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 10-05-2019, 7:44 AM
Ewok55 Ewok55 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Mags on Vacation

Ok, I'm going to WY elk hunting in Grizzly country next week. I want to carry a standard capacity pre-ban magazine I legally possess in my Glock 20, for obvious reasons. Can I somehow document that I legally possess it before leaving and still legally bring it back? BTW, they have moved the check station to close to the border on 15 recently. If there is no way to do that, I guess I could buy one on my way up and sell it before returning to CA.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-05-2019, 8:11 AM
beanz2's Avatar
beanz2 beanz2 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,818
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Pre-ban standard capacity mags used to be exempted from returning into the state, but that exemption was dropped in the latest iteration of the law. I’d buy new magazines in WY, buy magazine blockers and block them to 10 rounds before returning.


.
__________________

The wife will be pissed, but Jesus always forgives.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-05-2019, 5:56 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 24,434
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewok55 View Post
Ok, I'm going to WY elk hunting in Grizzly country next week. I want to carry a standard capacity pre-ban magazine I legally possess in my Glock 20, for obvious reasons. Can I somehow document that I legally possess it before leaving and still legally bring it back? BTW, they have moved the check station to close to the border on 15 recently. If there is no way to do that, I guess I could buy one on my way up and sell it before returning to CA.
Starting 07-01-2017, the exemption [PC 32420] to CA large capacity magazines laws that allowed a person who legally owned/possess large capacity magazines to leave CA with those magazines and return to CA with those magazines was repealed.

The initial Court ordered injuction issued on 06-30-2017, did not bring this exemption back.

The recent Court ordered stay that went into effect on 04-05-2019, did not bring this exemption back.

Therefore...

It is CA legal for a person that legally owns/possess large capacity magazines to leave CA with those magazines, but CA illegal for that person to return to CA with those magazines (felony importation).


The intent for the repeal was to reduce the amount of lawfully owned/possessed large capacity magazines in CA.
It makes it so a person can legally leave CA with large capacity magazines, but can not legally return with those magazines.
The magazines had to be stored out-of-state or transferred out-of-state or made into permanently modified 10 round magazines prior to returning to CA.


Penal Code 32420 THIS WAS REPEALED EFFECTIVE 07-01-2017.
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.
__________________


"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).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-06-2019, 5:51 AM
NATO762 NATO762 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 35
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This has always bugged me. Just because I move something I own across state lines doesn't mean I am "importing" it or "re-importing" it. If I drive my car to NV and back to CA I am not "importing" it into CA. This seems ridiculous on its face. Is there a code section that deals specifically with this, of which I am unaware?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-06-2019, 6:05 AM
Ewok55 Ewok55 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you. Beanz2 had a good suggestion to buy one up there and neuter it before returning. I'm mainly concerned about the one in the gun in a bear defense scenario, as it will be over one way or the other on the first magazine. I certainly don't want to ruin one I already legally possess!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-06-2019, 8:53 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: 13,902
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's a wobbler like many CA laws. It depend if they want to make an example out of you.

Sloppy written laws with selective enforcement is facism.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-06-2019, 10:55 AM
Ewok55 Ewok55 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Permanently modified. On a Glock, does that mean a pop rivet holding the baseplate to the spring plate after a block is put in so the baseplate can't be removed? A rivet that holds the block in the side of the magazine might interfere with magazine fit in the well. Or epoxy the baseplate to the body with the block installed?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-06-2019, 11:43 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,681
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Last day of vacation, swap out your LCM for a standard. Disassemble the LCM into discreet "repair" components. Mail them to your home address in separate packages, so that neither package constitutes a magazine nor a "parts kit" in and of itself.

By my reading, in doing this you are not importing a large capacity magazine nor are you importing a "parts kit" out of which a magazine may be built.

You then re-assemble at home, and because it's a magazine you legally owned in CA before such became "illegal" again, you can certainly disassemble/reassemble it for cleaning.

If there's a "gotcha" here someone point it out... I'm pretty sure this is letter-of-the-law legal.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-06-2019, 11:52 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,084
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
Last day of vacation, swap out your LCM for a standard. Disassemble the LCM into discreet "repair" components. Mail them to your home address in separate packages, so that neither package constitutes a magazine nor a "parts kit" in and of itself.

By my reading, in doing this you are not importing a large capacity magazine nor are you importing a "parts kit" out of which a magazine may be built.

You then re-assemble at home, and because it's a magazine you legally owned in CA before such became "illegal" again, you can certainly disassemble/reassemble it for cleaning.

If there's a "gotcha" here someone point it out... I'm pretty sure this is letter-of-the-law legal.
You mail a bunch of packages.

You get home and open the packages.

Now, you have what might be a large-capacity-magazine conversion kit.

And, because we have no case-law or regulatory guidance, it might be the case that any one of those pieces might be a "kit".

See also "mailing home a Jeep".
__________________
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
  #10  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:08 PM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,681
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

But the point is, you didn't import them as a "kit"... they may constitute a "kit" once opened in the sanctity of your own home, but they weren't a kit prior to that moment.

There's no case law on this and there likely never will be. I expect the entire magazine capacity issue to be mooted eventually, either at the 9th c or SCOTUS within the next few months or years. What would you estimate the actual risk factor here to be? 1%? Less?

