CA Hi-Cap Magazine law

[RobertFBurnett]

Hello all,

I am born and raised here in So-Cal, but I was wondering if any of you could give me some background on the CA Hi-cap magazine law (10 round limit)? It seems like it goes back as far as I've been a gun owner, was just wondering what law and/or string of particulars put it in place with Never a discussion of it "expiring" like some of the federal laws do.

Thank you,
RFB

 

[Warren]

It is Section 12020 (c) (25) of the CPC.

It went into effect Jan 1, 2000.

The idea was, as for gun control in general, if we restrict the equipment evil doers will not be as successful in their plans.

It was passed along with the anti assault rifle codes.

The genesis of the laws is said to be Patrick Purdy's killing of 5 elementary school children on Jan 17, 1989.

 

[Quiet]

The CA large capacity magazine ban & assault weapon ban will never expire and will only go away if the CA legislature passes new laws repealing them.

FYI. Gun control laws in CA don't go away, they just get worse.


PC 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.
(c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

 

[W.E.G.]

...Gun control laws in CA don't go away

With all due respect to y'all sensible folks in the north, I wonder how long before CA in its current configuration goes away?

I've got family up north there too.

Maybe you heard of this place.

 

[Paradiddle]

With all due respect to y'all sensible folks in the north, I wonder how long before CA in its current configuration goes away?

Boy would the rest of the free US be in trouble without the revenue generated by Cali - 7th largest economy in the world.

You can legally own standard capacity magazines if you owned them prior to 2000 - and you can legally purchase parts to rebuild those. It does seem like everyone has pre-ban mags they tucked away for guns they thought they might purchase - and it's up to the DA to prove you got them after 2000 IF you are every taken to court for having them.

There has been some interesting discussions going on on calguns.net regarding the language of the magazine law and some people are doing creative things. Go over there and run a search.

 

[gunsmith]

I lived in SF for a long time

CA gun owners are great people and do a lot more
work then many others in better states, the antis just have to much power.

Nor cal needs to become a new state and so cal needs to become east AZ

SF bay area and LA ruin it for everyone.

you can buy tons of ten round mags, I did.

 

[tulsamal]

Boy would the rest of the free US be in trouble without the revenue generated by Cali - 7th largest economy in the world.

I don't think he meant "go away" as in "slide into the ocean in an earthquake." I think he was referring to efforts to split CA into two states. A dysfunctional one in the south and a "more normal one" in the north.

Gregg

 

[armoredman]

Which, IIRC, actually WAS the plan before the Civil War.

 

[Zoogster]

With all due respect to y'all sensible folks in the north, I wonder how long before CA in its current configuration goes away?

Unfortunately it is not that simple. The Bay Area and Sacramento, both heavily populated regions in Northern CA are also very anti gun.

Nor cal needs to become a new state and so cal needs to become east AZ

SF bay area and LA ruin it for everyone.

Actualy Nor Cal would still be anti with Sacramento Metro area, and the Bay Area.
However Arizona would become an anti gun state. The population in all of Arizona is around 3/5 the population of just Los Angeles county alone.
The US Census Bureau lists Arizona as of 2006 with a population of 6,166,318.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html
Yet LA county alone had 9,948,081.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html
Just giving Arizona Los Angeles county alone would make AZ heavily anti gun, nevermind all of Southern California.

You could divide CA several ways and be left with more anti gun states than pro gun states.
All you would succeed in doing is giving anti gun CA more senators, so CA would have more authority in the senate as well and not just congress.
CA with the highest population of any state has the most congressmen, as congressional representation is based on population.
California however only has 2 senators, the same number as Rhode Island.

Current CA senators are Feinstein and Boxer, two of the most anti gun politicians in the nation, who not only vote for, but sponsor many gun control bills, and enjoy Concealed Carry permits (for me and not you attitude).

Is it really a good idea to increase the number of senators CA has by dividing the state?

If you just split CA in half you would be even worse off.

Arguably both Boxer and Feinstein began thier life as senators out of Northern CA, and both lived in Northern CA before becoming senators. So Northern CA would keep them, and then the Los Angeles, Southern CA region could add some additional anti gun senators to the senate.
You would have double the anti gun senators from CA you already do.

 

[Zoogster]

Back to the original post, as people have said the enforcement of the hi cap ban is difficult.

