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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism > Temp Post-Duncan Mag Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-03-2019, 7:53 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,087
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default FAQ: Yes, all the local laws on magazines in force Thursday remain in force

The Duncan decision was about one section of California Penal Code.

The State does not have pre-emption on magazine laws. See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...Gun_Regulation

Unless and until the local laws are successfully, individually challenged - and the arguments from Duncan should be helpful - those laws remain in force.

Note that Sunnyvale's law has been challenged, but plaintiffs lost. Fyock v Sunnyvale, see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=867249
__________________
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
  #2  
Old 04-03-2019, 7:57 PM
CGZ's Avatar
CGZ CGZ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 661
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

What are some of the localities that have their own restrictions?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-03-2019, 8:07 PM
yakker1982's Avatar
yakker1982 yakker1982 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 165
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGZ View Post
What are some of the localities that have their own restrictions?
I believe it's just San Francisco, Sunnyvale, and Oakland. Los Angeles let their ban expire due to the statewide ban being implemented (I think).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-03-2019, 8:19 PM
Swagman00's Avatar
Swagman00 Swagman00 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: East bay Nor-Cal (Not Oakland!)
Posts: 4,013
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yakker1982 View Post
I believe it's just San Francisco, Sunnyvale, and Oakland. Los Angeles let their ban expire due to the statewide ban being implemented (I think).
Trouble is those Oakland guys will come out HERE eastward to Martinez/Pleasanton/Livermore to shoot. I'm willing to bet they bought and sent them to houses of relatives to try and skirt the city ordinance.
__________________
Anyway...here's a dearth of reasoning to ponder: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Guns

Recently I've been hung up on Synthwave that scatters Youtube.
Feel free to join if curious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3brTfJ_O1RE



Quote:
Originally Posted by movie zombie View Post
and you guys wonder why women are fed up with bad behavior?!

Last edited by Swagman00; 04-03-2019 at 8:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-03-2019, 8:19 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,489
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

San Francisco has an ordinance that states it is a misdemeanor to be in possession of, sale of, or transfer of any magazine with capacity larger than 10 rounds.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-03-2019, 9:00 PM
Ocguy31's Avatar
Ocguy31 Ocguy31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is from San Francisco's ordinance. Doesn't it suggest the following:

- It labels any California state law that bans "large capacity magazines" a duplicate. A duplicate of an unconstitutional State law is itself unconstitutional.

- Doesn't the state pre-empt duplicate law, such as in FISCAL v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, over the Prop H handgun ban?

- That It has no effect or force because CA enacted its own law banning said magazines. Or is a Proposition not legislation?


Genuinely asking, IANAL.



https://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfi...S130585tdr.pdf

Last edited by Ocguy31; 04-03-2019 at 9:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-03-2019, 9:09 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,062
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yakker1982 View Post
I believe it's just San Francisco, Sunnyvale, and Oakland. Los Angeles let their ban expire due to the statewide ban being implemented (I think).
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1#post22846591

Los Angeles:

Quote:
SEC. 55.13. SALE OF AMMUNITION CLIPS AND SIMILAR DEVICES.
(Amended by Ord. No. 172,002, Eff. 6/5/98.)

(a) No person shall sell or otherwise transfer to any other person a clip, magazine , belt, drum, feed strip or similar device which has a capacity of, or which can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

1. the sale or transfer of such devices to any person described in Section 12302 or 12322 of the Penal Code of the State of California, or

2. the sale or transfer of ownership of such a device by a wholesale gun dealer to another wholesale gun dealer or by a wholesale gun dealer to a retail gun dealer, or

3. any entity or establishment engaged in the business of motion picture, television, video, theatrical, or re-enactment production, provided the clip, magazine , belt, drum, feed strip or similar device is used solely as a prop in the course of motion picture, television, video, theater, or re-enactment production by an authorized participant therein or by an authorized agent or employee of the entity or establishment, and only if the entity or establishment properly secures such clip, magazine , belt, drum, feed strip or similar device from unauthorized use, or

