Shasta Co resident arrested for assault rifle and hi-cap mags

[BigBamBoo]

So a resident here in Shasta Co was arrested for:

PC3605(A)
PC32310(A)

Both listed as felonies. The AW was a Hipoint. No grip fin. Straight forward on that one.

But the magazine charge is ?interesting? as they left a bunch of mags at his residence.

[LongLiveTheRepublic]

mags charge probably won't stick.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by BigBamBoo

So a resident here in Shasta Co was arrested for:

PC3605(A)
PC32310(A)

Both listed as felonies. The AW was a Hipoint. No grip fin. Straight forward on that one.

But the magazine charge is ?interesting? as they left a bunch of mags at his residence.

The magazine part of the puzzle may actually make sense. If they booked for PC32310(a), there would have to be evidence that the arrestee manufactured, imported, bought, or sold the magazines in question. PC32310(a) is not violated by the simple possession of Large-Capacity Magazines. The simple possession is a violation of PC32310(c) and enforcement of that sub-section is currently prohibited by federal court order.

My first impression is that if Large-Capacity Magazines were left at the location is that the nice arresting officers did not have evidence that those magazines fell under PC32310(a).

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by RickD427

The magazine part of the puzzle may actually make sense. If they booked for PC32310(a), there would have to be evidence that the arrestee manufactured, imported, bought, or sold the magazines in question. PC32310(a) is not violated by the simple possession of Large-Capacity Magazines. The simple possession is a violation of PC32310(c) and enforcement of that sub-section is currently prohibited by federal court order.

My first impression is that if Large-Capacity Magazines were left at the location is that the nice arresting officers did not have evidence that those magazines fell under PC32310(a).

nice arresting officers? While I agree that the majority of law enforcement officers are nice, I am not sure that I would agree that a LEO that arrested someone for violation of CA's stupid firearm laws could be called nice, especially in a northern county like Shasta County. Of course, the defendant could be a jerk.
PS did you ever pick up that .338?

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

nice arresting officers? While I agree that the majority of law enforcement officers are nice, I am not sure that I would agree that a LEO that arrested someone for violation of CA's stupid firearm laws could be called nice, especially in a northern county like Shasta County. Of course, the defendant could be a jerk.
PS did you ever pick up that .338?

It's an application of "Expectation Theory." If I refer to all officers as "Nice", then it's more likely to be so. At the same time, I always referred to jail inmates as being "Guests" (hoping they would act like it) and I sometimes referred to our station jail as being a "Bed and Breakfast."

I had to have the .338 action shipped to my FFL. 18USC922(b)(3) transfers could only be done on a completed rifle or shotgun.

[hermosabeach]

any link to the story?

[BigBamBoo]

Yes, the weapons charges are just icing.

Story here: https://krcrtv.com/news/local/armed-...-shasta-county

[Jimi Jah]

Charge stacking, the California way.

[bwiese]

I am continually told by people 'out in the sticks' that they don't bust
for technical gun stuff and that 'cops there are cool'.

Here is another reminder that CA laws can be enforced anytime/anyplace
in CA and you should not try to interpret local social mores into how
police treat gun violations.

And yes, one department may treat the same type of incident in two
different ways over time, and it may vary by staff.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by RickD427

...I always referred to jail inmates...

Don't you mean "incarcerated person", rather than "inmate?"

Originally Posted by RickD427

The magazine part of the puzzle may actually make sense. If they booked for PC32310(a), there would have to be evidence that the arrestee manufactured, imported, bought, or sold the magazines in question. PC32310(a) is not violated by the simple possession of Large-Capacity Magazines. The simple possession is a violation of PC32310(c) and enforcement of that sub-section is currently prohibited by federal court order.

My first impression is that if Large-Capacity Magazines were left at the location is that the nice arresting officers did not have evidence that those magazines fell under PC32310(a).

