Calguns.net  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-22-2019, 11:57 AM
linuxjon linuxjon is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 71
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Transferring mags legal?

I can't find any info on this.

Half the for sale posts I see here and elsewhere include standard capacity mags. What is the rule on this? Will PPTs enable the transfer of these? I'm lost on where the law applies here.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-22-2019, 12:00 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 13,396
iTrader: 91 / 100%
Default

No large cap mags may be offered for sale. Use search. No such thing as hicap or standard cap mags in the law. Unless thay are 10 rounders.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-22-2019, 12:01 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 5,178
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Not legal. C & D are currently enjoined from enforcement action, but the rest of the law is still enforceable.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-22-2019, 12:05 PM
linuxjon linuxjon is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 71
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So what is happening to all these people who are listing 15rd mags as being included when they get to their FFL?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-22-2019, 12:11 PM
1320Fastback's Avatar
1320Fastback 1320Fastback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Vista, Ca
Posts: 150
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Hopefully exchanging them in the parking lot and selling a gun with no magazine as far as the FFL knows.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-22-2019, 12:14 PM
CmdrChuch's Avatar
CmdrChuch CmdrChuch is offline
U-Haul Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 513
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxjon View Post
So what is happening to all these people who are listing 15rd mags as being included when they get to their FFL?
They probably go to a licensed dealer who will permanently block the mags.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-22-2019, 1:06 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 14,272
iTrader: 161 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxjon View Post
I can't find any info on this.

Half the for sale posts I see here and elsewhere include standard capacity mags. What is the rule on this? Will PPTs enable the transfer of these? I'm lost on where the law applies here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxjon View Post
So what is happening to all these people who are listing 15rd mags as being included when they get to their FFL?
I very rarely see any mags offered with a gun here that does not come with some sort of stipulation that they are for LEO only or will not be included, or that they must be blocked by the FFL etc.

And far, far from half the gun listings here are even offered that way. I have seen a lot of listings for a lot of years here. But since you claim to see it that way, I have to question whether you are serious or are able to read and comprehend what is being offered.
__________________
.


Last edited by SkyHawk; 07-22-2019 at 1:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-22-2019, 1:55 PM
linuxjon linuxjon is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 71
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Skyhawks,

I see them frequently here and even more frequently on Armslist. Using the "half the time" expression to denote it being frequent is really something you need to investigate as me being illiterate or dishonest?

Good lord are you just trying to chase people off the forums?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-31-2019, 8:57 PM
CWL's Avatar
CWL CWL is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 387
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Armslist huh?
__________________
Vae Victis
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-31-2019, 9:25 PM
kcheung2's Avatar
kcheung2 kcheung2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,261
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Srsly armslist? It’s real easy to sell fully semiautomatic multiclip assault unicorn killers when one is a Nigerian prince.
__________________
---------------------
"There is no "best." If there was, everyone here would own that one, and no other." - DSB
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-31-2019, 9:39 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 linuxjon View Post
So what is happening to all these people who are listing 15rd mags as being included when they get to their FFL?
Could you link some of these people on calguns advertising LCM's with a gun sale? I don't care about armslist or gunbroker, as a lot of them are out of state sellers.

I think we all would like to read them.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-31-2019, 10:59 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 14,272
iTrader: 161 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARDude View Post
Could you link some of these people on calguns advertising LCM's with a gun sale? I don't care about armslist or gunbroker, as a lot of them are out of state sellers.

I think we all would like to read them.
No he can’t because he is full of it. There is no way, no how he comes up with half either. Sure he might find a bone or two, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-01-2019, 10:07 PM
kcheung2's Avatar
kcheung2 kcheung2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,261
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

I strongly suspect OP is reading "10/30 magazine" or "blocked 30 magazine" and thinks he struck gold but really just hit pyrite.
__________________
---------------------
"There is no "best." If there was, everyone here would own that one, and no other." - DSB
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-06-2019, 1:36 PM
savoirrangefaire savoirrangefaire is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Southern California
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In my mind, legality is doubtful selling a large-capacity magazine to an LEO by a layperson unless it is through an FFL who is equipped to verify LE status properly. I don't even know if you can do it without a transfer to the FFL who then 'sells' it to the LEO. LEO to LEO appears to be kosher.

Additionally, PPT sellers of a firearm to a layperson are stuck with their freedom magazines as not part of that sale, and may have to sell at great loss to the FFL who needs a LCM permit. Otherwise, blocking said magazines is the only remaining alternative.

'Offers or exposes for sale'- that would likely negate sending the magazines out-of-state in most instances, or even contacting an out-of-state FFL or buyer to sell to them.
The time to get rid of or sell the magazines out-of-state was BEFORE July 1, 2017. BUT, 32310(d) had been found unconstitutional anyway and is on appeal. I really don't know where that leaves us.

Any way a layman looks at it one's hands are substantially tied.

Last edited by savoirrangefaire; 10-06-2019 at 2:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-06-2019, 2:07 PM
creampuff creampuff is offline
Village idiot
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcheung2 View Post
I strongly suspect OP is reading "10/30 magazine" or "blocked 30 magazine" and thinks he struck gold but really just hit pyrite.
I'm think this as well OR

Sometimes in the medical profession, when a doctor proclaims truth by using the term "in my clinical experience", what they really means is they saw it once. And when they say, "This has always been our best practice", they mean they did it twice.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-06-2019, 2:35 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,710
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxjon View Post
So what is happening to all these people who are listing 15rd mags as being included when they get to their FFL?
Nothing. Do you think the buyers are calling the police?
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-06-2019, 3:15 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 13,396
iTrader: 91 / 100%
Default

No ffl will legally transfer using large cap mags unless to leo. FUD from linus.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-29-2019, 5:01 PM
L.A. Saiga's Avatar
L.A. Saiga L.A. Saiga is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 917
iTrader: 134 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcheung2 View Post
I strongly suspect OP is reading "10/30 magazine" or "blocked 30 magazine" and thinks he struck gold but really just hit pyrite.
Yup. THIS

... almost 10 pages deep into the parts sub forum and I've found ZERO "high capacity" mags for sale. Only 10/30, etc.

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-09-2019, 9:57 PM
everyday_hero everyday_hero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 37
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Situation: Bought $3,000+ worth of freedom mags 3/29/19-4/5/19. I keep most stored in ammo cans with desiccant packets in a secure location at my California residence. Keep a few in a range bag & one in a mag well for home defense with back ups in a pocket nearby.

I value my freedom magazines more than money. Not one will never be sold again or cross state lines again. I am a law abiding gun owner with permanent keeps & everything to lose. Loss of God given rights & property is never an option.

Based on my interpretation of the law, an order can be submitted for magazines with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds to an address outside California & be lawfully kept outside of California in a modest magazine cache only for out of state use.

Seems like the best & most law abiding option for any gun owner that has the right to keep & bear arms infringed by an unconstitutional rule of tyrannical government.

Your thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:12 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,351
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Your approach may only bring you some temporary benefit. At some point there will be a final decision in the Duncan case:

1) If Ms. Duncan prevails, then the California prohibition on the possession, and importation of large capacity magazines goes away. You'll still have your "Freedom Week" magazines and will still be able to use them freely, but their value will likely drop to market price.

2) If Ms. Duncan loses, then plan on the injunction going away. The likely outcome is that you will have to divest yourself of your "Freedom Week" magazines, or remove them from the state.
__________________
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
  #21  
Old 11-10-2019, 8:07 AM
LateBraking's Avatar
LateBraking LateBraking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pacific Standard Time
Posts: 820
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxjon View Post
I can't find any info on this.

Half the for sale posts I see here and elsewhere include standard capacity mags. What is the rule on this? Will PPTs enable the transfer of these? I'm lost on where the law applies here.
We know that CA laws suck and that people want standard-capacity magazines, not low-capacity ones.

However, as stated in this thread by other members, it's not legal. And as someone who frequents the for sale sections a lot (really I'd say anyone with more than 25 feedback "frequents the section a lot" and we have several people in this thread who are above and then well beyond that) I find this statement hard to believe. No way "half" the sale posts on here include stan.cap.mags, half the selling members on here probably don't even possess them. And when they are in possession of legally acquired mags, they are typically put with a disclaimer such as "will be pinned prior to sale" or "LEO sales only." If you only see what looks like a stan.cap.mag on the outside but no explanation as to its capacity, it is a 10/30 or 10/## whatever the number is, meaning the magazine has been permanently modified internally to only take 10 rounds.

