Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-26-2019, 2:13 PM
MrBLUE MrBLUE is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Standard Cap mags in BLM Land?

I haven't really seen a definitive answer for this but based on the flowcharts, a featureless rifle with a standard mag is currently legal for us in CA. I just wanted to make sure and hear thoughts from people here on Calguns. I have also read that it's still a risk if a BLM ranger isn't aware of the current laws and confiscates a legally purchased standard mag anyway.

So are we GTG with Freedom week mags on BLM land? Thank you!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-26-2019, 3:39 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,310
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

You're right. It is legal but could still be taken as a "nuisance", or by an uninformed officer.

I think Michel is looking for a test case on this, so go for it!
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
But that wasn't enough for the liberal douches. They just had to go after the grandfathered mags... And look what it got them. - L84CABO
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Quote:
The prosecutor only needed 5/7 jurors on board and couldn't even do that. - stix213
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-26-2019, 5:24 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,352
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I disagree that a BLM officer could seize a large-capacity magazine as a "Nuisance". Penal Code section 830.8 provides that federal officers (with some conditions attached) possess the powers of arrest, and 5150 WIC commitment authority of a peace officer, but also provides that they are not peace officers. The peace officer authority to seize nuisance items is neither an arrest power nor a commitment power.

It's important to remember that large-capacity magazines are still illegal to possess. All that Judge Benitez' order did was to prevent enforcement of the law by designated officials. It did not change the law.

The designated officials in the order do not include BLM officers or Assistant U.S. Attorneys. It is technically possible that a BLM officer could arrest a person for possession of a large-capacity magazine and for that person to be prosecuted in federal court under the Assimilative Crimes Act. Personally, I see about a zero chance of that happening while the order is in effect, but it is possible.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-26-2019, 6:47 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,310
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post

It's important to remember that large-capacity magazines are still illegal to possess.
Legally obtained standard & high cap mags have always been and continue to be legal to possess.... No?

Did that ever change? If so, when?
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
But that wasn't enough for the liberal douches. They just had to go after the grandfathered mags... And look what it got them. - L84CABO
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Quote:
The prosecutor only needed 5/7 jurors on board and couldn't even do that. - stix213

Last edited by Redeyedrider; 11-26-2019 at 6:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-26-2019, 6:49 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,310
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I disagree that a BLM officer could seize a large-capacity magazine as a "Nuisance".
I agree that a BLM officer couldn't "legally" seize a LCM as a nuisance, on the other hand I disagree that a BLM officer couldn't seize a LCM as a nuisance.
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
But that wasn't enough for the liberal douches. They just had to go after the grandfathered mags... And look what it got them. - L84CABO
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Quote:
The prosecutor only needed 5/7 jurors on board and couldn't even do that. - stix213

Last edited by Redeyedrider; 11-26-2019 at 6:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-26-2019, 7:34 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 5,178
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyedrider View Post
Legally obtained standard & high cap mags have always been and continue to be legal to possess.... No?

Did that ever change? If so, when?
It changed when prop 63 and all the changes took effect. One of which made possession a crime, no grandfathering in.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-26-2019, 7:54 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,310
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
It changed when prop 63 and all the changes took effect. One of which made possession a crime, no grandfathering in.
So the injunction, followed by the conditional stay means nothing as far as "legality" is concerned?

Also this:
Quote:
The rule of lenity (also called the rule of strict construction) is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner most favorable to the defendant.
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
But that wasn't enough for the liberal douches. They just had to go after the grandfathered mags... And look what it got them. - L84CABO
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Quote:
The prosecutor only needed 5/7 jurors on board and couldn't even do that. - stix213

Last edited by Redeyedrider; 11-26-2019 at 7:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-26-2019, 9:14 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,352
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyedrider View Post
Legally obtained standard & high cap mags have always been and continue to be legal to possess.... No?

Did that ever change? If so, when?
No. They are currently illegal to possess.

It changed on July 1, 2017 as a result of Senate Bill 1446

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyedrider View Post
I agree that a BLM officer couldn't "legally" seize a LCM as a nuisance, on the other hand I disagree that a BLM officer couldn't seize a LCM as a nuisance.
OK, I see your distinction and have to yield on the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyedrider View Post
So the injunction, followed by the conditional stay means nothing as far as "legality" is concerned?
Correct. The injunction changes nothing about the illegality of possession. It only prevents the listed state officials from prosecuting violators.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-27-2019, 7:54 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
It's important to remember that large-capacity magazines are still illegal to possess. All that Judge Benitez' order did was to prevent enforcement of the law by designated officials. It did not change the law.
EZ there, RickD427. I got a lot of people upset when I pointed out that possession was still illegal, though enforcement is enjoined for now.

Also, the preliminary injunction reached "federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order".
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-27-2019, 9:25 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 5,178
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
EZ there, RickD427. I got a lot of people upset when I pointed out that possession was still illegal, though enforcement is enjoined for now.

Also, the preliminary injunction reached "federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order".
I think actually it was your suggestion that search warrants for nuisance seizures were going to happen, that upset folks.

All one has to do is look the section up to see that possession is still listed as an offense to verify Rick's statement.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-27-2019, 12:15 PM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,124
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Your average BLM officer is not up to the deep knowledge/details/history of CA laws as we are. You quickly find that out talking to them. Arguing is futile and may lead to a trip to the station.

In that case I always carry only the legal stuff out there.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-27-2019, 12:28 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,725
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
All one has to do is look the section up to see that possession is still listed as an offense to verify Rick's statement.
Not speaking to the subject at hand at all, but don't base "legality" on the law still being written. Laws that have been struck down by caselaw can remain in the code indefinitely.

According to the penal code, a public officer can shoot a fleeing felon (PC 196 Sec 3); even though this has been illegal (for the most part) since Tennessee Vs. Garner in the 80's.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-27-2019, 12:35 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,352
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Not speaking to the subject at hand at all, but don't base "legality" on the law still being written. Laws that have been struck down by caselaw can remain in the code indefinitely.

According to the penal code, a public officer can shoot a fleeing felon (PC 196 Sec 3); even though this has been illegal (for the most part) since Tennessee Vs. Garner in the 80's.
You've got a good point, California's old "Stop and ID law" remained in the Penal Code for more than a decade after the U.S. Supreme Court found it to be unconstititional. The courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional (Marbury v Madison), but that has not happened in the Duncan case.

I think that you may have a misunderstanding of Tennessee v Garner. It was a civil case that produced an award of damages. It did not address the criminal liability of the officer.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-27-2019, 12:46 PM
sixtringr's Avatar
sixtringr sixtringr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The capital of the wealthiest state, in the most powerful country in the world.
Posts: 163
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

At a certain place in the confrontation it becomes pointless to argue the law. Exponentially so after one is in handcuffs. If the guy with the badge wants the mags he is going to take them.
I shoot fairly regularly in northern Cali on NF and sometimes BLM land and I have never had a problem. That said, I would not bring a $20 (free state) mag I was not willing to lose until this is all settled out.
Mike
__________________
Imagine the banning of Assault Articles, High Capacity Editorials, and the existance of Off List Periodicals
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-27-2019, 1:10 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,725
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I think that you may have a misunderstanding of Tennessee v Garner. It was a civil case that produced an award of damages. It did not address the criminal liability of the officer.
Didn't know that. I always assumed it was a case addressing the law itself. Would you say the civil award changed the way the law is applied significantly?

I've read part of that case, and it seemed like the laws was intended as written... Just short of "Dead or alive" when it comes to felons. Seems like the justices lost their nerve for it in Garner.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-27-2019, 1:30 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,352
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Didn't know that. I always assumed it was a case addressing the law itself. Would you say the civil award changed the way the law is applied significantly?

I've read part of that case, and it seemed like the laws was intended as written... Just short of "Dead or alive" when it comes to felons. Seems like the justices lost their nerve for it in Garner.
It sounds like you got a good read on the court from Garner. When you read a decision its always helpful to separate the "Dicta" from the "Holding. The "Holding" is the mandatory part of the decision. It tells that parties and/or a lower court what they gotta do. The "Dicta" is the explanation of how the court got to the holding. It's very useful information to help one understand how the court would be likely to rule in future cases. A key comment in the dicta of Garner was the comment to the effect "it is not better that all fleeing felons die than escape" (the quote may not be exact, I'm writing this on the road). That tidbit should stop any officer from thinking that a fleeing felon is an instant target even if Garner was a civil case.

I think that you're right on point with the assessment that the Justices "lost their nerve" for shooting fleeing felons, and they communicated that in the dicta. Smart LEOs take the hint.

Garner was a vey unique case, nearly all police shooting cases combine some aspect of threat to the officer with other factors that prompted the shooting. In Garner the suspect was about to go over a fence and the officer articulated that he perceived no personal danger from the suspect, only that he would be unable to catch him if he made it over the fence. This made for a very "sterile" case for the court to examine only the issue of flight.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-27-2019, 1:45 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,725
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Try not to spit your coffee out here but.... In my CCW class the instructor hands out a test. One of the questions was "is it ever legal to shoot someone in the back". The other guy in class just graduated the police academy (on his own) and said no.

I said yes. The instructor asked me to explain so I gave an example of an armed intruder walking away from me, but in the direction of my kids bedroom...

I know there is a lot the public doesn't understand about use of force and I hate watching the media feed off of it against LEO's. I assume pretty much any armed suspect fleeing is still a lawful target?
[/I][/I]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
It sounds like you got a good read on the court from Garner. When you read a decision its always helpful to separate the "Dicta" from the "Holding. The "Holding" is the mandatory part of the decision. It tells that parties and/or a lower court what they gotta do. The "Dicta" is the explanation of how the court got to the holding. It's very useful information to help one understand how the court would be likely to rule in future cases. A key comment in the dicta of Garner was the comment to the effect "it is not better that all fleeing felons die than escape" (the quote may not be exact, I'm writing this on the road). That tidbit should stop any officer from thinking that a fleeing felon is an instant target even if Garner was a civil case.

I think that you're right on point with the assessment that the Justices "lost their nerve" for shooting fleeing felons, and they communicated that in the dicta. Smart LEOs take the hint.

Garner was a vey unique case, nearly all police shooting cases combine some aspect of threat to the officer with other factors that prompted the shooting. In Garner the suspect was about to go over a fence and the officer articulated that he perceived no personal danger from the suspect, only that he would be unable to catch him if he made it over the fence. This made for a very "sterile" case for the court to examine only the issue of flight.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-28-2019, 10:55 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Pre Garner the subject of whether to shoot a fleeing felon as they escaped over a fence was a favorite put to applicants by the LAPD oral interview board. You weren't expected to understand the law as much as you used were able to reason. That and the insight given into whether you may be shoot happy.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-29-2019, 1:54 PM
MrBLUE MrBLUE is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you for your input guys. It’s seems to be a gray area even though the law is currently on our side. I only have a handful of standard cap mags so I don’t want to risk it getting unlawfully confiscated
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-29-2019, 3:45 PM
ARDude's Avatar
ARDude ARDude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Retired in Northridge, Ca
Posts: 1,867
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBLUE View Post
Thank you for your input guys. It’s seems to be a gray area even though the law is currently on our side. I only have a handful of standard cap mags so I don’t want to risk it getting unlawfully confiscated
Interesting statement.
It's not a gray area. The law is very specific. It's not on our side.
The only benefit we have is that the law can't be enforced, at this time.

And if confiscated as a nuisance, it is not unlawful, although unlikely that it would happen....for now.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-29-2019, 8:24 PM
hellayella's Avatar
hellayella hellayella is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: every big urban city
Posts: 5,399
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Default

Don't risk it; an uniformed leo may mistakenly arrest you or at the least, confiscate your mags
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-30-2019, 10:24 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,124
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I get weird @ss questions from them, makes you wonder if they ever read the laws. One asked if my legal AR was registered here several years ago before that was required.

I said yes just to shut him up.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-30-2019, 10:26 AM
Unbekannt Unbekannt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have been shooting on BLM land off and on for four years and never even seen a BLM ranger.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-30-2019, 10:59 AM
lordmorgul lordmorgul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: LA County - Lancaster
Posts: 886
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Mag dumping full capacity is a good way to “seem like a nuisance”, which might get you attention you don’t want, and lose your mags.


Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, CRPA member, Calguns.net contributor, CGF / SAF / FPC / CCRKBA / GOA / NAGR / NRA-ILA contributor, USCCA member - Support your defenders!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-01-2019, 6:00 AM
Ewok55 Ewok55 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don't take this as legal advice, but if a ranger insisted on illegally confiscating your magazines, you probably could go to court without a lawyer and win, as the judge would know the law. Hiring a lawyer would make it more expensive than the magazines are worth. You would have to go to court anyway if the ranger issued a bogus infraction.

Just a BTW, CA has no Fish & Game code restricting rifle and handgun magazine capacity for game legal to hunt with rifles and pistols.

Many shooters around here blast off standard capacity magazines on BLM and aren't hassled by rangers.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-01-2019, 8:39 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 5,178
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewok55 View Post
Don't take this as legal advice, but if a ranger insisted on illegally confiscating your magazines, you probably could go to court without a lawyer and win, as the judge would know the law. Hiring a lawyer would make it more expensive than the magazines are worth. You would have to go to court anyway if the ranger issued a bogus infraction.

Just a BTW, CA has no Fish & Game code restricting rifle and handgun magazine capacity for game legal to hunt with rifles and pistols.

Many shooters around here blast off standard capacity magazines on BLM and aren't hassled by rangers.
Well you are right that it shouldn't be taken as legal advise. Since 32390 PC still remains law and the mags are subject of confiscation as a nuisance, going to court without a lawyer thinking the judge will side with you because the prohibition on possession (32310 (c) PC) has been enjoined from enforcement is probably a foolish move.

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.

The merits and legality of 32390 have yet to be hashed out in court, until that happens we all run the same risk, and it is up to everyone to decide their own comfort level with that risk.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-01-2019, 9:01 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,352
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewok55 View Post
Don't take this as legal advice, but if a ranger insisted on illegally confiscating your magazines, you probably could go to court without a lawyer and win, as the judge would know the law. Hiring a lawyer would make it more expensive than the magazines are worth. You would have to go to court anyway if the ranger issued a bogus infraction.

Just a BTW, CA has no Fish & Game code restricting rifle and handgun magazine capacity for game legal to hunt with rifles and pistols.

Many shooters around here blast off standard capacity magazines on BLM and aren't hassled by rangers.
Ewok,

Please keep in mind that if magazines are seized as "nuisance" items, there is no citation and no court hearing.

The only way that you're going to get into court is to file a civil lawsuit seeking the return of the magazines. In that event, you are the moving party and bear the burden of proof that the magazines are not "nuisances." That's gonna be kinda hard since the law specifically defines them as such (and yes, the judge will know the law and it isn't in your favor). You could also plead that the nuisance statute is unconstitutional, but that is a pretty major legal undertaking and one that isn't gonna end at the trial court level.

Also keep in mind that the law regarding the possession of large-capacity magazines(PC 32310) is going to be irrelevant in your lawsuit regarding the non-criminal seizure of the magazines under PC 32390.

But also realize that there is very little chance of such a seizure occurring during the pendency of the federal court injunction in Duncan v Becerra
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RickD427; 12-01-2019 at 1:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-01-2019, 9:07 AM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,710
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBLUE View Post
I haven't really seen a definitive answer for this but based on the flowcharts, a featureless rifle with a standard mag is currently legal for us in CA. I just wanted to make sure and hear thoughts from people here on Calguns. I have also read that it's still a risk if a BLM ranger isn't aware of the current laws and confiscates a legally purchased standard mag anyway.

So are we GTG with Freedom week mags on BLM land? Thank you!
Yes.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-01-2019, 10:23 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,124
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbekannt View Post
I have been shooting on BLM land off and on for four years and never even seen a BLM ranger.
Then you are due for a visit.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-01-2019, 1:50 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,310
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Then you are due for a visit.
Ah.... The old law of averages.
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
But that wasn't enough for the liberal douches. They just had to go after the grandfathered mags... And look what it got them. - L84CABO
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Quote:
The prosecutor only needed 5/7 jurors on board and couldn't even do that. - stix213
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-01-2019, 4:38 PM
93chipper 93chipper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I couldn’t say I hear conflicting statements on it I keep hearing that they are illegal to use but not to own which to me makes no sense and I’m also seeing people getting popped with them and getting felony charges which also makes no sense to me
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-01-2019, 5:33 PM
ARDude's Avatar
ARDude ARDude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Retired in Northridge, Ca
Posts: 1,867
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93chipper View Post
I couldn’t say I hear conflicting statements on it I keep hearing that they are illegal to use but not to own which to me makes no sense and I’m also seeing people getting popped with them and getting felony charges which also makes no sense to me
Possession is illegal. But you can not be prosecuted for it at this time. I know it sounds weird, but hey, this is California.

Who are you seeing getting "popped" with LCM's? And a felony? That is weird, because it's a infraction/misdemeanor.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-01-2019, 8:18 PM
93chipper 93chipper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARDude View Post
Possession is illegal. But you can not be prosecuted for it at this time. I know it sounds weird, but hey, this is California.

Who are you seeing getting "popped" with LCM's? And a felony? That is weird, because it's a infraction/misdemeanor.
Stockton pd popped a guy with a ar15 and he was charged with a felony with the lcms but who knows maybe the gun wasn’t configured to the commie standards of the 50s fin and muzzle break bs
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-01-2019, 11:11 PM
lordmorgul lordmorgul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: LA County - Lancaster
Posts: 886
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default Standard Cap mags in BLM Land?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93chipper View Post
Stockton pd popped a guy with a ar15 and he was charged with a felony with the lcms but who knows maybe the gun wasn’t configured to the commie standards of the 50s fin and muzzle break bs


It is possible to manufacture an AW by inserting a magazine for which the rifle is no longer compliant within the rules. A fixed mag AR15 cannot be able to hold more than 10. The magazine possession would not be a chargeable felony but the rifle would. And since it’s a fixed magazine installed at the time of the felony, the magazine would be just as legally seized as the rifle, even if you pulled it out while LEO observed it had been in.


Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, CRPA member, Calguns.net contributor, CGF / SAF / FPC / CCRKBA / GOA / NAGR / NRA-ILA contributor, USCCA member - Support your defenders!

Last edited by lordmorgul; 12-01-2019 at 11:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-03-2019, 9:57 AM
Rcjackrabbit Rcjackrabbit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 548
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Here is the bottom line. Treat every shooting or hunting trip as a covert operation. You want to insert, accomplish your mission, and extract without being detected.

Drive like you have a dead hooker and a kilo of cocaine in your trunk.

We live in a God forsaken, evil, predatory state. Behave accordingly.

It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. You are food to these tyrants.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:18 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,124
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

That's how I operate here, under the radar. Dead hookers and blow trained me well.

If you ask for trouble here in California it will surely find you.
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 2:04 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.