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 11-23-2021, 4:12 PM
TheKyleRC TheKyleRC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 68
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-23-2021, 4:19 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,735
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Ask your IA. Some don't care others do.
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns


Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Americans vs. Democrats
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-23-2021, 4:27 PM
Yugo's Avatar
Yugo Yugo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 8,506
iTrader: 45 / 98%
Default

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:
Originally Posted by WAMO556 View Post
Voting for Donald Trump is the protest vote against: Keynesian economics, Neocon wars, exporting jobs, open borders, Washington criminal cartel, too big to fail banks and too big to jail pols and banksters.

Cutting off foreign aid to EVERY country and dismantling the police/surveillance state!

Umm yeah!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-23-2021, 5:38 PM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,607
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-23-2021, 5:56 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 3,579
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKyleRC View Post
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?
As alway, it’s best to disclose what agency. Each vary in their decision making.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-24-2021, 7:41 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is online now
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 27,146
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKyleRC View Post
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?
Since you lawfully acquired them, you can legally utilize them in a manner that would not violate CA assault weapons laws.

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.
__________________
Certified Glock Armorer

"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 9:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-24-2021, 8:06 AM
WOODY2 WOODY2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 546
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Shot placement and this subject will be moot?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-24-2021, 12:46 PM
AregularGuy's Avatar
AregularGuy AregularGuy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Oakland
Posts: 2,750
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
Since you lawfully acquired them, you can legally utilize them in a manner that would not violate CA assault weapons laws.

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.
Technically isn't it illegal to possess but enforcement currently prohibited? Or am I thinking of something else?
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-24-2021, 1:23 PM
Megalomegalodon's Avatar
Megalomegalodon Megalomegalodon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 793
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

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

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-24-2021, 3:45 PM
ARDude's Avatar
ARDude ARDude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Retired in Northridge, Ca
Posts: 2,350
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AregularGuy View Post
Technically isn't it illegal to possess but enforcement currently prohibited? Or am I thinking of something else?
You are correct.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-24-2021, 3:47 PM
ARDude's Avatar
ARDude ARDude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Retired in Northridge, Ca
Posts: 2,350
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalomegalodon View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-24-2021, 8:57 PM
johncage johncage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 183
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-26-2021, 7:30 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is online now
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 27,146
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AregularGuy View Post
Technically isn't it illegal to possess but enforcement currently prohibited? Or am I thinking of something else?
Technically...

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.
__________________
Certified Glock Armorer

"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 7:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-26-2021, 9:23 PM
MountainLion's Avatar
MountainLion MountainLion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tarzana
Posts: 179
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
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.
Technically, this includes all large-capacity magazines owned or possessed by "normal people" (excluding law enforcement, FFLs, armored car companies ...). It also includes all large-capacity magazines bought before their possession was banned (even though, as you correctly point out, the prohibition on their possession is not currently not enforced). It also includes all large-capacity magazines bought during "freedom week".

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
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-26-2021, 9:38 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,798
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yugo View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainLion View Post
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.
I don't foresee any LE agency seizing Large-Capacity Magazines under the "Nuisance" seizure authority while the federal court injunction is in effect.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-27-2021, 11:24 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 794
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You purchased only one?

"...let’s assume I purchased one"

and during freedom week? Hmmmm
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-29-2021, 4:05 PM
johncage johncage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 183
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I don't foresee any LE agency seizing Large-Capacity Magazines under the "Nuisance" seizure authority while the federal court injunction is in effect.

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.
i believe this sums up the current state of enforcement. even date marks on plastic magazine tubes or base plates may not be sufficient proof anymore as the prosecution will need to prove these were not parts used for repair. the judge had tremendous foresight and legal knowledge and covered all the bases
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-30-2021, 10:20 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 794
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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."
__________________
Happiness is a warm barrel.
It takes only one person and two forums to create the appearance of lots of people saying the same thing.
A SILENT MAJORITY will become a silent minority when those who have something to lose fear those who have something to gain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
You can have it one way or the other; you can have it both ways; you can have it every way but not always.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-30-2021, 11:38 AM
Yetiultimate Yetiultimate is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 147
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

