July 29, 2015, 03:49 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 8, 2015
Posts: 908
|
Handgun Magazine Ban?
Los Angeles city council voted unanimously to ban High Cap Mags. Saw this on Fox but it didn't elaborate on what is considered high capacity or whether it pertains to handguns, rifles, etc.
This is strange because I thought Cal already has a ban limiting mags to 10? It also said the NRA and others are threatening to sue. I'm glad I don't live in California for a number of reasons but a foot in the door, so to speak, is a threat to ALL gun owners. |
July 29, 2015, 04:00 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
July 29, 2015, 04:06 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 8,518
|
Is the existing ban on the manufacture and/or sale of hi-caps?
This new atrocity is the possession of hi-caps.
__________________
Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong. |
July 29, 2015, 04:34 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2015
Posts: 190
|
Going to be interesting to see how the law suits move forward. Hoping one will deal specifically with the fact that people in procession of these magazines which they acquired legally are now required to surrender them with out reimbursement (assumption based on the link provided). Question a governments right to do that personally.
|
July 29, 2015, 04:58 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
From the article:
"...exemption for any retired police officer who holds a valid, current permit to carry a concealed weapon." I guess that's so they don't run out of ammo shooting back at the gangstas that don't comply with the laws. "Breaking the law would be a misdemeanor." Wow, a misdemeanor on top of a murder charge. |
July 29, 2015, 05:17 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,679
|
So, someone who lives OUTSIDE the city of LA and drives into the city while carrying a mag over 10rounds now is a criminal??? UNBELIEVABLE.
I used to live about 32 miles outside LA. I had a CCW that was good anywhere in the state and used to drive into LA just about everyday. How exactly is the avg person going to know when they magically cross into LA city proper. Other then a change in the color of the street signs, its all one big sprawl |
July 29, 2015, 05:20 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2010
Posts: 3,513
|
I am going to assume they are banning pre-ban mags since they already have a 10rd mag limit in place.
|
July 29, 2015, 05:22 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,818
|
I did like this quote,
Quote:
Here, again, you see the honesty of the anti gun zealots. They ban manufacture, importation, and purchase of the demon of the hour gun/magazine etc. Tell you if you already own one you can keep it. UNTIL they decide you can't keep it any more. Special exemptions for their police...bet there will be an exemption for the movie industry, too...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
July 29, 2015, 05:33 PM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: September 22, 2014
Posts: 19
|
I just don't get what they are hoping to change... it is like they don't understand the definition of criminal means that those who are already using firearms to murder and rob are going to have no problem breaking the new laws they are passing stating that they can't have normal capacity mags when doing so...
It makes no sense whatsoever, "I am going to go rob this store and kill the owner! oh dang it is in LA though guess I can't bring my 15 round mag to this killing..." |
July 29, 2015, 06:34 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,312
|
Seems most of the comments to the story are pro-gun.
Somebody said *lots* of comments have been deleted though which might skew the perception. But wouldn't the LA Times be pulling the pro-gun comments? I mean, isn't the LA Times anti-gun? |
July 29, 2015, 06:36 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2010
Posts: 3,513
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29, 2015, 07:52 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
The rhetoric leading up to this is that the exception for previously-owned magazines is a loophole. The new strategy appears to be, "let's call anything we don't like a loophole." So, we've got the grandfathered magazine loophole, the gun show loophole, the 3-day NICS hold loophole, and so on.
Here's the original report on the Los Angeles ordinance. It declares that any "large capacity" magazine constitutes, "a public nuisance and an immediate threat to the public, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Los Angeles." Citizens will have 60 days to surrender their magazines. Presumably, they can also sell them during that window, but to whom? As for a court challenge, they don't seem worried: Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 29, 2015, 08:07 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Posts: 3,287
|
Well . . . look at it this way . . . when all the criminals come in to turn in their high capacity magazines . . LE can be waiting there to execute their arrest warrants on them. :roll eyes:
And . . . if someone or some entity DOES file suit against the city . . . they (the city) can use YOUR tax dollar to defend their silly ruling to take YOUR magazines away. I sometimes wonder if these people are born stupid or do they have to study hard to get a degree in it? Obviously they were behind the barn door when common sense was handed out. Unfortunately . . it isn't limited to just California . . . . some folks wonder where the "village idiot" disappeared to . . . but there are plenty of "havens" for them out there . . .
