Another Pre Ban mag question

[SVT-40]

you could engrave them out of state as easily as you could purchase them, it is still your word with nothing in addition to it.

You are missing the whole point, as I already stated that you "could" engrave them in the manner you mentioned.

The whole point of marking the magazine would be to offer at least some tangible evidence to an officer IF he were to be in the situation I mentioned above that you owned them prior to the ban in 2000.

If you choose to lie and mark them in a dishonest fashion, well that is up to you.

We can post at infinitum about "what anyone could do". But confronted with the two scenarios in my above post which situation would you rather be in?

[DedEye]

you could engrave them out of state as easily as you could purchase them, it is still your word with nothing in addition to it.

This.

Engraving them improves nothing. If I were a LEO and pulled you over and you engraved an arbitrary date on the side of the mag body, it would do absolutely nothing to convince me one way or another about the legality of the mags.

IT IS NOT TANGIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT YOU ENGRAVED YOUR MAGAZINES.

What about if you rebuilt your mags with new repair kits like PMags, would you reengrave them with a date prior to the one in which they were created? What would that prove?

[MonsterMan]

"At that moment, when you are entering back into the state, it would be upon you to prove you owned them previously and were not importing them, although legally you are doing nothing wrong"

actually, they have to prove you didn't own them before the ban. Not the other way around.

[munkeeboi]

"At that moment, when you are entering back into the state, it would be upon you to prove you owned them previously and were not importing them, although legally you are doing nothing wrong"

actually, they have to prove you didn't own them before the ban. Not the other way around.

Correct....burden on proof is on them to prove that you DIDN'T have them before the ban. It's pretty unenforceable unless they have pictures of you inside a gun store buying them or see a receipt that says you just purchased them out of state.

I highly discourage anyone to break the law, but for those who legally own standard cap mags, I wouldn't fear too much. Fear should only be with those who knowingly break the law.

[SVT-40]

This.

Engraving them improves nothing. If I were a LEO and pulled you over and you engraved an arbitrary date on the side of the mag body, it would do absolutely nothing to convince me one way or another about the legality of the mags.

IT IS NOT TANGIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT YOU ENGRAVED YOUR MAGAZINES.

What about if you rebuilt your mags with new repair kits like PMags, would you reengrave them with a date prior to the one in which they were created? What would that prove?

Like I said you can "what if" any thing you want and always come up with any argument about anything

It's up to you. My suggestion as to marking your mags is just another way to help add validity to the your statements.

It's apparent that you have never worked in law enforcement, You have never been at a situation where you had to decide whether or not to arrest anyone based upon the situation you are confronted with. It's easy to say "If I were a LEO this is what I would do". But the fact is you are not, and have never been a LEO so your assertion as to what "you" would do is flaccid.

Hey, if I was the Attorney General of Calif I would simply repeal the silly law!!!

The whole purpose of marking the mags would be to show a LEO just another bit of evidence that the mags were legal. Same for the DA. They would not only have to overcome your assertion that you owned the mags prior to 2000. They would also have to show that somehow you did "forge" the markings by back dating your ownership date.

For a LEO to arrive at a conclusion that a crime has occurred they should act "reasonably" meaning what would another "reasonable" LEO do if faced by the same circs. So faced with your statements AS WELL as the physical evidence of markings on the mags they would be hard pressed without ABSOLUTE evidence to the contrary to show that the mags were illegal or that you "back dated the mag markings".


Same for the DA. If a DA was presented with a case where the defendant claimed ownership of high cap mags prior to 2000 AND had the mags were marked with a date prior to the ban in 2000 it would be a non starter. Unless he had ABSOLUTE proof to the contrary.


You said "What about if you rebuilt your mags with new repair kits like PMags, would you reengrave them with a date prior to the one in which they were created? What would that prove"


I'm not sure, but did "P Mags" even exist before 2000? if they didn't then how could they be "rebuilt" . Unless some of the components would interchange with the mags you owned before 2000?

Would not that be "replacing"?

I'm not familiar with the exact construction of "PMAGS" so maybe the below is a better example, and answer to your issue.

The term "rebuild" could apply to a standard "colt" type AR mag though.

So lets say you owed a colt 30 round AR type mag before 2000 and marked it with the purchase date . For example 1-1-1999. Last month you ran over it and bent the feed lips.

So you bought a new body made in 2009 for repair. How about you mark the mag "bought 1-1-1999 body replaced 2-3-2010"

So you have a time line to show not only ownership prior to 2000, but to show the repair with a newer mag body.

wouldn't that better than simply having a mag with a body made in 2009.

LEO's and DA's like details. Having the "details" right there marked on the mag would show the details and also show your willingness to make every attempt to follow a silly law.

[ivsamhell]

it doesn't add validity to your statements, it is your statement. if you say it a million times or write it on the ceiling it is still only your statement, nothing in addition to it.

[munkeeboi]

engraving could provide peace of mind, but it would still up to the DA to prove that you didn't have them before 2000.