4. any federal, state or local historical society, museum or institutional collection which is open to the public provided any such clip, magazine , belt, drum, feed strip or similar device is properly housed, secured from unauthorized handling and is unloaded.
The Hollywood exemption is loathsome. It did not escape Judge Benitez' notice either:

Quote:
Another example is the exception for movie props. Why in the interest of public safety does the movie industry need to use a genuine large capacity magazine for a prop? Is it too far-fetched to require the Hollywood creators of Mickey Mouse, Jaws, and Star Wars, to use a non-working magazine in place of a genuine large capacity magazine? Most importantly by far, however, is that the cloak of the law needs at least some arm holes to fit. It has none because it ignores the fact that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are commonly possessed by law-abiding, responsible citizens, and it affords no room for these citizens to defend their homes against attack.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 04-03-2019 at 9:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-03-2019, 9:38 PM
recpark99 recpark99 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 292
iTrader: 104 / 100%
Default Reeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzagg View Post
Sunnyvale has an ordinance making possession a crime. I couldn't find the exact details.

Could be an issue for folks going to the indoor range at Reed's.
Reeds is in Santa Clara, shouldn't be an issue.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-03-2019, 9:51 PM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzagg View Post
Sunnyvale has an ordinance making possession a crime. I couldn't find the exact details.

Could be an issue for folks going to the indoor range at Reed's.
It might not exist, I found the California Municipal Codes for firearms on the ATF website. Only 3 cities mentioned magazines and those were San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Fransisco. The San Fransisco one is still going to bite you no matter what and the San Diego one might if you put anything more than 19 rounds in a center-fire semi-auto rifle or anything more than 6 rounds in a shotgun (pump or semi).

The LA one is fine because it only prohibits sales and transfers of those magazines in Los Angeles. Aside that there is nothing about buying the magazine or getting it shipped to you (not that I found, I searched as much as I could to find a municipal code for it or even a bill but the only thing I found was the ban on possession which expired about 2 years ago).

Here's the link -> https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/gu...alpdf/download
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-03-2019, 9:53 PM
Ocguy31's Avatar
Ocguy31 Ocguy31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For Los Angeles, isn't this the case now? Why wouldn't it apply to all localities?



https://www.turners.com/info/crpa-nr...t#.XKWbTShKhPZ


"The following year, both Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 were enacted, making it a violation of state law to possess these standard capacity magazines. As a result, the City’s ordinance was duplicative of and preempted by the state laws"

Last edited by Ocguy31; 04-03-2019 at 9:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:00 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,062
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocguy31 View Post
For Los Angeles, isn't this the case now? Why wouldn't it apply to all localities?



https://www.turners.com/info/crpa-nr...t#.XKWbTShKhPZ


"The following year, both Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 were enacted, making it a violation of state law to possess these standard capacity magazines. As a result, the City’s ordinance was duplicative of and preempted by the state laws"
AFAIK, Los Angeles' SEC. 55.13. SALE OF AMMUNITION CLIPS AND SIMILAR DEVICES was not sunsetted, [edit] and was challenged on pre-emption grounds but that challenge failed.

I really wish CRPA would chime in here; there is still a lot of confusion over local/county laws.

Update:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Injunction.pdf

Pre-emption challenge (Hance v Los Angeles) failed:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...on_8.21.98.pdf
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 04-03-2019 at 10:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:04 PM
Ocguy31's Avatar
Ocguy31 Ocguy31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post

Pre-emption challenge (Hance v Los Angeles) failed:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...on_8.21.98.pdf

That wasn't a challenge based on the 2000 state law though, so it would have to be re-challenged? It looks like they acknowledged the theory by agreeing to the sunset law to the possession ban during pre-lit.

Last edited by Ocguy31; 04-03-2019 at 10:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-03-2019, 10:35 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,062
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocguy31 View Post
That wasn't a challenge based on the 2000 state law though, so it would have to be re-challenged? It looks like they acknowledged the theory by agreeing to the sunset law to the possession ban during pre-lit.
Yes, this sounds reasonable. I'm obviously no lawyer, so a real answer is going to have to come from someone other than myself. I believe Chuck (or CRPA) mentioned that challenging a law based on pre-emption for a now-non-extant law might be tricky.