I wouldn't recommend someone do this for the purpose of obtaining mags they didn't legally obtain during freedom week or prior Y2K. That's clearly illegal.

The point I was making is that in doing this, he's technically not importing a magazine nor a rebuild kit. Now when he gets home, he is merely re-assembling a magazine which he obtained legally. It would have to be a very detailed and tortured law case indeed to convict such an individual of any "crime".
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:13 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,084
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
But the point is, you didn't import them as a "kit"... they may constitute a "kit" once opened in the sanctity of your own home, but they weren't a kit prior to that moment.

...

The point I was making is that in doing this, he's technically not importing a magazine nor a rebuild kit.
But as I pointed out, we don't know that. One part might be a kit.

Anyone is free to take whatever risk one wishes to take. IMHO, it's a good idea to do that risk-taking with enough information to make a reasonable judgement.
__________________
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
  #12  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:15 PM
beanz2's Avatar
beanz2 beanz2 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,818
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewok55 View Post
Permanently modified. On a Glock, does that mean a pop rivet holding the baseplate to the spring plate after a block is put in so the baseplate can't be removed? A rivet that holds the block in the side of the magazine might interfere with magazine fit in the well. Or epoxy the baseplate to the body with the block installed?
I'd try to epoxy the magazine block to the spring and/or the spring plate, so you can still clean the magazine.

.
__________________

The wife will be pissed, but Jesus always forgives.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:17 PM
wpod's Avatar
wpod wpod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,019
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Is anyone here this OCD about traffic laws, which effect many more around us than magazine nuisance/infractions?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:57 PM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Posts: 1,785
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wpod View Post
Is anyone here this OCD about traffic laws, which effect many more around us than magazine nuisance/infractions?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
There are not that many traffic laws which can result in you being charged with a felony.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-06-2019, 1:37 PM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,681
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
But as I pointed out, we don't know that. One part might be a kit.

Anyone is free to take whatever risk one wishes to take. IMHO, it's a good idea to do that risk-taking with enough information to make a reasonable judgement.
If there's no distinguishing between a replacement/repair part for an already lawfully owned magazine (say a spring to replace a bent/broken spring, or a floorplate to replace one lost or broken) and a "kit" from which to build a magazine en toto, then it's going to be virtually impossible for people to maintain their existing, legally-owned magazines. I'd say most companies who supply such parts do seem to draw this distinction in a practical sense... one may order replacement springs for instance, with no difficulty, where the same company will refuse to sell the complete set of parts required to build a total magazine, in the same shipment. So apparently they and/or their lawyers have some basis to believe they are acting in compliance with CA law.

Lacking any kind of case law, a reasonable person would grant that if one owned the magazine in the state legally, and subsequently disassembles/reassembles that magazine using the same or different parts, there's no intent to break the law and no clearly discernible law being broken in so doing, and that no "importation" occurred.

I will grant that you are correct in saying "but we have no legal PROOF". And that will be correct until a case comes down explicitly saying so. Which there will in all likelihood never be. I would say, as a working rule, what I've proposed is as close to a legal accommodation as one is likely to get for the foreseeable future, until the mag capacity law is struck down permanently.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.

Last edited by bruss01; 10-06-2019 at 1:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-09-2019, 7:15 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
But as I pointed out, we don't know that. One part might be a kit.

Anyone is free to take whatever risk one wishes to take. IMHO, it's a good idea to do that risk-taking with enough information to make a reasonable judgement.
Also, whether you import 10 apples in ten trip, the end result is the same. You imported 10 apples. The same argument applies to importing (shipping) all parts of a magazine separately. You still imported the same total as if they were brought in in a single shipment.
__________________
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
  #17  
Old 10-09-2019, 7:22 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
If there's no distinguishing between a replacement/repair part for an already lawfully owned magazine (say a spring to replace a bent/broken spring, or a floorplate to replace one lost or broken) and a "kit" from which to build a magazine en toto, then it's going to be virtually impossible for people to maintain their existing, legally-owned magazines. I'd say most companies who supply such parts do seem to draw this distinction in a practical sense... one may order replacement springs for instance, with no difficulty, where the same company will refuse to sell the complete set of parts required to build a total magazine, in the same shipment. So apparently they and/or their lawyers have some basis to believe they are acting in compliance with CA law.

Lacking any kind of case law, a reasonable person would grant that if one owned the magazine in the state legally, and subsequently disassembles/reassembles that magazine using the same or different parts, there's no intent to break the law and no clearly discernible law being broken in so doing, and that no "importation" occurred.

I will grant that you are correct in saying "but we have no legal PROOF". And that will be correct until a case comes down explicitly saying so. Which there will in all likelihood never be. I would say, as a working rule, what I've proposed is as close to a legal accommodation as one is likely to get for the foreseeable future, until the mag capacity law is struck down permanently.
Sure they have some basis for their belief. If you are prosecuted you can argue your basis for your belief and you may prevail. If you do, the practical and financial costs are still yours to bear. If found guilty . . .

Being impossible to maintain legal magazines just might fit in with the State's undisclosed intent.
__________________
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
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 7:33 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.