Large Capacity Magazine Definition

[westcoast362]

I think the loophole is that you can take them out of state, so they are not forcing you to turn them in.

[Bansh88]

Disassemble them if you're worried about a search at your home. Or just risk it. Everything I have read says you get a fine if "they" catch you with one.

I have several friends in law enforcement. None would pop someone on any of this crap.

[AKSOG]

i have had a Galil ARM since 1988. It is registered with DOJ. The only magazines ever made to fit the rifle were 35 round. Are they now dead?

Thx
Rick

Technically they made 50 rounders for it too.

[VaderSpade]

I have several friends in law enforcement. None would pop someone on any of this crap.

Our sheriff claims to be pro gun and helps host the friends of the NRA dinner every year. He helps run the auction and auctions off CCW packages that he will fast track.

BUT the paper is full of reports of people caught with "Assault Weapons" and "high capacity magazines" under his watch.
These people maybe ran a red light or had a plant in their backyard.

When the time come they will take your guns and tack on the charge to anyone that is not "TOWING THEIR LINE".

[tanks]

So block plates will not be satisfactory to take a 30 down to a 10?

The law is about capacity, not how the capacity is achieved.

[bohoki]

THIS^^^^^^

Vocabulary meanings are important! We cannot cede to the Left's re-definition of what a 'high capacity' magazine is!!! Same goes for 'assault weapon'; albeit that one seems now lost as laws have re-define it's meaning in a legal sense.

I'm sick at heart this weekend. So much for 4th of July... just salt in the wound.

oh please this one will get far too confusing for these reasons

#1 many colt sporters came with5 round magazines
#2 originally the m16 came with 20 rounders so that would make 30 and above high capacity
#3 a 10 round magazine for a 1911 is a high capacity
#4 i have 2 pistols the smith and wesson 915 and the 910 the 915 came with 15 rouders the 910 with 10 rounders so when i stick the915 magazine in the 910 it becomes a high capacity but putting it in the 915 it becomes a standard capacity


situations like this make your position untenable

[flatbedtruckin]

So does this mean i cant convert my springfield xd 40 to 9, and use the 40 mags.?? 10 round mags hold more than 10 rounds of 9mm..

[VaderSpade]

So does this mean i cant convert my springfield xd 40 to 9, and use the 40 mags.?? 10 round mags hold more than 10 rounds of 9mm..

Convert but block to 10 rounds, or get a magazine that will only hold 10 9mm rounds.

Bottom line if you get caught with more than 10 rounds "IN" your magazine you're in trouble.

I have a .25 WSSM AR. A standard 20 round mag only holds 7 rounds. If I'm caught with a .223 upper and .223 rounds in or near the magazine I would expect to be prosecuted. If on the other hand I have my .25 WSSM upper and .25 WSSM rounds in or near the magazine I think I could talk my way out of trouble.

[rix]

i have had a Galil ARM since 1988. It is registered with DOJ. The only magazines ever made to fit the rifle were 35 round. Are they now dead?

Thx
Rick

I think your situation is exempt . See Sec.3 ( f )

[billt]

It's all a bunch of nonsense. How many people are in prison today because of a "Magazine Beef"? You probably have more who risked it all by tearing the tags off their sofa's.

[Cokebottle]

It's all a bunch of nonsense. How many people are in prison today because of a "Magazine Beef"? You probably have more who risked it all by tearing the tags off their sofa's.

Zero.

It is nearly always an add-on charge when someone is arrested for something else and they want to stack the charges to make a plea deal look attractive.

[Sierra Mountainman]

SB 1446 large-capacity magazine definition

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1446_bill_20160328_amended_sen_v98.pdf

At the above site, you will find the amended in senate version of this bill indicating additions and deletions from existing law. It is dated February 2016.

You will see that the pre-existing definition of a large-capacity magazine was deleted. However, all subsequent references including the version "Approved by Governor dated July 1, 2016 and filed by the Secretary of State" on that same date, continue the same in this respect. The definition of a large-capacity magazine is not inclusive in the bill. The bill only refers to "large-capacity magazine. There is no discussion of a 10 round limit or any reference to how a LCM is to be identified.

Has anyone found the needed wording that seems to be missing? I am presenting on this Bill in a Administration of Justice college class next week and looking for additional clarity. Thanks.

[L84CABO]

Each of us must determine where we draw our personal "lines in the sand"...and what we will do if that line is crossed. My line is that I will not proactively surrender ANYTHING that was purchased legally. Make me a criminal if you wish. I will not be turning in one single STANDARD capacity magazine...and I have a boatload of them. If you want them, you will need to come to my door and get them. And I hope for both our sake that I'm in a good mood that day...for I am still trying to determine what I will do when my line gets crossed.

WOLVERINES!

[Librarian]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/...ed_sen_v98.pdf


At the above site, you will find the amended in senate version of this bill indicating additions and deletions from existing law. It is dated February 2016.

You will see that the pre-existing definition of a large-capacity magazine was deleted.

Nope.

The definition is at PC 16740

16740.

As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

(b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.

(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

1446 did not delete that - see the easier to read chaptered version of 1446 at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01520160SB1446

(Note that "this part" means

"PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34370]"

[RickD427]

couldn't that law be challenged under ex post facto and unlawful taking since the bill does not compensate owners for the magazines that are turned in?

The state of California has determined that your legally bought and owned personnal property must be turned over to the authorities without compensation. That is in defiance of the US Constitution's protections of due process. Any confiscated personnal property must be compensated to the owners.

Of course, that will be enforced after all the bathrooms are gender neutral, immigration laws get enforced again and we balance the Federal budget.

So, when are the mag "buy-back" programs to begin?

Gents,

The law was carefully drafted so there would be no "Ex Post Facto" issue. An "Ex Post facto" law is one that punishes acts that occurred before the law was enacted. If the law were written to punish you for acquiring the magazine in the past, then it would be an "Ex post Facto" law. But that's not what the law does. It would punish you for possession of the magazine after the law was in place.

The Fifth Amendment (not the Fourth as one previous poster has stated) does require the government to give "just compensation" when private property is taken for "public use." You've got to remember that "Public Use" clause. The state is not going to "use" your large-capacity magazines. The state is going to destroy them. There is a good argument to be made that the so-called "Public Safety" is enhanced by the seizure of the magazines and that itself is a "Public Use", but that argument hasn't won in court yet.