The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 22, 2013, 12:16 AM   #1
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 1,833
? about what Defines "PERMANENT" magazine mod

Hey all I live in CA and there is a 10 round mag limit here . It has been in effect for quite some time . (before the original AWB). If you owned mags that hold more then 10rds before the ban you could keep them and repair them if needed . The fact you can repair your old mags means you can buy high cap mags as long as they are never assembled as a 30rd mag . These are called repair kits and you use the parts from them to fix and or repair your old mags .

Some people buy these repair kits and put some type of stop block in them so they will only except 10 rounds . If you do a mod like this it's my understanding it must be permanent . I here a lot of gun guys say many different things about this issue .

I see things like

if you stick a block of some kind into the mag so it will only except 10rds it becomes a 10/30 rnd mag, if you disassemble the mag to remove the block it still just a legal mag rebuild kit, as long as you DO NOT assemble the mag to hold 30rds it is legal

or

your actually just taking parts and assembling a 10 round magazine with them since it wasn't a large capacity magazine to start with the permanence letter of the law doesn't logically apply .

Is there not a legal term for having the ability to build or construct something that is illegal to own ? Like owning all the parts to convert a semi auto to full auto . I would think thats why the word permanent is in the wording of the law so you are unable to convert the mag back to a 30rd mag . EDIT : constructive possession is the term

Is there any case law that shows somebody winning a case when he had no real permanence built in to his mods or is this just guys believing what they want to here

Last edited by Metal god; April 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 01:42 AM   #2
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 130
See point 7 in the magazines sticky at Calguns
Quote:
Yes, you can take one of those kits and create a 10-round magazine from the parts and some method of blocking the capacity; one example here. The modification is supposed to be 'permanent', but there is no guidance on what that means in law, regulation, or court cases. Use your best judgement.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 01:46 AM   #3
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
I would be afraid of the LEOs putting the word "intent to create" in their police report.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 01:57 AM   #4
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
there is no guidance on what that means in law, regulation, or court cases.
Im not saying it's not true but I find it hard to believe there has not been one court case invoving this issue in CA . The high cap mag restiction has been on the books for going on 13 years and not once has anybody been found to be using a high cap mag ?

Libraian Thanks for the link . I've been following a thread on that forum about this issue and wanted to get the legal mines over here to give it some thought . EDIT : I have found the guys at TFL to be very good at finding case law that pertains to a particular issue .
__________________
If you have a problem with everybody .

It's not everybody that has the problem

Last edited by Metal god; April 22, 2013 at 03:06 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 08:23 AM   #5
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,831
Quote:
Im not saying it's not true but I find it hard to believe there has not been one court case invoving this issue in CA . The high cap mag restiction has been on the books for going on 13 years and not once has anybody been found to be using a high cap mag ?
I can believe it because it seems to me that posession on an illegal "high capacity" magazine would be a very difficult crime to convict. Afterall, many guns that can use a "high capacity" magazine have been around for decades and magazines usually aren't marked with dates, serial numbers, or anything else that would identify when they were produced, so how could one prove that a magazine was not a legally grandfathered "pre ban" example?
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 12:07 PM   #6
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
Quote:
I can believe it because it seems to me that posession on an illegal "high capacity" magazine would be a very difficult crime to convict.
I would imagine so -- possession is not a crime in CA. If you had your standard capacity magazines before 2000, you are allowed to keep them (for now; there's a bill in the legislature to eliminate this).
speedrrracer is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 12:15 PM   #7
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
If you had your standard capacity magazines before 2000, you are allowed to keep them
I believe you would have to have had them before the federal AWB of 94 because the two over lapped . I do have some I bought pre 94 . I bought them before I even had a weapon to use them in knowing the ban would go in to effect .
Metal god is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 02:49 PM   #8
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 130
Quote:
speedrrracer: I would imagine so -- possession is not a crime in CA. If you had your standard capacity magazines before 2000, you are allowed to keep them (for now; there's a bill in the legislature to eliminate this).
Quote:
Metal god: I believe you would have to have had them before the federal AWB of 94 because the two over lapped . I do have some I bought pre 94 . I bought them before I even had a weapon to use them in knowing the ban would go in to effect .
No, CA doesn't care about the former Federal law; since the 'large capacity magazine' law went into effect in 2000, and that law did not ban possession, pre-2000 possession is the criterion.

As to court cases on magazines, if we exclude the occasional fool who imports a carload from a Nevada gun show and gets arrested after crossing back into CA, it's very hard to get a case when possession is not illegal and the burden of proof of illegal sale, importation or manufacture is on the prosecution.

Quote:
Webleymkv: Afterall, many guns that can use a "high capacity" magazine have been around for decades and magazines usually aren't marked with dates, serial numbers, or anything else that would identify when they were produced, so how could one prove that a magazine was not a legally grandfathered "pre ban" example?
Even that is not dispositive. It is legal to repair damaged magazines. If one has a Vietnam-era 30-round AR mag one has owned since the 70's, and the body rusts out, you can purchase a 2013-manufacture parts kit, marked with that date, and repair that mag.

The 'large-capacity magazine' law is another artifact of politicians wanting to 'do something' without understanding anything at all about guns. Please do not try to understand any California gun law (probably any gun law, but I'm not certain about other states) as anything but a means to improve the odds of re-election for those who may vote for them.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.

Last edited by Librarian; April 22, 2013 at 11:11 PM.
Librarian is offline  
Old April 25, 2013, 10:30 AM   #9
CurlyQ.Howard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2012
Posts: 280
So if I move to CA now with a pistol and Magazines with more than a 10 round capacity, can I keep them? Thanks ahead of time.
CurlyQ.Howard is offline  
Old April 25, 2013, 10:44 AM   #10
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,336
That depends, where are you moving from, and will you retain some form of storage area there?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 25, 2013, 02:13 PM   #11
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 130
Quote:
So if I move to CA now with a pistol and Magazines with more than a 10 round capacity, can I keep them? Thanks ahead of time.
You may not legally bring them into CA as complete magazines.

You may, under current law, take those mags apart and bring them in as 'parts kits', but may not legally re-assemble them inside CA. Again, under current law, you may also take those parts kits and block their capacity to 10 or fewer rounds; at that point you may assemble them in their new limited capacity and legally use them.

See also the Calguns Foundation Wiki article -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Mo..._with_firearms
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09544 seconds with 9 queries