High capacity mags?

[kemasa]

General opinion (and no, the DOJ won't issue an official opinion, but the lack of arrests/prosecutions speaks for itself) is that, using rebuild kits for example, it is legal if there is a direct path for the rebuild, even if 100% new parts are being used.

IF it is acceptable for an individual to purchase a complete rebuild kit, disassemble their old broken mag, and assemble the new one, then it would likewise be legal for the manufacturer to replace a broken magazine with a new one.

I've always liked that one.

I think you are making some assumptions. The problem with the law is that possession is not illegal. If it is in parts, then it is not a magazine. That means that the CA DOJ can't prove what you did and therefore would have a hard time making the charges stick.

If the CA DOJ could prove in court that you replaced the magazine completely, then they might charge you.

In the case of the manufacturer, the magazine is being given to them and NEW magazine is being given back. Those are two separate things. Taking a magazine apart and repairing it with parts is one thing, not two.

[Cokebottle]

The law is badly written and it clearly says that (a) does not apply to the sale or purchase of any large capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071, which means that if a FFL (assuming that they have ALL the required permits/licenses) buys a large capacity magazine (or sells it to anyone), they are exempt from 12020(a)(2),
which is NOT limited to only magazines within CA.

Exactly. It is an extremely poorly worded law.

This is along the lines of the belief that it is legal for LEO to sell or give high-cap magazines to civilians.
The initial law is so poorly written (note that some exemptions seem to allude that possession is illegal, and I suspect this being due to initial drafts stating this and it being removed through amendment), the way I am reading the exemptions is as specifically written, and basically ignoring the wording of the (b) sentence, which seems to be a blanket exemption for "all of the below".
The individual exemptions all list specific conditions... such as the LEO exemption. It says buy or sell to or by. Some take that as a blanket exemption, but it can also be read as "buy by or sell to"... but regardless of how that phrase is parsed, the exemption still specifically states that it is legal for use in the line of duty.
The exemptions can easily be read that is it not legal for a LEO to be exempt for personal use... except receipt and possession are not illegal, so if he obtains it for official use, and then takes it out of his safe for a hunting trip, he is not violating any portion of 12020(a)(2).
Interesting that PC12020(a)(1) includes possession (prohibited items other than magazines). The exemptions are all lumped together in covering all 4 paragraphs of 12020(a).

But WRT the paragraph 21 exemption, it's pretty clear that FFLs are exempt without condition. Odd that the high cap permit would even exist.

You might want to more carefully read what is in CA PC 12020 and not just assume things based on how the CA DOJ is enforcing it. They won't admit that there is a problem and FFLs won't risk their freedom and business to prove it otherwise.

Exactly. To test the law would require an FFL who literally has nothing to lose, and given that it can be prosecuted as a felony (and likely would be given that it would be a landmark case), I can't think of any FFLs who would be willing to risk their firearms rights and put them in the hands of a jury who has believed that high caps have always been illegal.
Technically legal or not, the legislative intent of the prohibition is apparent, and we will likely not see any movement in this direction until after Gene's "package" is revealed.

[kemasa]

12020(a)(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.

Under the law, if a person who is not exempt under (b), it is illegal for them to "offers" a large capacity magazine for sale. As written, this means that if a CA resident offers a large capacity magazine for sale, but only to people who are not in CA or to those who can legally buy them, it is illegal. The selling of the magazines would not be illegal to CA FFLs, those who have a high capacity permit, LEO, etc., but that could be considered separate from the offering for sale.

(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.

Under this, LEO can only receive the magazines. Notice, the use of the magazines are not limited to only the use as a LEO, only that the LEO has to be "authorized to carry a
firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties".

I did not see anywhere an exemption for LEO to get rid of magazines. It might be there, but I did not notice it in a quick reading.

the exemption still specifically states that it is legal for use in the line of duty.

Incorrect, read it again. It says NOTHING about the magazine with respect to the line of duty, only that the person has to be "authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties". That is not talking about the magazine. There is NO limitation listed.

But WRT the paragraph 21 exemption, it's pretty clear that FFLs are exempt without condition. Odd that the high cap permit would even exist.