I would not just assume that the officers are aware of the federal court order, and that they would only make valid lawful seizures and arrests. There are still far too many officers in CA who still believe that they can arrest for simple possession of LCMs.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Spyder

I would not just assume that the officers are aware of the federal court order, and that they would only make valid lawful seizures and arrests. There are still far too many officers in CA who still believe that they can arrest for simple possession of LCMs.

That federal court order has been out for quite some time now.

So far, we've only heard of two instances where such arrests were made.

California has about 70,000 sworn LEOs. I have a hard time accepting the belief that 2 out of 70,000 is "far too many."

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by RickD427

That federal court order has been out for quite some time now.

So far, we've only heard of two instances where such arrests were made.

California has about 70,000 sworn LEOs. I have a hard time accepting the belief that 2 out of 70,000 is "far too many."

Exactly!

People have been touting that for a while now yet we?ve only seen two cases. And in those cases, magazines were returned.

[broadside]

I'd be surprised about the charges if they were brought on their own, but they are part of other felony charges unrelated to firearms in this case. So not surprised in the least.

[newbutold]

was arrested after an investigation revealed he was making arrangements to have sexual relations with a 15-year-old girl...........

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by RickD427

That federal court order has been out for quite some time now.

So far, we've only heard of two instances where such arrests were made.

California has about 70,000 sworn LEOs. I have a hard time accepting the belief that 2 out of 70,000 is "far too many."

Eh, believe what you want. I have heard with my own two ears dozens and dozens of times in the past year, from various LEOs employed by various agencies, officers proclaiming the flat out illegality of simple possession. In the first half of this year, I sat as a witness in a DA's office and explained to officers and DDA's alike that simple possession of LCM's is not a crime.

Should all LEOs know? Yes.
Do all LEOs know? Definitely not.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Spyder

Eh, believe what you want. I have heard with my own two ears dozens and dozens of times in the past year, from various LEOs employed by various agencies, officers proclaiming the flat out illegality of simple possession. In the first half of this year, I sat as a witness in a DA's office and explained to officers and DDA's alike that simple possession of LCM's is not a crime.

Should all LEOs know? Yes.
Do all LEOs know? Definitely not.

Please cite the specifics of the so-called other cases. Word spread like wildfire here on the two cases that we're aware of. I seriously doubt that there would be a whole bunch of "Double-Secret Seizures" of large-capacity magazines in this state without the information coming to light.

I'm not believing of unsubstantiated reports, from unnamed sources, that report these things happening.

Please cite your sources of these reports.

[Spaffo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the prohibition still in the Penal Code, just enjoined from enforcement until repeal?

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by Spaffo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the prohibition still in the Penal Code, just enjoined from enforcement until repeal?

Yep.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by Spaffo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the prohibition still in the Penal Code, just enjoined from enforcement until repeal?

Possession = yes. there is a stay that prevents enforcement of this.

Importing, making, advertising for sale, or transferring = no. there is no stay for this and is still being enforced.

Confiscation due to being nuisance item = no. there is no stay for this and it is still being done.
^If the large capacity magazine was acquired illegally or through a non-exempt method, then its a nuisance item and subject to confiscation/destruction. They get taken and no criminal charges are pressed. The burden of proof that they are not a nuisance item because they were legally obtained is on the possessor and not on the state.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Spyder

Eh, believe what you want. I have heard with my own two ears dozens and dozens of times in the past year, from various LEOs employed by various agencies, officers proclaiming the flat out illegality of simple possession. In the first half of this year, I sat as a witness in a DA's office and explained to officers and DDA's alike that simple possession of LCM's is not a crime.

Should all LEOs know? Yes.
Do all LEOs know? Definitely not.

Originally Posted by Spaffo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the prohibition still in the Penal Code, just enjoined from enforcement until repeal?

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

Yep.

Originally Posted by Quiet

Possession = yes. there is a stay that prevents enforcement of this.

Importing, making, advertising for sale, or transferring = no. there is no stay for this and is still being enforced.

