Using a high capacity mag in gun range

[Dvrjon]

Unfortunately even CRPA acknowledges that High cap mags may still be seized as "nuisance" items, although it is their opinion that it would be unlawful, and they make a good argument against it. It does not mean it may not happen if there is any ambiguity or wiggle room on the part of the LEO and it's going to be more trouble than it's worth to get them back. Just to provide all of the perspectives.

CA PEN 32390 and CA PEN 18010(b) is, for whatever reason, still on the books after a decade. The question is whether it is being used.

Indeed, if the AG (or any law enforcement official) wanted to establish a state-wide seizure of LCMs, the nuisance provision would have provided the legal cover a decade ago, but no sweep for LCMs has ever been initiated.

Michel and Associates has had a long-time call out for information on anyone impacted by enforcement of the nuisance, but nothing major has arisen so far.

However, we do have a couple of recent situations which seem instructive.

Aug 2019 Incident:
As noted above, a Ventura County Sheriff seized magazines soon after the court ruling. During discussing here, it was speculated that, even though the citation noted violation of CA PEN 32310,Jan 2020 Incident:

[mej16489]

Regarding "establish" - I've noticed many poly type magazines such as MagPul and 2nd Amen, etc carry a stamp that resembles the face of a clock with hands which, were I not in OR at the time, might have peaked my interest for further investigation. They appeared to me a month & year DOM stamp on the mag body.

I may be mistaken but if not, that's something one ought to be aware of. Unlike changed followers or floorplates incorporated after a certain day, which could have been switched out to an older magazine, I'm not sure of how one may assert innocence with a mag body date stamped after March 2020. Perhaps there's a way, I just can't think of one now.

Magazine bodies can get damaged just like any other part - its perfectly legal to repair broken mags with new parts.

[Robert1234]

CA PEN 32390 and CA PEN 18010(b) is, for whatever reason, still on the books after a decade. The question is whether it is being used.

Indeed, if the AG (or any law enforcement official) wanted to establish a state-wide seizure of LCMs, the nuisance provision would have provided the legal cover a decade ago, but no sweep for LCMs has ever been initiated.

Michel and Associates has had a long-time call out for information on anyone impacted by enforcement of the nuisance, but nothing major has arisen so far.

However, we do have a couple of recent situations which seem instructive.

Aug 2019 Incident:
As noted above, a Ventura County Sheriff seized magazines soon after the court ruling. During discussing here, it was speculated that, even though the citation noted violation of CA PEN 32310,Jan 2020 Incident:

You and your "facts", and "actual instances" demonstrating that legally owned magazine confiscation probably isn't something I need to worry too much about, when I want to voluntarily and publicly neuter myself at the altar of virtue signaling political correctness are making my head hurt Sir.

[RickD427]

CA PEN 32390 and CA PEN 18010(b) is, for whatever reason, still on the books after a decade. The question is whether it is being used.

Indeed, if the AG (or any law enforcement official) wanted to establish a state-wide seizure of LCMs, the nuisance provision would have provided the legal cover a decade ago, but no sweep for LCMs has ever been initiated.

Michel and Associates has had a long-time call out for information on anyone impacted by enforcement of the nuisance, but nothing major has arisen so far.

However, we do have a couple of recent situations which seem instructive.

Aug 2019 Incident:
As noted above, a Ventura County Sheriff seized magazines soon after the court ruling. During discussing here, it was speculated that, even though the citation noted violation of CA PEN 32310,Jan 2020 Incident:

A pretty good summary here.

The bottom line is no LE agency is going to pursue nuisance seizure so long as the federal court injunction is in place. Agencies tend to be very respectful of federal injunctions, both in letter and in spirit. Although Judge Benitez did not enjoin the nuisance statute, the dicta of his decision made his position clear and it would violate the spirit of the order.

Stand by for things to change once again if the en banc rehearing goes against us.

The CPRA position statement on the nuisance statute is worth reading. They report that their attorneys believe the nuisance statute is unconstitutional, but their opinion doesn't affect the law until they prevail in court. What is worthwhile in their paper is the history they give behind the nuisance statute. It's something that came about pretty much by legislative mistake rather than by deliberate legislative effort. But it's still remains law until changed.

[Dvrjon]

A pretty good summary here.

The bottom line is no LE agency has pursued as a policy for the past decade, nor is going to pursue nuisance seizure so long as the federal court injunction is in place. Agencies tend to be very respectful of federal injunctions, both in letter and in spirit. Although Judge Benitez did not enjoin the nuisance statute, the dicta of his decision made his position clear and it would violate the spirit of the order.

Stand by for things to change once again if the en banc rehearing goes against us.

Should en banc rule against, one can expect an appeal to SCOTUS, with the attendant request for continuation of the stay against 32310(c) and (d). That should be granted as the damage of requiring divestiture of LCMs pending SCOTUS review cannot be undone. Likewise, should en banc rule for us, one can expect DOJ to request a stay on killing the entire CA PC 32310.

