need a legal opine here... PC12020

[Meplat]

Not exactly....

The person in possession could in fact export it and then give it to you legally.

But he cannot "keep/offer for sale" within California.

If I had a high-cap that I wanted to get rid of and shipped it to you from my home, I would be guilty.

Legally, I could hand-carry it to a free state and we could then execute the transaction legally... so long as I don't "keep/offer for sale" while in California.
And that's a problem... how do you know that I am going to drive to AZ and ship it to you unless the details of the transaction (keep/offer for sale) were worked out prior to my departure?

This is why I advocate everyone who is on this forum and lives out of CA, and does not ever intend to return to CA, send a deserving CG member a HC mag as a gift, out of the goodness of their heart, without the recipient ever knowing you are sending it. Especially those members who have Mini-14s and M1As.

[Cokebottle]

This is why I advocate everyone who is on this forum and lives out of CA, and does not ever intend to return to CA, send a deserving CG member a HC mag as a gift, out of the goodness of their heart, without the recipient ever knowing you are sending it. Especially those members who have Mini-14s and M1As.

I say send them to DP so we can read his thread about his HiCap-induced heart attack

[dieselpower]

No. It's written to allow possession long enough to transport an items listed in 12020(a) THAT ARE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS UNDER 12020(a), that were found to LEA.

Granting an exemption from prosecution under certain circumstances to something that is not illegal doesn't make that thing illegal under other circumstances. There has to first be penal code that makes the act illegal.

Your reasoning follows this logic...

It is illegal to stick a banana in your nose.
It is illegal to possess an orange.
It is illegal to possess an apple.

If you find any illegal fruit you are exempt from prosecution for possession of that fruit if you are turning it into the police.

Therefore, possession of a banana is illegal.

No, thats actually not a good analogy of what I saying.
PC1234, 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 prison:
(a) own a banana.
(a)(1) sell an apple.
(b) PC1234 doesn't apply if Any thing listed in subdivision (a) that is found and possessed by a person who meets all of the following:
(A) The person is not prohibited from possessing food.
(B) The person possessed the item 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.

The law doest care if the item is legal to own or not...if its listed in (a) and is FOUND...it must be delivered to LEA.... So both a banana and apple must be given to LEA AND a banana is LEGAL to posses in order to do that...

there is no punishment for NOT doing it because its not part of the law which is chargeable.

It then becomes a portion of the law, (a requirement) to then prove the suspect was NOT delivering the item.

All I am saying is there is enough in the law to show it is within the spirit of the law to NOT give you the LCM if you state you found it. You have delivered it to LEA.... once that is done... you have no claim of ownership of the LCM

Nor is there a distinction in 12020(b)(16) to exclude 12020(a)(3) or 12020(a)(4), therefore, applying your logic, any found "dirk or dagger" (which would include a screwdriver) is only legal to possess long enough to turn in to LE.

Which is why you don't offer ANY "excuse".
If you feel that you have to say anything, simply say "I am in legal possession"
Make them make their case. Don't give them anything to work with.

No, 12020(a)3 explosives...you are allowed to take possession of found explosives in order to turn them into LEA

and (a)(4) defined dirks or daggers can be possessed long enough to turn over to LEA if found.

I don't care if a court defines a toothpick as a dirk or dagger... if you find the defined item, under the law its to be turned in to LEA.

It doesn't matter if the item is LEGAL to own or not. The law isn't allowing you to own...nor is it criminalizing an act not defined in (a).

The law is saying if you find one of the items...you are allowed to posses it in order to turn it over to LEA. So once LEA have the ITEM that you FOUND...you have NO right to ask for it back... Finding is NOT a legal means to acquire a magazine....

[Cokebottle]

I don't care if a court defines a toothpick as a dirk or dagger... if you find the defined item, under the law its to be turned in to LEA.

And this is where you are wrong.

If something is not illegal, then there is no exemption that can be applied to the legal act.

The law is saying if you find one of the items...you are allowed to posses it in order to turn it over to LEA. So once LEA have the ITEM that you FOUND...you have NO right to ask for it back... Finding is NOT a legal means to acquire a magazine....