However it also makes you a felon if they can, and as we have seen in other threads most people on this board believe any felon should be disarmed. So I hope nobody here is advocating a felony on the grounds they can get away with it.
By that logic you would be showing you believe you should be disarmed because you are willing to commit felonies you don't agree with. (by having illegal 10+ round magazines, which could become 5+ round magazines in the future, and could become no semi autos even later)

I think a "reasonable" jury would consider a magazine for a gun you did not possess prior to 2000 to have been obtained at a later date.

You could try your best to convince them otherwise, that you do in fact go out and buy magazines for firearms you do not have. It would be a gamble.
You could rely on them to uphold the "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not just what they think is most likely true, but most don't do that anymore either.

I certainly would not believe someone owned magazines for a type of firearm they had never possessed several years prior to obtaining that firearm. Especialy when it just conveniently allows them to evade a felony law. I could not say that beyond a reasonable doubt though, but most individuals do not make that distinction. ( I would never convict for any firearm offense that does not exist for other weapons anyways.)

You can legally own standard capacity magazines if you owned them prior to 2000 - and you can legally purchase parts to rebuild those. It does seem like everyone has pre-ban mags they tucked away for guns they thought they might purchase - and it's up to the DA to prove you got them after 2000 IF you are every taken to court for having them.

So where is this storage place you keep magazines you bought for a firearm you did not own prior to 2000? Do you have storage records? Do you have family that will vouch (lying under oath, and co-conspiring to commit the crime as a co-conspirator) they stored those legal magazines prior to the date you had a firearm that could even use them?
You are counting on jurors to follow the "beyond a reasonable doubt"(because technicaly it is possible you just went out and purchased magazines for several types for firearms you did not yet own) clause even though the facts will be more against you than for you.

Those are not good odds. I wouldn't place a bet on your corner.

 

[keeleon]

I had a question about this a while ago basically being, I have a CZ compact 9mm, and the .40 mags will fit in it because it is the same frame. The 10 round .40 mags will hold 14 rounds of 9mm. But since I don't own a .40 CZ compact, I am better off not owning any .40 mags.

And good luck on ever gettign that one repealed. I can just see the look of horror on people's faces when they start advertising

"Now ever killer in California can have the same high capacity, extra lethal, assault magazines that they have in all the other states covered in blood. Think of the children! Vote no on 9876"

 

[Paradiddle]

In fact I did purchase a few of the more common magazines just prior to 2000. Mostly military type weapons and/or handguns of which I had a small collection at that time and have since purchased more.

There are a LOT of people who did the same. We knew our rights were being taken away and a lot of us took precautions.

You are innocent until proven guilty, and like most California gun laws they are so poorly written that they don't even require you to have a RECEIPT or any other proof of purchase.

After 2000 most magazines with more then 10 rounds was marked LEO ONLY - and posession of those are sure to get you in trouble. Likewise if you travel out of state and buy hi-caps and you are caught coming into Cali you are in deep trouble.

I agree the risk is not worth the return, but there are many of us with legit pre-ban magazines.

I still have some pre-ban mags for weapons I don't, and probably won't own.

 

[keeleon]

So how does the ban work? If you owned them before 2000 then you are legally allowed to have them? What if your uncle owned them, can he give them to you? My uncle found some 30 round m16 magazines in a bunch of milsurp he had in his garage. Can you buy preban manufactured magazines? It's all so silly anyway, because people who are going to BREAK THE LAW will probably not care whether they are BREAKING THE LAW to be in possession of hicaps.

 

[TAB]

nope they can't change hands...( unless its to a LEO)

 

[Paradiddle]

So how does the ban work? If you owned them before 2000 then you are legally allowed to have them? What if your uncle owned them, can he give them to you? My uncle found some 30 round m16 magazines in a bunch of milsurp he had in his garage. Can you buy preban manufactured magazines? It's all so silly anyway, because people who are going to BREAK THE LAW will probably not care whether they are BREAKING THE LAW to be in possession of hicaps.

You can possess them but not import, manufacture, transfer, or sell them. It's actually not illegal to BUY them - but only to sell. Seriously it's insane here.

We just fight every day for the things the rest of the Free US takes for granted.

 

[keeleon]

You can possess them but not import, manufacture, transfer, or sell them.

nope they can't change hands.

So which is it? Can I get a source? Cause I would love to get ahold of those mags, but seeing as how I wasn't 18 in 2000, then it is highly unlikely I bought them before then.

