User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 6:13:56 PM EDT
[#1]
I'm pretty sure this one will get challenged in court. From what I've read, just driving thru the city of l a with one in your car would be a violation. Since the state already has a ten round max, albeit larger ones are grandfathered in, this is pretty much just a pre-election "hey look at me" legislation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 8:13:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Plan your travel through and around that city carefully.
The 15 fwy is now my only path north to get to any plinking spots 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 8:56:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Honest question, if traveling on a State Hwy can you be charged with violating a city law while passing through?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 9:17:32 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honest question, if traveling on a State Hwy can you be charged with violating a city law while passing through? Yes, but CHP usually not going out of their way to enforce local city ordinances unless you really really brought it upon yourself. Oh yeah, police, chp and sheriff can enforce laws on the highways if they want, peace officer status in CA is statewide authority, not just limited to their general region of employment...even though their supervisors want them to patrol their own areas of responsibility. Several range facilities force you to cross into this forbidden zone, simply to get there. Puts you at risk even if you are otherwise dotting all the "I"s and crossing the "T"s of the multitude of gun laws. Stocking up on more 10 rounders. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 9:40:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, but CHP usually not going out of their way to enforce local city ordinances unless you really really brought it upon yourself. Oh yeah, police, chp and sheriff can enforce laws on the highways if they want, peace officer status in CA is statewide authority, not just limited to their general region of employment...even though their supervisors want them to patrol their own areas of responsibility. Several range facilities force you to cross into this forbidden zone, simply to get there. Puts you at risk even if you are otherwise dotting all the "I"s and crossing the "T"s of the multitude of gun laws. Stocking up on more 10 rounders.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Honest question, if traveling on a State Hwy can you be charged with violating a city law while passing through? Yes, but CHP usually not going out of their way to enforce local city ordinances unless you really really brought it upon yourself. Oh yeah, police, chp and sheriff can enforce laws on the highways if they want, peace officer status in CA is statewide authority, not just limited to their general region of employment...even though their supervisors want them to patrol their own areas of responsibility. Several range facilities force you to cross into this forbidden zone, simply to get there. Puts you at risk even if you are otherwise dotting all the "I"s and crossing the "T"s of the multitude of gun laws. Stocking up on more 10 rounders.
Just one more reason for me not go down there. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 11:54:27 PM EDT
[#6]
OH GOODIE im sure this law will finally be the one to stop ALL crime
LA will become a peaceful utopia All the gangsters will turn in all their high caps for standard ones An Isla Vista type shooting could never happen in LA Good thing I don't live in city of LA anymore
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 8:34:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Interesting!
If you live in the South Bay (PV, Torrance, Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan and El Segundo), there is no legal way to leave the area without committing a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 11:46:39 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting! If you live in the South Bay (PV, Torrance, Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan and El Segundo), there is no legal way to leave the area without committing a crime. Reasonable burden on the 2nd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 12:51:58 PM EDT
[#9]
You bring up an interesting point. I may have the reason to buy that boat after all!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:24:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reasonable burden on the 2nd. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Interesting! If you live in the South Bay (PV, Torrance, Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan and El Segundo), there is no legal way to leave the area without committing a crime. Reasonable burden on the 2nd. Thats the shit end of the stick. They can have all sorts of buggery on the books and it sticks until such time as someone takes it to court to challenge it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:46:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thats the shit end of the stick. They can have all sorts of buggery on the books and it sticks until such time as someone takes it to court to challenge it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting! If you live in the South Bay (PV, Torrance, Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan and El Segundo), there is no legal way to leave the area without committing a crime. Reasonable burden on the 2nd. Thats the shit end of the stick. They can have all sorts of buggery on the books and it sticks until such time as someone takes it to court to challenge it. Solution: They will pass a state law similar to the one in Los Angeles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 4:39:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plan your travel through and around that city carefully. The 15 fwy is now my only path north to get to any plinking spots http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/lacityboundries.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 4:47:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Mags with a capacity of over 10 rounds just became illigal. No grandfather or disassembled exemption. Link I read the link but fail to find where a disassembled mag is still illegal to own. What section is this under? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 5:06:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I read the link but fail to find where a disassembled mag is still illegal to own. What section is this under? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mags with a capacity of over 10 rounds just became illigal. No grandfather or disassembled exemption. Link I read the link but fail to find where a disassembled mag is still illegal to own. What section is this under? (b) Prohibition on Possession of Large-Capacity Magazines (1) It is unlawful for any person to possess any large-capacity magazine, except as otherwise authorized by law, whether assembled or disassembled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 6:00:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Mags with a capacity of over 10 rounds just became illigal. No grandfather or disassembled exemption. Link I read the link but fail to find where a disassembled mag is still illegal to own. What section is this under? (b) Prohibition on Possession of Large-Capacity Magazines (1) It is unlawful for any person to possess any large-capacity magazine, except as otherwise authorized by law, whether assembled or disassembled. It doesn't define what part is illegal: body, spring, follower or floor plate. The body is easy to recognize but how about the other parts, which could all be used in a 10rd magazine. It also doesn't define what a permanently altered magazine to only accept 10 rounds is construed to be. I don't believe there is a portion of any law that clearly defines this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 6:47:46 PM EDT
[#16]
Did they also pass the ordinance or requiring guns to be locked up at home, or were they quibbling against the retired and/or active LEO exemption. I noticed in the Times (gak ptooey) that they were leaning toward no retired LEO exemption. (leave the moaning and goraoning about the unfair yada yada better pick up that can, we've heard it, not relevant here)
I didn't get the chance to read the whole wording, but it seemed to me to mirror closely the DC Ordinance that Heller destroyed. If so, either they as a whole are getting smart or some City Attorney got to enough of them to convince them that part was not going to fly very far, or they are going to do that this week for the news cycle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 9:07:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did they also pass the ordinance or requiring guns to be locked up at home, or were they quibbling against the retired and/or active LEO exemption. I noticed in the Times (gak ptooey) that they were leaning toward no retired LEO exemption. (leave the moaning and goraoning about the unfair yada yada better pick up that can, we've heard it, not relevant here) I didn't get the chance to read the whole wording, but it seemed to me to mirror closely the DC Ordinance that Heller destroyed. If so, either they as a whole are getting smart or some City Attorney got to enough of them to convince them that part was not going to fly very far, or they are going to do that this week for the news cycle. The locked gun requirement was mirrored after SF's law. They pulled it back to adjust it, most likely to exempt retired Leo with CCW. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
