need a legal opine here... PC12020

[jeep7081]

[kemasa]

12020(b) is an "or" list. Each one is separate and distinct. (b) lists those who are exempt from (a) and does not specifically list any limitations on who may purchase nor who those who are exempt may sell to. As I said, one side is controlled, but not both.

If the law needs to be changed in order to close the loophole, then that means that currently the loophole exists and is valid. Yes, the law is poorly written, but does that mean that they can charge you with what they intended to make illegal? How do they prove that was their intent? Perhaps they just wanted to limit/control who could sell LCMs.

I talked to the CA DOJ about this issue and they just got upset. I asked if a FFL were to sell a LCM to Joe Average citizen what the charge would be, which was 12020(a)(2). I said that can't be because a FFL is exempt under (b)(21), at which point the person got very upset and refused to talk about it. I asked for a legal opinion, which I have yet to see and it has been a long time.

[dieselpower]

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.

Possession is not illegal.... The legislative intent was to limit / restrict ownership post 1/1/2000. You can not argue that. They could not restrict ownership POST 1/1/2000 if the LCM was owned PRE-1/1/2000..that is why ownership (possession) is not listed. That would be circular logic that created a group of honest people made into criminals.

so now we have 12020(b)(16)..which gives LEA the authority to legal disposition of items that meet conditions....

those conditions are;
1) Listed in 12020(a)
2) Possessed
3) Found
4) Not found or possessed by a prohibited person (a felon)
5) Delivered to LEA
6) 12020(b)(16)(B)&(C) gives the LEA the right to declare legal status.

[jeep7081]

I am hooked on this thread. Also hiding from my honey do list Anyway, I would like to see if its clear to possess or not?

I thought it came down to, if you bought it before 2000 you can possess it. Then that's where the arguement is. Prove you got it before 2000. No?

[kemasa]

BTW, under the law you can not offer any LCM for sale and it is not limited to sales just to CA. While the CA DOJ does not seem to care about this aspect, if you wanted to sell your LCM and posted an ad saying that you would not sell any magazines to anyone it CA, it is still in violation of the law. To be legal, you would have to go through someone who is exempt, such as a FFL.

(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.

[Cokebottle]

I am hooked on this thread. Also hiding from my honey do list Anyway, I would like to see if its clear to possess or not?

I thought it came down to, if you bought it before 2000 you can possess it. Then that's where the arguement is. Prove you got it before 2000. No?

Possession and use are not illegal (assuming no violation of AW laws).
The crime would be in the method of acquisition.

Import
Manufacture
and possibly: Conspiracy to "sell, offer/keep for sale"

[jeep7081]

Possession and use are not illegal (assuming no violation of AW laws).
The crime would be in the method of acquisition.

Import
Manufacture
and possibly: Conspiracy to "sell, offer/keep for sale"

That's what I always thought. Then this thread....confused me.

[kemasa]

I thought it came down to, if you bought it before 2000 you can possess it. Then that's where the arguement is. Prove you got it before 2000. No?

Possession is not specifically mentioned, so possession is therefore not illegal. There is only a limitation as to:

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.

So, if you can somehow legally acquire a LCM, then you may possess it. If a LEO gets a magazine while working and then quits, where does it say in the law that they must give up the LCMs that they acquired between 01-Jan-2000 and present? It doesn't.

[dieselpower]

Possession and use are not illegal (assuming no violation of AW laws).
The crime would be in the method of acquisition.

Import
Manufacture
and possibly: Conspiracy to "sell, offer/keep for sale"

agreed, good advice. We [people on calguns] have said a legal means to acquire a LCM after 1/1/2000 is finding one on the ground.

I am saying that is not 100% correct. LEA would have the final say if your FOUND LCM was legally yours.

Other ways to legally keep a LCM do not bear that burden. LEA have zero say in it. The law stands clear as to SOL and other means of legally acquiring a LCM post 1/1/2000.