Confiscation due to being nuisance item = no. there is no stay for this and it is still being done.
^If the large capacity magazine was acquired illegally or through a non-exempt method, then its a nuisance item and subject to confiscation/destruction. They get taken and no criminal charges are pressed. The burden of proof that they are not a nuisance item because they were legally obtained is on the possessor and not on the state.

Spaffo,

Yes, you're correct, possession is still a crime. Nothing has yet occurred that would make possession legal.

But that is pretty much a technical point. The federal court order prevents enforcement, and the "Tea Leaves" are highly suggestive that the statute will not withstand the current litigation. While it is technically possible for a person to be prosecuted, within the statute of limitations, in the event the court order is lifted, for possession that occurred while the order was in effect, there are many good arguments against such prosecutions. The net result is that folks can pretty much conduct themselves as if possession were legal even though it is still technically illegal.

I'm still waiting for Mr. Spyder to come back with his evidence that there have been more than two mistaken seizures of large-capacity magazines while the federal court order has been in effect. I'd also like to learn more about what capacity Mr. Spyder was serving in when he "sat as a witness in a DA's office and explained to officers and DDA's alike that simple possession of LCM's is not a crime", particularly since such simple possession was a crime at the time (and still is).

But let's not jump to conclusions here, let's see how Mr. Spyder explains himself.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Please cite the specifics of the so-called other cases. Word spread like wildfire here on the two cases that we're aware of. I seriously doubt that there would be a whole bunch of "Double-Secret Seizures" of large-capacity magazines in this state without the information coming to light.

I'm not believing of unsubstantiated reports, from unnamed sources, that report these things happening.

Please cite your sources of these reports.

You of all people should realize that not all cases are filed by the DA. Do you truly believe that there have only been two instances in the last several years where people have been cited and/or arrested for possession of LCMs? Do you truly believe that every officer in the state understands the current state of that particular law?

It happens often, and if the elements of the crime are not met it typically gets rejected by DA's offices and/or dismissed. I have no interest in going back through my notes and files and displaying that information on a public forum when the individuals involved do not wish any further attention, but I find it hard to believe that you think there have only been two arrests for possession of LCMs in the timeframe we're talking about. As you stated before, there are about 70,000 LEO in the state. Do you truly believe that 69,998 of them are flawless?

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by RickD427

particularly since such simple possession was a crime at the time (and still is).

Ah, got me there. Still a crime, but not enforceable. Poor choice of words on my part, I admit.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Spyder

You of all people should realize that not all cases are filed by the DA. Do you truly believe that there have only been two instances in the last several years where people have been cited and/or arrested for possession of LCMs? Do you truly believe that every officer in the state understands the current state of that particular law?

It happens often, and if the elements of the crime are not met it typically gets rejected by DA's offices and/or dismissed. I have no interest in going back through my notes and files and displaying that information on a public forum when the individuals involved do not wish any further attention, but I find it hard to believe that you think there have only been two arrests for possession of LCMs in the timeframe we're talking about. As you stated before, there are about 70,000 LEO in the state. Do you truly believe that 69,998 of them are flawless?

I'm not sure exactly how many folks have been arrested in violation of the court order. I doubt that the number is much greater than two given the propensity of such reports to spread like wildfire on these forums.

The purpose of my comment was to "keep in check" your comment that "far too many officers in CA who still believe that they can arrest for simple possession of LCMs."

I would never assert that the 69,998 other officers are flawless, we're all human and make our share of mistakes. My assertion was that the the other 69,998 have not improperly arrested anyone for possession of a LCM.

Originally Posted by Spyder

Ah, got me there. Still a crime, but not enforceable. Poor choice of words on my part, I admit.

Don't feel bad, we all make bad word choices from time to time. As I said before, it's largely a distinction without much meaning. As a practical matter, I would not be concerned about using and carrying LCM's in California. I would not be purchasing, manufacturing, or importing them.

