Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Purchased a legal high-cap handgun magazine, can I use it legally?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #31
    Jimi Jah
    I need a LIFE!!
    • Jan 2014
    • 17857

    As of Nov. 30th and you have them, you are a felon even if previously purchased legally here. California has a tendency of doing that.

    Comment

    • #32
      ARDude
      Veteran Member
      • May 2006
      • 2723

      Originally posted by Jimi Jah
      As of Nov. 30th and you have them, you are a felon even if previously purchased legally here. California has a tendency of doing that.
      I believe the possession part of the law is an infraction/misdemeanor. Not a felony.
      Real-life Girls

      Comment

      • #33
        downdiver2
        Senior Member
        • Apr 2012
        • 972

        Originally posted by RickD427
        Actually, today's ruling does affect you.

        The simple use, and possession, of large capacity magazines is illegal regardless of when, or how, you acquired them.

        At the moment, enforcement is enjoined for magazines that were acquired during "Freedom Week" and for the simple possession of such magazines.

        That injunction has not yet been dissolved. We'll have to see what Judge Benitez does not that the case has been returned to him, but he doesn't have a lot of options. The Ninth Circuit didn't return the case to him so that he could decide the case according to their guidance. It returned the case to him to enter judgement for the defendant's. He's gonna have to "pull a rabbit outta the hat" in order to keep the injunction in place.

        The policy statement from your IA doesn't appear to allow you to use illegally possessed magazines in your CCW weapon.
        Originally posted by Jimi Jah
        As of Nov. 30th and you have them, you are a felon even if previously purchased legally here. California has a tendency of doing that.
        Originally posted by ARDude
        I believe the possession part of the law is an infraction/misdemeanor. Not a felony.
        10000% inaccurate information. The possession and use of illegal high capacity magazines are in fact illegal for use and possession. Mine, on the other hand were lawfully purchased during freedom week. Prior acquired and later acquired high cap mags are illegal.

        Do you also expect myself, you, and others to return our 'illegally' purchased ammo from Freedom Week 1.0? Same thing!
        Last edited by downdiver2; 12-01-2021, 2:23 PM.
        sigpic

        Comment

        • #34
          Librarian
          Admin and Poltergeist
          CGN Contributor - Lifetime
          • Oct 2005
          • 44627

          Originally posted by downdiver2
          10000% inaccurate information. The possession and use of illegal high capacity magazines are in fact illegal for use and possession. Mine, on the other hand were lawfully purchased during freedom week. Prior acquired and later acquired high cap mags are illegal.
          Well, yes, yours is inaccurate.

          Here's the Penal Code
          c) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

          (d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:

          (1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;

          (2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or

          (3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

          (Amended November 8, 2016, by initiative Proposition 63, Sec. 6.1.)
          ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

          Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

          Comment

          • #35
            downdiver2
            Senior Member
            • Apr 2012
            • 972

            Originally posted by Librarian
            Well, yes, yours is inaccurate.

            Here's the Penal Code
            Question: was what you posted - posted as is prior to the law - and heres the big question - prior to 11/30/21 was the law word for word the same? The answer is yes. So, explain how it differs now.

            The state would need an amendment. Those not privy to Calguns or the internet or whatever, the 9th circuit just created 100,000 misdemeanors. It wont happen. I understand the law you posted, ive seen it - I saw it prior and after freedom week.

            And how does that differ from Freedom Week 1.0 and ammo sales? Should I start boxing up all my ammo and be expecting to return it to the online stores I purchased them from?
            Last edited by downdiver2; 12-01-2021, 2:28 PM.
            sigpic

            Comment

            • #36
              Librarian
              Admin and Poltergeist
              CGN Contributor - Lifetime
              • Oct 2005
              • 44627

              Originally posted by downdiver2
              Question: was what you posted - posted as is prior to the law - and heres the big question - prior to 11/30/21 was the law word for word the same? The answer is yes. So, explain how it differs now.

              The state would need an amendment. Those not privy to Calguns or the internet or whatever, the 9th circuit just created 100,000 misdemeanors. It wont happen. I understand the law you posted, ive seen it - I saw it prior and after freedom week.

              And how does that differ from Freedom Week 1.0 and ammo sales? Should I start boxing up all my ammo and be expecting to return it to the online stores I purchased them from?
              The law does not differ now.

              Benitez's order prevents/prevented enforcement of 32310(c). The law was there, unchanged. When the order is no longer in force, 32310(c) may be enforced.
              ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

              Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

              Comment

              • #37
                edgerly779
                CGN/CGSSA Contributor
                CGN Contributor
                • Aug 2009
                • 19871

                No.

