need a legal opine here... PC12020

[jeep7081]

Read:



Now read 12020(b)(21) as previously quoted. Do you see any restrictions or strings? It allows a firearms dealer (12071) to sell a LCM and it is not illegal as 12020(a) vaporizes due to (b) and (b)(21). If (a)(2) does not apply, then where is the restriction of who can buy said LCM?



Quite true. You should not tell them you "found" it or anything other than you have legal possession of it. You should not admit to importing it or buying it or anything else.

So, what do you say?

A. You have had it for 4yrs or longer and show your receipt.
B. You bought it prior to the year 2000?
C. Both. Either will work.

[Cokebottle]

12020(b)(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.

More poor wording of the law.

The mere existence of the FFL's high-cap permit shows that legislative intent was that the wording of 12020(b)(21) was intended to be "The sale of a large capacity magazine to a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 or purchase of a large capacity magazine by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071."

Ya... the whole high-cap portion of PC12020 is extremely poorly written. Like I said, I am sure the original draft did include possession and purchase/receipt as crimes, and in the numerous rewrites, were omitted from PC12020(a)(2), but the exemptions listed in PC12020(b) were not changed... simply because an exemption to something that is not illegal is irrelevant.

Example: Other exemptions that imply that possession or purchase is illegal....

PC12020(b)
(19) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.
(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.
(32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes:


It is clear that either, possession was originally included in PC12020(a)(2), or, the authors of PC12020(b) did not read PC12020(a)(2) and assumed that possession, purchase, and receipt were illegal.

[kemasa]

So, what do you say?

A. You have had it for 4yrs or longer and show your receipt.
B. You bought it prior to the year 2000?
C. Both. Either will work.

Personally, I would just say that I legally own the magazine, nothing more.

[Cokebottle]

So, what do you say?

A. You have had it for 4yrs or longer and show your receipt.
B. You bought it prior to the year 2000?
C. Both. Either will work.

Neither.

You give your receipt to your attorney and you make the state prove their case (even if you bought it before 2000).
If they cannot provide a paper trail, video, or witness testimony, they have no case.

Don't even admit to having committed a crime in the past, even outside of the SoL... it will only lead to a fishing expedition, and I believe such an admission COULD be used as PC for beginning a current investigation.

[jeep7081]

Personally, I would just say that I legally own the magazine, nothing more.

Neither.

You give your receipt to your attorney and you make the state prove their case (even if you bought it before 2000).
If they cannot provide a paper trail, video, or witness testimony, they have no case.

Don't even admit to having committed a crime in the past, even outside of the SoL... it will only lead to a fishing expedition, and I believe such an admission COULD be used as PC for beginning a current investigation.

Thanks. Interesting topic. Shows how I need to get out of California to have the fun toys. lol!

[dieselpower]

You completely missed the point.

12020(a)(4) states that is it illegal to CONCEAL a dirk or dagger.

Therefore, "dirk or dagger" is now listed in 12020(a).

12020(b)(16) does not provide an exemption for carrying a concealed dirk or dagger for the purposes of turning it in.--- I disagree---seems clear it does---

12020(b)(16) specifically protects someone from prosecution should they be found in possession of any items listed in 12020(a)(1).
12020(a)(2) through (a)(4) are by wording of the statutes not applicable to the exemption because possession of the items listed in 12020(a)(2)-(4) is not illegal.

and you are totally missing the point of the OP...

you are 99% correct in everything you have posted...yet 100% wrong as to what this OP was about.

Nothing in 12020(b)(16) requires the item to be illegal to possess...only that it was found and is now possessed.

you are 100% correct, a person can not be charged with 12020(a) if the conditions of 12020(b)(16) are met...and I am sorry to disagree, but that includes 12020(a)(4).

Once again, show me citation which states 12020(b)(16) is only valid for possession issues... I do not see that anywhere.

a dirk or dagger is NOT illegal to own. The exclusion in (b)(16) is for concealed carry while transporting to LEA ONLY since 12020(a)(4) defines the illegal act as CC. The legislative intent of 12020(a)(4) was not to limit ownership... therefore the LEA would not be justified in keeping the dirk after it was turned in...furthermore a persons defense to 12020(a)(4) can be (b)(16)... if it holds up or not is not my OP...

again for the 11teen billionth time... the OP is about the legal path to ownership of a LCM found after 1/1/2000...after stating such to LEO.