Yep, but try talking to the CA DOJ about it. They tend to get pretty upset when you point this out. Their attorney also refuses to answer questions about it. Clearly, that was not the intent of the law, but that IS how the law was written.

Exactly. To test the law would require an FFL who literally has nothing to lose, and given that it can be prosecuted as a felony (and likely would be given that it would be a landmark case)

Ahhh, you are looking at this the wrong way. Look to see what the FFL would have to gain IF they had the money. If the FFL had enough money to buy several semi-truck loads of high capacity magazines so that they could sell them at gun shows, selling them for double or triple the price, with a receipt saying that it was coming from a person licensed under 12071 and therefore exempt under 12020(b)(21) and the FFL had made arrangements with an attorney to fight the charges and sue for false arrest, that FFL could retire afterwards, if the DA or DOJ were do anything about it. I have to wonder if they would be that foolish. The FFL would need to point out the law at the time of arrest to ensure that they were aware that they were violating the law.

Sadly, I don't have the money to buy all the high capacity magazines, plus I don't want free room and board, but I suspect that in this economy you could find someone to get all the licenses and permits and who would be willing to give it a go if there was a person who was willing to invest the money.

The jury really doesn't matter since it would get appealed. I would love to hear what an attorney who specializes in firearms has to say about it as well.

[TheKlawMan]

Cokebottle;

When I said that possession under some circumstances may be legal, I should have said that possession, per se, may be legal but you may have committed a crime in the manner that you acquired possession. That is why I thought the OP should seek counsel from an attorney. Some might say that by the buyer of a mag, when none of the exemptions pertain, is aiding and abetting or conspiring to commit a crime.

Also, where do you get that "modification" is the same as repairing a mag? Regardless, the OP doesn't seem to be interested in modifying a mag.

The mere fact that no one has been charged with illegal possession does not mean it is legal. As you never hesitate to point out, it is difficult to tell if a mag is pre-2K or if it has been later acquired. That doesn't mean possession is legal, just it is difficult to prove.

Since you pushed, have you cosulted an attorney as to whether you have been encouraging others to commit a crime, when you ceaselessly point out that it next to impossible to tell whan a magazine was built?

Should ProMag give the OP a new mag, we may have an intersting test case shoould ProMag's business records provide that the OP was given a new post-2k magazine.

The OP asked if a law would be broken, not if it would be difficult to prove if he had vioalted any law.

By the way, you made an earlier crack about how "(I)'ve gotten into harsh disagreements with the leading members of the Calguns Foundation, and you've been smacked down every time." I disagree with your charactriaztion that I have had "harsh disagreements" with the leading members of Calguns, but that depends on who you think are it s leading members. I cerainly have not been "smacked down every time" as bwiese's admission that he was overly aggressive in his earlier opinion about the KSG and LCM law proves.

[Notorious]

LEO's can buy all the standard caps he wants for use as long as he is authorized to carry a firearm in the line of duty. He can then use the mags on or off duty and it doesn't even have to be for the duty weapon. As long as I can buy it, I can possess it and use it however I want with the exception of the bullet buttoned rifles. Those are limited to 10 rounds.

[IrishPirate]

The mere fact that no one has been charged with illegal possession does not mean it is legal. As you never hesitate to point out, it is difficult to tell if a mag is pre-2K or if it has been later acquired. That doesn't mean possession is legal, just it is difficult to prove.

wrong. possession is legal. People aren't charged with it because it's not a crime. if possession was illegal than ALL hi-caps would be illegal, even pre-ban mags. Burden of proof is on the state. You never have to say anything about how you aquired them, and it's only advised to say "yes officer, i legally own these magazines". Don't try to split hairs, it is an established fact that hi-cap possession is not a crime, and it's not your job to explain how you came into possession of them, it's the state's.

[Librarian]

Cokebottle;

When I said that possession under some circumstances may be legal, I should have said that possession, per se, may be legal but you may have committed a crime in the manner that you acquired possession.

We have a disagreement.

Until such time as you can cite Penal Code to the contrary, it would be far more accurate on your part to state "possession is not illegal" and then go on to make whatever point you care to advance.

[TheKlawMan]

We have a disagreement.

