30 round mags

[CandG]

I'll let the lawyers on this forum opine as to the effect of the injunction on local bans.

IIRC, Kestryll mentioned that Los Angeles, in anticipation of the looming statewide magazine possession ban and apparently oblivious to the looming injunction, struck their municipal ban from their books in an effort to avoid redundant laws, effective July 1st.

Other than LA, the other local LCM bans remain in effect as they were, as far as I'm aware.

[Scratch705]

IIRC, Kestryll mentioned that Los Angeles, in anticipation of the looming statewide magazine possession ban and apparently oblivious to the looming injunction, struck their municipal ban from their books in an effort to avoid redundant laws, effective July 1st.

Other than LA, the other local LCM bans remain in effect as they were, as far as I'm aware.

so LA jumped the shark thinking they got it in the bag and now have egg on their anti-2a face?

haha

[Milsurps]

so LA jumped the shark thinking they got it in the bag and now have egg on their anti-2a face?

haha

Typical LA city Cesspool Gov.
Never forget that's where Maxine Waters came from...


.

[CandG]

so LA jumped the shark thinking they got it in the bag and now have egg on their anti-2a face?

haha

It appears that way, yep

Okay, the reason I said to Neil that I would say no was that the City of Los Angeles had it's own magazine ban in place. No possession of magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds within city limit.

Let me preface this, I am NOT a lawyer, paralegal or anything other than a schmuck with a memory and an internet connection. Unless I preface my posts with 'I spoke with attorney 'X' and they said..' it is my opinion based on reading and researching and you should do your own research.

That said I remembered being told that the City of Los Angeles was going to drop their magazine possession ban in deference to the State ban which preempted it anyway in order to not have to fight the lawsuit filed by Michel & Associates. Chuck, Sean and the rest had already been working on taking down the LA ban when 63 and the other State laws were passed so LA was already having to spend and fight.

Based on City records on Feb 15th the LA City Council passed an ordnance adding a 'sunset' date of July 1, 2017 to the law banning possession of 'large capacity magazines' and the Mayor approved it on Feb 18 2017.
This means as it appears that the city ban has sunset as of 15 minutes ago and as we know the State law has been blocked by the injunction.

As I am reading it and based on the City Council records linked below possession of 'large (standard) capacity magazines is now legal in the city of Los Angeles. I have sent an email to Chuck asking to verify this but as much as I'd like to think he and his staff are busy celebrating the PI win I'm guessing they're more likely busy preparing to defend against an appeal attempt.
Either way if my read is correct this is in large part due to the pressure put on LA by Bosenko vs. City of Los Angeles.

Council File: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityc...number=13-0068

Official Action of Los Angeles City Council: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...02-23-2017.pdf

Mayor's approval: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...SC_2-21-17.pdf

[200Apples]

IIRC, Kestryll mentioned that Los Angeles, in anticipation of the looming statewide magazine possession ban and apparently oblivious to the looming injunction, struck their municipal ban from their books in an effort to avoid redundant laws, effective July 1st.

Other than LA, the other local LCM bans remain in effect as they were, as far as I'm aware.

so LA jumped the shark thinking they got it in the bag and now have egg on their anti-2a face

haha

I don't want to be *that guy*, but, here comes a likely ubiquitous question:

A buddy who is just emerging from a long hiatus from shooting has a Glock w/ 13-, 15- or 17-round mags and wants to take it to the range. He purchased said plastic pistol and the mags in the '90s. Is this a problem? I don't own this type of handgun so I'm unfamiliar with the issue. All my stuff is 7- or 10-rounds. Thank you in advance.

[Laurence927]

I own pre-ban black follower USGI magazines but will never take them to a public range, it seems like too much of a hassle if having to deal with LE.

[CandG]

I don't want to be *that guy*, but, here comes a likely ubiquitous question:

A buddy who is just emerging from a long hiatus from shooting has a Glock w/ 13-, 15- or 17-round mags and wants to take it to the range. He purchased said plastic pistol and the mags in the '90s. Is this a problem? I don't own this type of handgun so I'm unfamiliar with the issue. All my stuff is 7- or 10-rounds. Thank you in advance.

No problem (aside from in one or two cities where possession is banned still). He acquired the mags in the 90's, so he can keep them (and presumably use them) for the time being, while the courts work it out.

There's always that "public nuisance" thing that looms over everyone, that could potentially cause them to get confiscated, but it's very rare. It's a law that is usually used for things like unkempt frontyards and such, and could be charged as a misdemeanor but usually just results in the magazines being confiscated.

For that reason I would never personally want to take ALL of my magazines to a range, just a few at a time.

[200Apples]

No problem (aside from in one or two cities where possession is banned still). He acquired the mags in the 90's, so he can keep them (and presumably use them) for the time being, while the courts work it out.

Thank you. I should have mentioned he lives in L.A. City but we shoot in Inglewood or Tujunga or various desert BLM dsas.

Thanks again, c and g.

[CandG]

Thank you. I should have mentioned he lives in L.A. City but we shoot in Inglewood or Tujunga or various desert BLM dsas.

Thanks again, c and g.

See my edit above, as well, where I added some further info

[CSACANNONEER]

i know this was a sarcasm post but just in case other users don't read it as such.

the only thing that wears out in a magazine is really the spring (maybe follower)

i'm sure those who thought ahead had bought a few extra springs before the rebuild kit ban in 2014.

Really? I have had a couple of base pads fail on my 17 round S&W Sigma mags. The followers tend to break on them too. Fortunately, the followers are the same as the 16 round and ten round mags. Unfortunately, the base pad isn't and S&W doesn't stock them anymore.

[BigPimping]

Legal advice from gun store employees is always so pleasant.

[sigstroker]

lol, the ban was a couple years ago. but yeah, theyre holding up nicely.

Especially because there's no law that says you can't repair them with new parts.

[sigstroker]

People did rebuild legally owned mags with new parts repair kits prior to parts kits being banned.

Parts kits were never banned (whatever a parts kit is), import and transfer was.

[CandG]

Parts kits were never banned (whatever a parts kit is), import and transfer was.

If you can't get them anymore, that is pretty synonymous with "banned", to me.

[BigBamBoo]

Well I think folks confuse parts with "parts kit". You can buy springs and followers for most all magazines. Those are pretty much the wear parts in a mag.

Mag bodies are iffy, but there are still a few companies that will ship mag bodies to CA.

.