Because of this, hicap mag prosecutions are difficult except for folks talking themselves into jail (which many do). Burden of proof of illegal acquisition is on prosecution and unless there's a paper trail (receipts or VISA/MC activity,
witness testimony, direct tracing/association of hicap mag with an order of separated parts shipped into CA, or followed home by state agents from an outta-state gunshow), there's huge amount of reasonable doubt a crime occurred.
That is correct billwiese, and on that note I will point out one more thing.
Even if the magazine parts were made or ordered after that date and it can be proven in court that still does not prove they are illegal magazines.
A person can legaly repair magazines possessed before 2000 with modern magazine parts.
If over time that means virtualy every component of the magazine was replaced with modern parts
it would still be a legal pre 2000 magazine even without any pre 2000 parts.
So even if they can show that specific parts or even all the parts of a magazine were made after 2000 it would not mean the magazine is illegaly possessed.
However as you state if it is for a gun or model of gun made after 2000 and does not work with a gun made before that then it clearly is a modern magazine. There is not much reasonable doubt you had a magazine for a gun that did not yet exist.
That means they essentialy rely on self incrimination to prove thier case. If the person says they did something illegal then they can be convicted.
Difficulty in prosecuting the case is not the law though.
The law states it is illegal to bring a magazine not in CA before 2000 even if they would have a difficult time prosecuting the case.
Further that can only apply for so many people. Years have passed and in CA someone can only own a handgun if they are 18+ and it is gifted to them by parent or grandparent(or purchase one if they are 21+.) Since 2003 they need a HSC to legaly purchase or have a handgun transfered to them. All handguns have automaticly been registered or required registration in the state during transfer since prior to 2000. Records of all will exist.
That means essentialy anyone who was not at least 18 by 2000 could have quite a difficult time proving they held a magazine for a gun they could not legaly own yet.
Sure they could have gone out and purchased multiple magazines for guns they could not own for years to come in anticipation of the law.
I imagine that would be an uphill legal battle though.
January 1, of 2000 was 9 years ago. 18+9=27. Essentialy nobody under the age of 27 should have any "high capacity" magazines unless they owned magazines before they could legaly own a gun, and that is if they were gifted a handgun at 18 or purchased a longarm. Since they could not purchase a handgun until 21 21+9=30, so nobody who purchased thier own first handgun, who is under the age of 30 should have high capacity magazines for a handgun.
Since a person cannot legaly transfer those magazines (unlike a place such as New York where they have pre ban and post ban magazines still similar to the federal AWB) someone who did not have them by 2000 could not obtain them later.
Technicaly guns owned prior to adulthood would be the property of the parent, and if the parents owned the magazines too they could not have legaly been transfered to the child after 2000. So the child would have had to have legal ownership of magazines for guns they could not legaly own.
Additionaly all handgun transfers have been registered automaticly in the state (or required a parent to send in the form to register them for family transfers) since prior to the enactment of the law.
That means they have a database of what CA residents legaly owned what handguns since before 2000.
So what you say is correct, but as time goes on the age group that should have legal high capacity magazines gets higher and higher. Now it is possible anyone from 1-17 had magazines for firearms they could not legaly own. It is possible a parent purchased thier 1 year old firearm magazines to preserve thier liberty to own them when they grew up. Not likely but possible. There would also be records of what handguns thier parents legaly owned when they were children as well (if purchased after automatic registration or DROS was used.)
It is also possible any child could have legaly purchased magazines as well for guns they could not legaly own as thier was no age requirement for purchase or ownership of magazines. So technicaly anyone who was born prior to 2000 could make an argument of legal ownership. Which means anyone currently 9-27 or 9-30 for handguns could legaly have had large capacity magazines.
It is just less likely. It is even less likely someone from another state who was a minor when the law was enacted traveled to CA prior to enactment, legaly purchased or owned CA magazines for guns they could not legaly own, and is now returning to the state with magazines they purchased in CA as a child for guns they could not legaly own.
So it is 99% likely anyone who was not a CA resident prior to 2000 and was under 18 (or under 21 without a family transfer exemption for handguns) is illegaly in possession of those magazines. So if someone is under the age of 27, or 30 for handguns and is a foriegn resident reasonable doubt is practicly removed. If they were never in CA before 2000 then it is certainly impossible.
All those minors traveling around the country and specificly to CA, purchasing magazines for guns they could not legaly own in the 90's.
