#1
|
|||
|
|||
Transferring mags legal?
I can't find any info on this.
Half the for sale posts I see here and elsewhere include standard capacity mags. What is the rule on this? Will PPTs enable the transfer of these? I'm lost on where the law applies here. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Not legal. C & D are currently enjoined from enforcement action, but the rest of the law is still enforceable.
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. (b) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine. (d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017: (1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; (2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or (3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
They probably go to a licensed dealer who will permanently block the mags.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
And far, far from half the gun listings here are even offered that way. I have seen a lot of listings for a lot of years here. But since you claim to see it that way, I have to question whether you are serious or are able to read and comprehend what is being offered. Last edited by SkyHawk; 07-22-2019 at 12:10 PM.. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Skyhawks,
I see them frequently here and even more frequently on Armslist. Using the "half the time" expression to denote it being frequent is really something you need to investigate as me being illiterate or dishonest? Good lord are you just trying to chase people off the forums? |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Srsly armslist? It’s real easy to sell fully semiautomatic multiclip assault unicorn killers when one is a Nigerian prince.
__________________
--------------------- "There is no "best." If there was, everyone here would own that one, and no other." - DSB |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think we all would like to read them. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
No he can’t because he is full of it. There is no way, no how he comes up with half either. Sure he might find a bone or two, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
I strongly suspect OP is reading "10/30 magazine" or "blocked 30 magazine" and thinks he struck gold but really just hit pyrite.
__________________
--------------------- "There is no "best." If there was, everyone here would own that one, and no other." - DSB |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In my mind, legality is doubtful selling a large-capacity magazine to an LEO by a layperson unless it is through an FFL who is equipped to verify LE status properly. I don't even know if you can do it without a transfer to the FFL who then 'sells' it to the LEO. LEO to LEO appears to be kosher.
Additionally, PPT sellers of a firearm to a layperson are stuck with their freedom magazines as not part of that sale, and may have to sell at great loss to the FFL who needs a LCM permit. Otherwise, blocking said magazines is the only remaining alternative. 'Offers or exposes for sale'- that would likely negate sending the magazines out-of-state in most instances, or even contacting an out-of-state FFL or buyer to sell to them. The time to get rid of or sell the magazines out-of-state was BEFORE July 1, 2017. BUT, 32310(d) had been found unconstitutional anyway and is on appeal. I really don't know where that leaves us. Any way a layman looks at it one's hands are substantially tied. Last edited by savoirrangefaire; 10-06-2019 at 1:08 PM.. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sometimes in the medical profession, when a doctor proclaims truth by using the term "in my clinical experience", what they really means is they saw it once. And when they say, "This has always been our best practice", they mean they did it twice. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Nothing. Do you think the buyers are calling the police?
__________________
Anchors Aweigh |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
... almost 10 pages deep into the parts sub forum and I've found ZERO "high capacity" mags for sale. Only 10/30, etc. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Situation: Bought $3,000+ worth of freedom mags 3/29/19-4/5/19. I keep most stored in ammo cans with desiccant packets in a secure location at my California residence. Keep a few in a range bag & one in a mag well for home defense with back ups in a pocket nearby.
I value my freedom magazines more than money. Not one will never be sold again or cross state lines again. I am a law abiding gun owner with permanent keeps & everything to lose. Loss of God given rights & property is never an option. Based on my interpretation of the law, an order can be submitted for magazines with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds to an address outside California & be lawfully kept outside of California in a modest magazine cache only for out of state use. Seems like the best & most law abiding option for any gun owner that has the right to keep & bear arms infringed by an unconstitutional rule of tyrannical government. Your thoughts? |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Your approach may only bring you some temporary benefit. At some point there will be a final decision in the Duncan case:
1) If Ms. Duncan prevails, then the California prohibition on the possession, and importation of large capacity magazines goes away. You'll still have your "Freedom Week" magazines and will still be able to use them freely, but their value will likely drop to market price. 2) If Ms. Duncan loses, then plan on the injunction going away. The likely outcome is that you will have to divest yourself of your "Freedom Week" magazines, or remove them from the state.