 

[Librarian]

So how does the ban work? If you owned them before 2000 then you are legally allowed to have them?

Yes -- IF YOU POSSESSED THEM IN CALIFORNIA before 2000. If you owned them in 1998, but they never were here before 2000, than you can't bring them in.

What if your uncle owned them, can he give them to you? My uncle found some 30 round m16 magazines in a bunch of milsurp he had in his garage.

No - can't 'give or lend'.

Can you buy preban manufactured magazines?

If they are 10 rounds or fewer, Yes.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Its pretty simple guys, if you bought a mdl G17 in 1988 it had hi cap mags. If you bought a gun after 2000 it has 10 cap mags. The seriel # for Glocks I have are XX123 and XX456 the ones that are XXX123 are after but before 2000, it is very simple you either had it before 2000 or you did not Carry the 10 round mags and forget it, you are safe, better that way than sorry. I also believe in the 65 MPH speed limit, really one who is in the minority.

HQ

 

[billwiese]

Cautions by unknowledgeable (and usually out-of-state but not always) posters above are effectively gun control in disguise.

This thread subject's commentary really should be restricted to those here in CA who understand the actual law - and not by those getting info from the 'handed-down- thru-5-layers-of-gunshop-rumor', or who make assumptions due to other states' hicap mag laws.

For the best ongoing information in California gun politics/gun laws, I urge folks to visit http://www.calguns.net

Remember, the CA hicap mag law basically says if you got/possessed a hicap mag in CA before 1 Jan 00, it's good to go. It does not restrict possession, only further acquisition/trading. That's all it does.

CA's hicap mag law has so much slop in it - and the burden of proof is so high - that it's well-nigh unenforceable except for the limited list of self- incriminating situations like:

• acquiring hicap mags on/after 1 Jan 00, and having witnesses or receipts or credit card
  records showing importation of those exact magazines.
  
  
• directly being observed by CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms agents attending adjoining-state gun shows
  (Big Reno Show, etc.) while purchasing hicap mags - and then importing them into CA .... traffic stop
  over the CA/NV border, etc.
  
  
• possessing unique mags for guns that weren not in production/for sale before 1 Jan 2000.

[A separate law makes use of a *fixed* (non-detachable by hand) hicap mag in a semiauto centerfire rifle a no-no, as that triggers an alternate definition of a generic assault weapon. It was designed to stop SKSes with extended magazines, even fixed ones - but also has the odd (likely unintended) effect of saying you have an assault weapon if you screwed down your hicap mag in your regular, legal, non-AW M1A or Mini-14!!!]

It's entirely legal to use a pre-2000 legally-owned hicap mag in a newer gun. Decide to get a new Glock 17 or Sig 226 and have a bagful of mags purchased in 1999? Go for it. Harley Quinn's comments in the post above about serial#s/production dates are irrelevant and a non sequitur.

It's entirely legal to import/reimport hicap mags that you already owned in CA before 1/1/2000: you can take your legal hicap mags back & forth into CA on trips. I drive/fly out of/into CA with hicap mags all the time without fear.

There is ZERO expressed or inferrable residency requirement, or time-passed restriction beyond which you can't bring 'em in..... If you were an AZ resident and bought those hicap mags at a California gunshow back in 1975, you're allowed to bring them back in. If you bought hicap mags while in CA (anytime before 2000) in the past, then move out of CA, then move back into CA sometime after 2000, you can indeed bring your hicaps back with you.

Oh - since a hicap mag does not have any 'primacy of componentry' codified into law (i.e, the tube, follower, floorplate, spring are all of an equivalent nature: there's no concept of anything like a receiver vs. gun) - over time, a legally-possessed hicap mag can be 100% repaired by having all of its parts replaced. Mags are/were not serialized, registered, etc. and because of the repair allowance idiocies like 'toolmark examination' are moot.

It's entirely legal to purchase repair parts, including disassembled hicap mags, to repair existing legally-owned hicaps. We have an opinion letter from DOJ/AG's office saying this.

There's no defacto age restriction either: if you were, say, age 16 in 2000 you coulda had hicap mags you bought (as uncontrolled items) at a gunshow.

Remember the burden of proof is on the opposition. This is in no way recommending any illegal conduct w/hicap mags in CA, but merely to give confidence to those already owning them that they should feel free to use them.




Bill Wiese
San Jose CA