Old magazine law question.

[wilderness medic]

I guess it doesn't really matter anymore if the injunction gets lifted. But a friend told me something interesting that made me curious if it was true.

I searched the CalGuns wiki looking for an answer but didn't get one.


If someone were to bring magazines back into this state illegally 5 years ago and not get caught, the statute of limitation on importation is a maximum of 3 years and therefore even though they broke the law, its too late to be charged and they can keep them legally because possessing them alone is not a crime.


Is that true? I read that you aren't required to keep receipts and the burden of proof is on them. That sounds anyone and everyone could continue to use them at the range because who's to say or prove otherwise?

[johnthomas]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=387409

[wilderness medic]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=387409

Read it. Don't see the answer. Where does it talk about illegal importation, statute of limitations, and being able to keep them afterwards?

[johnthomas]

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9

[SVT-40]

They could still be confiscated, as they were illegally imported..

Statute of limitations is not a "kings x"...

Confiscated and an investigation to determine if they were owned prior to 2000... It would be up to the DA to determine if the statute had passed or not.

If one were to be detained with "LCM's" and tell the Officers that they are "legal" because he imported them five years ago, and the statute of limitations had passed..... Well I can't see how that would turn out well for the guy.

Statute of limitations is a defense, and not a prohibition from arrest.

[johnthomas]

For me, I don't have the time, money or inclination to fight a charge of high cap magazine.

[wilderness medic]

They could still be confiscated, as they were illegally imported..

Statute of limitations is not a "kings x"...

Confiscated and an investigation to determine if they were owned prior to 2000... It would be up to the DA to determine if the statute had passed or not.

If one were to be detained with "LCM's" and tell the Officers that they are "legal" because he imported them five years ago, and the statute of limitations had passed..... Well I can't see how that would turn out well for the guy.

Statute of limitations is a defense, and not a prohibition from arrest.

[DolphinFan]

The government has the burden of proof. Your magazines were always here and purchased legally prior to 2000. "RIGHT"

[wilderness medic]

The government has the burden of proof. Your magazines were always here and purchased legally prior to 2000. "RIGHT"

Thats a different scenario, but I understand your point. That would only work for firearms that existed prior to 2000

[Librarian]

We don't talk much about statute of limitations because that defense is 'yeah, I did it, but on a technicality you can't prosecute - nyah, nyah!'

If you think you need to assert SoL as a defense, you really need a lawyer, not the internet.

[SVT-40]

The government has the burden of proof. Your magazines were always here and purchased legally prior to 2000. "RIGHT"

Just to point out that the "burden of proof" is a concept which is applicable at trial...

All that is needed for an arrest and or confiscation is Probable cause, and or reasonable suspicion.

So the saying goes...

"You may beat the rap, but you can't always beat the ride".

So don't put yourself in the position where you may take a ride...

[RickD427]

They could still be confiscated, as they were illegally imported..

Statute of limitations is not a "kings x"...

Confiscated and an investigation to determine if they were owned prior to 2000... It would be up to the DA to determine if the statute had passed or not.

If one were to be detained with "LCM's" and tell the Officers that they are "legal" because he imported them five years ago, and the statute of limitations had passed..... Well I can't see how that would turn out well for the guy.

Statute of limitations is a defense, and not a prohibition from arrest.

Excellent post here.

In addition to the magazines being seized as the product of illegal activity, they may also be seized as a "Nuisance" item. Please refer to Penal Code section 18010(b).

[Chewy65]

A google got me two answers within 5 minutes.

One is that the SL is 3 years from when the government knew you had imported the large capacity magazine. I believe that to be correct based on my ancient recollection of the statute of limitations and tolling, but don't rely on this without checking with your attorney. I do not do criminal law.

The other is what many have said, but it comes from a Calgunsfoundation wiki

Statute of Limitations

A violation of 32310 is considered a "wobbler" (see e.g. In re Jorge M. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 866, 880.) in California as it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. The current jurisprudence in California is that the statute of limitations for a "wobbler" is the same as the statute of limitations for a felony.

Penal Code Section 801:

801 Except as provided in Sections 799 and 800, prosecution
for an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison
shall be commenced within three years after commission of the offense.
A district attorney must prove that a violator has actually imported or manufactured a large capacity magazine within the last three years.

In short, the period of limitations of actions is 3 years running from the date of importation, but the period is tolled until the government discovers or should have discovered the criminal act. This may be wrong, while the SL is an affirmative defense I believe the law in CA is that the People have the burden of proving that prosecution is not barred by the SL. See People v Abayhan.

[StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca]

Excellent post here.

In addition to the magazines being seized as the product of illegal activity, they may also be seized as a "Nuisance" item. Please refer to Penal Code section 18010(b).

Although LEO are exempt from 32310 by way way of PC 32405 , there still appears to be no LEO exemption for 18010 (b). Is that your interpretation also?

[RickD427]

Although LEO are exempt from 32310 by way way of PC 32405 , there still appears to be no LEO exemption for 18010 (b). Is that your interpretation also?

Actually it is. We discussed this issue in several threads a couple of years ago. My personal opinion is that PC 18010(b) is a very tortured statute that was produced from a bad predecessor statute and was made worse through the recodification (even though it was not supposed to be).

When you look at the long list of nuisance items contained in PC 18010(a), all of them except for the large-capacity magazines were illegal at the time of the recodification. The large-capacity magazine is the only item that was lawful to possess, but still a nuisance. That changed this year with the possession ban, but there is an injunction against enforcement of the criminal statute. The nuisance seizure part remains in effect.