Selling Hi-Cap Handgun Magazines to LEO in CA - Rules?

[D-Man]

I'm selling some hi-cap (13 round) handgun magazines, and a buyer in CA expressed interest. He stated he is a LEO and could provide documentation verifying this which would make the sale legal.

Has anybody made sales like this? What specific documentation should I ask for (i.e. just a copy of his ID, or is there something else)?

While I'd prefer to just sell them to a person in a non-ban state, I hate to cancel the deal if there are official steps to take that makes this a legal transaction.

 

[BlacklabelOP]

sounds like a bad idea..

 

[Rockwell1]

I'd say the Ronny Barrett ( SP?) rule applies.

 

[vulturez]

I would NOT do it.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23indx.php

October 31, 2000 Update

The public comment period for the revised proposed regulations has ended. All comments received by the department have been summarized and responded to in a document titled "Final Statement of Reasons." On October 27, 2000, this document, along with the final regulations, was submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review. The OAL review period takes up to 30 working days.

The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act has been augmented by SB 23 to define assault weapons by their functionality and characteristics, rather than by make and model alone.

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).

Enforcement relative to the illegal possession of SB 23 assault weapons went into effect January 1, 2001, following the one-year registration period.

Persons who lawfully possessed assault weapons as defined by SB 23 prior to January 1, 2000 were required to either 1) register them with the Department of Justice between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000, 2) render them permanently inoperable, 3) remove them from California, 4) relinquish them to a police or sheriff's department, or 5) prior to December 31, 2000, sell them to a California licensed firearms dealer who possesses a valid assault weapon dealer permit. The Bureau of Firearms has made available a list of the SB 23 characteristics that define assault weapons. You may also visit the California Legislature website at www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html for a full text version of SB 23, or telephone the Legislative Bill Room at (916) 445-2323 to request a copy of the bill. After reviewing the law, if you are still uncertain as to whether your firearm is an assault weapon under Penal Code section 12276.1 (SB 23), you should seek advice from either a firearms expert or an attorney.

 

[rbernie]

As far as I understand it, the CA ban on the sale of hi-cap magazines post 1999 does not apply to LEOs per CA Code Section 12020(b)(30). I would expect that he offer up his credentials on departmental letterhead to prove his LEO status.

Having said that - I would also likely take the Ronnie Barrett approach (not selling any items to law enforcement in CA that is not also available to non-LEOs).

 

[freakshow10mm]

Yes, police officers and prison guards are exempt from the hi cap laws. They will give you a photocopy of their department ID card. That is all I ask for. I've sold hundreds of magazines to CA LE. Get the ID, then ship them out. Much ado about nothing.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Having said that - I would also likely take the Ronnie Barrett approach (not selling any items to law enforcement in CA that is not also available to non-LEOs).

What positive effect does that have? That's been how many years since his grandstanding and how many laws have changed?

 

[rbernie]

The free market economy is great - we each get to pick and choose our own business models. In my case, my approach is to conduct business within the context of my value structure. I am willing to lose a certain amount of income in exchange for taking pains to live within the values that I hold.

It does not perturb me that others make different choices. But that is my choice.

<shrug>

It's less about forcing change and more about not being willing to abandon the hope of change. I would rather count myself among those who try than those who do not. And I believe that not supporting a tiered rights structure is an important statement to make.

 

[Rockwell1]

What positive effect does that have? That's been how many years since his grandstanding and how many laws have changed?

Maybe if more people followed his example instead of their pocket book ( not mentioning any names here ) there would be a positive impact.

But I've noticed that people who don't stand on principle tend to ridicule those who do.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I'm with Ronnie Barrett. Would that more followed his example. I don't sell firearms as a business, but if I did, I wouldn't sell to ANY governmental organizations or individuals in anti-gun states or localities.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Rockwell1: "But I've noticed that people who don't stand on principle tend to ridicule those who do."

Of course they do -- our integrity rips open their insecurities. They then have to believe we are somehow "phony" or "hypocritical" or "irrational" or "uninformed shoppers," just as they must believe successful businessmen are "thieves" and professionals are "quacks". They cannot or will not be what we are, and so they must tear us down in their own minds so as not to reveal themselves to themselves as our inferiors. That's alright; objective reality remains unaffected by their mental gymnastics. A = A.

 

[Rockwell1]

we are somehow "phony" or "hypocritical" or "irrational" or "uninformed shoppers,"

You left out "grandstanding"

 

[freakshow10mm]

I don't sell firearms as a business, but if I did, I wouldn't sell to ANY governmental organizations or individuals in anti-gun states or localities.

Then you couldn't sell firearms to anyone as all states are anti gun.

 

[Rockwell1]

Then you couldn't sell firearms to anyone as all states are anti gun

He meant individual members of Government, IOW he'd be "grandstanding" like Ronnie.

It's a principle thang

 

[Duke of Doubt]

freakshow: "Then you couldn't sell firearms to anyone as all states are anti gun."

Not at all. Maine is very pro-gun. As we have practically no gun laws at all and our government actually encourages private firearms ownership and use as a matter of official State policy, it's hard to get more pro-gun than that.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Can you open carry?

Are there places where the carrying of firearms is not allowed?

Can you own NFA weapons?

Is there a permit required to carry a firearm?

Hmm, seems like those are all anti gun laws infringing on your right to keep and bear arms freely.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

freakshow: "Can you open carry?"

Yes.

"Are there places where the carrying of firearms is not allowed?"

Yes. My apartment, for one. Except by me.

"Can you own NFA weapons?"

Yes.

"Is there a permit required to carry a firearm?"

Not for open carry. For concealed carry, yes, but it's shall-issue and can be obtained even by people having a criminal history.

 

[NavyLCDR]

"Are there places where the carrying of firearms is not allowed?"

Yes. My apartment, for one. Except by me.

I won't be visiting.

 

[ArmedBear]

To hell with him.

He can buy the stuff with the help of his department from local gun stores. He'll pay whatever they want to charge.

I don't think that LEOs in California should have any guns, weapons, equipment, or anything else not allowed to the peasants. Those who think the guns allowed to regular people are insufficient for their defense as cops are welcome to resign from their well-paid jobs.

Anyone who sells banned items to LEOs is a part of the problem.

I say this as an ex-Californian who still owns property there, not a blowhard from another state.

 

[D-Man]

I had no idea there were so many moral issues wrapped up in this.

It sounds like legally it can be done, though I'd want to make sure everything is properly covered on my end with documentation.

 

[ArmedBear]

I had no idea there were so many moral issues wrapped up in this.

Would you sell a gun to a guy who was going to rob a bank with it?

If not, why would you sell weapons or parts to a government agent, to use against citizens who aren't allowed those same weapons or parts?

The whole reason for the many LEO exemptions to California's gun laws -- and they can buy for their own private use, not just for on-duty use -- is to prevent law enforcement opposition to these laws. Most people, even cops and especially California cops, don't care about anyone else's rights if THEY keep their rights.

By selling these items to LEOs in California, you are helping to preserve support for laws that significantly restrict citizens' right to self-defense with firearms, plain and simple, so you can make a few bucks.

If that doesn't bother you at all, go for it.

 

[MisterMike]

If not, why would you sell weapons or parts to a government agent, to use against citizens who aren't allowed those same weapons or parts?

I'll respectfully disagree, since I'm in a similar position--a retired LEO who carries legally in a "no-carry" jurisdiction. I think it's a significant--and illogical--leap to think that every LEO in a state that doesn't meet your criteria of being sufficiently gun-friendly is an enemy of the people. Really, the vast majority of cops are not what you imagine them to be.

To the OP: the logical thing to do is to request a certified photocopy of the guy's credentials. He can get this from any notary public. If it will make you feel better, you could also ask for a letter from his Chief of Police, but that strikes me as overkill.

 

[rbernie]

This has nothing to do with the LEO's character and everything to do with basic human rights. The CA law sets up a tiered rights structure.

Some folk - the majority - get a basic set of rights that does NOT include hi-cap magazines..

Other folk - a subset, belonging to the LEO community - get an expanded set of rights that includes hi-cap magazines. These magazines do not have to be used in performance of the LEO's duties; the LEO exemption is simply used to establish a higher caste.

How does that fall within the traditional value structure of America? Why would I want to encourage that worldview?

 

[Zoogster]

The magazine capacity ban is not part of the assault weapon restrictions.
LEO must follow the assault weapon restrictions as well, only the department is immune to them not individual LEOs.
They however do not have to adhere to magazine restrictions.

There is no officialy required process.

The whole reason for the many LEO exemptions to California's gun laws -- and they can buy for their own private use, not just for on-duty use -- is to prevent law enforcement opposition to these laws. Most people, even cops and especially California cops, don't care about anyone else's rights if THEY keep their rights.

This is absolutely correct and I have actualy seen it numerous times.

I would not contribute to officers in anti gun states. The official stance of many of the largest CA police departments is very anti gun, anti assault weapon, and very "no honest regular citizen needs more than X rounds".
They try to restrict calibers, hold gun buy backs, and in general actively fight against CA firearm rights.

When individual officers find themselves unable to enjoy the rights of a free citizen it causes them pause.
Having known many LEO who shoot I have actualy heard them complaining about having to adhere to the assault weapon ban. It annoys them! Off-duty LEO in other states get cool toys like fully functional ARs etc, and they feel left out.
They are immune to so many of the ridiculous CA laws, but really take notice when they actualy effect them.

While the individual officers are a mixed bag, and the officers themselves are not as anti as the politicians that run the departments and declare thier official stances, it still encourages the individuals to stand up for rights.
It encourages individual officers to speak out.
When laws against regular peasants effect what they are able to do, they are against future things that would reduce their own freedoms.

If all officers found themselves with hostile reception in other states due to thier department's official positions and support of gun control they would be less likely to stay on the sidelines.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Force those good officers to associate and stand up for freedom. Freedom they are less willing to lose themselves.

If more people acted like Ronnie Barrett you would see significant LEO backlash against most gun control. It is easier to ignore what is happening when it effects everyone except you.

I seriously doubt microstamping would have passed if it did not exempt LEO.
The entire CA roster of certified handguns would not exist if it didn't exempt LEO.
Imagine that, LEO are exempt from a law that officialy is for "safety", "drop safety" tests, etc.
We all know the roster came along to restrict really affordable guns. But if the official reasons were the real reasons, LEO would have been one of the most important groups to include. After all they are running around in public wearing guns everyday, violently wrestling with suspects, falling to the ground on top of thier guns etc Shouldn't they be subject to "drop safety"?

They couldn't pass gun control under fake "safety" laws so easily if credible LEO voices spoke out because they didn't want to lose thier own rights.

 

[30mag]

Interesting.