[Cokebottle]

Nothing in 12020(b)(16) requires the item to be illegal to possess...only that it was found and is now possessed.

What part of "not illegal to possess" are you missing?

If it is not illegal to possess, then it is not illegal to possess.

There is a period at the end of that sentence.

An EXEMPTION provides immunity from prosecution for someone found to be in possession of something that is illegal to possess.
If something is not illegal to possess, then the exemption does not apply, therefore, PC12020(b) is irrelevant.

Flowchart it:

PC12020(a)(2)
Possession illegal ------> No ------> Legal, end program.
Possession illegal ------> Yes ------> Proceed to PC12020(b) exemptions to find legal path to possession.

[jeep7081]

What part of "not illegal to possess" are you missing?

If it is not illegal to possess, then it is not illegal to possess.

There is a period at the end of that sentence.

An EXEMPTION provides immunity from prosecution for someone found to be in possession of something that is illegal to possess.
If something is not illegal to possess, then the exemption does not apply, therefore, PC12020(b) is irrelevant.

Flowchart it:

PC12020(a)(2)
Possession illegal ------> No ------> Legal, end program.
Possession illegal ------> Yes ------> Proceed to PC12020(b) exemptions to find legal path to possession.

I would have to agree. I would assume its legal to have possession because if you owned before 2000 its legal to have purchased at that time, and now currently own. This is the reason they wrote it that way.

Carry-on....

[dieselpower]

More poor wording of the law.

The mere existence of the FFL's high-cap permit shows that legislative intent was that the wording of 12020(b)(21) was intended to be "The sale of a large capacity magazine to a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 or purchase of a large capacity magazine by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071."

Ya... the whole high-cap portion of PC12020 is extremely poorly written. Like I said, I am sure the original draft did include possession and purchase/receipt as crimes, and in the numerous rewrites, were omitted from PC12020(a)(2), but the exemptions listed in PC12020(b) were not changed... simply because an exemption to something that is not illegal is irrelevant.

Example: Other exemptions that imply that possession or purchase is illegal....

PC12020(b)
(19) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.
(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.
(32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes:


It is clear that either, possession was originally included in PC12020(a)(2), or, the authors of PC12020(b) did not read PC12020(a)(2) and assumed that possession, purchase, and receipt were illegal.

you forgot one situation...the sell was illegal. The purchases can be considered illegal if the sale was illegal, so the (b) exclusion allowing the purchase makes the buyer immune if other factors are not present. The listed persons are not above the law, even though many people here think they are. If the law can be used to show a civilian is violating the legislative intent of a law by buying a LCM, (which many like to point out when someone says "buying is not illegal")... then that same standard is held up to LEA.

Its not enough to just authorize sales under the law with a process. Since both sides can violate the law, your exclusions must protect both sides.

[kemasa]

More poor wording of the law.

The law is what it is, not what you think that they intended, although judges might have a different opinion.

The mere existence of the FFL's high-cap permit shows that legislative intent was that the wording of 12020(b)(21) was intended to be "The sale of a large capacity magazine to a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 or purchase of a large capacity magazine by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071."

You are making an assumption. The high-cap permit is NOT a FFL high-cap permit. FFLs are exempt as written in the law. You could have a business, which is not as a FFL, and have a market selling LCM to LEO or outside the state and get the permit so that you might continue to pursue your business, especially with respect to interstate commerce.

If you look there is a separate entry for those who have the permit and being license under 12071 is not a requirement, at least not that I have seen.

Where does it speak of who a FFL can sell the LCM to?

Ya... the whole high-cap portion of PC12020 is extremely poorly written. Like I said, I am sure the original draft did include possession and purchase/receipt as crimes, and in the numerous rewrites, were omitted from PC12020(a)(2), but the exemptions listed in PC12020(b) were not changed... simply because an exemption to something that is not illegal is irrelevant.

