|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 3, 2019, 01:32 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
44amp , I thought this suite was challenging the NEW law that was put in place in 2016. Wouldn't status quo mean going back to what ever the law was in lets say 2015 and not 1991 ??
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
April 4, 2019, 06:32 AM | #52 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Now that's funny. It's probably a typo, but we should have started calling them slandered cap mags as soon as the antis started calling them high capacity mags.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 4, 2019, 07:26 AM | #53 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
So I went back and did a little research in actual CA law. (Go me!) It looks to me like Section 32310 and its predecessor, Section 12020, prohibited importation, sales, transfers, etc. of mags over 10 rounds, with a variety of exceptions not relevant to this discussion. The CA General Assembly amended Section 32310 in 2016 to ban possession, which hadn't been included before. The judgment in Duncan v. Becerra states that Section 32310 is unconstitutional in its entirety. Thus, importation is now allowed. Palmetto State Armory has filed a declaration that PSA has gotten thousands of orders since the decision came down.
Metal god, in answer to your question, if it's a return to the status quo, it's a return to the status quo before some of the predecessors to 32310 was enacted. My apologies for not being very clear on that, but in this case 'status quo' may be a little squishy. In other news, why in the world did movie props get an exemption?!? I get it that Hollywood generates billions of dollars, but if there's anywhere in the world that they really should not be using real magazines, it's a movie set, where someone is actually told to point a gun at someone who they know to only be play-acting at threatening the holder of the gun . . . . Sheesh. I thought that's what props were for.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 4, 2019, 10:33 AM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Quote:
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
|
April 4, 2019, 12:20 PM | #55 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,839
|
Quote:
Why bother with it (and its costs) if the "real" thing is available?? It used to be Stembridge Rentals was the biggest legal machine gun owner in the US. I heard they broke up into other companies now, but there are people still doing the same thing, RENTING real guns, and prop guns (blank firing only) to the movie industry. Actor needs an MP5 for the role? Rent one (and the mags, harness, etc, film your actor with it, and you're good to go. Since there's no sale or actual transfer, its not covered under the "ban" laws, generally, and there are (I believe) exceptions allowing it in the law, where it would otherwise be covered. To me, and admittedly I'm a total outsider with no detailed info on how movies get made these days, but to me, it seems that the rental cost of a "banned" gun or magazine would be lower than having the CGI staff create it and put it in the actors hands in editing.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 4, 2019, 01:28 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Quote:
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
|
April 4, 2019, 01:34 PM | #57 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Arguably, when the [cinematic] bad guy frisks the [cinematic] cop and removes the cop's Detective Special from the shoulder holster ... another transfer has occurred. |
|
April 4, 2019, 01:57 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Likely part of the cost of renting is having someone from the rental company on set to "lend" the firearms .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
April 4, 2019, 03:41 PM | #59 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
|
|
April 4, 2019, 04:16 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,679
|
Quote:
So, my buddy comes over and i want to show him a new pistol i just bought. I cant let him hold it? How do i handle guns at a gun show or store? |
|
April 4, 2019, 05:58 PM | #61 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113 |
|
April 4, 2019, 10:34 PM | #62 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,839
|
Quote:
Prior laws generally didn't consider just holding someone else's gun a legal transfer. Most of the time they only covered transfers of ownership, not just physical possession. There are several places in the law that specify EXEMPTED "transfers", such as at a "certified" range or while hunting. BUT, while there are a very few specified exemptions, that implies all else is not exempted, and yes, that would include handing a friend a pistol to look at, in your own home. And, it also covers him handing it BACK to you!!! Because of this (and some other) ambiguities, virtually ALL LE groups in the state have refused to enforce the law, absent clarification from the State about what is, and isn't a covered "transfer". Its going on 3 years now, and no such clarification has been provided. Most of the people I know in WA are voluntarily complying with the background check requirement for sales and I know more than a few who are totally ignoring it when it comes to potential "transfers" inside their own homes. The law is a piece of CRAP, but until it gets enforced, no one is "harmed" and therefore no one has standing to challenge it on those grounds. It is being challenged on other grounds, and that/those case(s) are Slooowly working their way through the system. We might get a judgement on them in a decade or so...perhaps..