By marking it, the onus is still on them to prove that the date you stamped is correct. It's still a matter of your word or markings, against their word/evidence.

I've used hi cap mags in front of LEO and with LEO. Possessing a 30 rd mag is completely legal. Unless you are doing something that calls attention to yourself or illegal, you shouldn't have to worry.

[Sniper3142]

LEO's and DA's like details. Having the "details" right there marked on the mag would show the details and also show your willingness to make every attempt to follow a silly law.

I don't need to prove ANYTHING. Any DA or Cop will have to Prove that I broke a law.

INNOCENT until PROVEN Guilty.

Its not my job or responsibility to make any cops or DA's feel better.

[DedEye]

Like I said you can "what if" any thing you want and always come up with any argument about anything

It's up to you. My suggestion as to marking your mags is just another way to help add validity to the your statements.

It's apparent that you have never worked in law enforcement, You have never been at a situation where you had to decide whether or not to arrest anyone based upon the situation you are confronted with. It's easy to say "If I were a LEO this is what I would do". But the fact is you are not, and have never been a LEO so your assertion as to what "you" would do is flaccid.

Hey, if I was the Attorney General of Calif I would simply repeal the silly law!!!

The whole purpose of marking the mags would be to show a LEO just another bit of evidence that the mags were legal. Same for the DA. They would not only have to overcome your assertion that you owned the mags prior to 2000. They would also have to show that somehow you did "forge" the markings by back dating your ownership date.

For a LEO to arrive at a conclusion that a crime has occurred they should act "reasonably" meaning what would another "reasonable" LEO do if faced by the same circs. So faced with your statements AS WELL as the physical evidence of markings on the mags they would be hard pressed without ABSOLUTE evidence to the contrary to show that the mags were illegal or that you "back dated the mag markings".


Same for the DA. If a DA was presented with a case where the defendant claimed ownership of high cap mags prior to 2000 AND had the mags were marked with a date prior to the ban in 2000 it would be a non starter. Unless he had ABSOLUTE proof to the contrary.


You said "What about if you rebuilt your mags with new repair kits like PMags, would you reengrave them with a date prior to the one in which they were created? What would that prove"


I'm not sure, but did "P Mags" even exist before 2000? if they didn't then how could they be "rebuilt" . Unless some of the components would interchange with the mags you owned before 2000?

Would not that be "replacing"?

I'm not familiar with the exact construction of "PMAGS" so maybe the below is a better example, and answer to your issue.

The term "rebuild" could apply to a standard "colt" type AR mag though.

So lets say you owed a colt 30 round AR type mag before 2000 and marked it with the purchase date . For example 1-1-1999. Last month you ran over it and bent the feed lips.

So you bought a new body made in 2009 for repair. How about you mark the mag "bought 1-1-1999 body replaced 2-3-2010"

So you have a time line to show not only ownership prior to 2000, but to show the repair with a newer mag body.

wouldn't that better than simply having a mag with a body made in 2009.

LEO's and DA's like details. Having the "details" right there marked on the mag would show the details and also show your willingness to make every attempt to follow a silly law.

it doesn't add validity to your statements, it is your statement. if you say it a million times or write it on the ceiling it is still only your statement, nothing in addition to it.

This.

I don't need to prove ANYTHING. Any DA or Cop will have to Prove that I broke a law.

INNOCENT until PROVEN Guilty.

Its not my job or responsibility to make any cops or DA's feel better.

Also, this.

[SVT-40]

I don't need to prove ANYTHING. Any DA or Cop will have to Prove that I broke a law.

INNOCENT until PROVEN Guilty.

Its not my job or responsibility to make any cops or DA's feel better.

Hey dude don't get your boxers in a bunch.

If you are arrested for any crime of course it's up to the authorities to prove your guilt.

And of course you have the presumption of innocence.

Clearly it's not up to you to make any LEO or DA feel better.

But wouldn't it be better to just not get arrested in the first place If you could avoid it??

it doesn't add validity to your statements, it is your statement. if you say it a million times or write it on the ceiling it is still only your statement, nothing in addition to it.

I assume by "It" you mean marking your mags. as it's not entirely clear what you are referring to.

I beg to differ. I believe marking your mags would be helpful.

However neither of you answered my question.

Whats the harm in marking your mags???

[RideIcon]

I beg to differ. I believe marking your mags would be helpful.

It's not dude, it doesn't prove anything...
its not common practice to mark or date magazines, it doesn't prove anything, in fact it could raise even more suspicious in the fact that someone would go through the hassle.

[DedEye]

It's not dude, it doesn't prove anything...
its not common practice to mark or date magazines, it doesn't prove anything, in fact it could raise even more suspicious in the fact that someone would go through the hassle.

This too.

[DedEye]

This thread is like a train wreck I can't look away from.

Like I said you can "what if" any thing you want and always come up with any argument about anything

Which is what you keep doing.

It's up to you. My suggestion as to marking your mags is just another way to help add validity to the your statements.