So does this mean Freedom Week mags go back into the closet?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-30-2021, 11:57 AM
racerfox racerfox is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 83
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
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."
How does this effect the Stay?
I am sure we will send it to the supreme court?
What does this mean for freedom week mags?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-30-2021, 12:18 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,798
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by racerfox View Post
How does this effect the Stay?
I am sure we will send it to the supreme court?
What does this mean for freedom week mags?
The case is now back in Judge Benitez' hands with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-30-2021, 12:40 PM
racerfox racerfox is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 83
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-30-2021, 12:46 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,798
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by racerfox View Post
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.

how can this be the case?
Those who got them before the original ban was grandfathered?
There was no "Grandfathering" in Penal Code section 32310. Here is the pertinent part of the statute:
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-30-2021, 2:05 PM
racerfox racerfox is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 83
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
There was no "Grandfathering" in Penal Code section 32310. Here is the pertinent part of the statute:
"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."
I guess I will just stick with carrying what I want and they can have it after they suck my glock I guess.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-30-2021, 2:11 PM
downdiver2's Avatar
downdiver2 downdiver2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 977
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-30-2021, 2:18 PM
racerfox racerfox is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 83
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downdiver2 View Post
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.
Exactly what I do.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-30-2021, 2:31 PM
downdiver2's Avatar
downdiver2 downdiver2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 977
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by racerfox View Post
Exactly what I do.
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.
And I will note or add: Todays verdict does not impact me as I purchased my "Freedom week magazines" when they were legal to purchase and I am now lawfully using them.


Here is my counties guidance:

Quote:
MAGAZINE CAPACITY
The CCW license does not define magazine capacity, just the firearm model, serial number, and caliber. If the magazine and firearm are legal to possess in the State of California, and the firearm is approved to be listed on the license, a CCW permit holder may carry.
__________________

Last edited by downdiver2; 11-30-2021 at 2:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-30-2021, 2:47 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,798
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downdiver2 View Post
And I will note or add: Todays verdict does not impact me as I purchased my "Freedom week magazines" when they were legal to purchase and I am now lawfully using them.


Here is my counties guidance:
Actually, today's ruling does affect you.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-01-2021, 12:41 AM
racerfox racerfox is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 83
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Actually, today's ruling does affect you.

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.
As of currently this is incorrect.
The stay is still active.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-01-2021, 8:34 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,798
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by racerfox View Post
As of currently this is incorrect.
The stay is still active.
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 9:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-01-2021, 9:33 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 15,438
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

As of Nov. 30th and you have them, you are a felon even if previously purchased legally here. California has a tendency of doing that.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-01-2021, 1:47 PM
ARDude's Avatar
ARDude ARDude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Retired in Northridge, Ca
Posts: 2,350
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
As of Nov. 30th and you have them, you are a felon even if previously purchased legally here. California has a tendency of doing that.
I believe the possession part of the law is an infraction/misdemeanor. Not a felony.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-01-2021, 2:11 PM
downdiver2's Avatar
downdiver2 downdiver2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 977
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Actually, today's ruling does affect you.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
As of Nov. 30th and you have them, you are a felon even if previously purchased legally here. California has a tendency of doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARDude View Post
I believe the possession part of the law is an infraction/misdemeanor. Not a felony.
10000% inaccurate information. The possession and use of illegal high capacity magazines are in fact illegal for use and possession. Mine, on the other hand were lawfully purchased during freedom week. Prior acquired and later acquired high cap mags are illegal.

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 2:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-01-2021, 2:23 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,092
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downdiver2 View Post
10000% inaccurate information. The possession and use of illegal high capacity magazines are in fact illegal for use and possession. Mine, on the other hand were lawfully purchased during freedom week. Prior acquired and later acquired high cap mags are illegal.
Well, yes, yours is inaccurate.

Here's the Penal Code
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.

(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.

(c) 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.

(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.

(Amended November 8, 2016, by initiative Proposition 63, Sec. 6.1.)
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"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."

- Marcus Aurelius
Consider Samizdat; consider some reading material, such as this and that.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-01-2021, 2:24 PM
downdiver2's Avatar
downdiver2 downdiver2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 977
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Well, yes, yours is inaccurate.

Here's the Penal Code
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 2:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-01-2021, 3:00 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,092
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downdiver2 View Post
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?
The law does not differ now.

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.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"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."

- Marcus Aurelius
Consider Samizdat; consider some reading material, such as this and that.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-01-2021, 3:03 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 17,879
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

No.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-01-2021, 3:26 PM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,607
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downdiver2 View Post
Those not privy to Calguns or the internet or whatever, the 9th circuit just created 100,000 misdemeanors.
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.
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 8:31 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical