Looks like I (and you too!) might be able to keep my 15 rd mags after all

[urbanfood]

I recently purchased a G17, 19, and 26, all Gen 4. the 17 and 19 come with 15 round rebuild kits. It appears that myself and all CA gun owners may be able to keep their "high capacity mags". the final decision still remains to be seen, but the news below is encouraging.

this was posted on Martin B. Retting's Facebook page;

"After speaking with the lobbyist for the calguns foundation, who is up in Sacramento as we speak, it does appear the SB396 (Hancock), which would have banned the ownership of grandfathered hi-cap magazines dies today due to strong opposition from the police unions... They objected to the fact that there was no exemption for retired peace officers and pressured some legislatures into not voting for it. I guess they were more afraid of offending the police unions than they were of stealing property from law abiding citizens..."

Here's their Facebook Page Martin B Retting

[scoobie]

Pretty sure I still wouldnt want to be caught with working gen 4 mags as those are easily proven to be manufactured after the ban.

[Arkangel]

Pretty sure I still wouldnt want to be caught with working gen 4 mags as those are easily proven to be manufactured after the ban.

How could it be proven that you didn't use a gen 4 kit to repair an old gen 2 mag? (short of you admitting to something)

[Sam]

Pretty sure I still wouldnt want to be caught with working gen 4 mags as those are easily proven to be manufactured after the ban.

That proves you committed what crime?

[scoobie]

How could it be proven that you didn't use a gen 4 kit to repair an old gen 2 mag? (short of you admitting to something)

I'm just saying id sooner avoid having a 15rd mag that is outwardly and easily recognizable with a quick glance as post ban, especially when you encounter an overzealous leo or something. I just think its inviting trouble if youve got a got a gen 4 mag body, filled with a new follower etc and it holds more than 10.

[JeremyS]

scoobie, you have to realize that the things specifically stated as illegal under current law pertaining to "high capacity" magazines are importing, selling, loaning, or manufacturing. There is NO law against ownership or use. You can own a "high capacity" magazine for a gun that didn't exist until this year (say, for instance, a CZ P-09) and it does NOT mean that you violated any law whatsoever. Maybe you found it in the woods or something.

The point is that there is absolutely, positively nothing in the law talking about pre- or post-ban or that you must have been in possession of it since before the ban, etc etc etc. Ownership and use is legal. While there is a very slim chance that some "overzealous" LEO might confiscate your magazine, the chances of being arrested or charged are almost zero. They can't charge you with anything (again, possession and use are legal) unless you open your big stupid mush and incriminate yourself by saying you brought it into the state or assembled it from parts (manufacturing), etc. Otherwise, the burden would be on 'the state' to prove that you had done one of these things, and that's almost impossible. Additionally, it has come up many times on CG here as you can imagine, and I have never, ever heard of an actual case where somebody was arrested, charged, or tried solely for having a "high capacity" magazine. As it is used now, the law seems to be applied to people who are committing crimes and the prosecution wants to make it look even worse and tack on extra stuff. Plus, obviously, it prevents the sale or transfer of them and that's pretty effective. It has already prevented you from even considering it.

Not to be rude, but you have 5 posts and you joined last month. You really need to do some reading around here, especially the stickies/wikis and flow charts and such, maybe some searches, before even thinking about posting information or advice on California's quagmire labyrinth of difficult-to-understand, ridiculous firearms-related laws. The stuff you know from gun shops and friends and stuff is probably all wrong. The information coming from gun shops is among the worst anywhere. FUD, misunderstanding, and general ignorance are king. And that's the point of the laws. Make them so deep and confusing that people are afraid to even enter the realm of gun ownership and, for many of the people who do it anyway, make sure you can catch them on any number of random violations so you can make a criminal out of an otherwise law-abiding person with nothing but good intentions. "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime."

[urbanfood]

Pretty sure I still wouldnt want to be caught with working gen 4 mags as those are easily proven to be manufactured after the ban.

it is not illegal to own or possess high capacity magazines. this has been discussed in other threads ad naseum.

[SoulStealer]

Standard capacity magazines.

[vintagearms]

this was posted on Martin B. Retting's Facebook page;

"After speaking with the lobbyist for the calguns foundation, who is up in Sacramento as we speak, it does appear the SB396 (Hancock), which would have banned the ownership of grandfathered hi-cap magazines dies today due to strong opposition from the police unions... They objected to the fact that there was no exemption for retired peace officers and pressured some legislatures into not voting for it."

Special class wouldn't be so special, so they opposed it. Not a shocker.

[Arkangel]

I'm just saying id sooner avoid having a 15rd mag that is outwardly and easily recognizable with a quick glance as post ban, especially when you encounter an overzealous leo or something. I just think its inviting trouble if youve got a got a gen 4 mag body, filled with a new follower etc and it holds more than 10.

JeremyS already explained it to you, but here's the the sticky anyways:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=387409

[jdben92883]

It would be nice if the "nuisance" language could be stricken from the PC. I recently had a Glock-fest at the range last week and realized I had about 40 standard capacity mags laid out on my table. Sure would hate to lose $1k+ in magazines because some LEO considered them a nuisance.

[rogervzv]

The Legislature will defer to the Police because they are fellow Government people. The Government is the Government and it looks out for one thing: the Government.

The anti-gunners (which is the Government) want ordinary citizens disarmed, cowed, and docile.

[Nor Cal Scot]

why is there a certain amount of discontent towards LEO? Well, this is one reason...

[Ronin2]

The Legislature will defer to the Police because they are fellow Government people. The Government is the Government and it looks out for one thing: the Government.

The anti-gunners (which is the Government) want ordinary citizens disarmed, cowed, and docile.

No, the legislature will defer to the police "unions" because without the endosement of the police unions, Republican challengers claims of being weak on crime would actually stick and the Democrats would have a tough time getting elected/re-elected.....

THe police "unions" have a LOT of culpability in the demise of the RKBA in California... all for the sake of their personal financial gain. We have literally been "sold down the river" by them.

[kihnspiracy]

The bill will probably be modified for an LEO exemption.