However, the state ban exists, it just cannot be enforced.

And on what planet does it make sense that if a law is stricken for being unconstitutional, it no longer preempts local law? The law is a *** indeed.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-04-2019, 8:06 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,087
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post

And on what planet does it make sense that if a law is stricken for being unconstitutional, it no longer preempts local law? The law is a *** indeed.
I'll repeat my silly analogy: if the Legislature 4th grade misbehaves, and teacher Benitez keeps them in for recess, does that mean the Sunnyvale and San Francisco 3rd grades must also stay in?

Each locality has some authority to create laws; those laws stand until specifically challenged.

The Legislature gets its power from the California Constitution, article 4, section 1. Cities, for example, get their power from Government Code, title 4.
__________________
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
  #15  
Old 04-04-2019, 9:38 AM
Maulerrr's Avatar
Maulerrr Maulerrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 893
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swagman00 View Post
Trouble is those Oakland guys will come out HERE eastward to Martinez/Pleasanton/Livermore to shoot. I'm willing to bet they bought and sent them to houses of relatives to try and skirt the city ordinance.
That's what I wouldve done if I lived in one of those prohibited areas. Not every gun owner in Oakland is a gang banger.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-04-2019, 9:47 AM
LEAD LAUNCHER LEAD LAUNCHER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Simi Valley
Posts: 1,136
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maulerrr View Post
That's what I wouldve done if I lived in one of those prohibited areas. Not every gun owner in Oakland is a gang banger.
That’s what I thought. What’s the “trouble”?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-04-2019, 12:46 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,062
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Each locality has some authority to create laws; those laws stand until specifically challenged.
I understand that, but CRPA (or Chuck? not sure which) mentioned that a pre-emption challenge itself might be made more difficult if the state law no longer exists (where "no longer exists" might also apply to laws that are enjoined from being enforced).
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-04-2019, 12:54 PM
Squatch Squatch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 203
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yakker1982 View Post
I believe it's just San Francisco, Sunnyvale, and Oakland. Los Angeles let their ban expire due to the statewide ban being implemented (I think).
I'm pretty sure LA let it expire because they got zero compliance.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-04-2019, 1:17 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,062
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squatch View Post
I'm pretty sure LA let it expire because they got zero compliance.
1) That isn't the reason, as been discussed many many times over
2) LAMC 55.13 did not sunset.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-04-2019, 1:58 PM
liberty_head liberty_head is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As I read LAMC 55.13, it does not prohibit anyone in LA from taking possession of magazines with capacity greater than ten rounds via lawful purchase or transfer, such as receiving from out of state or outside of LA right now. Part (a) states, "No person shall sell or otherwise transfer to any other person..."

Accordingly, right now, it would seem perfectly legal for an LA resident to be purchasing or receiving magazines that are currently legal to possess in CA and LA, but they can't sell or otherwise transfer the mags to anyone else in LA unless the other party is exempt per part (b).

It would seem to prohibit dealers in LA from selling magazines with capacity greater than ten rounds right now, even though they are currently legal to possess in CA and LA.

Last edited by liberty_head; 04-04-2019 at 2:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-04-2019, 2:02 PM
canopis's Avatar
canopis canopis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 287
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty_head View Post
It would seem to prohibit dealers in LA from selling magazines with capacity greater than ten rounds right now, even though they are currently legal to possess in CA and LA.
There was a separate section (section 46.?? something) of the LA Municipal Code that dealt with possession; it sunsetted on July 1, 2017.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-04-2019, 2:05 PM
liberty_head liberty_head is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canopis View Post
There was a separate section (section 46.?? something) of the LA Municipal Code that dealt with possession; it sunsetted on July 1, 2017.
Yes, LAMC 46.30 prohibited possession. However (as you note):

(e) This Section shall expire on July 1, 2017, unless the City Council acts by ordinance to amend this Section to extend its effective period. (Added by Ord. No. 184,767, Eff. 4/4/17.)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-04-2019, 2:07 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,062
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

IMO there isn't much debate about 46.30, I'm much more concerned about 55.13
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-04-2019, 2:21 PM
liberty_head liberty_head is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
IMO there isn't much debate about 46.30, I'm much more concerned about 55.13
I'd be concerned that LA would try to reinstitute/replace 46.30 in the future.

55.13 is concerning, but seems to prohibit selling or transferring to any other person, not lawfully buying/receiving/possessing like elsewhere in CA right now. That's how I read it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-04-2019, 2:27 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,062
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty_head View Post
I'd be concerned that LA would try to reinstitute/replace 46.30 in the future.
Agreed

Quote:
55.13 is concerning, but seems to prohibit selling or transferring to any other person, not lawfully buying/receiving/possessing like elsewhere in CA right now. That's how I read it.
I think you're on the right track but I wonder what that means for actual deliveries. Is the transfer between the out of state seller and the LA resident? Is it possible it can be interpreted to ever mean the transfer from the shipping agent to the LA resident?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-04-2019, 2:48 PM
liberty_head liberty_head is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I think you're on the right track but I wonder what that means for actual deliveries. Is the transfer between the out of state seller and the LA resident? Is it possible it can be interpreted to ever mean the transfer from the shipping agent to the LA resident?
I believe that someone out of state, or outside of the City of Los Angeles, would only be subject to Los Angeles Municipal Codes while within the city limits of Los Angeles. With regard to delivery from outside the City of Los Angeles, the mags are currently legal to buy and possess, so as long as you don't turn around and sell or transfer them to any other person within the City of Los Angeles, I don't believe 55.13 is applicable.

Again, just my interpretation (and I'm not a lawyer).
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-04-2019, 3:29 PM
BobbyQuickdraw BobbyQuickdraw is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Agreed



I think you're on the right track but I wonder what that means for actual deliveries. Is the transfer between the out of state seller and the LA resident? Is it possible it can be interpreted to ever mean the transfer from the shipping agent to the LA resident?
The shipping agent is an intermediary and is not privy to the contents of the package. My interpretation is that it is not legal to transfer LCMs between individuals or businesses within the city, but people outside of the city are free to do so and people within the city are free to receive.

The mailman or UPS guy is not on the hook for delivering anything, especially not knowing what is in the package.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-05-2019, 5:41 PM
Elbowtko Elbowtko is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is what I pulled out for Oakland:

9.38.040 - Possession of large-capacity magazines prohibited.
A. It is unlawful for any person to possess any large-capacity magazine, except as otherwise authorized by law, whether assembled or disassembled. B. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this article, was legally in possession of a large-capacity magazine shall have ninety (90) days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution: 1. Remove the large-capacity magazine from the City of Oakland; 2. Surrender the large-capacity magazine to the Oakland Police Department for destruction; 3. Sell or transfer the large-capacity magazine lawfully in accordance with Section 32410 of the California Penal Code.
(Ord. No. 13352, § 1(D), 1-19-2016)

9.38.050 - Exemptions.
The provisions of Section 9.38.040 shall not apply to the following:

1. Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to possess a large-capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties. 2. A person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915 of the California Penal Code; 3. A gunsmith for the purpose of maintenance, repair or modification of the large-capacity magazine; 4. Any entity that operates an armored vehicle business pursuant to the laws of the state, and an authorized employee of such entity, while in the course and scope of his or her employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's armored vehicle business; 5. Any person, corporation, or other entity that manufactures a large-capacity magazine for a person specified in subsection 1, or for an expert pursuant to applicable federal regulations; 6. Any person using the large-capacity magazine solely as a prop for a motion picture, television or video production, so long as it does not contain any live ammunition; 7. Any holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 18900, 31000, 32650, 32700—32720, or 33300; 8. Any person issued a permit pursuant to California Penal Code Section 32315 by the Department of Justice upon a showing of good cause for the possession, transportation or sale of large-capacity magazines between a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915 of the California Penal Code, and an out-of-state client, when those activities are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit; 9. Any federal, state or local historical society, museum or institutional collection which is open to the public, provided that the large-capacity magazine is properly housed, secured from unauthorized handling and unloaded; 10. Any person who finds a large-capacity magazine, if the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition pursuant to federal or state law, and the person possesses the large-capacity magazine no longer than is necessary to deliver or transport the same to a law enforcement agency for that agency's disposition according to the law; 11. A forensic laboratory or any authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of his or her authorized activities; 12. Any person in the business of selling or transferring large-capacity magazines in accordance with California Penal Code Section 32310 who is in possession of a large-capacity magazine solely for the purpose of doing so; or 13. Any person lawfully in possession of a firearm that the person obtained prior to January 1, 2000 if no magazine that holds ten or less rounds of ammunition is compatible with that firearm and the person possesses the large-capacity magazine solely for use with that firearm.
(Ord. No. 13352, § 1(E), 1-19-2016)