[Kavey]

O.K. It's time for a little "practical" advice based on my full-time occupation of worshiping at the Calguns Forum altar for at least twelve-hours-a-day for the past year. This includes praying to Gene Hoffman. Now, let's all bow our heads while I offer up the following parable:

This man is at a well-established legal, target-practice location on public land. He is shooting his prized Mini-14 (if a Mini-14 can be prized) at some unrepentant tin cans. Among the items laid out on his portable shooting table is one very old unbranded 30rd magazine and a tightly rolled-up rubber band bound sock. Among the tasks this man intends to accomplish today will be to test that 30rd unbranded magazine to see if, after his final tweaks, it will finally work. If it does not give up its sinful ways, the man will cut out the magazine's heart (spring) and purge its evil steel body with a hammer. The magazine will then be banished to eternal damnation at the local landfill.

But, before this man can turn his attention to testing the 30rd magazine, storm clouds gather with the arrival of the county's most prideful deputy. The deputy exits his chariot and approaches the man. The man seeing the descending law enforcement presence, unloads his rifle and places it gently on the table. The following words are exchanged:

Deputy: "Good afternoon, getting in a little target practice I see. How's it going?"

Man: "Pretty good. But my aging eyes aren't what they used to be."

Deputy: "I know what you mean. I've come to rely more on these new laser and red dot sighting contraptions myself…hello…what have we here?" The deputy reaches down and from the shooting table he picks up the old unbranded 30rd magazine.

Deputy: "These are illegal in California. In fact, they were banned nearly a dozen years ago. How did you come by this?"

The man, having read the sacred Penal Code scriptures, also reaches down to the table. He retrieves the rolled-up sock and places it tightly in his mouth where it stayed until the deputy grew weary of questioning the man's unmovable faith in his right to remain silent.

So, let it be written.

So, let it be done.

____________________________

I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen every episode of Judge Judy.

[kemasa]

The only problem with not saying a word is that then the officer will assume that you are guilty. If you say that only the law only says that you can't buy additional magazines after 2000 and that you have had the magazine for a long time (whatever that is), perhaps a "senator I do not recall" if pressed for the exact time and means that you got it, you will make the officer happy and not look guilty, but you will not be saying anything.

I had to educate a LAPD Lt. about high capacity magazine law as she originally thought that all were banned. The funny thing is that she just believed me and did not feel the need to check on it, perhaps because I am a FFL or perhaps because of the way I said it. I don't know, but it did make it easier on me as I wanted the magazine to go back to its owner and I only wanted to pick up the firearm. The bad joke is that if a firearm is not registered to you and the police take it, you are going to have to pay a fair bit of money to get it back as a FFL will have to pick it up and transfer it to you. You should only have to show that you are not prohibited to get back what they took from you as there is no requirement that it be registered to you (assuming that you got it before the law went into effect that all transfers have to go through a FFL, with some limited exceptions which still require paperwork for handguns).

[jeep7081]

The only problem with not saying a word is that then the officer will assume that you are guilty. If you say that only the law only says that you can't buy additional magazines after 2000 and that you have had the magazine for a long time (whatever that is), perhaps a "senator I do not recall" if pressed for the exact time and means that you got it, you will make the officer happy and not look guilty, but you will not be saying anything.

I had to educate a LAPD Lt. about high capacity magazine law as she originally thought that all were banned. The funny thing is that she just believed me and did not feel the need to check on it, perhaps because I am a FFL or perhaps because of the way I said it. I don't know, but it did make it easier on me as I wanted the magazine to go back to its owner and I only wanted to pick up the firearm. The bad joke is that if a firearm is not registered to you and the police take it, you are going to have to pay a fair bit of money to get it back as a FFL will have to pick it up and transfer it to you. You should only have to show that you are not prohibited to get back what they took from you as there is no requirement that it be registered to you (assuming that you got it before the law went into effect that all transfers have to go through a FFL, with some limited exceptions which still require paperwork for handguns).

So, what did you tell her? Did you say it's legal to own just not purchase...blah, blah, blah?

[kemasa]

Yes, I said that the law just prevented the purchase of magazines, but did not ban possession, so that the person should be able to get the magazines directly from them as I did not want to deal with getting them and then trying to figure out how to give them back.

[jeep7081]

Yes, I said that the law just prevented the purchase of magazines, but did not ban possession, so that the person should be able to get the magazines directly from them as I did not want to deal with getting them and then trying to figure out how to give them back.

Thank you for educating her.

[santacruzstefan]

Remind me where it says rebuilding, say, a pre-ban-owned USGI to a Pmag is legal