Handgun Magazine Ban?

[JJ45]

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.

[BarryLee]

LA Times story

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...ry.html#page=1

[RickB]

Is the existing ban on the manufacture and/or sale of hi-caps?
This new atrocity is the possession of hi-caps.

[Rothdel]

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.

[2ndsojourn]

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.

[Sharkbite]

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

[Dragline45]

I am going to assume they are banning pre-ban mags since they already have a 10rd mag limit in place.

[44 AMP]

I did like this quote,

Councilman Paul Krekorian declared before a cheering crowd outside City Hall, “If the NRA wants to sue us over this, bring it on.”

its not HIS money this is going to waste. I wonder if he would still be so cavalier "bring it on" if the money LA will spend on court battles came from HIS SALARY????

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...

[Lopti]

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..."

[DaleA]

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?

[Dragline45]

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...

They are hoping to turn California as close to a communist dictatorship as they can, one piece at a time. They know damn well that this has nothing to do with criminals.

[Tom Servo]

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:

As stated above, two very similar ordinances in Northern California have withstood Second Amendment challenges at the District Court level of review. The Sunnyvale ordinance is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and will likely be considered by the Court in the beginning of 2016

[bedbugbilly]

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 . . .

[62coltnavy]

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.

[44 AMP]

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:

This has already happened in California. Only the "criminals" weren't criminals until the law was passed. CA required registering "assault weapons" ages ago, including some variants of the SKS carbine. Later the SKS was added to the "really bad scary" list, and owners of registered guns got letters telling them to turn them in.

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???

[JJ45]

"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.

[Salmoneye]

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

[2ndsojourn]

^^^ 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.

[TimSr]

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.

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.

[natman]

Citizens will have 60 days to surrender their magazines. Presumably, they can also sell them during that window, but to whom?

No, they can't. CA state law prohibits "exposing for sale" any large capacity magazine.

Are large-capacity magazines legal?

Generally, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine (able to accept more than 10 rounds) in California. However, continued possession of large-capacity magazines that you owned in California prior to January 1, 2000, is legal provided you are not otherwise prohibited.
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9 [emphasis added]

The proposed city ordinance would ban possession of otherwise CA legal pre-2000 magazines.

[Tom Servo]

CA state law prohibits "exposing for sale" any large capacity magazine.

Thanks for the correction. I was under the impression they could sell them to an FFL.

Then again, no FFL is going to want them if he can't sell them.

[62coltnavy]

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).

[Librarian]

Correction: "large capacity" magazines may be offered for sale to out of state buyers.

Sadly, the plain language of the Penal Code does not have that exception. PC 32310,

a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2000,
any person in this state who

manufactures or causes to be manufactured,
imports into the state,
keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or
who gives, lends, buys, or receives

any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

If I am a person in this state (and I am), I am prohibited from offering those magazines for sale.