KillitnGrillit
Member
Is it legal for people in Ca. to have new hi-cap mags?Can they buy postban mags online legally?Thanks
Last edited:
Basic Legal question on hi-cap mags
- Thread starter KillitnGrillit
- Start date
- Status
UberPhLuBB
Member
Nope.
The national AWB died but California's AWB is still active and will be for the forseeable future.
No magazine capacities beyond 10 rounds, ever, no exceptions. Makes me mad when I see people at the ranges with 11+ rounds magazines because I know they're going to tighten the noose further for the rest of us with their flagrant disregard for the law (dumb as the law is).
Edit: Wait, what do you mean "people from California?" People "from" California can have whatever they want when they aren't in California. In California, everything that has the word "gun" in it is restricted.
The national AWB died but California's AWB is still active and will be for the forseeable future.
No magazine capacities beyond 10 rounds, ever, no exceptions. Makes me mad when I see people at the ranges with 11+ rounds magazines because I know they're going to tighten the noose further for the rest of us with their flagrant disregard for the law (dumb as the law is).
Edit: Wait, what do you mean "people from California?" People "from" California can have whatever they want when they aren't in California. In California, everything that has the word "gun" in it is restricted.
Fiero
Member
Uber,
All preexisting magazines in the lawful hands of owners at the time the law took effect were grandfathered in. It is completely legal to possess, use, display, and even repair with new parts, these magazines for their owners.
Did you ask those people you saw with hi-caps if they owned them prior to the law's induction? If you didn't, why do you then assume they are illegal?
These people could indeed be exercising their right to use them, completely legally. It is actually this type of ignorance of the law which is a much greater threat to us. For it is this type of ignorance which causes illogical and irrational furor, and the subsequent pressure to crack down on a non existent problem.
I have read the Cali law restricting magazines backward and foreward. I have even looked at the AG faq's on the subject pertaining to some of the nuances of the law. I learned something new rather recently. That you could repair a damaged or worn magazine with all the parts necessary to repair it, completely legally. Thus ensuring that your supply of hi-caps never dwindle due to wear and tear.
The only question I have left is whether you can use old legally possessed hi-caps on a newly purchased firearm.
But as for KillitnGrillit's personally related question. Yes, it would NOT be legal for him to possess or buy any hi-caps at this time.
All preexisting magazines in the lawful hands of owners at the time the law took effect were grandfathered in. It is completely legal to possess, use, display, and even repair with new parts, these magazines for their owners.
Did you ask those people you saw with hi-caps if they owned them prior to the law's induction? If you didn't, why do you then assume they are illegal?
These people could indeed be exercising their right to use them, completely legally. It is actually this type of ignorance of the law which is a much greater threat to us. For it is this type of ignorance which causes illogical and irrational furor, and the subsequent pressure to crack down on a non existent problem.
I have read the Cali law restricting magazines backward and foreward. I have even looked at the AG faq's on the subject pertaining to some of the nuances of the law. I learned something new rather recently. That you could repair a damaged or worn magazine with all the parts necessary to repair it, completely legally. Thus ensuring that your supply of hi-caps never dwindle due to wear and tear.
The only question I have left is whether you can use old legally possessed hi-caps on a newly purchased firearm.
But as for KillitnGrillit's personally related question. Yes, it would NOT be legal for him to possess or buy any hi-caps at this time.
UberPhLuBB
Member
I know that you can own blackisted and otherwise illegal assault rifles via a grandfather clause so long as they are registered with the state, but I was under the impression that high capacity magazines became illegal wholly and fully, regardless of previous ownership. Can you link me to the ATF/DOJ page that shows what you read?
I have never seen anyone over ~25 using a high capacity magazine at the range. No way any of them were old enough to own a firearm when high capacity magazines were legal. The ones I saw just recently couldn't have been older than 20 and I couldn't believe the rangemaster let them shoot without a parent there, let alone the owner of the handguns they were using. They were using a Glock fullsize of some sort, from the report I would guess 10mm. I counted 15 rounds fired at once. They were also squirreling around, shooting rapid fire and "gangster style" (which are prohibited at that range--the rangemaster didn't interfere about that either).