The CPRA position statement on the nuisance statute is worth reading. They report that their attorneys believe the nuisance statute is unconstitutional, but their opinion doesn't affect the law until they prevail in court. What is worthwhile in their paper is the history they give behind the nuisance statute. It's something that came about pretty much by legislative mistake rather than by deliberate legislative effort. But it's still remains law until changed.

[dfletcher]

Magazine bodies can get damaged just like any other part - its perfectly legal to repair broken mags with new parts.

Mag rebuild "kits" are no longer legal in CA. I'll defer to others regarding "repair" as it pertains to the magazine body itself. Follower, floorplate, spring, etc are easy to get and legal. But you raise a good point - can one import a new mag body under the condition it replaced an older one no longer around?

I doubt any seller would mail them in but for those of us who travel out of state it would be viable. And, getting in magazine bodies for the 458 SOCOM and using them for repair?

Kind of bouncing back to the opening question, for the past 3 years I've done most of my shooting at the Josephine County Sportsman's Club up in Grants Pass, OR - an about 10 minute drive from my retirement home. We do the old fashioned "self-policing" with the beeper switch and magazine dumps, while not common, are sometimes done full auto. Double taps, cleaning a row of pie plates and that Texas Tree or whatever it's called - routinely done by shooters new to the sport. i think it would be a nice reset for shooters in CA to visit outside the state a bit more often. I know the observation is a tad off the question asked, but I became used to way things were done here and found how things work most places encouraging.

[AregularGuy]

...

However, as

I've never seen you post this before.

[AregularGuy]

Mag rebuild "kits" are no longer legal in CA. I'll defer to others regarding "repair" as it pertains to the magazine body itself. Follower, floorplate, spring, etc are easy to get and legal. But you raise a good point - can one import a new mag body under the condition it replaced an older one no longer around?

I doubt any seller would mail them in but for those of us who travel out of state it would be viable. And, getting in magazine bodies for the 458 SOCOM and using them for repair?

Kind of bouncing back to the opening question, for the past 3 years I've done most of my shooting at the Josephine County Sportsman's Club up in Grants Pass, OR - an about 10 minute drive from my retirement home. We do the old fashioned "self-policing" with the beeper switch and magazine dumps, while not common, are sometimes done full auto. Double taps, cleaning a row of pie plates and that Texas Tree or whatever it's called - routinely done by shooters new to the sport. i think it would be a nice reset for shooters in CA to visit outside the state a bit more often. I know the observation is a tad off the question asked, but I became used to way things were done here and found how things work most places encouraging.

If you have a 10/30 or 10/20 magazine you can legally pilfer the mag body and use it in your hi cap mag that is in need of repair.

[Dvrjon]

I've never seen you post this before.

Then it never happened.
2016: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...8&postcount=16

2018: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...1&postcount=36

2020: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23766376

[AregularGuy]

Then it never happened.
2016: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...8&postcount=16

2018: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...1&postcount=36

2020: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23766376

Just busting your chops! It's a good catch phrase.

[Dvrjon]

Just busting your chops! It's a good catch phrase.

And I, yours.

Use it freely, but please make the copyright/trademark royalty payments on time.

[26.2madness]

My magazines are completly legal and as such I use them when I choose to. Since I know there are many officials that are ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforce, I always have these legal documents with me in case I need to educate anyone.

Go to: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...can-v-becerra/

Download the document numbers 87, 97 and 102.

Keep a pdf copy on your phone. I would suggest everyone read and understand these documents.

[SandHill]

Me neither, BUT (and this is a big BUT), we are talking about legality, not how/when/where/if it's enforced.

It's similar to asking whether marijuana is legal in CA and getting answers "yes it's legal," "nobody will ever arrest you for smoking," "don't be a sissy, go smoke it," while we know that it's still a schedule 1 listed drug, that federal law trumps state law, and that any federal LEO can arrest anyone at any time for anything from growing, to possession to smoking marijuana.

Legal landscape, for marijuana or hi-caps, is just that - the current legal status; what's on the books. It doesn't change based on how it's enforced.

Yes, no, maybe so. One could quibble about doctrines like desuedtude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude

But that would a distraction. Fundamentally, this statement is misconception of what law is. There is a conception that law is like a great big old fashioned phone book, and if you just find the right page and column and scan down far enough you will find the one right number, the definitive answer. It rarely works like that. It is more useful to think of law as a process - what are you going to do about it?

Going 71 miles an hour on 280 is illegal. Does anyone care?

[JTROKS]

And the mother of all firearms related registrations and confiscation is coming. It should beat the combined Obozo’s and Killary’s , “Buy your Guns & Ammo” sales pitch.

[bergmen]

Going 71 miles an hour on 280 is illegal. Does anyone care?

Traveling south on 280 from San Francisco to the Santa Clara valley, if you are not doing at least 80 mph you could get run over. Cruising speeds of 90+ are common. And nobody cares.

Dan