For those inclined to discuss the technical points of law, here is how the distinction could become significant. Suppose that you're involved in a serious car accident today (6-8-2023). After paramedics take you to the hospital, I search your car pursuant to impound. I find your pistol, with a large-capacity magazine locked in the trunk. You get out of the hospital, file a LEGR letter and get your pistol and magazine back. Then in October the Ninth Circuit issues it revised decision upholding PC32310 and the Supreme Court denies certiorari in February. Once the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate in the case, there is no longer any basis for the court order to remain in effect.

In that hypothetical case, the District Attorney would be be able to bring charges against you, up until 6-7-2024, for the possession of the magazine on the day of your accident. Remember that the court order did not make the possession legal, it only meant that you could not be prosecuted back then.

There are many good reasons why the above hypothetical is quite unlikely, and there would be many good defenses against such charges, but there is no bar to such charges being brought under the above circumstances.

[champu]

Originally Posted by BigBamBoo

Yes, the weapons charges are just icing.

Story here: https://krcrtv.com/news/local/armed-...-shasta-county

So, at face value, dirt bag got what was coming.

Obviously I'm glad that a pedophile got caught trying to commit statutory rape, and the fact that he brought a gun to such an arranged meeting leads me to believe the "armed during commission of a felony" is 100% appropriate...

...but everything after that is unnecessary and leads to bad crime statistics and bad plea deals. If they let him plea to just felony possession of an assault weapon because that just happens to be the thing that would be impossible to fight in court then that is a miscarriage of justice in this specific case and adds to misleading statistics about assault weapons being "crime guns."

[Mayor McRifle]

Originally Posted by BigBamBoo

Yes, the weapons charges are just icing.

Story here: https://krcrtv.com/news/local/armed-...-shasta-county

That explains everything.

[Mayor McRifle]

Originally Posted by Quiet

Confiscation due to being nuisance item = no. there is no stay for this and it is still being done.

FUD.

Originally Posted by Quiet

The burden of proof that they are not a nuisance item because they were legally obtained is on the possessor and not on the state.

More FUD.

[Big Chudungus]

given there was Freedom Week, ain't it 110% on DA to show you imported/purchased after Freedom Week?

Can't believe police DA went and figured out the mags were produced post FW.

Or I'm I supposed to keep my receipts from FW mags?

I'd be cautious cheering police violating 2A rights of a pervert. Its a story as old as time. They set precedent with that, 2 yrs later its a cop who say you were a 'distracted driver' to give probable cause.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Quiet

If the large capacity magazine was acquired illegally or through a non-exempt method, then its a nuisance item and subject to confiscation/destruction. They get taken and no criminal charges are pressed. The burden of proof that they are not a nuisance item because they were legally obtained is on the possessor and not on the state.

Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle

FUD.

More FUD.

The "Burden of Proof" for a nuisance item is not as simple as it may appear.

Penal Code sections 32310 and 18010 provide any of the 22 enumerated items listed in section 18010 are subject to seizure and destruction.

The statutes make no exception for nuisance items that were lawfully acquired. One may intuitively think that such items are excepted, but they're not. That's only one of the many problems with section 18010. But those problems have not been resolved and the statute remains facially valid.

The "Burden of Proof" to determine that an item is one that is listed in section 18010 falls upon the officer making the seizure. If the officer cannot determine that the item is a "Nuisance", then there is no authority to seize. But what is unique about this "Burden" is that it is never tested. There is no court process, there is no testing of the officer's decision that would determine if the burden was met.

Once the item has been seized, and the owners seeks it's return, there is a shifting of the burden of proof. There is no specific statutory process for the owner to seek the return (like we have for seized vehicles). If the owner wants to recover their magazines, they have to file a lawsuit against the LE agency. When we get to that point, the "Burden of Proof" falls upon the plaintiff in that civil case.

[BearCreekRoad]

Originally Posted by Quiet

^If the large capacity magazine was acquired illegally or through a non-exempt method, then its a nuisance item and subject to confiscation/destruction.

While what you say is correct, I think people don't understand what it really means. PC 18010 says how the confiscation shall proceed, and points at PC 32390 to define whether a magazine is a nuisance. That section in turn says all large-cap magazines are a nuisance, except for Article 2 (PC 32400 et seq.) and Title 2 / Division 2 / Chapter 1 (PC 17700 et seq.). Neither of those two sets of codes relate to magazines that are grandfathered, or were acquired during "Freedom Week".