The law is saying that if you find an item that is ordinarily illegal to possess, that it is not illegal for you to deliver it to LE.

Nothing in the law REQUIRES that you deliver an item to LE.
If you find an item that is illegal to possess, you can leave it where it is and notify LE, or you can deliver it to LE (with protection from the 12020(b)(16) exemption).
You may also simply look the other way and not report it.

An exemption can not apply to something that is legal.
Possession is legal.

It would ONLY be illegal to keep the "found" magazine if the law specifically REQUIRED that it be turned in... but it does not.


12020(b)(16) provides an exemption that prevents you from being charged with a crime if you are in unlawful possession of a listed item provided you are in the process of turning it in.
If you are not in unlawful possession, then no exemption is needed because possession is not illegal.

There is no law that you could be charged with violating. 12020(a)(2) only prohibits importation and manufacture.
12020(b)(16) does not require a found item to be turned in.

[The Shadow]

Why do you think the SOL stops when out of state? Remember that there are no continuing crimes under the LCM laws (except maybe offering for sale.) This is a serious question and not rhetorical.

-Gene

The way it was explained in Criminal Law class years ago, is that the SOL clock stops because LE is unable to detect or nab you for the crime if it is detected. So a person can't commit a crime and simply leave the state until the statute of limitations is up. Call it the "no cheating" clause.

To bottom line it, if a person committed a burglary, and then fled the state with his ill gotten gains, and then returned and flaunted his crime in the face of LE while explaining that he hid in Havasu City for that length of time, under 836 PC he could actually be arrested and detained because the SOL clock stopped until the person returned to California.

[Cokebottle]

The way it was explained in Criminal Law class years ago, is that the SOL clock stops because LE is unable to detect or nab you for the crime if it is detected. So a person can't commit a crime and simply leave the state until the statute of limitations is up. Call it the "no cheating" clause.

Ever hear of extradition?

They can nab you even if you are out of the country.

[RomanDad]

The way it was explained in Criminal Law class years ago, is that the SOL clock stops because LE is unable to detect or nab you for the crime if it is detected. So a person can't commit a crime and simply leave the state until the statute of limitations is up. Call it the "no cheating" clause.

Or just call it what it is called... "Tolling the Statute of Limitations." However, one usually has to be under indictment, and a fugitive from justice for the tolling statute to be relevant.

The Statute of Limitations starts running the moment the crime is committed. If you are ARRESTED/INDICTED within the time period of the Statute, you cant simply go on the run and then come back the day the Statute runs out and say, "neener neener... I ran out the clock... You cant try me now... I win!" The clock stopped ticking when you fled, and it restarts the moment you reappear. They have however long you were a fugitive (plus whatever time they had left BEFORE you were a fugitive), to bring the case to trial.

But simply LEAVING the state as a free person, after you MIGHT have committed a crime, doesnt toll the statute. If you stole $600 from your roommate when you were a Senior at the University of California, in 1983, and he never found out it was you, the fact that you moved to Iowa the following year doesnt mean you have to worry about being arrested should you return to Disneyland for vacation next year. That bird has flown.

[dieselpower]

And this is where you are wrong.

If something is not illegal, then there is no exemption that can be applied to the legal act.
The law is saying that if you find an item that is ordinarily illegal to possess, that it is not illegal for you to deliver it to LE.

Nothing in the law REQUIRES that you deliver an item to LE.
If you find an item that is illegal to possess, you can leave it where it is and notify LE, or you can deliver it to LE (with protection from the 12020(b)(16) exemption).
You may also simply look the other way and not report it.

An exemption can not apply to something that is legal.
Possession is legal.

It would ONLY be illegal to keep the "found" magazine if the law specifically REQUIRED that it be turned in... but it does not.


12020(b)(16) provides an exemption that prevents you from being charged with a crime if you are in unlawful possession of a listed item provided you are in the process of turning it in.
If you are not in unlawful possession, then no exemption is needed because possession is not illegal.

There is no law that you could be charged with violating. 12020(a)(2) only prohibits importation and manufacture.
12020(b)(16) does not require a found item to be turned in.

agreed... not too much to argue with there...but that agrees with me as well. I said from the start you can not be charged with 12020(b)(16). Its not a chargeable crime.