9.38.060 - Penalty.
A violation of this section shall be subject to enforcement through criminal prosecution and/or civil penalties, as provided herein.

1. Violation a Misdemeanor. A person who violates this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the County Jail not exceeding six months or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by both. Each violation shall be deemed a distinct and separate offense. 2. Civil Penalties. The City may assess civil penalties pursuant to Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 1.08 (Civil Penalties) in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per violation.
(Ord. No. 13352, § 1(F), 1-19-2016)

9.38.070 - Remedies not exclusive.
Remedies under this chapter are cumulative and not exclusive. They are in addition to and do not supersede or limit other administrative, civil, and/or criminal remedies provided under state or federal law, or other provisions of the Oakland Municipal Code. The City may seek an order for the award of attorney's fees.

(Ord. No. 13352, § 1(G), 1-19-2016)

9.38.080 - Amendments to state laws adopted herein.
In the event that any California statute adopted or referred to in this chapter is amended or succeeded by another enactment of the California Legislature, such amendments shall be deemed automatically adopted as part of this chapter as if fully set forth herein unless the City Council amends this chapter to provide otherwise.

(Ord. No. 13352, § 1(H), 1-19-2016)

"succeeded by another enactment of the California Legislature, such amendments shall be deemed automatically adopted as part of this chapter as if fully set forth herein unless the City Council amends this chapter to provide otherwise."

Does this include the enjoinment? Or is it that it still stands that possesion after the 5th of April is still not allowed in oakland?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-09-2019, 6:27 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,062
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Sunnyvale:

9.44.050. Possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines prohibited.

(a) No person may possess a large-capacity magazine in the city of Sunnyvale whether assembled or disassembled. For purposes of this section, “large-capacity magazine” means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds; or

(2) A .22 caliber tubular ammunition feeding device; or

(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

(b) Any person who, prior to the effective date of this section, was legally in possession of a large-capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do either of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the city of Sunnyvale; or

(2) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to the Sunnyvale department of public safety for destruction; or

(3) Lawfully sell or transfer the large-capacity magazine in accordance with Penal Code Section 12020.

(c) This section shall not apply to the following:

(1) Any federal, state, county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties;

(2) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to possess a large-capacity magazine and does so while acting within the course and scope of his or her duties;

(3) A forensic laboratory or any authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of his or her duties;

(4) Any entity that operates an armored vehicle business pursuant to the laws of the state, and an authorized employee of such entity, while in the course and scope of his or her employment for purposes that pertain to the entity’s armored vehicle business;

(5) Any person who has been issued a license or permit by the California Department of Justice pursuant to Penal Code Section 18900, 26500-26915, 31000, 32315, 32650, 32700-32720, or 33300, when the posses-sion of a large-capacity magazine is in accordance with that license or permit;

(6) A licensed gunsmith for purposes of maintenance, repair or modification of the large-capacity magazine;

(7) Any person who finds a large-capacity magazine, if the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition pursuant to federal or state law, and the per- son possesses the large-capacity magazine no longer than is reasonably necessary to deliver or transport the same to a law enforcement agency;

(8) Any person lawfully in possession of a firearm that the person obtained prior to January 1, 2000, if no magazine that holds fewer than ten rounds of ammunition is compatible with the firearm and the person possesses the large-capacity magazine solely for use with that firearm.