Until such time as you can cite Penal Code to the contrary, it would be far more accurate on your part to state "possession is not illegal" and then go on to make whatever point you care to advance.

Librarian. I appreciate your polite input. I cannot say that "possession is not illegal, since my honest opinion is that it is illegal execept in circumstances that exceptions apply. For example, if one truly just happened to find a LCM on BLM land, I suppose possession would be legal and while the state has the burden of proof as to all elements of charge, my opinion rests on no exemptioins applying and the mag being post 1999. I suppose I could say that simple possession is not clearly illegal from what I am aware.

But to get back to this specific instance, the facts are that the OP would be recieving an new magazine as part of a manufacturer's warranty. This is not a matter of simple possession and I am not sure that the OP doesn[t have liability for something akinn to aiding and abetting.

[Cokebottle]

but you may have committed a crime in the manner that you acquired possession.

Only if you assembled or imported.
Under PC12020(a)(2), purchase or other "reception" is not illegal.

Also, where do you get that "modification" is the same as repairing a mag? Regardless, the OP doesn't seem to be interested in modifying a mag.

12020(b)(24) exemption.... "Repair or Modification"
It's right there in the law.

The mere fact that no one has been charged with illegal possession does not mean it is legal.

Show me in the PC where possession is illegal.

For someone to be arrested and charged with a crime, there must be a specific PC section used.
What PC section would be used to charge someone with illegal possession of an LCM?

Been waiting for this answer from you for 2 months.

As you never hesitate to point out, it is difficult to tell if a mag is pre-2K or if it has been later acquired. That doesn't mean possession is legal, just it is difficult to prove.

Possession is legal.
The method of acquisition MAY have been illegal.
The only crimes that a person in possession could be charged with would be importation or manufacture, and the state would have to provide evidence of such activity.

Purchase or receipt as a gift are not illegal. The state would need to find the person that he got them from in order to file primary charges or they wouldn't even be able to file conspiracy charges against him (and conspiracy charges would be extremely unlikely in a "wobbler" offense and completely unlikely in misdemeanor charges).

Since you pushed, have you cosulted an attorney as to whether you have been encouraging others to commit a crime, when you ceaselessly point out that it next to impossible to tell whan a magazine was built?

I don't need to because I have never encouraged any such activity.

I have always been quite clear on this forum that we need to remain within the law, regardless of how difficult it would be for the state to prove it's case.
The mods are also on top of things and if someone does cross that line recommending illegal activity, or even hinting "read between the lines", the mods will delete the posts immediately. This forum is under a microscope and recommendation of illegal activity is not tolerated here.

The fact that my posts have not been edited/deleted should tell you something.

I cerainly have not been "smacked down every time" as bwiese's admission that he was overly aggressive in his earlier opinion about the KSG and LCM law proves.

That is a partial win... or "not a complete fail".
Bill said that he was "overly aggressive," not that he was wrong, and the situation is being reviewed. Bill and Gene have still not given official opinions on the matter... yet you immediately jumped on Bill's comment and spread your "I'm right" on the other threads where you were taking a beating.


So once again....

Show me in the California PC, or even in the current USC, where mere possession of high caps is illegal as you claim.

[kemasa]

As stated, the problem is that it is nearly impossible to prove UNLESS the person admits to something or by some means it can be proven (such as a sting operation), at which point the magazines will be taken from the person. If possession is not illegal, the magazines would not be taken, correct?

The CA Penal Code is 12020(a)(2).

You can not legally possess high capacity magazines through illegal means. Or do you only consider it illegal if you get caught? charged? convicted?

Is possession of high capacity magazines illegally imported into state of CA illegal? The act of importing the magazines is illegal and due to that you are not legal in possession of magazines, making the possession illegal.

It would be more accurate to say that "possession is not illegal as long as you legally acquired the magazines, which does not include illegal "manufacturing" of the high capacity magazine through legally buying the parts".

[Cokebottle]

and the mag being post 1999.

Actually post-2007, due to the 36 month statute of limitations.
Since possession is not an ongoing crime, the state must prove that you not only imported or manufactured, but also that you did so after March 5, 2008.

