need a legal opine here... PC12020

[Hanse Davion]

Wrong.
You may NOT use a high-cap in a rifle or pistol that is equipped with a bullet button or other mag lock. That is a separate statute and creates an assault weapon.

You may use a high cap in any featureless build, or any featureless handgun.

Yeah thats right, sorry for confusion I was meaning if using the mag created an assault weapon.

[Cokebottle]

Ok Coke, run this by me again...

You are saying (b) (16) only applies to items listed in (a) that are illegal to possess...where do you see that requirement in (b)(16)... to me it says all items in (a) that are FOUND... it doesn't care if its legal or not to possess..so an LEO who finds a large capacity magazine must turn it in...even if its legal for him to possess... a Armored Car Manager can legally possess a large capacity Magazine...but under (b)(16) if he finds one, he must only possess it long enough to turn it in to LEA.

am I wrong here... show me where if I am...

PC12020(a)Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison1)Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possessesPossession is specified as being illegal for all items listed under 12020(a)(1).



(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.
Possession is not specified as being illegal under PC12020(a)(2).



(3)Carries concealed upon his or her person any explosive substance, other than fixed ammunition.
(4)Carries concealed upon his or her person any dirk or dagger.
Possession is not prohibited, statutes refer only to carrying concealed.



Of course, some explosive devices are prohibited under other statutes, and some of those may indeed prohibit possession, so PC12020(a)(3) is certainly not all-encompassing.


The exemption in PC12020(b)(16) is not intended to expand the list of prohibitions under section (a)... PC12020(b) is a list of exemptions to things defined as illegal under section (a).
If something is not illegal under section (a), then section (b) does not criminalize it.
PC12020(b)(16) is one of the many exemptions to PC12020(a) that does not apply to magazines.
In fact, PC12020(b)(19) is the first of the (b) exemptions that applies to PC12020(a)(2), and continues to PC12020(b)(32).

PC12020(b)(1)-(18) apply only to PC12020(a)(1)
PC12020(b)(19)-(32) apply only to PC12020(a)(2)

"Dirks" and "Daggers" are listed in section (a)... would you try to claim that (b)(16) requires that we only possess a "found" knife long enough to turn it over to LE?

[dieselpower]

^ I am going to have to disagree and say this is yet another example of how two people can argue a point to a court and let them decide what the law says.

From what I am reading (b)(16) is giving a person a legal means to possess long enough to give to LEA. Without (b)(16) any person who was trying to do the right thing and transport a FOUND item to LEA would be guilty of a crime. (b)(16) stops that. It also stops the, "this is legal because possession isn't illegal and I found it...prove I didn't hahaha" defense.

Unless you can show me where certain laws are only used for certain parts of (a), when they do not state that inside them... (like an exclusion stating "dirk" can not be applied to magazines)... then laws that do not refer to a specific item can be applied to all items.

once again, please... back this statement up please...

PC12020(b)(1)-(18) apply only to PC12020(a)(1)
PC12020(b)(19)-(32) apply only to PC12020(a)(2)

I do agree you can not be charged with 12020(b)(16) as a crime. So I do see what you are saying.

[luckystrike]

Yeah, and those guys rolling back from Reno are gonna be screaming 'possession is not illegal' right up to sentencing.

this and your other posts regarding "hicaps" seems that you hate people having them more then the bradys do.

[Hanse Davion]

Hows this-

"The legislature may employ the police power to absolutely prohibit the possession of the items named in this statute." (referring to this statute in question) People v. Ferguson (1933, Cal App) 129 Cal App 300, 18 P2d 741, 1933 Cal App LEXIS 1171


Also in an interesting case involving a minor- "It held the State had to prove, and did prove, defendant knew or should have known the characteristics of the assault weapon violated the statute. The court held the legislature did not intend for possession to be a strict liability crime, because assault weapons had some legitimate uses, but also did not contemplate a harsh scienter requirement such as actual knowledge because the statute was meant to protect public safety." In re JORGE M. 23 Cal. 4th 866, *; 4 P.3d 297, **; 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466, ***; 2000 Cal. LEXIS 5819

[hoffmang]

this and your other posts regarding "hicaps" seems that you hate people having them more then the bradys do.

No. He doesn't want to see dumb people go to jail for dumb reasons.

-Gene

[hoffmang]

^ I am going to have to disagree and say this is yet another example of how two people can argue a point to a court and let them decide what the law says.

The alternate position you're worrying about contradicts the entire legislative intent of grandfathering pre-2000 magazines. Square your argument with all the pre-2000 magazines I currently own and get back to me.

Also, the statute of limitations is 36 months here because, since there is no possession ban, it's not a continuing violation. The only things you can be convicted of is importation, selling, or manufacturing in the prior 36 months.

-Gene

[dieselpower]

so a little old lady from Pasadena wants to sell me her dead husband magazines. I buy them. She has no clue she is committing a crime, but I am committing a crime because I know (even though buying is not listed as an illegal activity) the possession after 1/1/2000 is restricted by 12020.

I can not be charged under conspiracy since the old lady had no knowledge of a crime being committed.

In this respect as with "finding", the LCM can be seized by LEO. I think the DA would be hard pressed to find a law to charge me with, but there is no way to get them back. I would surly get them back if my statement to LEO was ownership pre-1/1/2000.