So? That is not what the law IS. My reading of the law (not an attorney) is that a person licensed under 12071 can sell a LCM and that there is no limit as to who they can sell it to. Now, I am not about to do that as I don't want free room and board, but that seems to be what the law is. Unfortunately there is no way that anyone can get a ruling on the law unless and until they are charge with violating the law, which is absurd.

Could you be charged with a crime based on what "they" intended to do, but did not do? They intended to ban all a-salt weapons, but they did a poor job of it, so should all AR style firearms be banned, even if they have a 10 round magazine with a bullet button as that is not really a "fixed" magazine?

Example: Other exemptions that imply that possession or purchase is illegal....

Assumption again. It talks about sale, giving, lending, importation and purchase, not possession. Why do you assume that it is trying to imply that possession is illegal?

PC12020(b)
(19) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.

LEO exemption on the sale or lending or importation, it does not mention possession.

(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.

LEO exemption, no mention of possession.

(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.

FFL exemption, no limit on who they can sell to mentioned.

(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.

A reasonable loaning exemption so that you can allow a friend to shoot your firearm with a LCM.

(27) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by entities that operate armored vehicle businesses pursuant to the laws of this state.

Armored car exemption, again no mention of possession, just importation and acquiring the magazine or selling it. It also does not mention who they are limited in who they can sell it to.

(32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes:

Special weapons permit holder exemption purchase.

It is clear that either, possession was originally included in PC12020(a)(2), or, the authors of PC12020(b) did not read PC12020(a)(2) and assumed that possession, purchase, and receipt were illegal.

Clear to who? None of those quoted sections talk about possession, only acquiring a LCM or selling it, who can buy it, but not who it can be sold to. Just one side is controlled.

Under your reading, this would mean that it would be illegal for a LEO to purchase a firearm that is not certified and then later sell it to some other person through a PPT. Clearly, it was not the intent that peons be able to have those firearms.

[dieselpower]

What part of "not illegal to possess" are you missing?

If it is not illegal to possess, then it is not illegal to possess.

There is a period at the end of that sentence.

An EXEMPTION provides immunity from prosecution for someone found to be in possession of something that is illegal to possess.
If something is not illegal to possess, then the exemption does not apply, therefore, PC12020(b) is irrelevant.

Flowchart it:

PC12020(a)(2)
Possession illegal ------> No ------> Legal, end program.
Possession illegal ------> Yes ------> Proceed to PC12020(b) exemptions to find legal path to possession.

16) Any instrument, ammunition, weapon, or device listed in subdivision (a) that is not a firearm that is found and possessed by a person who meets all of the following:
(A) The person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition pursuant to Section 12021 or 12021.1 or paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 12316 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(B) The person possessed the instrument, ammunition, weapon, or device no longer than was necessary to deliver or transport the same to a law enforcement agency for that agency's disposition according to law.
(C) If the person is transporting the listed item, he or she is transporting the listed item to a law enforcement agency for disposition according to law.

please highlight the portion of the law that says, "not illegal to possess".

[Briancnelson]

The correct defense is total silence and letting them prove you violated the law within 3 years of that moment.

"I found it" was never the right thing to say in any case, and I read the statute the same way you do.

[kemasa]

The law has to say that it is illegal to possess, not that it is not illegal to possess.

Show me the law where is says that it is not illegal to breath.

[Cokebottle]

Where does it speak of who a FFL can sell the LCM to?

That would be covered under the PC12020(b) exemptions that specify "purchase by"

This is why I say that it is poorly written, OR that purchase (and perhaps possession) was originally listed in PC12020(a)(2).

(b) exemption says an FFL (or armored car company owner) can buy and sell.
The other (b) exemptions list who may buy.

Without a prohibition against purchase in PC12020(a), the road is open for anyone to purchase from anyone listed as exempt in PC12020(b)... but as Gene has mentioned with the "Armored car company loophole"... try it on any kind of moderate to large scale and see how fast Sacramento rewrites PC12020.
The same would happen if an FFL were to start selling LCMs to the general public citing the (b)(21) exemption.
DeLeon would call an emergency session on Christmas morning to close that loophole.

[Cokebottle]

please highlight the portion of the law that says, "not illegal to possess".

Wrong.

Show anywhere in PC12020(a) or (b) where it states that an LCM is illegal to possess.

That which is not forbidden is legal.