But even a date-code on the mag body is meaningless because it would be legal to rebuild a 1993 magazine with a 2011 body.

The state needs a paper trail.


Now riddle me this Batman.

Joe Schmoe orders some 10rd mags for his XD9 from Midway.
Midway does not do business within California.
Midway documents his order correctly, but the parts picker grabs a 16rd XD mag and puts it in the box.

Midway did not sell or offer to sell a high cap within California.
The buyer did not import or assemble the magazine.

Legal?

Okay... Joe sees the high cap, and immediately goes back to the Midway site to order 5 more, hoping that the same mistake is made.
This time, the order is picked properly and he gets 10rd mags
or...
Same mistake is made and 16rd mags show up.


IMHO, on the 2nd order, it could be argued that Joe attempted to import the magazines (even if he received 10rd mags the 2nd time).

[kemasa]

In order to charge the person they would need to prove the timeframe, but that does not mean that they would let the person keep the magazines if they had proof that the person obtained them illegally.

Want another riddle? Using your Midway example, Joe orders the high capacity magazines and has them delivered to his door. Who imported them? Joe did not ship them. USPS who delivered them to CA and actually brought them in? Midway who packaged them, but does not live in CA nor does business in CA, so how could they be charged with a CA crime?

it could be argued that Joe attempted to import the magazines (even if he received 10rd mags the 2nd time).

Is attempting to illegally import magazines a crime????

A simple concept, possession of money is not illegal, but you can illegally possess money.

[Librarian]

Librarian. I appreciate your polite input. I cannot say that "possession is not illegal, since my honest opinion is that it is illegal execept in circumstances that exceptions apply. For example, if one truly just happened to find a LCM on BLM land, I suppose possession would be legal and while the state has the burden of proof as to all elements of charge, my opinion rests on no exemptioins applying and the mag being post 1999. I suppose I could say that simple possession is not clearly illegal from what I am aware.

No, neither your honest opinion nor your waffling disputes the plain language of the Penal Code.

As with everything else upon which the Penal Code is silent, possession of large-capacity magazines is not illegal; there is no section under which a non-prohibited person might be charged for illegal possession of a large-capacity magazine.

So, from what you are aware is

12020. (a) 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:
...
(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.

You can now assure yourself that the Penal Code does not include "possession" of a "large-capacity magazine" among its specified crimes.

If the legislature should change that happy condition, of course we will all become aware of the bill before it becomes law.

In the meantime, kindly adhere to California law, and discuss it, in its actual hideousness.

[darkjedi351]

ok, what is required when replacing existing hi-cap mags? do i have to store the worn parts for future evedence if required?

can i replace a glock 17 hi cap with a glock 22?
9mm to .40?
hk usp for a hk p30?

[Cokebottle]

In order to charge the person they would need to prove the timeframe, but that does not mean that they would let the person keep the magazines if they had proof that the person obtained them illegally.

Want another riddle? Using your Midway example, Joe orders the high capacity magazines and has them delivered to his door. Who imported them? Joe did not ship them. USPS who delivered them to CA and actually brought them in? Midway who packaged them, but does not live in CA nor does business in CA, so how could they be charged with a CA crime?

Is attempting to illegally import magazines a crime????

I would say that it might depend upon where the legal change of ownership takes place.

Most internet orders are FOB origination. Your card is charged when the order is processed... or if in keeping with California law... when the item is shipped. At that point, you own the magazines that are crossing into California.

But it is a tough question. I'm sure legislative intent was to cover this, but keep in mind that in 1999, the internet was still fairly new and most business was still mail order (and again, the law is poorly written).

It is quite possible that there could be a successful challenge on this basis.

Midway exported from whichever state their warehouse was in.
USPS, UPS, and other couriers are indemnified.

This is yet another situation where internet and mail order don't mesh with conventional legalese.
Is a company setting up a web site "offering for sale within California"?
The server is out of state, the company is based out of state.
Other than the shipping/billing address, the company doesn't even know if the buyer is in California or not.

So there also appears to be no clear violation if one were to go to AZ, order magazines online there, and have them shipped to a CA address.
Again, seller is exporting, they were "offered for sale" in AZ, and the buyer didn't technically import them.

Or did he?