(9) Any retired peace officer holding a valid, current carry concealed weapons (CCW) permit issued pursuant to the California Penal Code. (Ord. 3027-13 § 1).

https://qcode.us/codes/sunnyvale/vie...-9_44-9_44_050
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-09-2019, 6:31 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,062
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

San Francisco

SEC. 619. Prohibition against Possession of Large Capacity Magazines.
(b) Definition. "Large capacity magazine" means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds;
(2) A . 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or
(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.
(c) Prohibition on Possession of Large Capacity Magazines.
(1) No person, corporation, or other entity in the City may possess a large capacity magazine, whether assembled or disassembled.
(2) Any person who, prior to the effective date of this chapter, was legally in possession of a large capacity magazine shall have 90 days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(A) Remove the large capacity magazine from the City;
(B) Surrender the large capacity magazine to the Police Department for destruction; or
(C) Sell or transfer the large capacity magazine lawfully in accordance with Penal Code § 12020.
(d) Exceptions. Subsection (c) shall not apply to the following:
(1) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to possess a large capacity magazine in connection with his or her official duties;
(2) A person licensed pursuant to Penal Code §§ 26700 to 26915, inclusive;
(3) A gunsmith for the purposes of maintenance, repair or modification of the large capacity magazine;
(4) Any entity that operates an armored vehicle business pursuant to the laws of the state, and an authorized employee of such entity, while in the course and scope of his or her employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's armored vehicle business;
(5) Any person, corporation or other entity that manufactures the large capacity magazine for a person mentioned in subsection (a) or for export pursuant to applicable federal regulations;
(6) Any person using the large capacity magazine solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production, or entertainment event;
(7) Any holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Penal Code § 33300, 32650, 32700, 31000, or 18900;
(8) Any person issued a permit pursuant to Penal Code § 32315 by the California Department of Justice upon a showing of good cause for the possession, transportation, or sale of large capacity magazines between a person licensed pursuant to Penal Code §§ 26700 to 26915 and an out-of-state client, when those activities are in accordance with the terms and conditions of that permit;
(9) Any federal, state or local historical society, museum, or institutional collection which is open to the public, provided that the large capacity magazine is properly housed secured from unauthorized handling, and unloaded;
(10) Any person who finds the large capacity magazine, if the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition pursuant to federal or state law, and the person possesses the large capacity magazine no longer than is necessary to deliver or transport the same to a law enforcement agency for that agency's disposition according to law;
(11) A forensic laboratory or any authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of his or her authorized activities;
(12) Any person in the business of selling or transferring large capacity magazines in accordance with Penal Code § 12020, who is in possession of a large capacity magazine solely for the purpose of doing so; or
(13) Any person lawfully in possession of a firearm that the person obtained prior to January 1, 2000 if no magazine that holds 10 or less rounds of ammunition is compatible with that firearm and the person possesses the large capacity magazine solely for use with that firearm.
(e) Penalty. Any person violating this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(f) Severability. If any subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Section be for any reason declared unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or the effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Section or any part thereof. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have adopted this Section notwithstanding the unconstitutionality, invalidity, or ineffectiveness of any one or more of its subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words.
(g) No Duplication of State Law. In the event that the State of California enacts legislation prohibiting possession of large capacity magazines, this § 618[sic] shall have no force or effect to the extent that it duplicates any such state law.

https://www.atf.gov/file/117161/download

No clue if SF intends to ignore (g). I would say odds are high they have no intention of honoring any part of the law that is inconvenient for them.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 04-09-2019 at 7:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-12-2019, 12:51 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,902
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Agreed



I think you're on the right track but I wonder what that means for actual deliveries. Is the transfer between the out of state seller and the LA resident? Is it possible it can be interpreted to ever mean the transfer from the shipping agent to the LA resident?
Hi Curtis,

From how you describe the Los Angeles law, if someone had a SCM outside of Los Angeles and then transported it to his home in Los Angeles, that would appear to not violate the LA Law.

Correct?

(Asking for my Little Friend.)

Best!
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
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 3:24 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.