__________________
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. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
However, as stated in this thread by other members, it's not legal. And as someone who frequents the for sale sections a lot (really I'd say anyone with more than 25 feedback "frequents the section a lot" and we have several people in this thread who are above and then well beyond that) I find this statement hard to believe. No way "half" the sale posts on here include stan.cap.mags, half the selling members on here probably don't even possess them. And when they are in possession of legally acquired mags, they are typically put with a disclaimer such as "will be pinned prior to sale" or "LEO sales only." If you only see what looks like a stan.cap.mag on the outside but no explanation as to its capacity, it is a 10/30 or 10/## whatever the number is, meaning the magazine has been permanently modified internally to only take 10 rounds. The law right now is what it always was: possession and transfer of stan.cap.mags is illegal within the state of California. The reason you see an extremely small limited number of people with stan.cap.mags is that, in layman's terms, the CA law was found unconstitutional and killed off, but then Kommiefornia appealed it, so they killed off the decision killing off the law, and now the law, like a zombie, is back from the dead, and is stuck like that until more legal action happens in the future.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member |
#22
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
However, if you feel "chased off the forums" because you asked a question and people are actually replying to your question or attempting to reply to your question by clarifying the premise of it, then that's just a matter of you not liking the facts, even though facts don't choose sides. I'll save Skyhawks the trouble and do the investigating. Taken from currently active for sale ads. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That said, that's hardly half, or even the majority, or even a significant number. If these facts "drive you off the forum" then, well, I'm sorry that they did. That said, the internet is a harsh place out there, and if you think its bad here, never be a member of a car forum. They crucify their fellow car enthusiasts for good sport. Since car ownership is not a Constitutional right under attack by a nationally charged political agenda, there's nothing unifying car guys, and as a result they turn to cannibalizing one another.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Last edited by LateBraking; 11-10-2019 at 7:34 AM.. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Did you happen to look at the dates of the original for sale posting? We’re they during freedom week? I have come across those not realizing how far back in the classifieds ive surfed lol. I have only seen a couple come up current.
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Technically yes it is. The law was not struck down, enforcement (prosecution) of the law is barred by court order.
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Injunction against enforcement of the above is currently in effect and has been appealed by the State. Due to the injunction, possession is technically not a crime now, and anyone who arrests you for a felony or misdemeanor offense of possession is in deep doo-doo. The POSSESSION part of the statute has also been held to be unconstitutional by the Federal District Court, unless reversed. If I remember correctly the District Court ruled ALL of PC 32310 unconstitutional but did not stay enforcement of 32310(a)(b). It only stayed enforcement of subsections (c) and (d) (re POSSESSION) pending the appeal. To respond to this thread's title- NO. Can't lawfully transfer large-capacity magazines, with the usual exceptions, even though that part of the law had also been held unconstitutional. It remains the law pending the appeal. Same with unlawful possession- it remains the law BUT LE is barred from enforcing it. The entirety of PC 32310 remains in the Penal Code. The POSSESSION part of it remains UNENFORCEABLE. We await the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. Last edited by savoirrangefaire; 12-02-2019 at 12:40 PM.. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Not this again.
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1) PC 32310 became effective on July 1, 2017. The federal court injunction did nothing to change this. All that the court order accomplished was to prohibit designated officials from enforcing the statute. It still remains "on the books." 2) The federal court made no finding that any part of section 32310 was unconstitutional. That decision remains pending. All that Judge Benitez did was to express his opinion that the section was likely unconstitutional and that was one factor in his granting the injunction until the issue can be tried and a decision reached. That ain't happened yet. You're getting a little ahead of yourself here. 3) The entire section 32310 remains in law. It hasn't been erased, wiped out, invalidated or put on "Double Secret Probation". All that has happened with it is that enforcement of two subsections has been enjoined. 4) That's an important distinction. Although this scenario is quite unlikely for a number of reasons, it's a legal possibility. A person is found at the range using a large-capacity magazine. A law enforcement officer makes contact, but takes no enforcement action due to the injunction. Eleven months later the Ninth Circuit upholds the statute and lifts the injunction. That person can then be prosecuted for the violation, even though it occurred while the injunction was in effect. 5) About the only point where you were correct is that the part about possession is currently unenforceable.
