California mag cap question

[Warren]

My local gunshop was giving me bad info today. First they insisted that single-action revolvers had to be drop tested, I stood my ground and finally after some time spent on the computer they admitted they were wrong, secondly they said that I cannot buy a Taurus Thunderbolt because it has a 14 round tube mag thus it exceeded the mag cap law. They got busy in the shop right then and I went into the range to shoot. Then I totally spaced on the issue and forgot to ask them to track down the proof for their assertion.

So I came home and did some interset searching and I found this here law that exempts lever-action rifles from the mag cap ban. But I cannot find anything about pump-action rifles. Are they legally the same in California?



Magazine Capacity: The term “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.” §12020(c)(25)


And yes, I should move to a free state yada yada yada, but I want the guns now. I don't want to wait until I move, if I move.


Thank you,


Warren

 

[puffiewon]

guns in CA

All handguns imported into CA for sale have to be drop tested, that is how I understand it. As far as tubular magazines, those are not detatchable magazines and the rounds are loaded under the barrel into a tube. Anything above 10 round magazines are illegal in CA as far as new ones are concerned, if you have a pre-ban or bring one in from out of state, it is legal. If you are worring about capacity legal issues, get a revolver, they are the same everywhere. I'm not worried about being able to carry 15 rounds in my pistol, one or two well placed shots will do what I need it for.

 

[roscoe]

More to the point - I would bet that since, at the time the law was passed, there were relatively few (if any) pump rifles being manufactured, they just forgot to make a reference ot them in the law. They may, therefore, be illegal. Unfortunately.

 

[Warren]

Certain, that is most, SA revolvers ARE exempt.


link to main page for the law

12133.(a) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to a single-action revolver that has at least a 5-cartridge capacity with a barrel length of not less than three inches, and meets any of the following specifications:
(1) Was originally manufactured prior to 1900 and is a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(2) Has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at least 7 1/2 inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are assembled.
(3) Has an overall length measured parallel to the barrel of at least 7 1/2 inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are assembled and that is currently approved for importation into the United States pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (3) of subsection (d) of Section 925 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(b) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to a single-shot pistol with a barrel length of not less than six inches and that has an overall length of at least 10 1/2 inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are assembled.

 

[Warren]

Roscoe....

Sort of a "That which is not mandatory is forbidden" type of situation?

 

[SaxonPig]

SA revolvers are exempt from the CA drop test because they know they will fail. This illustrates that this law has nothing to do with safety since the class of guns that can't possibly pass this "safety" test are simply exempted from it. If the law was really meant to prohibit selling unsafe guns all SA revolvers would be banned in CA. It's really about restricting gun sales, harassing gun owners and gouging money from gun makers and gun owners.

I am so glad that I left the PRK 14 years ago. I make less money, the weather is worse, but I can buy, sell, own and carry any damn gun I want without intrustion from the state.

 

[Zen21Tao]

I would call Taurus to see if they offer gunsmithing services. Explain to them that you want a Thunderbolt but live in Kali and see if they could permantly plug the magazine at 10 rounds for you. If they can't shop around for other out of state gunsmiths. Then buy the gun from an out of state dealer and have it sent to whoever you find that will plug the mag for you and then have it shippend to a local gunstore/FFL to do the transfer for you.

This may be a long road to get what you want but look on the bright side. When you get the gun it will be a firearm that very few (if any) other kali residents have.

 

[KC&97TA]

You want a Lever Action Rifle that will hold 14 rounds... Oh my Goodness what would you ever do with such a "Dangerous Weapon" ... Oh that's definetly a "Criminal Activity Type of Weapon".

I think I read somewere that Lever Actions are exempt from the 10 round rule too, but I can't seem to find it for you.

Remmington is makeing a Police Riot Pump Action Rifle, they're comeing to the state of Commy-fornia with 10 round detachable mags, but they take 30 round USGI M16/AR mags and they're pretty quick too, seen some guys cycle that pump quicker than I thought ever imaginable

 

[SigLaw]

Isn't the Thunderbolt a .22, that being the case it is exempt.

"but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device."

 

[doofus]

...if you have a pre-ban or bring one in from out of state, it is legal.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Per SB23 (emphasis mine):
"Effective January 1, 2000, SB 23 generally prohibits, the manufacture, import, sale, giving or lending of large capacity magazines (defined as any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but does not include .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding devices)."

So basically:
1. If you don't have hi-cap mags now (even pre-ban), there's no way you can legally get them.
2. If you have hi-cap mags now, you're stuck with them unless you sell them out-of-state.

 

[Warren]

To make sure of the point I am making....

Lever action tube mags are exempt per §12020(c)(25) from the mag cap ban, pump-action tube mags are not mentioned. And it is a pump-action that I want.

I have called Taurus and there is not a lot of info to be had from them.

At the moment it does not matter as Taurus does not have the model I want availiable.

Why do up a very nice catalog with pretty pictures of fine looking weapons when you don't have any to sell? :banghead:

 

[Warren]

Just got off the phone with a nice person at the Ca DOJ Firearms Div who said that legally the lever-action and pump-action rifles are the same.

The law only applies to box mags of more than 10 rounds, so I'm good to go. So now I just have to wait on Taurus.

Ironically by the time they make the model I want I MAY have moved.

 

[Car Knocker]

A verbal opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[roscoe]

Yeah - get that in writing!!!

 

[Warren]

In this state it would not matter if it was chisled into stone tablets with said tablets given their own TV channel so they can be viewed 24/7 by the public.

But Bill Lockjaw will still claim something different if he saw a need (further his political career) to do so.

Now to apply some thinking that I should have done prior to starting this thread.

If they, the legislators, were worried about tube mag capacity they would ban Aquillia Mini-shells for shotguns. You can get way more than ten in a tube mag with those.

 

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Warren,
I am not a lawyer, yadda yadda yadda... BUT!

The law restricting magazine capacity DOES NOT apply to fixed mag long guns that are NON-semi automatic. When I was still in the biz I used to tell customers that if they wanted a folding stock lever/pump action with a bayonet lug and a fore grip, they could have one; and they'd have the most high speed lo-drag, uber tactical deer gun they ever saw, and it would all be legal.

were worried about tube mag capacity they would ban Aquillia Mini-shells for shotguns

Same thing here; pump guns are exempt.
Crazy go nuts I know.

 

[Zen21Tao]

The law restricting magazine capacity DOES NOT apply to fixed mag long guns that are NON-semi automatic.

Yes it does. Read the state regulation Warren provided.

Magazine Capacity: The term “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.” §12020(c)(25)

Notice that the exception for the tubular magazine of a lever action rifle is specifically spelled out.

The legal argument would be that the very fact that such an exception is presented shows that the scope of "magazine capacity" includes all firearms not just semi-autos and/or detachable magazines. If the scope of "magazine capacity" was limited to semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines then such specific exceptions for a lever action's tube or .22 caliber's tube would not be needed.

The argument continues by saying that since an exception has to be spelled out in the text of the bill and such an exception isn't present for pump action rifles it can't be assumed that such a exception exists.

I agree that the reason pump action tubes aren't listed as excempt from the mag cap ban is that there weren't any high capacity ones at the time the law was written. However, itr would take legislative changes to the bill or a, activist judge contending that the "spirit" of the exemption for level actions is extendable to "pump actions" for pump actions to be legally recognized as excluded.

(I have to say that I believe that it is legislaters that should make law not judges. To be intellectually honest I have to disagree with activism from judges even when it results in the creation of a law or right that I agree with.)

 

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Ok, so technically incorrect, and I stand here technically corrected.