I have never seen anyone over ~25 using a high capacity magazine at the range. No way any of them were old enough to own a firearm when high capacity magazines were legal. The ones I saw just recently couldn't have been older than 20 and I couldn't believe the rangemaster let them shoot without a parent there, let alone the owner of the handguns they were using. They were using a Glock fullsize of some sort, from the report I would guess 10mm. I counted 15 rounds fired at once. They were also squirreling around, shooting rapid fire and "gangster style" (which are prohibited at that range--the rangemaster didn't interfere about that either).
Fiero
Member
9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?
No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers.
(PC Section 12020 (b)(19-29))
This was taken from the following California Attorney General web page of FAQ:
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/pubfaqs.htm
This FAQ answer does not mention the circumstances by which a hi-cap magazine can be loaned however (exceptions).
The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals is permitted if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.
Interesting side note:
If the perps, as you mentioned, did not have the lawful owner present at the shooting location, then the loaner was in commission of a misdemeanor. However, I don't see that the perps have committed an actual crime, unless they bought the magazines instead of borrowing them. It's a loophole of sorts, that I do not readily understand why the morons in Sacramento left to be utilized. Maybe someone more hip on conspiracy law could tell me whether the loanees could be charged with conspiracy. Hmmm.
Look here for the complete regs on hi cap mags:
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/12020.htm
No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers.
(PC Section 12020 (b)(19-29))
This was taken from the following California Attorney General web page of FAQ:
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/pubfaqs.htm
This FAQ answer does not mention the circumstances by which a hi-cap magazine can be loaned however (exceptions).
The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals is permitted if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.
Interesting side note:
If the perps, as you mentioned, did not have the lawful owner present at the shooting location, then the loaner was in commission of a misdemeanor. However, I don't see that the perps have committed an actual crime, unless they bought the magazines instead of borrowing them. It's a loophole of sorts, that I do not readily understand why the morons in Sacramento left to be utilized. Maybe someone more hip on conspiracy law could tell me whether the loanees could be charged with conspiracy. Hmmm.
Look here for the complete regs on hi cap mags:
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/12020.htm
UberPhLuBB
Member
Touche.
UberPhLuBB
Member
I re-read that page for a recent discussion and saw this:
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.
So much for loaning, and those guys I saw awhile back at the range COULD have been the legal owners if they were the "older than they look" type, but I doubt it.
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.
So much for loaning, and those guys I saw awhile back at the range COULD have been the legal owners if they were the "older than they look" type, but I doubt it.
Fiero
Member
Uber, you can't just read one sentence of a law, and get the whle story. Oftentimes there are exceptions, ie. for law enforcement, etc. You will find that lending of magzines is perfectly legal within parameters set forth in exception number 22.
This law has no less than 30 enumerated exceptions.
Read on a little farther in the section you read from, and you will see the following statement.....
"(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:"
Subdivsion (a) is the section you quoted from, Uber....
Then scroll down a bit further and then we have exception #22....
"(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned."
So, you see that swapping magazines at he gun range is fine, and you don't need to get upset.
Fiero
This law has no less than 30 enumerated exceptions.
Read on a little farther in the section you read from, and you will see the following statement.....
"(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:"
Subdivsion (a) is the section you quoted from, Uber....
Then scroll down a bit further and then we have exception #22....
"(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned."
So, you see that swapping magazines at he gun range is fine, and you don't need to get upset.
Fiero
UberPhLuBB
Member
Just when you think California law is as confusing, redundant and rediculous as it can possibly get, you find out you're wrong and it is in fact far more disconcerting, contradictory and ignorant than you could have imagined.
I've got to get out of this place. Which relatives can I do without...?
I've got to get out of this place. Which relatives can I do without...?
Hkmp5sd
Member
HankB
Member
By all accounts a lot of people with foresight in California obtained pre-ban mags before the law went into effect . . . in many cases, even before they had the firearm the mags fit.
Unless the mags have some characteristic like a date stamp showing them to be "post-ban" mags, it would be nearly impossible to prove a mag was acquired illegally after the ban was in effect as long as the person was a "pre-ban" resident of Kali.
Unless the mags have some characteristic like a date stamp showing them to be "post-ban" mags, it would be nearly impossible to prove a mag was acquired illegally after the ban was in effect as long as the person was a "pre-ban" resident of Kali.
