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 07-20-2019, 11:53 AM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Can mags more than 10rnd be used? Home defense

Summarizing the facts.

As of today 7-21-19 because of the injunction as pointed out by @tenemae, you can legally use "standard/high cap" magazines under PC 32310.

The outcome of CA9 decision Duncan v. Becerra, can possibly change this.

-----------------------------------------------------------
OP
Simple question, hopefully a simple answer.

Prior to 2000 ban people owned high cap mags, now with the 1 week grace period which passed I'm sure people have purchased these "high cap mags" which we all know as just standard mags.

Questions:

1. Can these high cap mag be used for home defense without local Law enforcement agency putting the home owner in jail for using them in defense(lets assume there is no gray area and homeowner is threatened etc and it is used in defense)?

2. This might depends on jurisdiction but from a legal perspective is it safe to assume it is legal to use these magazines? Something tells me the trouble is not worth it and to stick to 10rnd mags but curious to hear your perspective.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews

Last edited by jetspeedz; 07-21-2019 at 10:12 AM.. Reason: Posting facts
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:02 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 12,642
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

If you own them legally then utilize them. No cut and dried answer here. Would be up to DA to prosecute or not. Protect yourself, family, and others and worry about it after. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:17 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
No cut and dried answer here. Would be up to DA to prosecute or not.
This is exactly what I thought you might say. I'm pretty sure I asked the same question years ago and got the same answer. Seems like this is still a gray area and at the discretion of the local jurisdiction.

It is a calculated risk. Last thing you want is to get hauled off to jail for having an extra few rounds. 10rnds + 1 in the chamber and extra 10rnd mags nearby. Your loved one who is not as trained might not remember to grab that extra 10rnd mag, hard to say how one will react with all that adrenaline. Worst thing if your loved one gets charged or goes to jail for using the lager mags.

Personally it is not a risk I think most are willing to take if your wife is home alone and uses it for home defense to go to jail because they are large cap mags. Such a terrible dilemma to be in for law abiding citizens.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:17 PM
jeff.i.thomas jeff.i.thomas is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Answers (though not a lawyer):



1. Every agency was sent instructions from the DOJ (look at CRPA's website) forbidding enforcing the mag limit ban (for anyone that owned "standard capacity" mags prior to ban or purchased during freedom week. So you can use them because it's not illegal to possess, own, or use; but that doesn't mean some LEO that dosen't know won't arrest you...just that you'll likely get off.



2. Jurisdiction doesn't matter as this is a state law...again that doesn't mean some LEO that dosen't know won't arrest you...just that you'll likely get off. So the bottom line it it depends on how risk advers you are as to whether it's worth it flour you.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:17 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
Simple question, hopefully a simple answer.
Firstly, this should be here (How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me)
Second- I am not a lawyer and you should consult a lawyer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
2. This might depends on jurisdiction but from a legal perspective is it safe to assume it is legal to use these magazines? Something tells me the trouble is not worth it and to stick to 10rnd mags but curious to hear your perspective.
It is legal to use your legally owned property for legal purposes. As far as I'm aware, there is no separate CA PC for "using" an "LCM" to do anything. There is, however, a PC covering "nuisances" which theoretically could see your mag being confiscated if you use it (though there is no penalty beyond confiscation). As you note, however, there may be county/city laws that could come into play here. I.e, Los Angeles had an LCM ban before allowing it to lapse (due to being superseded by the state-wide dispossession)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
1. Can these high cap mag be used for home defense without local Law enforcement agency putting the home owner in jail for using them in defense(lets assume there is no gray area and homeowner is threatened etc and it is used in defense)?
Again, it is legal to use your legal property for legal purposes. Shooting a home invader with a firearm containing a 10rnd mag is just as jeopardizing from a penal code perspective as using an LCM. Now, if you find yourself in front of a jury, it's no longer a matter of strict letter of law. I.e, if you defend yourself while wearing a t-shirt that says "natural born killer" and using a firearm with words engraved on it such as "Death Machine", the jury will be much less likely to be favorable towards you despite both of those things being perfectly legal. I would suspect that anyone using an LCM in a defensive shooting (that is brought to trial for some reason) will have the prosecution bring it up during the trial, and trying to convince the jury that owning an LCM makes you a degenerate who wants to kill

Having said that, I would personally have no issues using an LCM in a home defense weapon as long as there was no local laws prohibiting it (such as the LA ban)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:25 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Both you guys hit it on the head, it is a calculated risk. Some LEO might or might not know the law. I think most people like I said above would not want to put their loved one through the agony of possibly being prosecuted for using LCM.

