Transporting/Using Freedom Week Mags

[L4D]

Moist LEO's have relatively easy internet access from the field, either using their patrol car computer, or smart phone. Some agencies restrict access, but its still possible for a field officer to relay a request to their station desk.

The DOJ was required to send electronic notification to all peace officers of the injunction. Some LEO's would treat that as spam, some would relegate it to the back of their mind, and some will recall it. LEOs are human. But a respectfully made request for the order to be researched should be accepted, and that would produce a verifiable copy of the order.

So far I gotta think that the DOJ notification has been effective. California has more than 35,000 LEOs and I'm only aware of two instances where magazines were seized after the injunction was issued. No notification system is perfect, but this one is 99.9999% effective.

How hard do you want to work to stay out of the .0001%?

Im about to make some "PC 32310" stickers and put the on my mags lol.

[RickD427]

I'm not one to shove a document to a LEO. I understand what was said above.

How easy is it to check penal code from the patrol car?

Lets say PC 32310 was verbally provided are they able to verify the current injunction?

Moist LEO's have relatively easy internet access from the field, either using their patrol car computer, or smart phone. Some agencies restrict access, but its still possible for a field officer to relay a request to their station desk.

The DOJ was required to send electronic notification to all peace officers of the injunction. Some LEO's would treat that as spam, some would relegate it to the back of their mind, and some will recall it. LEOs are human. But a respectfully made request for the order to be researched should be accepted, and that would produce a verifiable copy of the order.

So far I gotta think that the DOJ notification has been effective. California has more than 35,000 LEOs and I'm only aware of two instances where magazines were seized after the injunction was issued. No notification system is perfect, but this one is 99.9999% effective.

How hard do you want to work to stay out of the .0001%?

[champu]

^^^^KINDA THIS^^^^

Librarian is right on point in that a LEO simply is not gonna debate the content and/or a person's interpretation of a law. And there are at least two good reasons for this: 1) A line-level officer is given the interpretation of the law they are expected to enforce. They don't get to put on a "Black Robe" and hold a trial to determine the issue. 2) Such dialogue never really comes to a successful conclusion.

We actually do care when folks try to bring legal points to out attention but we're about as suspicious and distrusting as we can be. I've seen too many documents that have been altered, counterfeited, or otherwise bamboozled to take any offered document as face value. But this is the digital age, and a lot of research can be done from a patrol car's computer. If an issue is respectfully raised, you should expect a diligent LEO to make an objective inquiry into your point.

[L4D]

However, there's a common saying, 'Do not argue the law at the side of the road'. Officer Friendly, even if s/he might be a lawyer, is, by profession and training and department policy, burdened with an interpretation of the law which guides enforcement. A LEO really will not care about pieces of paper you might be carrying; your lawyer, and through him/her the local DA, will care about the law.

^^^^KINDA THIS^^^^

Librarian is right on point in that a LEO simply is not gonna debate the content and/or a person's interpretation of a law. And there are at least two good reasons for this: 1) A line-level officer is given the interpretation of the law they are expected to enforce. They don't get to put on a "Black Robe" and hold a trial to determine the issue. 2) Such dialogue never really comes to a successful conclusion.

We actually do care when folks try to bring legal points to out attention but we're about as suspicious and distrusting as we can be. I've seen too many documents that have been altered, counterfeited, or otherwise bamboozled to take any offered document as face value. But this is the digital age, and a lot of research can be done from a patrol car's computer. If an issue is respectfully raised, you should expect a diligent LEO to make an objective inquiry into your point.

I'm not one to shove a document to a LEO. I understand what was said above.

How easy is it to check penal code from the patrol car?

Lets say PC 32310 was verbally provided are they able to verify the current injunction?

[RickD427]

However, there's a common saying, 'Do not argue the law at the side of the road'. Officer Friendly, even if s/he might be a lawyer, is, by profession and training and department policy, burdened with an interpretation of the law which guides enforcement. A LEO really will not care about pieces of paper you might be carrying; your lawyer, and through him/her the local DA, will care about the law.

^^^^KINDA THIS^^^^

Librarian is right on point in that a LEO simply is not gonna debate the content and/or a person's interpretation of a law. And there are at least two good reasons for this: 1) A line-level officer is given the interpretation of the law they are expected to enforce. They don't get to put on a "Black Robe" and hold a trial to determine the issue. 2) Such dialogue never really comes to a successful conclusion.

We actually do care when folks try to bring legal points to out attention but we're about as suspicious and distrusting as we can be. I've seen too many documents that have been altered, counterfeited, or otherwise bamboozled to take any offered document as face value. But this is the digital age, and a lot of research can be done from a patrol car's computer. If an issue is respectfully raised, you should expect a diligent LEO to make an objective inquiry into your point.

[Librarian]

Thanks for posting that, champu.

Specifically:

However, there's a common saying, 'Do not argue the law at the side of the road'. Officer Friendly, even if s/he might be a lawyer, is, by profession and training and department policy, burdened with an interpretation of the law which guides enforcement. A LEO really will not care about pieces of paper you might be carrying; your lawyer, and through him/her the local DA, will care about the law.