The last gunshow in 1999
The 10+ magazine ban went into effect on 1/1/2000 in CA. I happened to attend a large gunshow in Southern California just 2 weeks prior to this date. I have never seen so many magazines in my life. It seemed like every other table was piled high with 10+ capacity magazines of all brands. A lot of the vendors were from Arizona, Nevada and other states. The customers all knew the CA ban was coming and had a grandfather clause, and were buying these magazines as fast as they could.
There are about 30 million people in CA. It is an affluent state, and there are many gun owners - perhaps 10 million or so. I would guess that there are at least 10 million "high capacity" magazines in CA that were purchased prior to 1/1/2000. People stocked up, and bought magazines for guns they didn't even own yet. Those who are really into semiauto handguns probably own an average of 10 such magazines.
The 10+ magazine ban went into effect on 1/1/2000 in CA. I happened to attend a large gunshow in Southern California just 2 weeks prior to this date. I have never seen so many magazines in my life. It seemed like every other table was piled high with 10+ capacity magazines of all brands. A lot of the vendors were from Arizona, Nevada and other states. The customers all knew the CA ban was coming and had a grandfather clause, and were buying these magazines as fast as they could.
There are about 30 million people in CA. It is an affluent state, and there are many gun owners - perhaps 10 million or so. I would guess that there are at least 10 million "high capacity" magazines in CA that were purchased prior to 1/1/2000. People stocked up, and bought magazines for guns they didn't even own yet. Those who are really into semiauto handguns probably own an average of 10 such magazines.
UberPhLuBB
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong (please), but you'd still have had to be 21 years of age in the year 1999 to plausibly own a high capacity magazine in California now. Unfortunately for me, I was only 18 at the time and as such would not have been able to purchase a high capacity magazine at the time.
Kinda wish I were a criminal with no morals so I could risk owning high capacity magazines. Sucks that I'm a responsible gun owner being suffocated by the laws that weaken me while at the same time empower criminals, like most other gun owners in California and the rest of the country.
Kinda wish I were a criminal with no morals so I could risk owning high capacity magazines. Sucks that I'm a responsible gun owner being suffocated by the laws that weaken me while at the same time empower criminals, like most other gun owners in California and the rest of the country.
wanderinwalker
Member
Uber,
I'm not familiar with California law, but I am pretty sure under New Hampshire law one can legally buy and possess pistol magazines under the age of 21. It is not a firearm, so I personally don't see why there would be an age restriction on purchase. I do know that between 18 and 21 I could legally possess a handgun given to me by a parent/guardian and sell it to a gun shop. Heck, the shop could even layaway a pistol for me so long as I was 21 when I wanted to pick it up (which I was).
I'm not familiar with California law, but I am pretty sure under New Hampshire law one can legally buy and possess pistol magazines under the age of 21. It is not a firearm, so I personally don't see why there would be an age restriction on purchase. I do know that between 18 and 21 I could legally possess a handgun given to me by a parent/guardian and sell it to a gun shop. Heck, the shop could even layaway a pistol for me so long as I was 21 when I wanted to pick it up (which I was).
Fiero
Member
According to the California Assault Weapon ban, you cannot transfer any banned assualt weapons instruments to anyone, including kin, even after death. The net effect of the law is that within one generation, all legal Assualt Weapons, in civilian hands, will be out of California, either by confiscation or export to another State. "Only the oulaws will have guns", as liberals seem to like.
There is the lending "loophole", but the legal owner must be present and in control of the weapon or magazine. As well, the "lendee" must not be otherwise legally prevented from possessing a firearm. Besides, it's not realy a "loophole", since it is specifically spelled out in the law.
Hank brings up an interesting facet of this law. While the burden of proof is supposed to be on the state to prove wrongdoing... I wonder how many legally possesed magazines will be confiscated for "investigation", but then will be too expensive to retrieve from such confiscation because it will require a legal defense (lawyer expenses) to defend your original legal possession. And just how would you? I have no receipts for my magazines, nor did I have any reason to keep them at the time of purchase.