If i recall in the past, conversations about who has the burden of proof to show how the LCM were purchased. That was another gray area.

I understand it is legal to own them technically. There is just too many what if's in my opinion still after all these years.

Most sensible and law abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy, that's Cali for you.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:48 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,085
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Its not “technically” legal to own them. Its legal. I own mags from before the ban and from freedom week. Theres no technically about it.

Legally owned property legally used. What would a DA charge you with?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:57 PM
jeff.i.thomas jeff.i.thomas is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
What would a DA charge you with?
they can charge you with whatever they want... that doesn't mean they'll win but you'll still have to deal with the financial and emotional to you and your family



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-20-2019, 1:26 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Correct, this is why I asked the questions to see if anything has changed at all since I last asked this question. Still a gray area in this arena unfortunately, and the few LEO neighbors from LASD and LAPD I have spoken with have all different opinions on this. It was interesting to hear their perspective from a homeowners point of view than from a law enforcement view.

It is a calculated risk, like Jeff.i.thomas said, the toll to some is not worth the hassle. I say again, shame for law abiding citizens to be put in this dilemma.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-20-2019, 3:01 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 5,003
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff.i.thomas View Post
they can charge you with whatever they want... that doesn't mean they'll win but you'll still have to deal with the financial and emotional to you and your family



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Really? How does that work?

How much of a financial burden is it really going to be to fight a charge with a fine of $100. You're making it sound like a possession of an LCM charge is a felony, it's an infraction. The only way someone is going to jail for that is if they refuse to sign a citation.

Never mind that no DA is going to prosecute that charge alone, as long as a court order barring enforcement exists. A federal contempt of court charge doesn't look real good on a resume, or do much for a law career.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-20-2019, 3:39 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Guys lets keep it civil here, this is to be an informative post, no need to bash anyone, we are all on the same side.

That said P5Ret you have a valid point in terms of how you can be fined, but on the flip side Jeff.i.thomas is also correct.

If the firearm is used in home defense and the LEO is not up on the laws and they see a LCM it can get hairy possibly very quickly. Again from my previous research the burden on proof of a LCM pre 2000 ban and the week grace period is still unknown if the DA or defense(you) would have to provide and if its pre 2000 ban what are the chances you have your receipt...

That said you can also be charged with a misdemeanor as well, you can imagine the toll it could possibly take on a family having to hire lawyers to fight something like this if the burden of proof is on you to provide proof of purchase which can be validated since anyone can print a receipt and there is no SN on magazines. Just a gray area really that is not favoring law abiding citizens.

Quote:
The possession of a large capacity magazine is punished differently than the other illegal acts under Penal Code 32310. The possession of a large capacity magazine is a wobblette offense, meaning that it can be punished as either a California infraction or a misdemeanor.

If charged as an infraction, the crime is punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 per each magazine.10

If charged as a misdemeanor, the crime is punishable by:

A fine of up to $100 (per magazine); and/or;
A sentence of up to one year in a county jail.
source: https://www.shouselaw.com/large-capacity-magazines
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-20-2019, 3:43 PM
Featureless's Avatar
Featureless Featureless is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: SLO County
Posts: 646
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Seem to remember some provision in CA law where a LEO can confiscate them as a nuisance.
__________________
California Native
Lifelong Gun Owner
NRA Member
CRPA Member

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed"
~ Barry Goldwater 1964
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-20-2019, 3:52 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If I understand correctly and I'm not a lawyer.

The current law on the book is:

California Penal Code 32310 PC is California's law regarding large capacity magazines (as used with firearms). The statute prohibits:

manufacturing,
importing,
selling,
giving away,
lending,
buying or receiving, and
possessing

All of the above with the exception of just "possessing" can be charged with Felony or misdemeanor. Possessing alone you can be charged with infraction or misdemeanor.