It adds nothing except damage to your magazine.

It's apparent that you have never worked in law enforcement, You have never been at a situation where you had to decide whether or not to arrest anyone based upon the situation you are confronted with. It's easy to say "If I were a LEO this is what I would do". But the fact is you are not, and have never been a LEO so your assertion as to what "you" would do is flaccid.

And you have I take it? What department are you with? Are you a sworn officer or other employee?

Flaccid is the wrong word, by the way.

Hey, if I was the Attorney General of Calif I would simply repeal the silly law!!!

The AG doesn't have that authority.

The whole purpose of marking the mags would be to show a LEO just another bit of evidence that the mags were legal. Same for the DA. They would not only have to overcome your assertion that you owned the mags prior to 2000. They would also have to show that somehow you did "forge" the markings by back dating your ownership date.

What the hell do you mean they'd have to show that you "forged" the markings? How are you not understanding this unbelievably simple concept? You can write whatever date you want on the magazines, past, present or future. If you wrote it, what does it prove except that you wrote it. You're asking the LEO to take your word that you wrote the date of purchase on the mag, but it is no different from telling them you bought it at that time. It's not like you're date stamping the magazine's date of manufacture (and as my PMag example demonstrated, it's a moot (this is probably the word you meant to use instead of "flaccid") point anyway.

For a LEO to arrive at a conclusion that a crime has occurred they should act "reasonably" meaning what would another "reasonable" LEO do if faced by the same circs. So faced with your statements AS WELL as the physical evidence of markings on the mags they would be hard pressed without ABSOLUTE evidence to the contrary to show that the mags were illegal or that you "back dated the mag markings".

WHAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? The physical evidence is just your word in writing.

Tell me, if you pulled someone over and found a pipe that said "not for smoking crack or marijuana" on it, would you take that as physical evidence that it wasn't for smoking crack or marijuana?

What if someone had a bag of money that said "Not stolen from a bank" on it.

Can you understand how what you have been advocating is ridiculously absurd and pointless?

Same for the DA. If a DA was presented with a case where the defendant claimed ownership of high cap mags prior to 2000 AND had the mags were marked with a date prior to the ban in 2000 it would be a non starter. Unless he had ABSOLUTE proof to the contrary.

WRONG (Q7 in case you don't want to read the whole letter, but it really behooves you to read the whole thing.

You said "What about if you rebuilt your mags with new repair kits like PMags, would you reengrave them with a date prior to the one in which they were created? What would that prove"


I'm not sure, but did "P Mags" even exist before 2000? if they didn't then how could they be "rebuilt" . Unless some of the components would interchange with the mags you owned before 2000?

Would not that be "replacing"?

So let me get this straight: you fundamentally do not understand California law regarding large capacity magazines, yet you insist on continuing to offer a useless and potentially harmful suggestion to people.

I'm not familiar with the exact construction of "PMAGS" so maybe the below is a better example, and answer to your issue.

The term "rebuild" could apply to a standard "colt" type AR mag though.

So lets say you owed a colt 30 round AR type mag before 2000 and marked it with the purchase date . For example 1-1-1999. Last month you ran over it and bent the feed lips.

So you bought a new body made in 2009 for repair. How about you mark the mag "bought 1-1-1999 body replaced 2-3-2010"

WHAT IN THE BLOODY HELL DOES THAT PROVE?

So you have a time line to show not only ownership prior to 2000, but to show the repair with a newer mag body.

wouldn't that better than simply having a mag with a body made in 2009.

NO!

LEO's and DA's like details. Having the "details" right there marked on the mag would show the details and also show your willingness to make every attempt to follow a silly law.

Honestly, how do you not understand this?

Hey dude don't get your boxers in a bunch.

If you are arrested for any crime of course it's up to the authorities to prove your guilt.

And of course you have the presumption of innocence.

Clearly it's not up to you to make any LEO or DA feel better.

Don't do their job for them either.

But wouldn't it be better to just not get arrested in the first place If you could avoid it??

Your suggestion is potentially more likely to get people arrested.

I assume by "It" you mean marking your mags. as it's not entirely clear what you are referring to.

I beg to differ. I believe marking your mags would be helpful.

However neither of you answered my question.

Whats the harm in marking your mags???

See RideIcon's post.

[ivsamhell]

Hey dude don't get your boxers in a bunch.

If you are arrested for any crime of course it's up to the authorities to prove your guilt.

And of course you have the presumption of innocence.

Clearly it's not up to you to make any LEO or DA feel better.

But wouldn't it be better to just not get arrested in the first place If you could avoid it??





I assume by "It" you mean marking your mags. as it's not entirely clear what you are referring to.

I beg to differ. I believe marking your mags would be helpful.

However neither of you answered my question.

Whats the harm in marking your mags???

Sorry, correct I was referring to stating the magazines were owned preban or marking them(as its the exact same concept). I have to go engrave my new toaster now, who knows they could ban them.

[munkeeboi]

Well said dedeye