__________________
If a pair of '51 Navies were good enough for Billy Hickok, then a single Navy on my right hip is good enough for me . . . besides . . . I'm probably only half as good as he was anyways. Hiram's Rangers Badge #63 |
July 29, 2015, 08:22 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
With the exception of the carve-out for current and retired (retired too?!? Why are they so special?) police officers, this ordinance is modeled after an ordinance in San Francisco that bans possession of all 10+ mags, hand gun and rifle alike. Such magazines acquired prior to 1991 are legal to possess under state law, however they may not be transferred within the state (i.e., can only be sold ut of state). The southern counties have been treating them as nuisances (particularly AR and AK mags) for some time and confiscating them. No compensation is owed to an owner of what is now "contraband."
Of course, there is no way that the police knows who has such mags, unless discovered during the course of some other investigation (search/raid) or if you get caught using them while within county limits, so there will be no sweeps, and it is still legal to possess them outside of city limits. However, as noted, some local communities outside city limits and the LASO may treat them as nuisances and confiscate them. |
July 30, 2015, 12:35 AM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,818
|
Quote:
More than one person was arrested for possession of an illegal weapon when they took them to the police station to turn them in!!! IIRC, one of those was even a police officer. SO, if you decide to surrender the contraband items, expect the possibility of arrest FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW!!!! a crime to have a spring loaded metal/plastic box...what have we come to???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
July 30, 2015, 04:28 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 8, 2015
Posts: 908
|
"exemption for any retired police officer that holds a valid, concealed carry permit"
and obviously LE Don't they realize that the Gestapo and NKVD were also exempt? Really sounds like a clear violation of 2nd Amendment rights. |
July 30, 2015, 06:43 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Pretty sure any municipal ordinance in California has to be approved by the State,
as it is effectively a change to the municipality's charter (granted by the State)... Every California city may enact and enforce within its limits local ordinances not in conflict with general laws. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) Chartered cities, such as Los Angeles, are granted exclusive power to legislate their municipal affairs. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5; Government Code § 34101.) Under home rule, the state Legislature's authority to intrude into matters of local concern is curtailed. The benefits of home rule are numerous, because cities are familiar with their own local problems and can often act more promptly to address problems than the state Legislature. Therefore, cities are only precluded from enacting laws on non-local matters if it is the intent of the Legislature to occupy the field to the exclusion of municipal regulation. (See Bishop v. City of San Jose (1969) 1 Cal. 3d 56, 61-62, 81 Cal. Rptr. 465, 460 P.2d 137.) Whether a city ordinance is valid therefore requires a determination of whether (1) the local regulation or ordinance is a 'municipal affair,' upon which the municipality has the exclusive authority to regulate, or (2) whether the subject is a matter of statewide concern such that state legislation preempts any municipal attempt at lawmaking. Because the California Constitution does not define 'municipal affairs,' it has become a question to be decided on the facts of each case, as the concept of a municipal affair changes over time as local issues become issues of statewide concern. (Bishop, supra, at p. 62, 81 Cal. Rptr. 465, 460 P.2d 137; Century Plaza Hotel (1970) 7 Cal. App. 3d 616, 620, 87 Cal. Rptr. 166.) Although the state Legislature may have attempted to deal with a particular field, this does not automatically ordain preemption. The Legislature may also express its intent to permit local legislation in the field, or the statutory scheme may recognize local regulations. (City of Dublin v. County of Alameda (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 264, 276, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 845.) https://www.municode.com/webcontent/...mphlets/ca.pdf |
July 30, 2015, 07:32 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
^^^ Hmmm...Interesting.
Other people know more what to expect from California legislature than I do, but I don't see the State precluding LA from enacting this. I hope I'm wrong. |
July 30, 2015, 07:41 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
Quote:
This is precisely why local ordinace cannot supercede state gun regs in Ohio. A few court cases struck down and pulled all the teeth out of local ordinace thumbing their noses at state loosening firearms law. I had always thought that was based on federal law though. Maybe I'm wrong. |
|
July 31, 2015, 03:28 PM | #20 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,606
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 31, 2015, 03:59 PM | #21 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Then again, no FFL is going to want them if he can't sell them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 5, 2015, 11:26 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Correction: "large capacity" magazines may be offered for sale to out of state buyers. So you can sell them on Gun Broker or Guns America, etc, but with the caveat that you don't ship them to a state where their possession and sale is prohibited (e.g., California, NY, and Massachusetts, probably a few others like NJ and Maryland, Cook county Illinois...yada yada).
|
August 5, 2015, 11:58 PM | #23 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
|
|