__________________
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
https://casetext.com/case/duncan-v-becerra-4 "IV. CONCLUSION Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms." California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that law-abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits law-abiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds. Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined." Quote:
Likely scenario would be a civil rights lawsuit against LE under 42 USC 1983 for the later arrest resulting from a lawful act at the time. Think of the machinegun scenario. Last edited by savoirrangefaire; 12-02-2019 at 1:51 PM.. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The summary judgment is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. That pretty much makes it devoid of legal meaning at present. Only the Preliminary Injunction remains in force, and that injunction settles nothing about the constitutionality of section 32310. I probably should have worded my posting more clearly on this point. As to your second point about the distinction about the current status of PC 32310 (c) and (d): There is no issue of "ex post facto" if a person were later charged, after the injunction were lifted, for a violation of possession while the injunction was in effect. An "ex post facto" law is one which proscribes conduct occurring before the law was in effect. PC 32310 became effective on July 1, 2017. A violation occurring on December 2, 2019 would be after the effective date, and therefor not an "ex post facto." The key to the distinction is that neither the Preliminary Injunction, nor the pending appeal, did anything to invalidate the law. If the injunction is lifted, the effective date of the law remains July 1, 2017. OTOH if the injunction did have the effect of invalidating the law, and a new law were enacted to replace it, then there would be an "ex post facto" issue. "Probable Cause" to arrest for the crime is determined by the elements of the offense, did the subject possess a large capacity magazine in the state of California? The Preliminary Injunction has no bearing on the elements of the offense. The Ninth Circuit isn't going to have any involvement in the state case unless the defendant files a federal lawsuit, or a federal habeas action. State law charges are going to be handled in state court. Anyone can file a 1983 lawsuit. I've tracked a great number of them during my time in LE service. Very few actually succeed. In the hypothetical I posed, the arrest would be lawful. But again, the reasoning is all dependent on the distinction between the Preliminary Injunction making possession legal, or the Preliminary Injunction only preventing prosecution. Please read the terms of the PI. You'll see that it does nothing to invalidate the statute. That question remains pending.
__________________
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In defense of OP, I've found a few ads on Armslist over the past month while looking for my first pistol that advertised pistols with standard magazines.
While I'm not sure they were all current listings, i.e., not during Freedom Week, I came across this ad that was posted on 12/05/19, which clearly states "3-15RD Magazines." https://www.armslist.com/posts/10714...r-p229-legion- And for the members who appear to scoff at Armslist, all I can say is that I had a good experience using that site to purchase a brand new, off-roster Sig Sauer p229. The seller was very professional and the transaction went extremely smooth as the seller's preferred gun shop was also local to me. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Well I deeply appreciate the legal discussion, on this the most recent page in particular. It certainly gave me a good legal framework going forward. My conclusion about all this, in the current state of affairs in California and the USA, is that we should all keep our mouths shut about what we own in terms of this not yet fully resolved legal issue. And if you do own something that falls in the category, don't show them off at the range to prove a legal argument that has not yet been settled. If you've got some, be happy and leave it at that.
I was at a local gun show and got into a discussion on this very subject with a vendor specializing in WW2 guns and accessories for my M1 Carbine. I've already bought some tools and spare parts. This vendor said he keeps it simple and doesn't sell anything that could come back and cause him a illegal proplem. Period. At the same time, he went on, there are tons of people on eBay and other internet sites that are not really experts in what they are selling. Its just old WW2 stuff to them and they sell it "as is as found"...old canteen cases, bayonets, old medals, gas mask and ammo pouches, and now and then a weapons magazine...in single items and in large groups. Some are rusty, some look pretty good, and the sellers aren't even aware of their capacities or the laws. The guy said that the serious merchants of WW2 magazines are very careful about what they sell because they know the law. But there are some out there that are totally clueless...or at least act so. For me the answer is don't poke the bear. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|