Mini 14 w/high cap mags

[Notorious]

I must say to Notorious, ive read yer posts for a while and deep down inside I had a feeling you were exempt all along. To the newbie that hasnt read your posts in the past, it may have been not as clear to them. Thats why I mentioned my comment to begin with.

You're exactly right. I didn't really think about that because I am used to posting only in the LE section so I never gave it too much thought... but yeah, I don't mean to say that just because you have a featureless rifle, you can go out and buy a restricted magazine or manufacture a standard cap from a kit which you didn't have before the ban. All prohibitions apply no matter what rifle you have unless you are exempted.

I meant that I (only talking about me) can go buy a mag over 10 rounds capacity from the local stocking LE equipment dealer, and use it in my featureless rifle without a bullet button all day long.

[kemasa]

You need to be more specific. First read post #8. With the LIMITED info provided in that post, tell me exactly which part of 12020 I was "incorrect" with. Section "(b)" breaks down into a ton of other subsections. Based solely on post #8, are you a mind reader? Post #8 starts out with the words: "Anybody can possess...". Indicating "civilians," and not just LEO's in that post.

You are assuming that I am responding to the other post, but the quote makes it clear I am responding specifically to your post.

What does (b) say? I included it below, but it says that (a) does not apply if ANY of the items under (b) apply. What does 12020(b)(21) say?

...
12020(b) doesnt allow just any "civilian" to "recently purchase" a hicap mag as was vagely IMPLIED in post #8.

Actually, it does. The law is poorly written. While the DOJ has a view on this, they refuse to back it up, but say that there are other restrictions, yet those restrictions don't seem to exist. See above for the reference. I doubt that you will get anyone to push the issue though. I have tried to get a response from the DOJ, but they just get upset and lawyers don't seem to respond unless you pay them.

Kemasa, Im just puzzled at your response to me. Am I reading that you have ESP or something? After reading how post #8 was worded, you could tell that he fit an exemption listed in the law?

I was responding to what you said. He does not have to fit an exemption, just that the transaction is exempt.

12020 (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:

12020(b)(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by
a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.

If you have a lot of money, I think that I could double or triple it, but I would also want a sucker who is willing to spend some time in jail for a bit of money. Several semi loads full of magazines, going to all the gun shows and a nice false arrest lawsuit would all be involved.

[ap3572001]

To ME the magazine law is a little weird. I tried to point some things out before and the thread would get locked.....

The LAW prohibits buying, selling ,importing etc.

The LAW allows anyone using 10+ magazines in ANY weapons that can be legally used with detachable magazine.

The idea was that a person in CA who already had 10+ magazines BEFORE the ban can use their magazines in their guns AND in new guns that take the same magazine.

( For example an owner of an old Mini-14 who had several 20-30 round Ruger magazines before the ban , can buy a NEW mini-14 and use the same magazines.)

If a person has a 10+ magazine for a firearm that was not even made till a couple of years ago , it is a reasonable assumption that they DID NOT have that magazine before the ban. Right?

Thats a whole other issue.

LEO's can buy ANY 10+ magazines and use them in anything they want .( I am talking about normal guns w/o a BB,OLL etc)

LEO's can buy 10+ magazines for any gun, not just the ones they use on/off duty.

This is the way I understand this.

[Notorious]

Sounds about right.

You can also legally buy kits of unassembled parts for any magazine to refurbish standard capacity magazines that you had before the ban. You can have any number of kits you want and every single part for a complete magazine you want. This is different from the constructive possession of a SBR/SBS in that you can possess all of the parts.

Then you can rebuild your existing magazines to your heart's content as long as your total complete magazines do not exceed the number you had before the ban came into effect.

As the replacement parts get cycled through, you conceivably can end up with a magazine built entirely of new parts as each old part wears out. The ban therefore, ends up being a de facto lifetime limit of standard capacity magazines on you based on how many you had before the ban.

[TrailerparkTrash]

You are assuming that I am responding to the other post, but the quote makes it clear I am responding specifically to your post.

What does (b) say? I included it below, but it says that (a) does not apply if ANY of the items under (b) apply. What does 12020(b)(21) say?



Actually, it does. The law is poorly written. While the DOJ has a view on this, they refuse to back it up, but say that there are other restrictions, yet those restrictions don't seem to exist. See above for the reference. I doubt that you will get anyone to push the issue though. I have tried to get a response from the DOJ, but they just get upset and lawyers don't seem to respond unless you pay them.



