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 05-08-2022, 6:58 PM
Bowery Bowery is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 23
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default "Large" Capacity Magazines

So as a Military Police Officer would I be considered Law enforcement there for would I be allowed to buy "LCMs"?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-08-2022, 7:22 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 8,215
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowery View Post
So as a Military Police Officer would I be considered Law enforcement there for would I be allowed to buy "LCMs"?
Please refer to Penal Code section 32405 for your answer. The key point being if you are a "sworn federal law enforcement officer" as that term is used in the statute.

Methinks the answer is gonna be "No" based on prior experience with the question when the LEOSA was revised to include Military MP's. MP's are not generally regarded as "Federal Law Enforcement Officers" because they lack statutory powers of arrest. The original LEOSA did not include MP's because they lacked the "Statutory Powers of Arrest" that were required of officers to be covered by the LEOSA. When Congress sought to include MP's in the LEOSA, they amended it to also include folks that had "Powers of Apprehension" under the UCMJ.

But powers of "Apprehension" are different than powers of "Arrest" and I think that's gonna knock you out of being considered as a "sworn federal law enforcement 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.

Last edited by RickD427; 05-08-2022 at 8:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-13-2022, 7:21 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,961
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowery View Post
So as a Military Police Officer would I be considered Law enforcement there for would I be allowed to buy "LCMs"?
I would say no if you live in CA, but what gives? Are you asking for the same rights as ordinary citizens in free states? What next will you ask for? No doubt it will be off roster handguns and modern sporting rifles.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-13-2022, 12:20 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 27,848
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

AFAIK...
Only DOD/Military personnel that have graduated (gone through) FLETC are considered exempt as Federal LEOs.

DOD/Military personnel that have not graduated FLETC are not considered exempt Federal LEOs.
^The Mil agency can legally acquire and issue large capacity magazines for official use to their personnel, who can legally retain possession/use them. This is because their personnel does not own them, their agency owns them.
__________________
Certified Glock Armorer

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-13-2022, 7:11 PM
sheepdawg sheepdawg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 216
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
The Mil agency can legally acquire and issue large capacity magazines for official use to their personnel, who can legally retain possession/use them. This is because their personnel does not own them, their agency owns them.
What’s the Californian law that allows military agencies to possess standard-capacity magazines? It it’s the organization that possesses the magazines and not the individuals, then does that mean that trusts or employees of businesses with large-capacity magazines can acquire and possess large-capacity magazines?
__________________
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.“ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-13-2022, 8:14 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,941
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

PC 32400 is on point, but there's more at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=5.&article=2.

Quote:
32400.

Section 32310 does not apply to the sale of, giving of, lending of, possession of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by

any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law,

for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties,

whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
"trusts or employees of businesses" seem not to be "any federal, state, county, city and county, or city]agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law"
__________________
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
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-13-2022, 9:17 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 8,215
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdawg View Post
What’s the Californian law that allows military agencies to possess standard-capacity magazines? It it’s the organization that possesses the magazines and not the individuals, then does that mean that trusts or employees of businesses with large-capacity magazines can acquire and possess large-capacity magazines?
There ain't no California law that allows military agencies, or their members, to possess large-capacity magazines.

Persons serving as agents of the federal government, which would include military members, are exempt from state laws that conflict with their federal duties. Please refer to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision In re Neagle, thus there is no need for a state law on the issue.

I'm not knowledgeable on the legal aspects of trusts. I'll leave that question for someone who is.

As to employees of businesses that own large-capacity magazines, those employees would be in violation if they personally possess large-capacity magazines owned by their employer, but that is a moot question at present because enforcement of the possession clause of PC 32310 is currently enjoined.
__________________
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
  #8  
Old 05-14-2022, 9:03 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,941
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
.

As to employees of businesses that own large-capacity magazines, those employees would be in violation if they personally possess large-capacity magazines owned by their employer, but that is a moot question at present because enforcement of the possession clause of PC 32310 is currently enjoined.
One exception - armored vehicle businesses - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=32435.
Quote:
32435.

Section 32310 does not apply to any of the following:

(a) The sale of, giving of, lending of, possession of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by any entity that operates an armored vehicle business pursuant to the laws of this state.

(b) The lending of large-capacity magazines by an entity specified in subdivision (a) to its authorized employees, while in the course and scope of employment for purposes that pertain to the entity’s armored vehicle business.

(c) The possession of any large-capacity magazines by the employees of an entity specified in subdivision (a) for purposes that pertain to the entity’s armored vehicle business.

(d) The return of those large-capacity magazines to the entity specified in subdivision (a) by those employees specified in subdivision (b).
But the individual employees are not authorized to buy LCMs, at least not based on that employment.
__________________
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
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-11-2022, 11:04 PM
lanzador49 lanzador49 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 114
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Practically speaking, how does the issue of using a mag with more than 10 rounds arise? Someone goes to a gun range with a mag that holds 12 rounds, the range reports them to law enforcement? Law enforcement takes the time to get a search warrant, executes the warrant, seizes all your guns and magazines and ammo, and charges you with a felony?

Or, for all intents and purposes, do they charge someone with a felony after they use a handgun with LCM in the course of wreaking havoc?

It's illegal to go over 65 mph, and you go 67? Can't drink and drive, but you drive the mile back home after a beer at a friend's place?

When is the prohibition enforced?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-11-2022, 11:32 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,941
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanzador49 View Post
When is the prohibition enforced?
At the moment, there is an injunction in place forbidding enforcement of the CA law on possession. See the thread on Duncan, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1335810
__________________
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
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-13-2022, 8:57 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,382
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
At the moment, there is an injunction in place forbidding enforcement of the CA law on possession. See the thread on Duncan, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1335810
I don't think his question is when the statute will be enforceable so much as if the stay is dissolved will the prohibition be actively enforced. Will the police be setting up operations to enforce the law or passively enforced. If in the performance of other duties an officer discovers a large capacity magazine.
__________________
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
  #12  
Old 06-13-2022, 9:51 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 8,215
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanzador49 View Post
Practically speaking, how does the issue of using a mag with more than 10 rounds arise? Someone goes to a gun range with a mag that holds 12 rounds, the range reports them to law enforcement? Law enforcement takes the time to get a search warrant, executes the warrant, seizes all your guns and magazines and ammo, and charges you with a felony?

Or, for all intents and purposes, do they charge someone with a felony after they use a handgun with LCM in the course of wreaking havoc?

It's illegal to go over 65 mph, and you go 67? Can't drink and drive, but you drive the mile back home after a beer at a friend's place?

When is the prohibition enforced?
Please make sure that you read, and understand the law concerning Large-Capacity Magazines.

The simple possession of a Large-Capacity Magazine is not a felony. It is a misdemeanor. Please refer to Penal Code section 32310(c).

Penal Code section 32310(a) lists several actions, primarily resulting in the acquisition of Large-Capacity Magazines, that are felonies.

LEO's assigned to general law enforcement duties use the law as a tool to solve public safety problems. If there is no apparent problem that requires the "tool", then it remains unused until there is. If someone has a 12 round magazine at the range, and they're shooting the target, there's no problem to be solved. If someone is at the range, and they're shooting other people at the range, then there's a problem. That tool, and other tools that may be more appropriate to the situation, are then employed.

As to the common belief that a law has to be enforced simply because its on the books, please refer to Penal Code section 4 to see how quickly that argument goes into the toilet. Also note how quickly PC appears in the Code, only two sections precede it and one of them made the Code effective. That's how important the lawmakers viewed it.

But this is California and nothing is simple. LEOs assigned to special "Task Forces" tend to work a little differently. It's well recognized that stats have to be produced in order to keep the funding. That does tend to create a dynamic that favors petty enforcement. But the law still applies. You can't make a felony arrest for the misdemeanor possession of a Large-Capacity Magazine.

As to issue of search warrants, the police cannot get a search warrant and seize all of your weapons based upon a report from the range that you possessed a 12 round magazine. Just as you need to know the law on Large-Capacity Magazines, it's also important to know the law on Search Warrants (I'd start by reading Penal Code section 1524.) Keep the following points in mind about Search Warrants:

1) With just a few exceptions, none of which are relevant here, a Search Warrant cannot be issued for evidence of a misdemeanor crime.

