Standard Capacity Magazine?

[PendulousMind]

Might wanna have him check into it. You don't wanna get caught with something not registered to you, or stolen because "the gun shop owner is not very good at his business."

Very good point you have. Didn't even think about that. Will definately have him do that.

[MrClamperSir]

I have tried, He doesn't use the computer very much if at all.

IMHO if he has situations such as described above and questions as basic as this you should try encouraging a little harder! That is if you think he's worth the effort.

My two cents

[cruising7388]

Why mention Loughner in the thread title?

In any case, possession of a 10+ capacity magazine is not illegal, but the gun shop owner just accidentally committed a crime.

Can you help clarify a couple of things in this regard?

1. I understand that any HC magazines that were possessed in CA prior to the HC mag prohibition are grandfathered and consequently legal. Does this apply only to the original possessor of the HC mag or does it also apply to subsequent possessors. IOW, if I purchase an HC mag from you that you legally possess through grandfathering, do I also benefit from this protection?

2. You indicate that possession of a 10+ mag is not illegal. But is this, strictly speaking, necessarily the case? I understand that the grandfather exemption makes the enforcement of the 10+ mag rule difficult to enforce as a practical matter by putting the burden of proof for unlawful possession on the gummint. But couldn't there be circumstances where they could meet that burden? Suppose, for example the 10+ mag model in question wasn't even manufactured until after the effective date of the HC prohibition? Wouldn't any defense be narrowed to citing the three year statute of limitations (SOL) to quash a prosecution, and in that case, wouldn't the defense have the burden of proving the date of possession in order to demonstrate that the SOL has run? And in the worst case, what about a mag that has only been recently manufactured like the XDm or a Px4 mag where a sufficient period hasn't elapsed to get any protection from the SOL?

BTW, I'm not an attorney. What I am is an old f*rt that partially attributes his survival to considering worst case scenarios.

Thanks for any light you can shed on this.

[SixPointEight]

Can you help clarify a couple of things in this regard?

1. I understand that any HC magazines that were possessed in CA prior to the HC mag prohibition are grandfathered and consequently legal. Does this apply only to the original possessor of the HC mag or does it also apply to subsequent possessors. IOW, if I purchase an HC mag from you that you legally possess through grandfathering, do I also benefit from this protection?

2. You indicate that possession of a 10+ mag is not illegal. But is this, strictly speaking, necessarily the case? I understand that the grandfather exemption makes the enforcement of the 10+ mag rule difficult to enforce as a practical matter by putting the burden of proof for unlawful possession on the gummint. But couldn't there be circumstances where they could meet that burden? Suppose, for example the 10+ mag model in question wasn't even manufactured until after the effective date of the HC prohibition? Wouldn't any defense be narrowed to citing the three year statute of limitations (SOL) to quash a prosecution, and in that case, wouldn't the defense have the burden of proving the date of possession in order to demonstrate that the SOL has run? And in the worst case, what about a mag that has only been recently manufactured like the XDm or a Px4 mag where a sufficient period hasn't elapsed to get any protection from the SOL?

BTW, I'm not an attorney. What I am is an old f*rt that partially attributes his survival to considering worst case scenarios.

Thanks for any light you can shed on this.

A short answer.

1) No. The law says

(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.

Keeping a magazine is legal. Transferring it to another person by most any means is illegal. Buying it, while not illegal by 12020, is illegal under other statutes.

2) You're right on with #2. If you don't say anything, the burden of proof is on them. If the mag you have was only produced 8 months ago, good luck trying to say it was bought before the ban or before the SOL ran out.

[cruising7388]

A short answer.

1) No. The law says

Keeping a magazine is legal. Transferring it to another person by most any means is illegal. Buying it, while not illegal by 12020, is illegal under other statutes.

2) You're right on with #2. If you don't say anything, the burden of proof is on them. If the mag you have was only produced 8 months ago, good luck trying to say it was bought before the ban or before the SOL ran out.

Thanks for the clarification. It appears under 12020 that the wording of the statute holds the seller or giver accountable but not the buyer or giftee (?).
You mention that there are other statutes that affect the subsequent possessor. Offhand do you know where I can find that language?


Re 2): I think your point that "If you don't say anything....." is one to keep well in mind. My guess is that attempting to cooperatively talk your way out of a situation like this is more likely than not what puts you in deep doo doo. Actually, it's not that different from dealing with your wife. Try as she might, she can't hold you accountable for what you don't say.

[SixPointEight]

Re #1, ca penal code title 2 section 31 talks about accessories to a crime. While I'm not aware of any prosecutions of that in regards to 12020, it seems applicable. Also, as bweise has pointed out, there arent many times when one side of a transaction is illegal, and the other side of the same transaction is a-ok.

Here's a more in-depth talk on the matter:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=409641

Also, regarding #2, youtube a video called dont talk to the cops. A law professor and a cop tellvyou all about why you....shouldnt talk to cops lol

[Sniper3142]

Can you help clarify a couple of things in this regard?

2. ...Suppose, for example the 10+ mag model in question wasn't even manufactured until after the effective date of the HC prohibition? Wouldn't any defense be narrowed to citing the three year statute of limitations (SOL) to quash a prosecution, and in that case, wouldn't the defense have the burden of proving the date of possession in order to demonstrate that the SOL has run? And in the worst case, what about a mag that has only been recently manufactured like the XDm or a Px4 mag where a sufficient period hasn't elapsed to get any protection from the SOL?

There is also the fact that people who posses Large Capacity magazines can maintain them. This includes replacing any or all parts of the magazine. So any date codes on magazine parts are useless (as long as the type of magazine existed for at least 3 years). So someone can legally have what amounts to a brand new Magpul Pmag (for example) that they rebuilt from an existing USGI or similar magazine.