[champu]

AR-15's and such are such a hot topic with California, etc. that I would just leave the freedom week magazines at home. Only you would need is some overjealous law enforcement officer to find you with the freedom week magazines and make a huge deal out of it. Yes, you may win in the end but is the headache worth the hassle?

I used to carry an AR-15 when I went fishing and a fish and game warden advised me that it probably wasn't a good idea as AR-15's are such a hot topic.

I would weigh the risk vs reward on the 30 round magazine and stick with the 10 round magazines to avoid any kind of issues or headaches

[benjamin101677]

Looking for any help on this. I'm not sure if it's been discussed as I couldn't find anything specifically on it.

If I go shooting and take a rifle with features and one without features, are there any issues with me having a 30-round freedom week magazine with me? I know you cannot put the 30 rounder in the rifle with features, but are there any issues with me having it?

IE; should I only take the 30-rounder when I only have the featureless rifle? Or as long as I'm not using the magazine in the featured rifle I'm okay?

My rifle bags have spots for magazines to sit in while transporting. If it's okay to have, is there any issues having them sitting in the same bag as the featured rifle? Or should I keep them somewhere else?

Might be a dumb question, but just want to make sure I'm okay and not falling into a gray area.

AR-15's and such are such a hot topic with California, etc. that I would just leave the freedom week magazines at home. Only you would need is some overjealous law enforcement officer to find you with the freedom week magazines and make a huge deal out of it. Yes, you may win in the end but is the headache worth the hassle?

I used to carry an AR-15 when I went fishing and a fish and game warden advised me that it probably wasn't a good idea as AR-15's are such a hot topic.

I would weigh the risk vs reward on the 30 round magazine and stick with the 10 round magazines to avoid any kind of issues or headaches

[200Apples]

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...d-Stay_102.pdf

Thanks for posting that, champu.

Specifically:

(Virginia Duncan et al. v. Xavier Becerra, 9th Circmt Court of Appeals Case No. 19-55376).

[ohsmily]

Penal code and statutes in general don't tell you what is allowed. That isn't how it works. What Vehcile Code section tells you it is OK to go 63mph on the freeway? Duh. It tells you what speed over 65 is illegal. The issue for mags is clouded by thr fact that a statute which was enacted is enjoined from enforcement by a court case which has already been referenced and linked to.

[champu]

What’s the exact penal code that says Normal cap mags were legal in CA. I’d like to have a print out to put in my range bag and have laying around the house.

There’s no penal code section that says they’re legal. If you feel printing something out and having it handy would be helpful your best bet would probably be this (maybe highlight rows 7-9 on page 3):

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Duncan-v.-Becerra_Declaration-of-Douglas-Wormald-re-Notice-of-Judgment-and-Stay_102.pdf

[that one guy]

What’s the exact penal code that says Normal cap mags were legal in CA. I’d like to have a print out to put in my range bag and have laying around the house.

[ar15barrels]

But who is going to fix the magazine on a weapon that is already a Registered Assault Weapon? That don't make no sense.

Makes about as much sense as the state saying that you can't remove the bullet button from a registered assault weapon.

[ohsmily]

I think that you've just answered your own question.

For the record, I agree with your conclusion that "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapon" provisions contained in 11CCR5491 lack a proper statutory foundation. But our collective views on the point do not invalidate the regulation.

The (untested) theory is that by modifying a "Bullet Button Registered Assault Weapon" one creates a new, and unregistered, Assault Weapon. That action violates Penal Code section 30600. You can narrowly read 11CCR5491 to only address the removal of the "Bullet Button" in which case it would not prohibit the use of large-capacity magazines in a BBRAW. But it's unwise to read regulations narrowly, particularly when doing so creates felony criminal liability. Read broadly, and applying the "creation of a new weapon" theory described in the regulation, one creates a new Assault Weapon when replacing the 10 round fixed magazine with a large-capacity fixed magazine.

In my posts, I tend to be very cautious, and tend to read statutes and regulations with a view to keeping good folks outta trouble. California's laws are not a model of clarity, and as Judge Benitez has aptly pointed out, seem to be a trap for well intended folks.

I've been at the range all day, thus the delay (still here; PR class) A BB reg'ed AW w/ BB in place does not have a fixed magazine under current law. High caps in BB reg'ed AW are good to go. Period.

[champu]

Their argument is that the eligibility to register the weapon depended on the release mechanism and that’s why they claim you can’t change it without making it something other than what you registered. The eligibility to register the weapon did not depend on what magazine you used with it (or, in fact, if there was any magazine present at all.)

Your line or reasoning leads to the absurd result that a firearm registered with photos showing no magazine present wouldn’t be allowed to use any magazines.

A bullet button creates (and always created) a firearm that cannot accept a detachable magazine, but that does not have a fixed magazine. They created this bizarre legal construct of a magazine that is neither fixed nor detachable and they have to live with that just as much as we do.