2) The only items that can be seized with a warrant are items listed in the warrant, and items that are immediately recognized as evidence or contraband. If you're concerned that LEOs would take all of your firearms, what is it about those firearms that would make them "evidence"?, and if so, of what crime?, or what would make them "contraband"?
__________________
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
  #13  
Old 06-13-2022, 8:06 PM
CGZ's Avatar
CGZ CGZ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 656
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

There has to be some exception to active duty possessing "large" capacity magazines. Speaking from personal experience being station at Camp Pendleton, we were issued our magazines for the M16 and/or M9 and keep them in our barracks / homes with the rest of our issued gear (flack jacket, helmet, main pack, etc.). We didn't not have to keep them at the armory. Many service members live off base and would retain those magazines, and could theoretically be used in personally owned firearms.

Last edited by CGZ; 06-13-2022 at 8:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-13-2022, 8:18 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,941
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGZ View Post
There has to be some exception to active duty possessing "large" capacity magazines. Speaking from personal experience being station at Camp Pendleton, we were issued our magazines for the M16 and/or M9 and keep them in our barracks / homes with the rest of our issued gear (flack jacket, helmet, main pack, etc.). We didn't not have to keep them at the armory. Many service members live off base and would retain those magazines, and could theoretically be used in personally owned firearms.
The law does not make that exception.

OTOH, I have expressed before that I would buy a ticket to a hearing where possession of issued magazines was questioned.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-13-2022, 10:09 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 8,215
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
The law does not make that exception.

OTOH, I have expressed before that I would buy a ticket to a hearing where possession of issued magazines was questioned.
Librarian,

To the extent that a military member is acting in obedience to military orders, and carrying out a military duty by possessing the large-capacity magazines, they would be exempt from any California state law making the possession of the magazines illegal under the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of In re Neagle.

Although the case never proceeded to trial, the concept of Neagle immunity was a component of the decision not to try a Marine Corps member who fatally shot a civilian while conducting counter-drug activity near the Rio Grande river in Texas in 1998.
__________________
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
  #16  
Old 06-14-2022, 9:40 AM
johncage johncage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 382
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanzador49 View Post
Practically speaking, how does the issue of using a mag with more than 10 rounds arise? Someone goes to a gun range with a mag that holds 12 rounds, the range reports them to law enforcement? Law enforcement takes the time to get a search warrant, executes the warrant, seizes all your guns and magazines and ammo, and charges you with a felony?

Or, for all intents and purposes, do they charge someone with a felony after they use a handgun with LCM in the course of wreaking havoc?

It's illegal to go over 65 mph, and you go 67? Can't drink and drive, but you drive the mile back home after a beer at a friend's place?

When is the prohibition enforced?
all it takes is one ignorant or anti gun owner officer who personally sees you with it. if you keep it locked away or hidden at all times then i agree there's very little chance of it being an issue.

in this case, this guy was at the range with his freedom mags and a cop saw it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdZZYUtMdB4
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-14-2022, 10:13 AM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 4,249
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johncage View Post

in this case, this guy was at the range with his freedom mags and a cop saw it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdZZYUtMdB4
And he got them back. I believe a CPT had to intervene and he was released his property back.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-14-2022, 11:25 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 8,215
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC View Post
And he got them back. I believe a CPT had to intervene and he was released his property back.
Yes, we had an earlier thread on this caper.

The gent was issued a misdemeanor citation (technically an "arrest") for the misdemeanor possession of large-capacity magazines while the injunction against enforcement was in place.

California has about 60,000 peace officers. It's not surprising that one of them did not "get the word" about the injunction.

The LE agency acted appropriately in response. There was no prosecution and the magazines were returned.

What is notable about the agency's response is that they would have been on solid legal ground had they kept and destroyed the magazines under California's "Nuisance" statute. Judge Benitez wrote in his decision concerning that statute, and opted not to enjoin its use. The agency instead opted to respect the "spirit" of the decision and injunction, and I think that was a credible thing for them to do.
__________________
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
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:24 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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