You see, all a DA has to do is agree to drop the bogus illegal possession rap in trade for maintaining confiscation of the magazines. Ipso facto confiscation without any legality. The poor man has no defense where the rich government has decreed guilt. There will be some form of punishment, regardless.
There is the lending "loophole", but the legal owner must be present and in control of the weapon or magazine. As well, the "lendee" must not be otherwise legally prevented from possessing a firearm. Besides, it's not realy a "loophole", since it is specifically spelled out in the law.
Hank brings up an interesting facet of this law. While the burden of proof is supposed to be on the state to prove wrongdoing... I wonder how many legally possesed magazines will be confiscated for "investigation", but then will be too expensive to retrieve from such confiscation because it will require a legal defense (lawyer expenses) to defend your original legal possession. And just how would you? I have no receipts for my magazines, nor did I have any reason to keep them at the time of purchase.
You see, all a DA has to do is agree to drop the bogus illegal possession rap in trade for maintaining confiscation of the magazines. Ipso facto confiscation without any legality. The poor man has no defense where the rich government has decreed guilt. There will be some form of punishment, regardless.
Fiero
Member
Uber,
I feel really bad for people in your situation. You had the unfortunate fate to be born a few years too late to enjoy the same freedoms that were "grandfathered" to others. I agree that it is completely wrong that you should have one single less rights than any other law abiding citizen.
Well, if it is any comfort it is happening to us all. As of the beginning of the year, I am prevented from ever owning a .50 Cal BMG weapon of any type. I would have purchased one prior to the ban date, but I could not afford the cost. Because of that, I have forfeit this "privelige". I guess it's not a right anymore if with the stroke of a pen, it can be taken away.
It should be a wake up call to anyone who thinks that the state has the best interests of the law-abiding at hand. They don't.
I feel really bad for people in your situation. You had the unfortunate fate to be born a few years too late to enjoy the same freedoms that were "grandfathered" to others. I agree that it is completely wrong that you should have one single less rights than any other law abiding citizen.
Well, if it is any comfort it is happening to us all. As of the beginning of the year, I am prevented from ever owning a .50 Cal BMG weapon of any type. I would have purchased one prior to the ban date, but I could not afford the cost. Because of that, I have forfeit this "privelige". I guess it's not a right anymore if with the stroke of a pen, it can be taken away.
It should be a wake up call to anyone who thinks that the state has the best interests of the law-abiding at hand. They don't.
California lawmakers make outrageous laws that would not be enforceable, were their constituents not the kind of people who would elect such lawmakers in the first place.
There are no serial numbers on pre-ban mags, or any other way of identifying them. Does that give you Kalifornians any clues??
There are no serial numbers on pre-ban mags, or any other way of identifying them. Does that give you Kalifornians any clues??
Mauserguy
Member
No! You can only possess normal capacity magazines if you owned them before the ban, I believe four years ago. You cannot sell them in the state, and you cannot buy any, online or at a dealer. Don't even think about buying one.
Mauserguy
Mauserguy
Fiero
Member
Whm,
Yes, you can. The ban on .50 BMG is extremely specific. In fact, I don't know why they were so darn specific.
If someone were to design and produce a "similar cartridge", and chamber a weapon to fire it, it would completely obviate the new law.
However, I have noticed that .50 BMG is quite an expensive round to shoot, and that is with a rather uniform acceptance going for it. I could not even imagine the cost to shoot a wildcat variation.
But who knows? Build it, and maybe they will come.
I think any cartridge that may be built for this purpose should be called:
"Fifty caliber Barrett BMF"
It would be awesome if the RKBA crowd could get behind a wildcat cartridge to stuff down the throats of the anti's.
Yes, you can. The ban on .50 BMG is extremely specific. In fact, I don't know why they were so darn specific.
If someone were to design and produce a "similar cartridge", and chamber a weapon to fire it, it would completely obviate the new law.
However, I have noticed that .50 BMG is quite an expensive round to shoot, and that is with a rather uniform acceptance going for it. I could not even imagine the cost to shoot a wildcat variation.
But who knows? Build it, and maybe they will come.
I think any cartridge that may be built for this purpose should be called:
"Fifty caliber Barrett BMF"
It would be awesome if the RKBA crowd could get behind a wildcat cartridge to stuff down the throats of the anti's.
- Status