I assume the DA would determine how they want to proceed.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:21 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
Quote:
The possession of a large capacity magazine is punished differently than the other illegal acts under Penal Code 32310. The possession of a large capacity magazine is a wobblette offense, meaning that it can be punished as either a California infraction or a misdemeanor.
source: https://www.shouselaw.com/large-capacity-magazines
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
If I understand correctly and I'm not a lawyer.

The current law on the book is:

California Penal Code 32310 PC is California's law regarding large capacity magazines (as used with firearms).
Have both of you forgotten there is an active injunction against the enforcement of PC 32310 (c) and (d)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featureless View Post
Seem to remember some provision in CA law where a LEO can confiscate them as a nuisance.
Correct. The injunction on 32310 does not touch the following:
CA PC 32390. 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 large-capacity magazine is a nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:35 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,811
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

As noted, posted in the wrong forum - law question, not litigation discussion.

Moved.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:38 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You are correct. It is not easy to keep up with the laws unless you regularly keep up with the changes.

https://cpoa.org/district-court-decl...onstitutional/
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews

Last edited by jetspeedz; 07-20-2019 at 4:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:40 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,702
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

St Peter "Tom what are you doing here, your early?"

Tom "I was worried I'd be charged with something if I used my legal standard capacity mags for Self Defense. Bad guy apparently didn't care"
__________________
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
  #18  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:42 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
St Peter "Tom what are you doing here, your early?"

Tom "I was worried I'd be charged with something if I used my legal standard capacity mags for Self Defense. Bad guy apparently didn't care"
Sad isn't it...

Take your chance and put your faith in the DA they don't make things difficult and everyone understand the law or go the other way.

That's Cali laws for you.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:45 PM
Cincinnatus's Avatar
Cincinnatus Cincinnatus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 548
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

You got those standard capacity mags either before they were illegal or during Judge Benitez's weeklong amnesty. BFD, use them when you want.
__________________
Active Army 1976-1986, Army Reserve 2005-2015, Afghanistan 2010-2011

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:53 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
Valid point thanks, I completely forgot about that and it was around the same time as the AW reg. Some of us don't keep up with the day to day changes, most of my colleagues were not even aware of the AW reg. My neighbor was about to build a non complaint AR b/c he didn't know the laws until i told him a week ago. Cali making criminals out of normal people is par for the course.

Given that cover the pre 2000 magazines, the issues above I assume apply to the 1 week grace period. Is it presumed section (c) disposal also applies to newly acquired LCM in the week grace period as well. I assume it does as does the fine (b).

None of this really changes the initial question and issues. Infraction is clear rather than felony or misdemeanor which is good to know.

Quote:
(b) 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) upon the first offense, by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) upon the second offense, and by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) upon the third or subsequent offense.

(c) A person who, prior to July 1, 2017, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.
(2) Prior to July 1, 2017, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.
(4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.
(d) 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.
(e) The provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not be construed as restricting the application of any other law. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code shall not be punished under more than one provision.
source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01520160SB1446

You're looking at an outdated version of the penal code. Never go off of bill text. It can be amended and frequently changes. Always look up the Penal Code as it exists on record. What you have quoted and the actual law are VERY different when you consider that (c) and (d) are enjoined from enforcement, while (a) and (b) are not
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=32310.
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.)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:54 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You are absolutely correct, thanks for bringing the facts forward and correcting my original post. I actually updated my post and you posted this.

Apologies to anyone looking at the original email above.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:58 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,496
iTrader: 159 / 100%
Default

Legal, so long as you don’t use them in a fixed mag rifle or fixed mag handgun.

But use in a featureless rifle or registered AW or normal semi auto pistol is legal.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-20-2019, 5:02 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
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.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, the above applies to manufacturing and not lawfully possessing a LCM correct?

If you own a pre-2000 ban or week grace period LCM you are exempt from any legal actions including infractions since that injunction was granted?
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews

Last edited by jetspeedz; 07-20-2019 at 5:10 PM.. Reason: grammar fix
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-20-2019, 5:02 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,085
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff.i.thomas View Post
they can charge you with whatever they want... that doesn't mean they'll win but you'll still have to deal with the financial and emotional to you and your family



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Ok, sure they can. Lets play that.

Im still using a 30 rounder in my home defense carbine. You hide yours away and you can be sure you wont have trouble.

Wait. You said they can charge you with whatever they want. So you can be charged with using a Large capacity magazine, too, even if you didnt use one.

Again, i will use mine. Im more concerned with what comes through my door at night than what the OC DA is going to try to do to me.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-20-2019, 5:07 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Legal, so long as you don’t use them in a fixed mag rifle or fixed mag handgun.

But use in a featureless rifle or registered AW or normal semi auto pistol is legal.
Understand, makes sense

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Ok, sure they can. Lets play that.

Im still using a 30 rounder in my home defense carbine. You hide yours away and you can be sure you wont have trouble.

Wait. You said they can charge you with whatever they want. So you can be charged with using a Large capacity magazine, too, even if you didnt use one.

Again, i will use mine. Im more concerned with what comes through my door at night than what the OC DA is going to try to do to me.
Is there a burden of proof requirement levied on the homeowner (defendant) to show the LCM are "legally/lawfully" owned pre-2000 and week grace period mags? This was always the question that was a gray area depending on which lawyer and LEO I spoke with in the past.

Sure you can use the 30rnd mags, the question is how much trouble can you possibly get and is the legal battle with the DA worth it if you have to provide proof and you acquired these pre-2000? I just don't know
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-20-2019, 5:16 PM
jetspeedz jetspeedz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SCV
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm confused, per the code below does this apply to everyone or only those who MFG firearms?

(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.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/jetspeed81

Informative Reviews
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-20-2019, 5:32 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, the above applies to manufacturing and not lawfully possessing a LCM correct?

If you own a pre-2000 ban or week grace period LCM you are exempt from any legal actions including infractions since that injunction was granted?
32310 was intended to be a blanket ban which covered manufacturing, importing, and possession. Possession (c) and dispossession (d) were enjoined as unconstitutional and are not currently in effect until the CA9 decision comes down on Duncan v. Becerra. 32310 still bans manufacture and import (a+b).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
Is there a burden of proof requirement levied on the homeowner (defendant) to show the LCM are "legally/lawfully" owned
The burden of proof is always on the state. No person is required to prove they are innocent. The 5th amendment is your friend. Never volunteer information (it can only be used against you).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
I'm confused, per the code below does this apply to everyone or only those who MFG firearms?
32310(c) applies to nobody as it is currently enjoined from enforcement during the Duncan v. Becerra suit.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-20-2019, 5:41 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,468
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default Can mags more than 10rnd be used? Home defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
Simple question, hopefully a simple answer.
Here it is: Yes.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-20-2019, 6:10 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,384
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Even if you don't have a CCW, buy the "insurance" from a CCW legal defense company. Then even if good shoot, you won't lose the house over a civil case.
It's cheap.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-20-2019, 6:22 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,702
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Even before Freedom week

"I don't know your honor, I guess the crime scene processing staff picked up an officers mag instead of mine"

was my planned defense.
__________________
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
  #31  
Old 07-20-2019, 6:44 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,169
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
Here it is: Yes.
It was a simple question with a simple answer... why two pages of FUD and misinformation? Oh yea, cause calguns.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-20-2019, 7:51 PM
Foebia's Avatar
Foebia Foebia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: This sewer is mine!
Posts: 1,326
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Its not “technically” legal to own them. Its legal. I own mags from before the ban and from freedom week. Theres no technically about it.

Legally owned property legally used. What would a DA charge you with?
The mag offense is like 100 bucks anyways, yaint going to jail
__________________


"Cross your feet! Kneel down! Stand up! Crawl! Right hand in! Left foot out! You're a little teapot! YOU'RE A LITTLE TEAPOT!"
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-20-2019, 8:00 PM
AlienHobo's Avatar
AlienHobo AlienHobo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 537
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foebia View Post
The mag offense is like 100 bucks anyways, yaint going to jail
I was wondering when someone was going to point this out.

My guess would be they would take it and the gun and after any trial, give you the gun back without the magazine.

Worst case is they write you a ticket for the magazine, which you can fight in court, but that would cost way more than $100.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-20-2019, 8:06 PM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 6,113
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

They are going to charge you with everything they can. Discharge of firearm in city, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, unregistered or AW, big magazine, etc, etc. It's up to your $10,000+ attorney to get them reduced/thrown out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-20-2019, 8:48 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,078
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Its not “technically” legal to own them. Its legal. I own mags from before the ban and from freedom week. Theres no technically about it.

Legally owned property legally used. What would a DA charge you with?
The charging decision is in the discretion of the DA. Winning at trial is another matter. Risk of loss at trial tends to mitigate reckless charging decisions. Especially if there is objective proof (like dated sale receipt) the magazine(s) were legally possessed.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-20-2019, 8:58 PM
Gundiver Gundiver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 358
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

Op I saw your post about let's keep it civil but unfortunately you are a complete pants pooper weenie butt.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-20-2019, 9:55 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,085
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
Understand, makes sense



Is there a burden of proof requirement levied on the homeowner (defendant) to show the LCM are "legally/lawfully" owned pre-2000 and week grace period mags? This was always the question that was a gray area depending on which lawyer and LEO I spoke with in the past.

Sure you can use the 30rnd mags, the question is how much trouble can you possibly get and is the legal battle with the DA worth it if you have to provide proof and you acquired these pre-2000? I just don't know
There is a burden of proof. In a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden except for affirmative defenses. In a self defense shooting, the accused has the burden to prove they acted in self defense.

Shooting a stranger inside your house at zero dark thirty goes a long way to proving this.

The charge of using a prohibited magazine in a rifle means the DA has to prove my magazine was obtained illegally.

Since it will have been used in my RAW that was registered pursuant to requirements back when it was legal to buy standard magazines, he or she has a very uphill fight.

Since i am using USGI aluminum magazines and have a receipt for those magazines since they are on the paperwork for the AR itself, i say lets dance.

I also carry standard caps in my carry gun, both some i bought in the 1990s and some i bought during freedom week, i feel prepared to fight any charges.

I also know the laws applicable to self defense and can articulate my reasons for using deadly force.

Even if it all goes to hell, i recognize that my odds of ever having to fire in self defense is minuscule, but i want every advantage. Id rather be in trouble for using a standard cap and surviving than be dead but not worrying about a charge for the magazines.

This is NOT legal advice, or even practical advice. Everyone needs to make their own decision. This is just the rationale behind mine.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-20-2019, 9:58 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,085
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1NM View Post
They are going to charge you with everything they can. Discharge of firearm in city, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, unregistered or AW, big magazine, etc, etc. It's up to your $10,000+ attorney to get them reduced/thrown out.
Not in orange county they aren't. A ten second check with DOJ confirms my rifle is a RAW.

A shooting of a stranger inside an occupied dwelling is highly unlikely to draw attempted murder or other charges.

The press cuts in favor of someone shooting a tweaker inside their home. Even in California.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-20-2019, 10:13 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 5,003
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetspeedz View Post
Guys lets keep it civil here, this is to be an informative post, no need to bash anyone, we are all on the same side.

That said P5Ret you have a valid point in terms of how you can be fined, but on the flip side Jeff.i.thomas is also correct.

If the firearm is used in home defense and the LEO is not up on the laws and they see a LCM it can get hairy possibly very quickly. Again from my previous research the burden on proof of a LCM pre 2000 ban and the week grace period is still unknown if the DA or defense(you) would have to provide and if its pre 2000 ban what are the chances you have your receipt...

That said you can also be charged with a misdemeanor as well, you can imagine the toll it could possibly take on a family having to hire lawyers to fight something like this if the burden of proof is on you to provide proof of purchase which can be validated since anyone can print a receipt and there is no SN on magazines. Just a gray area really that is not favoring law abiding citizens.



source: https://www.shouselaw.com/large-capacity-magazines
I'm failing to see how there is any gray area in using lawfully owned property. No one has to prove they legally own LCM's, the state has to prove I don't, and that is going to be an uphill fight they stand no chance of winning.

Validating a point by pushing FUD isn't really validation of anything, except your own fear.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-20-2019, 11:07 PM
Win231 Win231 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,025
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff.i.thomas View Post
they can charge you with whatever they want... that doesn't mean they'll win but you'll still have to deal with the financial and emotional to you and your family



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Exactly. I have better things to spend my money on.
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 4:59 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.