                Comment

                • #38
                  sbo80
                  Senior Member
                  • Apr 2014
                  • 2263

                  Originally posted by downdiver2
                  Those not privy to Calguns or the internet or whatever, the 9th circuit just created 100,000 misdemeanors.
                  That's not really accurate either. The State Legislature and Governor created them back in 2017 (and far more than 100k I'm sure). Enforcement has just been "on hold" until now. They have, under the statute, been illegal for 4 years now. And everyone that bought magazines during freedom week, did so gambling that there would be a win in the courts. There may yet be, but unless SCOTUS agrees to hear an appeal (or, possibly the NY case gets a generic enough ruling about scrutiny, which seems unlikely), we will have lost this one.

                  Comment

                  • #39
                    Librarian
                    Admin and Poltergeist
                    CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                    • Oct 2005
                    • 44627

                    From the main thread in 2A Litigation



                    CRPA WILL petition for cert. That almost certainly means the mandate from Nov 30 will be stayed.
                    ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

                    Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

                    Comment

                    • #40
                      RickD427
                      CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
                      CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                      • Jan 2007
                      • 9258

                      Originally posted by Librarian
                      From the main thread in 2A Litigation



                      CRPA WILL petition for cert. That almost certainly means the mandate from Nov 30 will be stayed.
                      Librarian,

                      We may need to wait and see what happens here.

                      Ms. Duncan can certainly request a stay, prior to the issuance of the mandate, but there is no assurance that the Ninth Circuit will grant the stay. Given their handling of the en banc decision, I would have to believe them dis-inclined to grant such a stay.
                      If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

                      Comment

                      • #41
                        Librarian
                        Admin and Poltergeist
                        CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                        • Oct 2005
                        • 44627

                        Originally posted by RickD427
                        Librarian,

                        We may need to wait and see what happens here.

                        Ms. Duncan can certainly request a stay, prior to the issuance of the mandate, but there is no assurance that the Ninth Circuit will grant the stay. Given their handling of the en banc decision, I would have to believe them dis-inclined to grant such a stay.
                        True - thus "almost certainly". I agree with that assessment of the 9th; I wonder if they would really add that insult to their injury, but I cannot rule it out. 'Petty' would not begin to cover that denial.
                        ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

                        Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

                        Comment

                        • #42
                          abinsinia
                          Veteran Member
                          • Feb 2015
                          • 4093

                          Originally posted by Librarian
                          True - thus "almost certainly". I agree with that assessment of the 9th; I wonder if they would really add that insult to their injury, but I cannot rule it out. 'Petty' would not begin to cover that denial.
                          I think that's what happened in New Jersey. They had the case to prevent the magazines from becoming illegal , but the courts denied it and they became illegal per the new law.

                          Comment

                          • #43
                            SharedShots
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2021
                            • 2277

                            It comes down to peace of mind. If you live in California, you either accept the laws as they are or decide that non-compliance is your position. All the talk about when you bought the magazine doesn't make one bit of difference when for whatever reason your life becomes a mess, financially and mentally because you chose poorly.

                            There are people with either the connections, support or money who are willing to be test cases, are you one of them? If you are hoping for some organization to rush to your side and take up your cause, good luck with that because it's not likely to happen.

                            While it's unlikely that the magazine you have becomes the focus of anyone its convenient addition to the primary focus that caused your new problems.

                            You get stopped and for some reason there is a search. Why would you get searched if you have a CCW? Among other things, if the gun wasn't the focus of the search but something else led to it, checking your ammo to insure it's legal (and no AP for example) in a place like SF or elsewhere can happen. Someone will notice its not a 10 rounder.

                            Does that now become the bigger deal? Who knows but is that the hill you've now decided on fighting for - by yourself?

                            Oh, you have one of those nighty insurance plans for CCW holders? Have you asked them in writing and received an answer - in writing - that they will step up? You might want to start that email comms right now if you intend to carry standard cap mags.

                            The way it really works is that plenty of people talk until it's you and whomever mano e mano and then its reality. Your insurance decides you made a decision to use it, no 2nd/A organization happens to be waiting by the phone and its you, your lawyer and your bank account.

                            There are going to be plenty of people right on calguns telling you it's okay. Did that come with a 24x7x365 phone # you can call if things don't go ok?

                            Think long and hard about all this because if you carry them to make some statement just be sure you have your ducks lined up to pay the piper because your lawyer gets paid one way or the other.

                            Its all about choices and just make sure it's not about bravado, BMOC, ego or some hoorah stand up for the cause .
                            Last edited by SharedShots; 12-03-2021, 4:35 PM.
                            Let Go of the Status Quo!

                            Don't worry, it will never pass...How in the hell did that pass?

                            Think past your gun, it's the last resort, the first is your brain.

                            Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent. In the history of humanity, no defense has ever won against an enemy with time on their side.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            UA-8071174-1