interstate intrafamily handgun transfer illegal clip

[bleachedjeans]

oregon resident father has owned a handgun for 30 years approximately and wants to give it to his son. I read the wiki laws section that requires a FFL transfer (accompanied by a note of gift details) to comply with federal law. my concern is this is an "illegal california gun" because it has a 14-round mag clip. does this matter? the gun and clip were made (and it was bought) long before the CA 10-round Max clip law was passed. thanks

[Librarian]

The gun itself is fine, and the father could transfer the magazines IF he disassembles them into kits, and the son never re-assembles them inside CA.

However, the son will need an appropriate magazine, 10 rounds or under, to perform the safety demonstration. Blocking one of the disassembled ones to 10 and reassembling it would work.

[bleachedjeans]

thanks librarian. so the 14-round clip could never be used legally in CA, only owned assuming it stayed unassambled. would getting the 10-round clip for the FFL transfer and just leaving the 14-round clip in Oregon be the easiest? I thought since it was intrafamily and owned before the 10-round Clio law, it could legally be "grandfathered in" for owning and use by the CA resident son

[Librarian]

Sadly, no grandfathering of 11+ mags.

If the gun has 10-rounders available, getting some of those would be easiest.

Then, ship to a convenient CA FFL, 10-day wait and all the usual requirements (except the Roster), and nice new-to-CA gun!

[kemasa]

First, it is a magazine, not a clip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_%28ammunition%29

The second thing is handguns not on the certified list are NOT illegal in CA, but the transfer of the firearms are restricted for dealer sales. PPTs, intrafamilial transfers, dual residents, new residents are exemptions which allow the firearm to be transferred and/or brought into CA.

There is no restriction of doing the HSC safety demo in terms of the magazine size. It can be done with a so-called high capacity magazine, but the magazine can not be transferred. According to the CA DOJ, a FFL can modify a magazine to limit it to 10 rounds, but can not take apart a magazine and sell it as a parts kits.

[Toby's Tactical]

...but can not take apart a magazine and sell it as a parts kits.

Where is this written?

[Dvrjon]

First, it is a magazine, not a clip.
It can be done with a so-called high capacity magazine...

Or a more properly-called, large-capacity magazine.
PC 32310 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/32310.html)
PC 16740 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/16740.html)

Just saying'.

But the key here is that the OP cannot bring the large cap mag into the state to do the demonstration.

JR

[kemasa]

Where is this written?

Where is it written that you can take it apart? You would need to log the magazine when you receive it, but then you would need to document what you did with it.

That is what I was told by the DOJ, which does not mean that it is correct (aka the law), but that is who you are going to have to deal with if they decide that it is a problem, so the question is whether it is worth the risk to you.

Or a more properly-called, large-capacity magazine.
PC 32310 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/32310.html)
PC 16740 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/16740.html)

Just saying'.

Actually, more properly-called standard capacity magazine (or so-called large capacity magazine). The names used are just to confuse people, aka propaganda.

But the key here is that the OP cannot bring the large cap mag into the state to do the demonstration.

The magazine can be shipped to the FFL from out of state if the FFL has the large capacity magazine permit.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/32410.html

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/32430.html

[rbetts]

but can not take apart a magazine and sell it as a parts kits.

Absolutely and completely FUD

[kemasa]

Absolutely and completely FUD

That is what the CA DOJ said and part of the problem is that they are the ones who deal with it. If you get the complete magazine in, you need to log it in. If you take it apart, then you need to document that. Where does it say what the process is? Perhaps you can do it and perhaps you can't, but the fact is that the DOJ can harass you for doing it.

Where does it say what the process is? Where does it say you can do it?

[Dvrjon]

Actually, more properly-called standard capacity magazine (or so-called large capacity magazine). The names used are just to confuse people, aka propaganda.

"Propaganda"? How ironic that I agree with you. (You do realize that the citations you provided in your post use the specific term "large-capacity" magazines, right? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...82&postcount=8)

No. We are in California, and this is "Calguns.net". This discussion centers on California law. The name in California Penal Code is "large-capacity" magazine. That is not the "so-called" name; it is the "properly-called" name in California. It's not confusing at all.

Until you start using "standard" capacity. Since California law identifies any +10 round magazine as large-capacity, what is "standard"? Is it anything with 10 or less? Ruger LC9 has 7; Glocks may come with 6; Springfield 1911 has 7, or 8, or 9 or 10. It's only confusing because you attempt to confuse it with a nonsensical term like "standard".

So, the term "standard" magazine has no meaning in California. So why use it? Its only value is to reference that, some 13 years ago, large capacity magazines were "standard" from manufacturers. That ship has sailed, and continued reference is simply delusional propaganda. (See, I do agree with you).

(Note: all questions above are rhetorical and therefore do not require an answer.)

The magazine can be shipped to the FFL from out of state if the FFL has the large capacity magazine permit.

You (the FFL) would need to log the magazine when you receive it, but then you would need to document what you did with it.

Thank you for confirming that the OP cannot bring the large-capacity mag into the state. It would have to be done by specifically-licensed FFLs, and not on behalf of the OP. Of course, the receiving FFL could loan the large capacity magazine to the OP for safety demonstration, but the FFL would then retain the mag and have to find a use for it. Economically, that all sounds like a bad business practice for both FFLs involved (or a really expensive cost to the OP).

Cheers,

JR

[kemasa]

"Propaganda"? How ironic that I agree with you. (You do realize that the citations you provided in your post use the specific term "large-capacity" magazines, right? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...82&postcount=8)

It seems clear that you don't understand the point and instead seem to prefer to use the wrong terms in order to confuse people.

No. We are in California, and this is "Calguns.net". This discussion centers on California law. The name in California Penal Code is "large-capacity" magazine. That is not the "so-called" name; it is the "properly-called" name in California. It's not confusing at all.

And in the CA PC there is a term "assault weapon", yet in reality such firearms are not assault weapon, so when referencing them you could call them "so-callled a-salt" weapons (yes, I prefer a-salt to assault). If you fail to be accurate, then the word games win and you lose.

High capacity is NOT the proper name as it is the standard capacity magazine in the Free States. If CA wanted to call such magazines "uber-capacity baby killing magazines used only by criminals" and used that term in the CA PC, would you also then consider that the "proper" term?

Until you start using "standard" capacity. Since California law identifies any +10 round magazine as large-capacity, what is "standard"? Is it anything with 10 or less? Ruger LC9 has 7; Glocks may come with 6; Springfield 1911 has 7, or 8, or 9 or 10. It's only confusing because you attempt to confuse it with a nonsensical term like "standard".

Standard capacity is the magazine which normally comes with the firearm from the manufacturer, not a made up term by politicians.

I don't attempt to confuse anyone, although you appear to be confused. I stated it because people need to understand that it is actually the standard and that it is only a so-called high capacity magazine.

So, the term "standard" magazine has no meaning in California. So why use it? Its only value is to reference that, some 13 years ago, large capacity magazines were "standard" from manufacturers. That ship has sailed, and continued reference is simply delusional propaganda. (See, I do agree with you).

Yes, it does or are you trying to say that "standard" is different each place you go?

It is not delusional propaganda, it is the reality, but you seem to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

(Note: all questions above are rhetorical and therefore do not require an answer.)

Actually, they do because you a off-base and need to be called out on your buying into the word games that have been played on you.

Thank you for confirming that the OP cannot bring the large-capacity mag into the state. It would have to be done by specifically-licensed FFLs, and not on behalf of the OP. Of course, the receiving FFL could loan the large capacity magazine to the OP for safety demonstration, but the FFL would then retain the mag and have to find a use for it. Economically, that all sounds like a bad business practice for both FFLs involved (or a really expensive cost to the OP).

If the magazine is taken apart, then the OP can bring that in, whatever you want to call it :-). It is a standard capacity magazine in Free States and so-called high capacity magazines where politicians have played word games.

Actually it is not a license, so you are wrong there. You claim to want to be accurate, then do so. So do you know what it really is? I doubt it, but you might look it up and claim that you know, but since you incorrectly called it a "license", you don't know.

Your assumptions are also incorrect as it is not a bad practice since the magazine could be sold. It would be a worse practice to throw it away and pay for it and not get anything from it.

[Librarian]

This again?

I thought this had been settled:
* when talking specifically about CA law, use the legal term 'large-capacity' magazine; stupid or not, it has a specific meaning.
* in other contexts, use what you like - most people can figure it out.

[kemasa]

In my opinion, you should add "so-called" in front of the bogus terms so that people think about reality and not just come to accept the incorrect terms, otherwise if you don't then a semi-auto AR will actually be considered a real assault weapon, etc.

[Dvrjon]

/thread.