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 5, 2019, 05:41 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
April 5, 2019, 08:03 AM | #64 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s...S-116s66is.xml There are exemptions to transfer provisions for "assault" weapons Quote:
Similarly, you can transfer such a weapon for target shooting at a licensed target facility or established range. We shoot in my back yard sometimes. I doubt that makes it an established range for this purpose. That means that if that bill were to pass, we could not let friends shoot my wife's assault weapon (a Ruger 10-22 with the scary telescoping stock) in our back yard without going to town for a background check. Common sense gun control, in other words. |
||
April 5, 2019, 10:26 AM | #65 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 6, 2019, 03:35 AM | #66 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,839
|
ok, correct me if I get this wrong...
as of 5pm 4/5/19 the state can go back to enforcing the law prohibiting getting mags more than 10rnds but are held from enforcing criminal penalties on people who got them between 3/29 and 4/5, until the appeal process is completed. is that right?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 6, 2019, 06:22 AM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
that is how I read it here. someone correct me if I am wrong
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...of-5pm-friday/
__________________
L2R |
April 6, 2019, 12:17 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Yep , I've been having a fun conversation about this over on calguns . I asked if anyone was making sure to save there receipts to prove when they bought them and everyone comes back with " why it's the states burden to prove you didn't buy them with in that window " . What happens when ( IF ) the final ruling is the mags can be banned but you can keep the ones you have from that time frame . At this time there is no way to prove when they were bought so that pretty much means we all get to have as many as we want because the state must prove when we came into possession of them .
In theory for those that never turned them in or sold out of state the ones they had . They now can just say " I bought them between 3-29-19 and 4-5-19 " and there's nothing anyone can do ???? Well what about the uninformed cop that does not know the full extent of the ruling . What happens when he/she starts confiscating or giving out fines ? I'm sure that's going to cost you some money to resolve . I'd think having the receipt showing when you bought them legally would come in pretty handy right around then ?? There seems to be a lot of gun owners out there that are willing to throw away the receipts just to fall on there swords for the rest of us I guess . Thank you all for that but I'll keep my receipts thank you very much .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
April 6, 2019, 12:28 PM | #69 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
I would save my receipts.
If I were in California. Unfortunately, my state's magazine capacity limit has not had a challenge that resulted in even a temporary window of opportunity, so to me it's all academic. |
April 6, 2019, 08:26 PM | #70 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,839
|
Quote:
It doesn't have to be the under-informed cop, either, it could actually be the courts themselves. The burden of proof required differs for different things. While the state may need one level to convict you of a crime and send you to jail, it COULD very well require a different level of proof to determine what "proves" your claim the magazines are legal. Look at it this way, it might not be up to the state to prove you have banned magazines, its OBVIOUS they are, if they hold more than 10 rounds. Slam dunk, court rules it, its a done deal You claim, they are exempted, bought while the legal window was open. State says, "fine, PROVE IT!" Otherwise, they're banned now. if that's the way it goes, and if you don't have any proof (receipts with date of purchase) then you're done. They are contraband. Don't think that could happen in the real world? Wake up! It can, and things like it have.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 8, 2019, 10:55 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2015
Posts: 887
|
If the mags aren't serialized, a general receipt probably offers little in the way of protection. If the law ends up standing, I wouldn't count on being able to legally keep the mags purchased within the small time window.
|
April 8, 2019, 11:06 AM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Quote:
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
|
April 8, 2019, 02:30 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Just move to Florida.
|
April 8, 2019, 09:45 PM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 629
|
Although short lived it's great to have witnessed a disruption to CA's communist rule, whether they are "legal" or not for a short time period the magazines flooded in and they will be floating around in the state for decades ..
Hopefully sooner or later the law is permanently shot down. |
April 9, 2019, 10:44 AM | #75 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
One of the things that will be interesting will be a follow-up suit brought by someone who: (a) purchased magazines during the time when they were legal, but who (b) the State tries to prosecute.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
|