CA law and loading .40 mags with 9's

[bountyhunter]

Gentlemen: let's remember that the difference in diameter between 9mm and .40 (which is 10mm) is basically 10%. So, a 10-round .40 mag will hold 11 rounds of 9mm. The Gestapo are not going to storm your house because of that one extra round.

If you have high cap mags here in kali, the only way you are going to get fried is if they have "LE ONLY" stamped on them because that proves they are made after the ban. If they are pre-bans and in your posession, you don't have to prove how you got them (they have to prove that you got them illegally). One way might be is if they are for a gun you bought after the Kali law went into effect. Pretty hard to claim you bought the mags before the ban hoping to buy the gun later, but it's possible.

I have not heard of anybody out here getting hasseled for using high caps, even the ones that hang six inches out the bottom of the frame. I suspect the only time it might even be an issue is if a person was arrested for a crime and found to posess them because the DA would want to stack up all the charges he could so he could force the plea bargain up a couple of notches. So far, not a word about the "magazine police".

 

[bountyhunter]

But the CA Laws are different. They are well written in that they address an act, not the device. They say that if you use a post law magazine that holds more than 10 rounds it's a No-No.

That's a non-issue. The only way the can prove it's a "post law" magazine is if it has "LE ONLY" stamped on it, which would be illegal to posess here in kali under any circumstances because it would have been made and imported after the kali ban went into effect (the "LE ONLY" stamp proves the date after which it was made). Prior to the practice of stamping them with that, it is impossible to know what date the mag was manufactured. So if it doesn't have the stamp, they can't prove it's "post law" and you can load it any way you want. You can claim it was in your posession prior to the law and they can not prove otherwise.

 

[HankB]

I luckily was smart enough to bag a few G17 standard-caps in various capacity, because I knew I would own a G17 one day.

Funny about this - I'm not from Kali, but I bought a number of G17 mags at a GSSF shoot because I knew the AWB was going into effect and thought I might want to own a Glock someday. (If nothing else, I could always sell the mags later on.) As things turned out, I DID buy a Glock . . . so I finally had a gun to fit the mags I already had.

Pretty hard to claim you bought the mags before the ban . . .

But that's EXACTLY what I did. And it's my understanding a LOT of people in Kali have done the same. As long as the mags don't have an "LE ONLY" marking or a post-ban date stamped on them - or they nab you at a border checkpoint as you enter from Nevada - no problem.

 

[bountyhunter]

As long as the mags don't have an "LE ONLY" marking or a post-ban date stamped on them - or they nab you at a border checkpoint as you enter from Nevada - no problem.

That's true. They have no way to know when you got your pre-bans if they are not stamped "LEO Only". It's also why I have not heard of a single case of anyone having a problem (so far) with pre-ban mags. I don't recommend smuggling them in, but a lot of people have and nobody has gotten prosecuted because (as you said) unless they catch them at the border in posession of them, there is no way to prove when you got them.

 

[Grump]

call your local police station. I do it whenever I have a question about anything that might be illegal, borrowing guns, shooting paintball guns in the backyard, what knives are a no-no, etc. I've found that they are very helpful for these types of questions

Well, our poster who mentioned talking with CA DOJ is closer to being on track. In criminal prosecutions, the excuse that "a cop told me it was okay" does not wash because the cop is neither a lawyer, nor is the cop the gov't lackey charged with prosecuting the offense. If you get it in writing, from the DA/state AG/city attorney, etc, you then have a DEFENSE. Note that defense starts after prosection begins (although good defenses *can* stop prosecution dead in its tracks before you've spend a butt-load of $$!).

Some of us do ***NOT*** take much comfort in the good hearts of LE and AG/DA types who decline to enforce a law as written. If it's written that way, you will be in danger just as soon as some do-gooder decides that it's better to lock up a good guy on a "possessed the wrong bewitched evil device" offense, than it is to track down and incarcerate the proven violent offenders.

Some of us believe that many of these laws, even if arguably allowed to the states under their broad "police powers" within the old "reasonable regulations" doctrines of federalism, would still flunk Constitutional challenge under either/both state and federal Constitutions. And that's without even going into the Second Amendment.

Advise: "Mind if I look at your gun?"
Yes. It's mine.
Do you have anything to hide?
No. Do you have probable cause?
[regardless of what the LE says, reply with:]
Am I being detained?
[If the answer is anything other than an unequivocal YES, then:]
Good-bye.

Keep a pocket tape recorder at every range shoot so you have good evidence, superior to any after-the-fact officer "testi-lying". Do this without regard to whether you have .40 mags and 9mm guns. We are to be FREE from unreasonable search and seizure. Period. Without some individualized, particularized suspicion, they cannot search or detain you (except for brief investigational stuff related to known crimes or DUI/manhunt roadblocks) without your permission. Don't give permission, I don't care if you have nothing to hide.

BTW, Hellspawn, you've just published some interesting evidence on the Internet. You may wish to edit. Moderators--please let him if the time limit has expired.

 

[bountyhunter]

To that I would add, never answer any question posed by an LE if you are being detained. Further, after they read you your rights they are required by law to ask:

"Do you understand these rights?"

Your answer is a loud: "NOOOO!"

And then if they ask what don't you understand, you say:

"I don't understand any of this and I'm not a lawyer."

That will insure that they will not attempt to question you further and will not be able to take any statements from you into evidence.

 

[Hellspawn]

thanks for the great advice guys!

(posts have been edited )