 mag count law so I carry 10 rounders if I happen to be in LA. I'm not sure if it only affects residents or anyone in the county.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
L.A.'s 10 round limit was done away with when the state enacted statewide law. But, enforcement of the law is on hold for now.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
the likelihood of it being a problem is low, this is due in part to several past cases where the charges were dropped and the magazines were returned to the owner. thus people have come to realize these anti gun activists moonlighting as district attorneys have no teeth and have started to use their freedom week mags without fear, which is the whole point of freedom week. likewise the bureaucrats in the legal system have realized they can no longer con people into pleading without being able to prove they broke the law.
see their whole game is to play chicken with you hoping you're ill informed on the law and hoping you'll squeal under pressure and cop a plea. trust the law and trust the fact that they need to prove you broke the law, don't panic and fall for the bait. use these mags while it's still legal to do so |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Possession is illegal [PC 32310(c)], but enforcement of this is stayed until Court case finalizes. Making, importing, advertising for sale, and transfer is illegal [PC 32310(a)] and enforcement of this is still on going, because it has not been stayed by the Courts. Large capacity magazines that were made, imported, or transferred via an illegal or non-exempt method are still considered nuisance items [PC 32390], which are subject to confiscation and destruction [PC 18010], and enforcement of this is still on going, because it has not be stayed by the Courts.
__________________
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001). Last edited by Quiet; 11-26-2021 at 6:35 AM.. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So while an individual who possesses such a magazine can currently not be prosecuted for mere possession, the magazine can technically be confiscated and destroyed. Whether this is likely to happen is a different question.
__________________
meow |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
It is quite interesting that Judge Benitez did not include the nuisance provision in his injunction. But he did address it in his original opinion. LE agencies tend to be very respectful of the federal courts, and are not going to act in a manner that would likely offend the court while an issue is before it. There have only been two seizures of Large-Capacity Magazines that I am aware of following the issuance of the injunction. Neither case made it to trial (although one did go to a prelim). And I understand that magazines were returned in both cases. In neither case did the LE agency pursue a "Nuisance" seizure of the involved magazines.
__________________
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
News folks:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...?ocid=msedgntp Appeals court reinstated the mag cap ban. "(Reuters) - A divided U.S. appeals court on Tuesday reinstated California's ban on high-capacity magazines, calling it a reasonable means to support the state's effort to reduce gun violence, including mass shootings."
__________________
Let Go of the Status Quo! Don't worry, it will never pass...How in the hell did that pass? Think past your gun, it's the last resort, the first is your brain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent. In the history of humanity, no defense has ever won against an enemy with time on their side. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I am sure we will send it to the supreme court? What does this mean for freedom week mags? |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The injunction against enforcement was issued pending the "Final Resolution" of the case. I would expect that to be when the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate in the case, but it would be good to hear from our JD members on this point. Ms. Duncan cannot "send it" to the Supreme Court. There is no right to have one's case reviewed by the Supreme Court. One can only request Certiorari, and it's very rarely granted. My best guess, and nothing more than a guess, is that Judge Benitez will dissolve the injunction upon issue of the mandate. But I have seen cases where a federal trial court has stayed actions pending a Supreme Court decision on a request for certiorari. That occurred in the criminal sentencing of former Sheriff Lee Baca. If the injunction is dissolved, then it will be possible for local prosecutors to file charges for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines regardless of when they were acquired.
__________________
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
If the injunction is dissolved, then it will be possible for local prosecutors to file charges for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines regardless of when they were acquired.[/QUOTE]
how can this be the case? Those who got them before the original ban was grandfathered? |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"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 July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."
__________________
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
No one in the 9th circuit will be coming to my aid when I need to use them so... This is the time to put massive pressure on current elected sheriffs and demand they don't follow this. If this is final stop and no further movement on this case moves I guess its time I do. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Here is what I do:
Purchased freedom week magazines: I use them, I dont advertise them, I wont resell them. I use them at the range, to qualify for my CCW and BLM/Fed lands. Basically I use them as people use 10 rounders. I've done this since I was 'legally' allowed to purchase them. CCW: Depends on your IA and county. Do I use them in my CCW = Yes I am in Orange County.
__________________
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I am in a WAYYYY better county though so my LEO office for my CCW does not ask and does not have a stance on them. Still this is most likely what makes me move. pistol mags is the lowest of my worries. Its all the bs I went through for "featureless" long guns to still use 10+ mags for my set ups. I wont stop using them. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Here is my counties guidance: Quote:
__________________
Last edited by downdiver2; 11-30-2021 at 1:34 PM.. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The simple use, and possession, of large capacity magazines is illegal regardless of when, or how, you acquired them. At the moment, enforcement is enjoined for magazines that were acquired during "Freedom Week" and for the simple possession of such magazines. That injunction has not yet been dissolved. We'll have to see what Judge Benitez does not that the case has been returned to him, but he doesn't have a lot of options. The Ninth Circuit didn't return the case to him so that he could decide the case according to their guidance. It returned the case to him to enter judgement for the defendant's. He's gonna have to "pull a rabbit outta the hat" in order to keep the injunction in place. The policy statement from your IA doesn't appear to allow you to use illegally possessed magazines in your CCW weapon.
__________________
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The stay is still active. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Racerfox,
Please highlight what part of my post you believe to be incorrect. It is correct as posted. The injunction is still in effect, and I have said so in my posting ("The injunction has not yet been dissolved") Please note that the injunction only prevents enforcement of parts of PC 32310. It never "Legalized" the conduct proscribed by PC 32310.
__________________
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. Last edited by RickD427; 12-01-2021 at 8:47 AM.. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
I believe the possession part of the law is an infraction/misdemeanor. Not a felony.
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you also expect myself, you, and others to return our 'illegally' purchased ammo from Freedom Week 1.0? Same thing!
__________________
Last edited by downdiver2; 12-01-2021 at 1:23 PM.. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Here's the Penal Code Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Question: was what you posted - posted as is prior to the law - and heres the big question - prior to 11/30/21 was the law word for word the same? The answer is yes. So, explain how it differs now.
The state would need an amendment. Those not privy to Calguns or the internet or whatever, the 9th circuit just created 100,000 misdemeanors. It wont happen. I understand the law you posted, ive seen it - I saw it prior and after freedom week. And how does that differ from Freedom Week 1.0 and ammo sales? Should I start boxing up all my ammo and be expecting to return it to the online stores I purchased them from?
__________________
Last edited by downdiver2; 12-01-2021 at 1:28 PM.. |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Benitez's order prevents/prevented enforcement of 32310(c). The law was there, unchanged. When the order is no longer in force, 32310(c) may be enforced.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
That's not really accurate either. The State Legislature and Governor created them back in 2017 (and far more than 100k I'm sure). Enforcement has just been "on hold" until now. They have, under the statute, been illegal for 4 years now. And everyone that bought magazines during freedom week, did so gambling that there would be a win in the courts. There may yet be, but unless SCOTUS agrees to hear an appeal (or, possibly the NY case gets a generic enough ruling about scrutiny, which seems unlikely), we will have lost this one.
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
From the main thread in 2A Litigation
https://californiariflepistol.app.ne...&campaign=173& CRPA WILL petition for cert. That almost certainly means the mandate from Nov 30 will be stayed.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We may need to wait and see what happens here. Ms. Duncan can certainly request a stay, prior to the issuance of the mandate, but there is no assurance that the Ninth Circuit will grant the stay. Given their handling of the en banc decision, I would have to believe them dis-inclined to grant such a stay.
__________________
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|