Let me repeat that conclusion: A large capacity magazine is nearly always considered a nuisance, except for LEOs and licensees, and a few other narrow exceptions. You don't have to have acquire the magazine illegally for it to be a nuisance. As we have seen from recent cases, large capacity magazines are being confiscated and destroyed in the context of other cases.

Does anyone know any other exemption in the law that protects Freedom Week magazines from confiscation?

[newbutold]

Silva was arrested and booked into the Shasta County Jail on the following charges:

Arranging to meet with a minor for sexual acts.
Arranging to meet with a minor and arriving at the location for sexual acts.
Armed during the commission of a felony.
Possession of an assault weapon.
Possession of large capacity magazines.
Possession of a destructive device.
His bail is set at $300,000.

Sounds like good police work to me.

[bruss01]

Originally Posted by newbutold

Silva was arrested and booked into the Shasta County Jail on the following charges:

Arranging to meet with a minor for sexual acts.
Arranging to meet with a minor and arriving at the location for sexual acts.
Armed during the commission of a felony.
Possession of an assault weapon.
Possession of large capacity magazines.
Possession of a destructive device.
His bail is set at $300,000.

Sounds like good police work to me.

Yup, sounds like. This is the last person we want as the poster child for gun rights.

The pistol on the front seat indicates he was not going to take "I changed my mind" for an answer.

Let justice take its course.

[WithinReason]

Agreed.

[A-J]

Originally Posted by bwiese

I am continually told by people 'out in the sticks' that they don't bust
for technical gun stuff and that 'cops there are cool'.

Here is another reminder that CA laws can be enforced anytime/anyplace
in CA and you should not try to interpret local social mores into how
police treat gun violations.

And yes, one department may treat the same type of incident in two
different ways over time, and it may vary by staff.

The gun stiff was after the fact.

Silva was arrested and booked into the Shasta County Jail on the following charges:

Arranging to meet with a minor for sexual acts.
Arranging to meet with a minor and arriving at the location for sexual acts.
Armed during the commission of a felony.
Possession of an assault weapon.
Possession of large capacity magazines.
Possession of a destructive device.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by BearCreekRoad

While what you say is correct, I think people don't understand what it really means. PC 18010 says how the confiscation shall proceed, and points at PC 32390 to define whether a magazine is a nuisance. That section in turn says all large-cap magazines are a nuisance, except for Article 2 (PC 32400 et seq.) and Title 2 / Division 2 / Chapter 1 (PC 17700 et seq.). Neither of those two sets of codes relate to magazines that are grandfathered, or were acquired during "Freedom Week".

Let me repeat that conclusion: A large capacity magazine is nearly always considered a nuisance, except for LEOs and licensees, and a few other narrow exceptions. You don't have to have acquire the magazine illegally for it to be a nuisance. As we have seen from recent cases, large capacity magazines are being confiscated and destroyed in the context of other cases.

Does anyone know any other exemption in the law that protects Freedom Week magazines from confiscation?

Actually, and to point out the lunacy of the nuisance statute. there is no exception made for LEOs and licensees.

[BigBamBoo]

Originally Posted by bruss01

Yup, sounds like. This is the last person we want as the poster child for gun rights.

The pistol on the front seat indicates he was not going to take "I changed my mind" for an answer.

Let justice take its course.

He had a current CCW. Not in the least defending him. Just pointing out that hee was legally allowed to carry.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by BigBamBoo

He had a current CCW. Not in the least defending him. Just pointing out that hee was legally allowed to carry.

However, regardless of having a valid CA CCW permit or not, it became illegal for him to carry once he decided to commit a felony crime (arranging to meet with a minor for sexual acts). [PC 25800]


Penal Code 25800
(a) Every person who carries a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony is guilty of armed criminal action.
(b) Armed criminal action is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison.