Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-16-2015, 5:24 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is online now
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,366
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default Hi cap transfer loophole? PC 32420 + 32415

Another thread about large-capacity magazines got me looking at the penal code. I was wondering what some people thought of this.....

I DO NOT SUGGEST JUST GOING AND DOING IT, NOR DO I SUGGEST BREAKING THE LAW. I AM NOT A LAWYER

Person A has had several large-capacity magazines in their possession within CA since prior to 1/1/2000

Person B had been loaned the magazines by Person A prior to 1/1/2000 temporarily, even for a short while. Example: Person B may be a son of Person A, and shot dad's guns using said magazines prior to 1/1/2000.

Person B would like to acquire large-capacity magazines from Person A, but cannot because of CA PC 32310.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA PC 32310
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, commencing January 1, 2000, 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.
So to legally transfer the magazines between the two of them, they do the following:

1) Person A loans the magazines to Person B per CA PC 32415

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA PC 32415
32415. Section 32310 does not apply to the loan of a lawfully
possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of
the following conditions are met:
(a) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not
prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 29610), Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 29800), or Chapter 3 (commencing with
Section 29900) of Division 9 of this title or Section 8100 or 8103 of
the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or
ammunition.
(b) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or
location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not
otherwise prohibited, and the person who lends the large-capacity
magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the
large-capacity magazine is loaned.
2) Person A remains with Person B for the duration of the loan

3) Person A and Person B travel together to Nevada with the magazines in Person B's possession per the loan, or any other state that legally allows the transfer of magazines

4) Person A gives or sells Person B the magazines in Nevada, or other state where it is legal

5) Person B returns to CA with the magazines, utilizing the importation exemption in CA PC 32420, which remain legally the property of Person B

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA PC 32420
32420. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation of a
large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000,
lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with
the same large-capacity magazine.
So.... Person B was at some point in possession of the magazines prior to 1/1/2000. Person B lawfully took them out of state while Person B possessed the magazines as a loan in compliance with CA PC 32415. Person B, having satisfied all the requirements of CA PC 32420 is entitled to the importation exemption by returning with the magazines to CA in his possession.

What am I missing?
__________________
Dev blog for the MMO game I'm developing 'Broadside: Perilous Waters'
https://broadside-game.blogspot.com/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1...rilous_Waters/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-16-2015, 5:33 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,474
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

so you think that if person a loans person b a magazine and they leave the state together the magazine is no longer in possession of person a?

it seems this may work but that magazine would become a public nuisance since the person in possession did not aquire it before the date of the ban

but i am not a lawyer so my opinions are for entertainment purposes only

also i think this may be one of those laws were any judge would use the spirit of the law idea that we cannot use when it would help us but the state can use since they have better guns than us
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-16-2015, 5:46 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 41,489
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

A could bring them back - B could not.

It's the magazines that are legal to take out and re-import - not the transfer to B is not legal, unless B keeps them out of state.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Consider Samizdat; consider some reading material, such as this and that.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-16-2015, 5:50 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is online now
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,366
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
so you think that if person a loans person b a magazine and they leave the state together the magazine is no longer in possession of person a?

it seems this may work but that magazine would become a public nuisance since the person in possession did not aquire it before the date of the ban

but i am not a lawyer so my opinions are for entertainment purposes only

also i think this may be one of those laws were any judge would use the spirit of the law idea that we cannot use when it would help us but the state can use since they have better guns than us
I believe the magazines are in Person B's possession for the duration of the loan from Person A. My only argument against the "spirit of the law" is we've won in that area before, such as off roster SSE that required legislation to stop when it was clear that SSE mod/unmod sales were against the spirit of the law. But you nonetheless make a good point.
__________________
Dev blog for the MMO game I'm developing 'Broadside: Perilous Waters'
https://broadside-game.blogspot.com/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1...rilous_Waters/
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-16-2015, 5:53 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is online now
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,366
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
A could bring them back - B could not.

It's the magazines that are legal to take out and re-import - not the transfer to B is not legal, unless B keeps them out of state.
But the transfer to B occurs outside of the reach of CA law, and the PC's I cited refer to possession, not ownership, of the magazines.
__________________
Dev blog for the MMO game I'm developing 'Broadside: Perilous Waters'
https://broadside-game.blogspot.com/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1...rilous_Waters/
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-16-2015, 7:34 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 41,489
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

The transfer outside CA is legal, under NV law.

'B' importing them from NV after would be illegal. 'A' is the one who owned/possessed them before 2000 - 'A' could re-import them.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Consider Samizdat; consider some reading material, such as this and that.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-16-2015, 8:21 PM
chknlyps2's Avatar
chknlyps2 chknlyps2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the sticks
Posts: 2,631
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post

Person B had been loaned the magazines by Person A prior to 1/1/2000 temporarily, even for a short while. Example: Person B may be a son of Person A, and shot dad's guns using said magazines prior to 1/1/2000.




So.... Person B was at some point in possession of the magazines prior to 1/1/2000. Person B lawfully took them out of state while Person B possessed the magazines as a loan in compliance with CA PC 32415. Person B, having satisfied all the requirements of CA PC 32420 is entitled to the importation exemption by returning with the magazines to CA in his possession.

What am I missing?
I get what you are saying. Person B had "Possession", if only for a short time before 1-1-2000 which fulfills
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA PC 32420
32420. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation of a
large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000,

lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with
the same large-capacity magazine.
__________________
Wanted: Spent Berdan primed Yugo 7.62x39 & 7.5x55 GP11 Swiss brass
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-16-2015, 8:36 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,474
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
The transfer outside CA is legal, under NV law.

'B' importing them from NV after would be illegal. 'A' is the one who owned/possessed them before 2000 - 'A' could re-import them.
but what about if andy let barry borrow the mag they both drive out of state with them

then barry pays andy for the magazine then lets andy borrow it they drive back into state andy just bringing back the magazine he owned before the ban

then barry takes the magazine back since he is the owner
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-16-2015, 8:37 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 8,820
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
32415. Section 32310 does not apply to the loan of a lawfully
possessed
large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of
the following conditions are met:
(a) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not
prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 29610), Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 29800), or Chapter 3.....
The statute establishes distinct roles for the actors: one role is "legal possessor" of the mags; the other is the legal recipient of the loaned mags. "A" lawfully possesses the mags; "B" is loaned the mags, but only in the presence of "A". Possession does not transfer, the mags are only loaned, and "B" never "possessed" the mags in California. In order to be loaned to "B", the statute requires the mags to be "legally possessed" by another party ("A"). To test this, ask if "B" could, under the statute, loan the mags to anyone else. The answer is, "No," as "A" still owns and legally possesses the mags.

Quote:
32420. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation of a
large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
large-capacity magazine in the state
prior to January 1, 2000,
lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with
the same large-capacity magazine.
Since "B" never lawfully possessed the mags in California, this section does not apply.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 04-16-2015 at 8:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-16-2015, 9:56 PM
unusedusername's Avatar
unusedusername unusedusername is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Between SJ and SF
Posts: 4,020
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

"Possession" is a tricky team in law.

In some places it has been taken by courts to mean "to own" or "to be the legally responsible party for". In other places in the law it means "to hold" or "to control by virtue of physical contact".

If you take possession to mean the second one then maybe this has merit. If it means the first one then this won't go far.

I would guess a court would find the meaning to be whatever is most inconvenient for us.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-16-2015, 11:22 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,474
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The statute establishes distinct roles for the actors: one role is "legal possessor" of the mags; the other is the legal recipient of the loaned mags. "A" lawfully possesses the mags; "B" is loaned the mags, but only in the presence of "A". Possession does not transfer, the mags are only loaned, and "B" never "possessed" the mags in California. In order to be loaned to "B", the statute requires the mags to be "legally possessed" by another party ("A"). To test this, ask if "B" could, under the statute, loan the mags to anyone else. The answer is, "No," as "A" still owns and legally possesses the mags.


Since "B" never lawfully possessed the mags in California, this section
Quote:
32420. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation of a
large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000,
lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with
the same large-capacity magazine.
does not apply.


so if the person who owns the mag is not the one to bring it out of state then they are not allowed to bring it back it seems

so skip the whole borrowing it at the start scenario and just do


andy brings barry and the magazine with him out of state ,
then sells the magazine to barry ,
then andy brings the magazine back in with barry
then places it on his kitchen table

since barry is now the owner he takes the magazine off the table and goes home
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-16-2015, 11:45 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 41,489
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
so if the person who owns the mag is not the one to bring it out of state then they are not allowed to bring it back it seems

so skip the whole borrowing it at the start scenario and just do


andy brings barry and the magazine with him out of state ,
then sells the magazine to barry ,
then andy brings the magazine back in with barry
then places it on his kitchen table

since barry is now the owner he takes the magazine off the table and goes home
And Andy is arguably guilty of transferring and Barry guilty of receiving per 32310(a) as already quoted in the thread
Quote:
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.
This seems right:
Quote:
Originally Posted by unusedusername View Post
I would guess a court would find the meaning to be whatever is most inconvenient for us.
It can be useful to do these explorations - following the law exactly can lead to interesting results - but this attempt seems not to be going interesting places.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Consider Samizdat; consider some reading material, such as this and that.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.




Last edited by Librarian; 04-16-2015 at 11:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-16-2015, 11:53 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,474
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
And Andy is arguably guilty of transferring and Barry guilty of receiving per 32310(a) as already quoted in the thread This seems right:
but andy didn't transfer it to him in this state (unless the state has really long arms to claim the transfer in the other state was illegal) he only placed it on the table to allow barry to reclaim his property

barry did not import it or receive it in this state as it was only at he was reclaiming his property


but like i said all my ideas are for entertainment purpose only
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-17-2015, 12:01 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is online now
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,366
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The statute establishes distinct roles for the actors: one role is "legal possessor" of the mags; the other is the legal recipient of the loaned mags. "A" lawfully possesses the mags; "B" is loaned the mags, but only in the presence of "A". Possession does not transfer, the mags are only loaned, and "B" never "possessed" the mags in California. In order to be loaned to "B", the statute requires the mags to be "legally possessed" by another party ("A"). To test this, ask if "B" could, under the statute, loan the mags to anyone else. The answer is, "No," as "A" still owns and legally possesses the mags.


Since "B" never lawfully possessed the mags in California, this section does not apply.
If that definition of "possession" were legit, then someone could mount a defense against a charge under CA PC 11350 (possession of narcotics) with a claim they were merely loaned the drugs, so weren't in possession of them. the prosecution would then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs were not on loan.....
__________________
Dev blog for the MMO game I'm developing 'Broadside: Perilous Waters'
https://broadside-game.blogspot.com/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1...rilous_Waters/
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-17-2015, 12:02 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is online now
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,366
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unusedusername View Post
"Possession" is a tricky team in law.

In some places it has been taken by courts to mean "to own" or "to be the legally responsible party for". In other places in the law it means "to hold" or "to control by virtue of physical contact".

If you take possession to mean the second one then maybe this has merit. If it means the first one then this won't go far.

I would guess a court would find the meaning to be whatever is most inconvenient for us.
Ah I didn't realize that.
__________________
Dev blog for the MMO game I'm developing 'Broadside: Perilous Waters'
https://broadside-game.blogspot.com/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1...rilous_Waters/
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-17-2015, 12:09 PM
SoldierLife7's Avatar
SoldierLife7 SoldierLife7 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,449
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
The transfer outside CA is legal, under NV law.

'B' importing them from NV after would be illegal. 'A' is the one who owned/possessed them before 2000 - 'A' could re-import them.
QFT

/Thread
__________________
___________

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”

-Edmund Burke, Speech at Country Meeting of Buckinghamshire, 1784
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-17-2015, 12:11 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,217
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
And Andy is arguably guilty of transferring and Barry guilty of receiving per 32310(a) as already quoted in the thread This seems right:
It can be useful to do these explorations - following the law exactly can lead to interesting results - but this attempt seems not to be going interesting places.
What may have been a lowly misdemeanor can too easily become felony cospiracy when two or more persons join together for a singular purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-17-2015, 1:49 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,474
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
What may have been a lowly misdemeanor can too easily become felony cospiracy when two or more persons join together for a singular purpose.
singular purpose to break the law

but if you follow the steps its hard to find where the law was broken

unless it is a crime to conspire to violate the spirit of the law

of course the whole reason for leaving may be breaking the "offering for sale" part of the law so andy cannot tell barry why he is taking him to nevada and must only offer his magazine for sale to barry once he crosses the state line

the idiosyncracy i am attempting to exploit is the person bringing back the magazine only had to be in possession of it prior to the ban date he does not have to be the current "owner" so he is the only one allowed to re-import the magazine

and only up till now with the new rules its confusing because from 2000-2014 a person could purchase a LCFD from a armored car buisness

since the law did not forbid the aquisition only the sale so buying one from someone illegally selling would attach you to a criminal conspiracy but the exempt sellers did not involve you in that

also the "finding" like in a storage auction or at a range (with the possible "theft of found property" charge) but all the mags i found at ranges were non functional and were hucked downrange to be shot at freakin "western metal products"


but i digress like i said just thought exercise with my limited law and order/perry mason understanding of legalese
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-17-2015, 2:18 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,293
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
since the law did not forbid the aquisition only the sale
The law forbids "receiving" as well, which I assume includes acquisition by any means including bequest and auction. That's the point of laws like this after all: eventually everybody dies so eventually every such magazine will be destroyed.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-17-2015, 4:47 PM
ElToro's Avatar
ElToro ElToro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bay Area PRK
Posts: 731
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

I applaud the thoughtfulness of the OP. But who the hell wants to be the test case to test the law ? Even if you have the money for some major league attorneys "what if" your case goes sideways? I'm realy not keen on seeing my kids grow up 1 Saturday a month on visiting day....
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-17-2015, 4:50 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,474
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
The law forbids "receiving" as well, which I assume includes acquisition by any means including bequest and auction. That's the point of laws like this after all: eventually everybody dies so eventually every such magazine will be destroyed.
it does now bit its only illegal to aquire one in california if you go to nevada you are allowed to buy one you just cannot bring it back unless the law forbids californians from aquiring a LCFD anywhere on the planet


like i said none of this should be done they are just thought exercizes

i can articulate how the bumpfire stock skirts the law just enough to not be within the definition of the specifics of the law but there is no way i would buy one its just too close for the old "acted on good faith and understanding of the law" excuse

Last edited by bohoki; 04-17-2015 at 4:55 PM..
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 10:52 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical