Date stamp on AR mags

[Capybara]

“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.”
(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 728, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2014.)

I wouldn't want to be caught with a LCM dated after 2000. I never quite understood why owning a Checkmate mag dated 2010 and for LE/Gov't use only would not get someone in hot water, if a LE officer were to see the date. But that is just me.

I believe that one is far better off with mags that are not dated and dated before 2000 in that order.
Somebody please clear that up for me, and, also, why the national AWB is relevant here.

If the date of manufacture is after 2000, and you are caught with it, and of course it is not blocked, how can one argue that the mag came into one's possession before 2000 and that you received it before the year 2000?

If a proper foundation and authentication is proffered, someone purchased bought or received that mag after 2000. Sure, it's probably hearsay, but there may be an exception under the business record exception to the hearsay rule or some other exception, or as an admission, or if you testify or open your trap, it might severely affect your credibility if charged with possession or receiving a post-ban LCM. If admitted into evidence, it may be subject to a presumption that you received it or it's conceivable the court may take judicial notice of it.

I do acknowledge the law addresses manufacture, sale, offer for sale, lend, give, buy and does not mention possession. But it does mention receive. However, I also do not conceive of everyone and his mother beating a charge of possession of a large capacity magazine if the prosecution can prove that it had to be sold to you, given to you, lended to you, etc. if the date on the magazine body is after 2000. Otherwise, no one could ever be prosecuted for possession of a large capacity post-ban magazine. Then again, maybe they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you obtained the magazine through at least one of those channels, and that may be difficult if you don't give them a statement as to how they were acquired. Silence is golden.

Please, explanation requested without flaming.

As others have stated, there was/is no law preventing you from rebuilding your pre-2000 standard capacity magazines, replacing every single part with modern parts. Remember, any DA would have to prove that you didn't own the original magazine pre-2000 and didn't just install a new spring, follower or body as the old parts wore out. Magazines are a consumable, you know?

That's why we all laugh at California's high capacity magazine laws, the PC is flawed and essentially unenforceable. That's what happens when you have corrupt tyrants who know nothing about guns writing laws against them, they never get it right. The PC cannot and does not address what happens if you replace and rebuild every component of your old magazines with new as the parts wear out. That is why in theory, it could be totally legal to own a fully dated, stamped "Made in 2016" magazine here.

[CSACANNONEER]

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 receivesmanufacturingincludes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of partspossession or receiving a post-ban LCM. If admitted into evidence, it may be subject to a presumption that you received it or it's conceivable the court may take judicial notice of it.

I do acknowledge the law addresses manufacture, sale, offer for sale, lend, give, buy and does not mention possession. But it does mention receive. However, I also do not conceive of everyone and his mother beating a charge of possession of a large capacity magazine if the prosecution can prove that it had to be sold to you, given to you, lended to you, etc. if the date on the magazine body is after 2000. Otherwise, no one could ever be prosecuted for possession of a large capacity post-ban magazine. Then again, maybe they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you obtained the magazine through at least one of those channels, and that may be difficult if you don't give them a statement as to how they were acquired. Silence is golden.

Please, explanation requested without flaming.

Simply, it is still legal to "repair" legally owned +10 round magazines. So, one could repair their old mag by replacing the broken mag body with one dated 1-4-2016 or even dated 12-25-2287 and it would be 100% legal.

[drifts1]

And there is no law against taking your legal mags out of CA to repair them.

[bohoki]

general quality control if they discover a problem they can pull all with the same mark

[Cokebottle]

I wouldn't want to be caught with a LCM dated after 2000. I never quite understood why owning a Checkmate mag dated 2010 and for LE/Gov't use only would not get someone in hot water, if a LE officer were to see the date. But that is just me.

Because until last year, it was 100% legal to drive to Arizona, purchase an LCM, disassemble it, bring those parts home, and use those parts to repair a magazine that you lawfully possessed within California prior to the ban.
So you bring back 2 disassembled magazines. The springs and followers go into two of your 6 pre-ban mags.
The floorplates go onto two others since you really never did care for those Ranger floorplates.
Your other 2 mags have worn or damaged feed lips, so you replace the bodies with your remaining parts.

You now still have 6 lawfully possessed LCMs, two of them having 2010 dates, and enough parts in the box to build two worn out/non-functioning LCMs, but at no time did you ever assemble parts in a configuration that resulted in you being in possession of 7 LCMs.

Even today, it is legal to purchase the individual parts. If those parts are dated, you end up having an LCM with a 2015 date on it... legally.

I believe that one is far better off with mags that are not dated and dated before 2000 in that order.

Of course, though that does not prove when they were acquired, only when those parts were manufactured.

Somebody please clear that up for me, and, also, why the national AWB is relevant here.

Irrelevant. LE/Mil magazines became legal for the general public in most states in 2005. Even in California, it would have been legal from 2005 to 2014 to import complete rebuild kits that included marked LE/Mil bodies.

If the date of manufacture is after 2000, and you are caught with it, and of course it is not blocked, how can one argue that the mag came into one's possession before 2000 and that you received it before the year 2000?

Because it was legal to import the parts to repair a magazine that you already owned.
Even today, you can import a PART to repair an older magazine, and if that new part has a date on it, it's not going to be dated before 2000.

Now, some argue that if you are under 30 give or take, that you were not old enough to have had an LCM prior to the ban in 2000.
Not true.
The law does not state "owned"... the law states "lawfully possessed"
You could be 5 and go shooting with Dad and you "lawfully possesses" those magazines.
Now... if you are under 16 (or by now, fair to say 18 or 19), it's not going to be a valid argument unless you've got a time machine, but one could certainly have been under 18 in 2000 and still have lawfully possessed LCMs.

[ifilef]

See post #29, above.

Simply, it is still legal to "repair" legally owned +10 round magazines. So, one could repair their old mag by replacing the broken mag body with one dated 1-4-2016 or even dated 12-25-2287 and it would be 100% legal.

Magazine rebuild kits were available in CA up until 2 (?) years ago. You could have 2013 mag body with old guts in it. No worries.

What about now?

In light of the recent law effective 1-1-2014, e.g., 32310(b), above, I believe one may be treading in dangerous waters. Read it. What may have been legally rebuilding may now be considered manufacturing- BY YOU (used in general, not personal sense).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, from an enforcement standpoint, the legislature wanted to prevent true manufacturing and selling of LCM and rebuild kits in this State. But now, and with 32310 sub (b), I am not so confident of legality of repair with dated replacement bodies or even parts, and even if legal, more than one's day might be ruined. I believe the intent of the legislature is to phase these LCM out of the state altogether, and to permit gun owners to repair or rebuild into perpetuity is contrary to the phase-out program of eradicating any and all magazines here in excess of 10 rounds. Remember, LCMs are deemed public 'nuisances' subject to confiscation (though the statute seems to dictate that an action be filed- don't understand how a police officer can just seize them in light of that statute, but probably more to it and the general consensus appears to be they can do so).

In my view, no date is far better than a post-2000 date on a LCM. And with PMAGS, since they apparently came into existence after year 2000, it is a sore thumb sticking out. Who needs the potential hassle even if appended to a featureless rifle? Better to go with no-date LCM in that baby and in light of the recent enactment. I would personally avoid a LCM PMAG in a featureless rifle. But that is just me.

What will the State do to get around their enforcement problems? Probably enact legislation similar to L.A. City or Sunnyvale, and the courts will have to resolve it, unless the Republicans take control with a Republican Governor. Or, as an alternative, the legislature may try to pass basically what is contained in the House AWB proposed bill, which certainly faces a better chance of passage here than in the U.S. Congress. Inter alia, that would eradicate the bullet button's usefulness here, and would require disassembly of the firearm in order to reload with a new magazine. Grandfathering is permitted with the AWB bill, it's only saving grace.

[CSACANNONEER]

What about now?

In light of the recent law effective 1-1-2014, e.g., 32310(b), above, I believe one may be treading in dangerous waters. Read it. What may have been legally rebuilding may now be considered manufacturing- BY YOU (used in general, not personal sense).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, from an enforcement standpoint, the legislature wanted to prevent true manufacturing and selling of LCM and rebuild kits in this State. But now, and with 32310 sub (b), I am not so confident of legality of repair with dated replacement bodies or even parts, and even if legal, more than one's day might be ruined. I believe the intent of the legislature is to phase these LCM out of the state altogether, and to permit gun owners to repair or rebuild into perpetuity is contrary to the phase-out program of eradicating any and all magazines here in excess of 10 rounds.

In my view, no date is far better than a post-2000 date on a LCM. And with PMAGS, since they apparently came into existence after year 2000, it is a sore thumb sticking out. Who needs the potential hassle even if appended to a featureless rifle? Better to go with no-date LCM in that baby and in light of the recent enactment. I would personally avoid a LCM PMAG in a featureless rifle. But that is just me.

What will the State do to get around their enforcement problems? Probably enact legislation similar to L.A. City or Sunnyvale, and the courts will have to resolve it, unless the Republicans take control with a Republican Governor. Or, as an alternative, the legislature may try to pass basically what is contained in the House AWB proposed bill, which certainly faces a better chance of passage here than in the U.S. Congress. Inter alia, that would eradicate the bullet button's usefulness here, and would require disassembly of the firearm in order to reload with a new magazine. Grandfathering is permitted with the AWB bill, it's only saving grace.

Yes, even now it is clearly legal to repair a +10 round mag in CA. I hadn't thought about repairing equalling manufacturing but, if your argument was true, how could one legally disassemble a legal +10 round mag to clean it and then reassenble it?

Your idea about using pre 2000 parts might reduce the risk of being wrongly prosecuted and it's fine for you to make up your own mind on the level of risk you are willing to take but, that is based on your personal opinion and your personal risk assessment. Just be aware that there isn't a law against using a mag body dated 2016 to repair a legally owned +10 round mag.

[colossians323]

None of mine are dated.

Ditto

[ifilef]

Yes, even now it is clearly legal to repair a +10 round mag in CA. I hadn't thought about repairing equalling manufacturing but, if your argument was true, how could one legally disassemble a legal +10 round mag to clean it and then reassenble it?

Your idea about using pre 2000 parts might reduce the risk of being wrongly prosecuted and it's fine for you to make up your own mind on the level of risk you are willing to take but, that is based on your personal opinion and your personal risk assessment. Just be aware that there isn't a law against using a mag body dated 2016 to repair a legally owned +10 round mag.

I am not so sure that using a mag body dated 2016 will keep you out of trouble.

Yeah, risk factors enter into my equation. The comfort factor FOR ME is not repairing or rebuilding with parts that have dates on them after 2000, especially magazine bodies dated after 2000. Then they might argue that you are a manufacturer, especially so if the body is dated 2014 or later and in light of that new statute re rebuild kits and manufacturing.

And disassembling a pre-ban magazine and cleaning it would not pose a problem. This is not taking into account that noone would know of it.

But a problem might arise from a standpoint of bringing a magazine to the range that you have substituted a dated part in order to rebuild the magazine, and that dated part is 2014 or later under the new law.

They want these LCM out of the state. They don't want them going into perpetuity. That is what I see with your fact pattern of substituting a mag body dated 2016. They want to REDUCE LCM, not keep the same number in the state. They are considered public nuisances. That is why one might think twice about using dated bodies, especially if they are dated 2014 or later.

Heck, in fear of possible prosecution, many vendors now won't even send a magazine body capable of 10 rounds or more into CA, whether dated or not, so I have read.