This isn't about you getting charged with a crime...its about using the "I found these" as a way to circumvent the intent of the law...which was to limit and restrict LCM ownership. If its true or not (the finding part), it doesn't matter...as soon as LEA gain possesion...its done...they are delivered to an LEA as per 12020(b)(16) and you loose them. Under other forms of possesion...you get them back when they do not charge you with a crime.

[The Shadow]

Ever hear of extradition?

They can nab you even if you are out of the country.

That's true, if they know where you are.

Or just call it what it is called... "Tolling the Statute of Limitations." However, one usually has to be under indictment, and a fugitive from justice for the tolling statute to be relevant.

The Statute of Limitations starts running the moment the crime is committed. If you are ARRESTED/INDICTED within the time period of the Statute, you cant simply go on the run and then come back the day the Statute runs out and say, "neener neener... I ran out the clock... You cant try me now... I win!" The clock stopped ticking when you fled, and it restarts the moment you reappear. They have however long you were a fugitive (plus whatever time they had left BEFORE you were a fugitive), to bring the case to trial.

But simply LEAVING the state as a free person, after you MIGHT have committed a crime, doesnt toll the statute. If you stole $600 from your roommate when you were a Senior at the University of California, in 1983, and he never found out it was you, the fact that you moved to Iowa the following year doesnt mean you have to worry about being arrested should you return to Disneyland for vacation next year. That bird has flown.

As I understand it, it has after all been several years, the Statute of limitations counts down until the person who committed the crime is caught. If you're not caught and the SOL runs out, you walk away Scot free. If however, the person is caught, there is no more SOL because you were caught, now it's simply a matter of being charged with the crime before that time runs out. For misdemeanors, the government has a year to charge you with the offense.

Basically, you have just turned what I understood, for the most part, on its head.

[Kavey]

I understand its up to the State to prove you committed a crime, but possession is illegal and seizure is justified under this law....as I see it.

You need to be aware of what the Assault Weapons Identification Guide issued by the California Department of Justice has to say on the subject of large capacity magazines.

It's the guide issued to all of the district attorneys as well as all of the law enforcement agencies in the state so that they will know the law and what to do when they run into these magazines in the field. Unless there is some evidence of prohibited activity, under the law, you are in the clear. It is my understanding that, most of the time, such incriminating evidence comes from your own mouth. Never answer any questions on this subject.

On page 74, of the Guide, the entire second paragraph says: "Possession of large capacity magazines, whether by peace officers or private citizens, is not controlled."

NOTE: The use of bold face type and underlining for the words "Possession" and "is not" are in the Guide itself!

That's the DOJ talking. This is not my opinion.

Check the DOJ itself if you don't believe me.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide/awguide.php

____________________________

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

[Cokebottle]

On page 74, of the Guide, the entire second paragraph says: "Possession of large capacity magazines, whether by peace officers or private citizens, is not controlled."

And while that is the case, he is claiming that since the exemption in (b)(16) says "items mentioned in (a)" that if found, they are indeed illegal to possess except for purposes of transporting to turn them in.

Read further, and he agrees that this applies to knives, screwdrivers, or anything else that is mentioned in 12020(a).

[Kavey]

And while that is the case, he is claiming that since the exemption in (b)(16) says "items mentioned in (a)" that if found, they are indeed illegal to possess except for purposes of transporting to turn them in.

Read further, and he agrees that this applies to knives, screwdrivers, or anything else that is mentioned in 12020(a).

[dieselpower]

@Kavey, I understand the laws, thats not what I am debating. I exposed a view point that when people here have not considered. Thats it. I have the guide you speak of. It was available to all of us when produced and when we registered our identified firearms.

Many people here state finding a LCM on the side of the road is a legal means to ownership. I am saying that is NOT correct. 12020(b)(16) provides what is legal when a listed item is FOUND. It makes no reference to legal possession of the item, (outside of finding it) it states possession is then legal (after finding it with 3 requirements). It makes no distinction to the validity of the classification of the item into 12020(a) (screwdriver ). The requirements in 12020(b)(16) are;
1) the item is FOUND
2) The item is listed in (a)
3) The item is in possession of a non-prohibited person
4) The item is delivered to LEA
5) LEA take the item until legal disposition.