The law right now is what it always was: possession and transfer of stan.cap.mags is illegal within the state of California. The reason you see an extremely small limited number of people with stan.cap.mags is that, in layman's terms, the CA law was found unconstitutional and killed off, but then Kommiefornia appealed it, so they killed off the decision killing off the law, and now the law, like a zombie, is back from the dead, and is stuck like that until more legal action happens in the future.
__________________

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-10-2019, 8:31 AM
LateBraking's Avatar
LateBraking LateBraking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pacific Standard Time
Posts: 820
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxjon View Post
Skyhawks,

I see them frequently here and even more frequently on Armslist. Using the "half the time" expression to denote it being frequent is really something you need to investigate as me being illiterate or dishonest?

Good lord are you just trying to chase people off the forums?
Its one thing if, like recently with me, you ask a question on this forum and nobody replies to your question, instead just ripping on you. If it was that, I get that. Internet needs thick skin, and despite some of these booger flickers being real nuggets on occasion, I'm still here. Hell, I'll fling a booger or two if I have to.

However, if you feel "chased off the forums" because you asked a question and people are actually replying to your question or attempting to reply to your question by clarifying the premise of it, then that's just a matter of you not liking the facts, even though facts don't choose sides.

I'll save Skyhawks the trouble and do the investigating. Taken from currently active for sale ads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesty3782 View Post
This pistol will come with one 13 round magazine blocked to 10 rounds using the magblocks kit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliteCorp View Post
Will also include a 13rd and 15rd magazine. These will come blocked if not a LEO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniPeralez View Post
Hi Cap mags will be offered to PO/LE only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris352 View Post
2x 17 round magazines if youre law enforcement
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawfuls View Post
[*]Comes with 3x 15-round mags if you show LEO ID.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajfam87@gmail.com View Post
• Comes with 3 Magpul 10/30 mags
Quote:
Originally Posted by googlechrome View Post
Will come with 2 10/17 mags and original box and paperwork.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebomb View Post
2 10/20 round mags
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayhuh View Post
As stated previously, neither will come with magazines as it is illegal for me to offer to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesty3782 View Post
It will come with two 15 round beretta magazines blocked to 10 round using the magblock.com system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnugget View Post
Both magazines are not 10-rounders so they will not be included.
I went through every single listing on 3 pages before I got bored, and saw the overwhelming majority of ads stating "LEO only, blocked, or no magazines included due to legality." I only saw one potentially questionable ad. I'm not gonna post it here but you can search for it if you want to find that one listing.

That said, that's hardly half, or even the majority, or even a significant number. If these facts "drive you off the forum" then, well, I'm sorry that they did. That said, the internet is a harsh place out there, and if you think its bad here, never be a member of a car forum. They crucify their fellow car enthusiasts for good sport. Since car ownership is not a Constitutional right under attack by a nationally charged political agenda, there's nothing unifying car guys, and as a result they turn to cannibalizing one another.
__________________

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

Last edited by LateBraking; 11-10-2019 at 8:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-10-2019, 10:55 AM
BOBGBA's Avatar
BOBGBA BOBGBA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SFV
Posts: 939
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxjon View Post
...Half the for sale posts I see here and elsewhere include standard capacity mags. ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxjon View Post
...Good lord are you just trying to chase people off the forums?
No one is trying to drive you off, they are trying to help you learn to post facts that are true.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-10-2019, 12:37 PM
Bullets&Whitewalls Bullets&Whitewalls is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,863
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

Did you happen to look at the dates of the original for sale posting? We’re they during freedom week? I have come across those not realizing how far back in the classifieds ive surfed lol. I have only seen a couple come up current.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-01-2019, 3:20 AM
Manzo Manzo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 100
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LateBraking View Post
We know that CA laws suck and that people want standard-capacity magazines, not low-capacity ones.

However, as stated in this thread by other members, it's not legal. And as someone who frequents the for sale sections a lot (really I'd say anyone with more than 25 feedback "frequents the section a lot" and we have several people in this thread who are above and then well beyond that) I find this statement hard to believe. No way "half" the sale posts on here include stan.cap.mags, half the selling members on here probably don't even possess them. And when they are in possession of legally acquired mags, they are typically put with a disclaimer such as "will be pinned prior to sale" or "LEO sales only." If you only see what looks like a stan.cap.mag on the outside but no explanation as to its capacity, it is a 10/30 or 10/## whatever the number is, meaning the magazine has been permanently modified internally to only take 10 rounds.

The law right now is what it always was: possession and transfer of stan.cap.mags is illegal within the state of California. The reason you see an extremely small limited number of people with stan.cap.mags is that, in layman's terms, the CA law was found unconstitutional and killed off, but then Kommiefornia appealed it, so they killed off the decision killing off the law, and now the law, like a zombie, is back from the dead, and is stuck like that until more legal action happens in the future.
Possession of large or standard capacity magazines is not illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-01-2019, 8:27 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 Manzo View Post
Possession of large or standard capacity magazines is not illegal.
Technically yes it is. The law was not struck down, enforcement (prosecution) of the law is barred by court order.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:46 PM
savoirrangefaire savoirrangefaire is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Southern California
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manzo View Post
Possession of large or standard capacity magazines is not illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
Technically yes it is. The law was not struck down, enforcement (prosecution) of the law is barred by court order.
POSSESSION not unlawful until PC 32310(c),(d) became effective.

Injunction against enforcement of the above is currently in effect and has been appealed by the State.

Due to the injunction, possession is technically not a crime now, and anyone who arrests you for a felony or misdemeanor offense of possession is in deep doo-doo. The POSSESSION part of the statute has also been held to be unconstitutional by the Federal District Court, unless reversed.

If I remember correctly the District Court ruled ALL of PC 32310 unconstitutional but did not stay enforcement of 32310(a)(b). It only stayed enforcement of subsections (c) and (d) (re POSSESSION) pending the appeal.

To respond to this thread's title- NO. Can't lawfully transfer large-capacity magazines, with the usual exceptions, even though that part of the law had also been held unconstitutional. It remains the law pending the appeal.

Same with unlawful possession- it remains the law BUT LE is barred from enforcing it.

The entirety of PC 32310 remains in the Penal Code. The POSSESSION part of it remains UNENFORCEABLE.

We await the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.

Last edited by savoirrangefaire; 12-02-2019 at 1:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-02-2019, 1:02 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Orange County
Posts: 486
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
Technically yes it is. The law was not struck down, enforcement (prosecution) of the law is barred by court order.
Not this again.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-02-2019, 1:36 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,351
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by savoirrangefaire View Post
POSSESSION not unlawful until PC 32310(c),(d) became effective.

Injunction against enforcement of the above is currently in effect and has been appealed by the State.

Possession is not a crime now, and anyone who arrests you for a felony or misdemeanor offense of possession is in deep doo-doo. The POSSESSION part of the statute has been held to be unconstitutional by the Federal District Court, unless reversed.

If I remember correctly the District Court ruled ALL of PC 32310 unconstitutional but did not stay enforcement of 32310(a)(b). It only stayed enforcement of subsections (c) and (d) (re POSSESSION) pending the appeal.

To respond to this thread's title- NO. Can't lawfully transfer large-capacity magazines, with the usual exceptions, even though that part of the law had also been held unconstitutional.

The entirety of PC 32310 remains in the Penal Code. The POSSESSION part of it remains UNENFORCEABLE.
You're wrong on quite a few different counts here:

1) PC 32310 became effective on July 1, 2017. The federal court injunction did nothing to change this. All that the court order accomplished was to prohibit designated officials from enforcing the statute. It still remains "on the books."

2) The federal court made no finding that any part of section 32310 was unconstitutional. That decision remains pending. All that Judge Benitez did was to express his opinion that the section was likely unconstitutional and that was one factor in his granting the injunction until the issue can be tried and a decision reached. That ain't happened yet. You're getting a little ahead of yourself here.

3) The entire section 32310 remains in law. It hasn't been erased, wiped out, invalidated or put on "Double Secret Probation". All that has happened with it is that enforcement of two subsections has been enjoined.

4) That's an important distinction. Although this scenario is quite unlikely for a number of reasons, it's a legal possibility. A person is found at the range using a large-capacity magazine. A law enforcement officer makes contact, but takes no enforcement action due to the injunction. Eleven months later the Ninth Circuit upholds the statute and lifts the injunction. That person can then be prosecuted for the violation, even though it occurred while the injunction was in effect.

5) About the only point where you were correct is that the part about possession is currently unenforceable.
__________________
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
  #30  
Old 12-02-2019, 2:15 PM
savoirrangefaire savoirrangefaire is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Southern California
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post

2) The federal court made no finding that any part of section 32310 was unconstitutional. That decision remains pending. All that Judge Benitez did was to express his opinion that the section was likely unconstitutional and that was one factor in his granting the injunction until the issue can be tried and a decision reached. That ain't happened yet. You're getting a little ahead of yourself here.
I thought it did. How could there be an appeal without a finding or judgment of unconstitutionality, sir?

https://casetext.com/case/duncan-v-becerra-4

"IV. CONCLUSION
Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms." California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that law-abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits law-abiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds. Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."



Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
4) That's an important distinction. Although this scenario is quite unlikely for a number of reasons, it's a legal possibility. A person is found at the range using a large-capacity magazine. A law enforcement officer makes contact, but takes no enforcement action due to the injunction. Eleven months later the Ninth Circuit upholds the statute and lifts the injunction. That person can then be prosecuted for the violation, even though it occurred while the injunction was in effect.
Maybe in a dystopian Police State. No authority to arrest due to effectiveness of the injunction at the earliuer time. Ex post facto might apply as arrest take place not at the time, but later. No probable cause for the arrest. Ninth would interpret prospective and not retroactive application of the statute.

Likely scenario would be a civil rights lawsuit against LE under 42 USC 1983 for the later arrest resulting from a lawful act at the time. Think of the machinegun scenario.

Last edited by savoirrangefaire; 12-02-2019 at 2:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-02-2019, 8:27 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,351
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by savoirrangefaire View Post
I thought it did. How could there be an appeal without a finding or judgment of unconstitutionality, sir?

https://casetext.com/case/duncan-v-becerra-4

"IV. CONCLUSION
Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms." California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that law-abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits law-abiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds. Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined."




Maybe in a dystopian Police State. No authority to arrest due to effectiveness of the injunction at the earliuer time. Ex post facto might apply as arrest take place not at the time, but later. No probable cause for the arrest. Ninth would interpret prospective and not retroactive application of the statute.

Likely scenario would be a civil rights lawsuit against LE under 42 USC 1983 for the later arrest resulting from a lawful act at the time. Think of the machinegun scenario.
Please check out the entire case history. Michel and Associates has an archive on their website. It's a much better source of information than the secondary source contained in your original, unedited, posting and is more complete than your revised posting. Here is a link: http://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

The summary judgment is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. That pretty much makes it devoid of legal meaning at present. Only the Preliminary Injunction remains in force, and that injunction settles nothing about the constitutionality of section 32310. I probably should have worded my posting more clearly on this point.

As to your second point about the distinction about the current status of PC 32310 (c) and (d):

There is no issue of "ex post facto" if a person were later charged, after the injunction were lifted, for a violation of possession while the injunction was in effect. An "ex post facto" law is one which proscribes conduct occurring before the law was in effect. PC 32310 became effective on July 1, 2017. A violation occurring on December 2, 2019 would be after the effective date, and therefor not an "ex post facto." The key to the distinction is that neither the Preliminary Injunction, nor the pending appeal, did anything to invalidate the law. If the injunction is lifted, the effective date of the law remains July 1, 2017. OTOH if the injunction did have the effect of invalidating the law, and a new law were enacted to replace it, then there would be an "ex post facto" issue.

"Probable Cause" to arrest for the crime is determined by the elements of the offense, did the subject possess a large capacity magazine in the state of California? The Preliminary Injunction has no bearing on the elements of the offense.

The Ninth Circuit isn't going to have any involvement in the state case unless the defendant files a federal lawsuit, or a federal habeas action. State law charges are going to be handled in state court.

Anyone can file a 1983 lawsuit. I've tracked a great number of them during my time in LE service. Very few actually succeed. In the hypothetical I posed, the arrest would be lawful. But again, the reasoning is all dependent on the distinction between the Preliminary Injunction making possession legal, or the Preliminary Injunction only preventing prosecution. Please read the terms of the PI. You'll see that it does nothing to invalidate the statute. That question remains pending.
__________________
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
  #32  
Old 12-12-2019, 1:32 AM
AmAZN AmAZN is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In defense of OP, I've found a few ads on Armslist over the past month while looking for my first pistol that advertised pistols with standard magazines.

While I'm not sure they were all current listings, i.e., not during Freedom Week, I came across this ad that was posted on 12/05/19, which clearly states "3-15RD Magazines."

https://www.armslist.com/posts/10714...r-p229-legion-

And for the members who appear to scoff at Armslist, all I can say is that I had a good experience using that site to purchase a brand new, off-roster Sig Sauer p229. The seller was very professional and the transaction went extremely smooth as the seller's preferred gun shop was also local to me.
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 6:11 AM.




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.