[hoffmang]

In this respect as with "finding", the LCM can be seized by LEO. I think the DA would be hard pressed to find a law to charge me with, but there is no way to get them back. I would surly get them back if my statement to LEO was ownership pre-1/1/2000.

"I'm so sorry your honor. I bought these and imported them on June 24, 2008. I feel horrible but I've asked my attorney to move for dismissal based on the SOL."

-Gene

[gunsmith]

I owned "hi caps" before the ban, then I moved to Reno.
I could probably make a case if I was caught with them on a visit to CA. ...

However, why bother? I can legally carry loaded ten round mags, two of them have more ammo capacity then one standard 15 round Glock mag, I hardly feel I'm very disadvantaged.

Its not worth the hassle if I get stopped, I would rather fly below the radar & work to get the law overturned.

I will relish using my NV ccw (to carry) in NYC/Chicago/SF I think thats more important to get rid of. We need ccw first, then nationwide reciprocity then striking AWB, then the stupid hicap ban.

[The Shadow]

"I'm so sorry your honor. I bought these and imported them on June 24, 2008. I feel horrible but I've asked my attorney to move for dismissal based on the SOL."

-Gene

And make sure that it can't be proved that you were out of the state for a significant period of time, because the SOL clock stops when you leave the state, which means that if they are grasping at straws and come up with that one, and your time in the state totals less than the 36 months, you will be SOL (S out of Luck).

[dieselpower]

"I'm so sorry your honor. I bought these and imported them on June 24, 2008. I feel horrible but I've asked my attorney to move for dismissal based on the SOL."

-Gene

Well yes, thats all fine due to SOL, I am talking about...

LEO- Where did you get these?
Me- I found them on the side of the road yesterday.

as it stands now, many of us have included "finding" a LCM as an acceptable way to legally obtain one after 1/1/2000. I am saying that is subjective if you read 12020(b)(16).

While you are still not breaking a law, it is implied that you are to turn the items listed in 12020(a) over to LEA if you FIND them.

[pepsi2451]

Well yes, thats all fine due to SOL, I am talking about...

LEO- Where did you get these?
Me- I found them on the side of the road yesterday.

as it stands now, many of us have included "finding" a LCM as an acceptable way to legally obtain one after 1/1/2000. I am saying that is subjective if you read 12020(b)(16).

While you are still not breaking a law, it is implied that you are to turn the items listed in 12020(a) over to LEA if you FIND them.

12020(b) provides exceptions to (a), if its not a crime under (a) you don't need an exception under (b).

Or I'm just not getting it.

[Cokebottle]

From what I am reading (b)(16) is giving a person a legal means to possess long enough to give to LEA. Without (b)(16) any person who was trying to do the right thing and transport a FOUND item to LEA would be guilty of a crime. (b)(16) stops that. It also stops the, "this is legal because possession isn't illegal and I found it...prove I didn't hahaha" defense.

Unless you can show me where certain laws are only used for certain parts of (a), when they do not state that inside them... (like an exclusion stating "dirk" can not be applied to magazines)... then laws that do not refer to a specific item can be applied to all items.

"Dirk or dagger" is mentioned in PC12020(a), just as magazines are mentioned.

That "mention" falls under your logical application of PC12020(b)(16) to PC12020(a)(2).
Therefore, by applying your logic, if one were to find a "dirk or dagger" (any fixed-blade knife, screwdriver, icepick, etc....) then possession of that item would be illegal beyond the time that it would take to reasonably turn the item over to LE.

PC12020(a)(2) does not define that possession of high-caps is a crime, therefore, the exemption listed in PC12020(b)(16) does not apply, and it does not criminalize possession for longer than it would take to turn the item over to LE.

Remember, these laws were not written all at once.
They are written and revised.
There ARE other sections within PC12020(b) that imply that possession (or purchase) of high caps is illegal.
IMHO, the original draft of PC12020(a)(2) did in fact include purchase and possession in the list of crimes. Those were stricken before the final version of the bill went to Davis, but the remainder of the "possession/purchase" references were left untouched.

[Cokebottle]

so a little old lady from Pasadena wants to sell me her dead husband magazines. I buy them. She has no clue she is committing a crime,

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

but I am committing a crime because I know (even though buying is not listed as an illegal activity) the possession after 1/1/2000 is restricted by 12020.

Possession is not a crime.
Purchase would also not be a crime.

I can not be charged under conspiracy since the old lady had no knowledge of a crime being committed.

Agreed to a point... Conspiracy generally requires the cooperation of two or more persons to violate the law, however, the court could decide that you had the responsibility to notify seller that she would be violating the law by selling them. At that point, you have her in violation of the law (unknowing), and you (knowing) allowing her to violate the law. Conspiracy might still stick.

In this respect as with "finding", the LCM can be seized by LEO.

Under what statute? Possession is not a crime. They could only be seized pursuant to investigation into manufacture or importation.

I think the DA would be hard pressed to find a law to charge me with, but there is no way to get them back. I would surly get them back if my statement to LEO was ownership pre-1/1/2000.

They would be booked into evidence, and upon charges being dropped for lack of evidence of import or manufacture, they would be returned. Not a firearm, therefore no LEGR required. They would be returned same as a computer, camera, or any other item seized as evidence.