12020(a)(2) intent was to limit and restrict ownership of LCM after 1/1/2000. LEA would be well within their right to refuse to give the found LCM back to the person when they state "found" after 1/1/2000 as how the person came into possession of it. 12020(b)(16)(C) states the found item is held by LEA for legal disposition.

@Coke...I still do not see what a screwdriver identified as a listed item has to do with a person finding an LCM, This is an idiotic course to take this debate, but since you can not separate a screwdriver from a LCM...here goes....screwdriver, toothpick, cane sword, LCM... it doesn't matter. The LEO with a statement from a person that they "found" the item has the legal right to keep it. Once again...for the third time man... I don't care what the law on ownership DOESN'T say. I don't care what the CA courts rule is/isn't a listed item. If a LEO wants to hold a found screwdriver, then declare it a dirk...thats a whole nother debate...and I really don't care because I do not think LEO are that f-ing stupid. I am sure you can point to the law where the intent was to limit and restrict screwdriver ownership and concealment for the civilian populace which would then be a legal disposition for the LEAs refusal to give the screwdriver back...and even if the CA courts have ruled a screwdriver is a dirk...that really has no bearing on a debate about a person telling LEO he found an LCM...since a concealed dirk meets 12020(b)(16) as does a found LCM. So the LEO who gives a canesword back would be committed a crime, since a canesword has restricted ownership. The LEA that returns a dirk is fine since concealed dirks are controlled under 12020(a). So I can conceal a dirk/screwdriver if I meet the 12020(b)(16) requirements. Once again for the 11teen billionth time...I don't care about criminal charges...you can NOT BE CHARGED UNDER 12020(B)(16)..EOS

Sorry Coke, but I have tried to see your debate but it doesn't fit. 12020(B)(16) states found. So finding an LCM is NOT a path to ownership if the LEO and LEA decide NOT to give it back. The legal disposition of the item rests with the State of a found listed item. Of course they can also give it back declaring ownership is now legal.

The fact remains the "found" path to ownership is not clear cut. Nothing you have offered to my opine has challenged that. Show me where 12020(b)(16) can not be used to deny giving the LCM back.

Can I admit to LEO I illegally transported a LCM into CA 4 years ago? If I did admit that when they were holding my LCM, could I force them to return my property? Do they have a legal right to deny my request? Can they state the intent of the law was to restrict ownership and keep the item? Remember SOL is in play. Is my ownership then legal after I run out SOL?

Well I am offering 12020(b)(16) as a legal path for LEA to keep your found LCM.... so the "I found it" path to ownership is not cut and dry.

[RomanDad]

That's true, if they know where you are.



As I understand it, it has after all been several years, the Statute of limitations counts down until the person who committed the crime is caught. If you're not caught and the SOL runs out, you walk away Scot free. If however, the person is caught, there is no more SOL because you were caught, now it's simply a matter of being charged with the crime before that time runs out. For misdemeanors, the government has a year to charge you with the offense.

Sort of Correct. "Caught" is not a determining factor in the Statute of Limitations. After a crime is committed, the state has X number of years to charge (indict) somebody depending on the offense alleged (the defendant then has a right to a "speedy trial" if he elects that- Most do not).

But what that means is, if you aren't available (because you're in the wind) they have to charge you in abstentia if they want to toll the Statute, or at the very least issue a warrant for your arrest. If nobody is charged within that time, the crime is no longer prosecutable.

[dieselpower]

Sort of Correct. "Caught" is not a determining factor in the Statute of Limitations. After a crime is committed, the state has X number of years to charge (indict) somebody depending on the offense alleged (the defendant then has a right to a "speedy trial" if he elects that- Most do not).

But what that means is, if you aren't available (because you're in the wind) they have to charge you in abstentia if they want to toll the Statute. If nobody is charged within that time, the crime is no longer prosecutable.

agree.

now if there is a gain of some kind from that offense [for which you can no longer be charged], can you keep that? Does the State have legal discourse for this...ie taking the ill gotten gains away from me.