I was responding to what you said. He does not have to fit an exemption, just that the transaction is exempt.





If you have a lot of money, I think that I could double or triple it, but I would also want a sucker who is willing to spend some time in jail for a bit of money. Several semi loads full of magazines, going to all the gun shows and a nice false arrest lawsuit would all be involved.

Kemesa..... never mind. It's getting twisted now and derailed..... I wasn't bringing up the "law" and how bad the law is "twisted," as stated in your latest post. The conversation is now going off on another tangent. Let's just quit while we're both ahead, shall we?

[CSACANNONEER]

To ME the magazine law is a little weird. I tried to point some things out before and the thread would get locked.....

The LAW prohibits buying, selling ,importing etc.

The LAW allows anyone using 10+ magazines in ANY weapons that can be legally used with detachable magazine.

The idea was that a person in CA who already had 10+ magazines BEFORE the ban can use their magazines in their guns AND in new guns that take the same magazine.

( For example an owner of an old Mini-14 who had several 20-30 round Ruger magazines before the ban , can buy a NEW mini-14 and use the same magazines.)

If a person has a 10+ magazine for a firearm that was not even made till a couple of years ago , it is a reasonable assumption that they DID NOT have that magazine before the ban. Right?

Thats a whole other issue.

LEO's can buy ANY 10+ magazines and use them in anything they want .( I am talking about normal guns w/o a BB,OLL etc)

LEO's can buy 10+ magazines for any gun, not just the ones they use on/off duty.

This is the way I understand this.

Two corrections here. First, there is no written law which prohibits ANYONE form "buying" any magazine is California. So, without getting into the "conspiracy" arguement, buying +10 round mags is not covered in the law. Secondly, I will be nit picky and point out that anyone can legally use any +10 round magazine (provided that they are not creating an illegal AW) in any firearm no matter when that magazine was aquired. There are non-LEOs who have legally aquired +10 round magazines in California since 1-1-2000. Some of these are ex LEOs who aquired them while they were exempt. Others include non-LEOs who have or had California high capacity permits. So, just because a currently non exempt person has a magazine for a firearm which was not even introduced until last week, it does not automatically mean that the magazine was illegally aquired.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Two corrections here. First, there is no written law which prohibits ANYONE form "buying" any magazine is California.

Okay, just playing devil's advocate here.... You're right about the "buying" part, but who's "selling" them here in Cali??? Don't it take two to tango?

Others include non-LEOs who have or had California high capacity permits.

Correct, but that's getting off topic (permits & exemptions) for the regular old "Joe" in this state and what was originally discussed here, don't ya think? A regular "Joe" here in Cali isn't going to find anyone that will sell him/her a hicap magazine. I'm not talking about one's with permits, FFL folk, dealers, cops, retired cops etc.... We're talking California "Subjects" that want to go buy a hicap magazine today. Good luck to that ordinary "Joe," because it ain't gonna happen.

[bharer75]

So how would you prove they were grandfathered in?

[Notorious]

Okay, just playing devil's advocate here.... You're right about the "buying" part, but who's "selling" them here in Cali??? Don't it take two to tango?

Yep, but since possession is not illegal, short of a full confession by the possessor, there is no leverage for him to tell LE where he bought them from. He doesn't have to talk at all.

So how would you prove they were grandfathered in?

You don't have to prove anything. If the state wants to prosecute you, they have the burden of proof. You just sit there and use your 5th Amendment rights in silence.

[CSACANNONEER]

Okay, just playing devil's advocate here.... You're right about the "buying" part, but who's "selling" them here in Cali??? Don't it take two to tango?


Correct, but that's getting off topic (permits & exemptions) for the regular old "Joe" in this state and what was originally discussed here, don't ya think? A regular "Joe" here in Cali isn't going to find anyone that will sell him/her a hicap magazine. I'm not talking about one's with permits, FFL folk, dealers, cops, retired cops etc.... We're talking California "Subjects" that want to go buy a hicap magazine today. Good luck to that ordinary "Joe," because it ain't gonna happen.

You're correct on both counts. I just felt the need to point out that things are not always as they appaer and not every non- active LEO with +10 round magazines is a criminal or aquired them illegally. Once someone incorrectly makes a blanket statement about how ALL whatever is illegal, don't you think that it should be corrected to ensure that everyone reading the thread understands the real laws about whatever instead of someone's misinterpetation of those laws?