So, California just passed a bunch of new laws which are very confusing.  True, I have been to the Calgun site but there isnt much there as yet.  Specifically, my question pertains to magazines.  I have some AR's which pre-date the first ban and are registered with the state (as was required then).  I never leave the house without that registration letter when I am shooting them.  But with the new bans I am wondering if I can still use my 30 round magazines?  Such magazines were banned before, but if I read things correctly they are now banned completely, despite having registered pre-ban guns?  I dont know, and I dont want my gun to get confiscated if I decide to go shooting and someone sees them. Whether I agree with it or not, I live in California and will have to abide by the law, but it is vague and I would prefer to stay out of trouble!

All mags over 10 rounds will be outlawed. No grandfathered mags at all. No matter the date and no matter the original promise of a lifetime grandfather clause.

I thought this might be the case from what I read of the law.  I wonder though, if one were to use a magazine block to make a 30 round a 10 round, would that satisfy the law?  I hate to go out and buy all new magazines.

No blocked mags as far as I can interpret the law.  Move away from Comi-land or buy new mags.

Or at least sell the mags to someone out of state.  No need to sacrifice perfectly good mags.

Well, that brings another topic to mind.  Can I sell my 30 round mags on Ebay or anywhere else as long as they leave the state?  Or would I be a criminal?

Talk to a lawyer.

Take a reality check guys.  Some people cannot just up and move out of state no matter how much they might wish. School, family, job, or maybe they really like other aspects of CA.  CA has a lot of good things to offer outside of their Draconian gun laws.  I just got back from visiting my son in Santa Barbara and it is a beautiful place to live despite the gun laws.  One cannot expect another to just up and move just because of the gun laws.  

Regarding the OP's situation, the best advice so far is to contact the AG or a lawyer and fight the current gun laws by getting involved to help change them.

Move

Ebay does not allow magazines on their website that hold over 10 rounds, remember they are also located in CA and they have been cutting off access to gun related stuff for many years now, I used to be able to actually sell guns, but then Virginia Tech happened.

SEC. 4. Section 32406 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
32406. Subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 32310 do not apply to the following:
(a) An individual who honorably retired from being a sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or an individual who honorably retired from being a sworn federal law enforcement officer, who was authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of that officer’s duties. For purposes of this section, “honorably retired” has the same meaning as provided in Section 16690.
(b) A federal, state, or local historical society, museum or institutional society, or museum or institutional collection, that is open to the public, provided that the large-capacity magazine is unloaded, properly housed within secured premises, and secured from unauthorized handling.
(c) A person who finds a large-capacity magazine, if the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition, and possessed it no longer than necessary to deliver or transport it to the nearest law enforcement agency.
(d) A forensic laboratory, or an authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of his or her authorized activities.
(e) The receipt or disposition of a large-capacity magazine by a trustee of a trust, or an executor or administrator of an estate, including an estate that is subject to probate, that includes a large-capacity magazine.
(f) A person lawfully in possession of a firearm that the person obtained prior to January 1, 2000, if no magazine that holds 10 or fewer rounds of ammunition is compatible with that firearm and the person possesses the large-capacity magazine solely for use with that firearm.

No such promise was ever made. We always new they would eventually go after simple possession.

It's illegal to offer for sale a large capacity magazine in California.

Current thought is mag blocks are okay but must be considered permanent. The mag block companies sell epoxy, also a rivet works



Search Youtube for ideas



 

You may own magazine parts and are allowed to sell magazine parts.



The biased law doesn't mention this to scare owners and have them turn in their mags



 

The new bill allows them to be sold to FFL to get rid of them, but I doubt FFLs will be offering much.

This thread might help. I broke each new law down as I understood it and others have been offering up their insights as to how they're being interpreted.

LINK

Here's a breakdown of the new magazine law:

SB 1446 – Large capacity magazines

Effective 7/1/17

Amends Section 32310 of the Penal Code to ban all high capacity magazines regardless of the date the magazine was acquired. Possession is only considered an infraction.

Owners have until July 1, 2017 to do one of the following:
  1) Remove it from the state
  2) Sell to a FFL
  3) Destroy it
  4) Surrender to LEO for destruction

Fines for infractions:
  1) $100 fine – first offense
  2) $250 fine – second offense
  3) $500 fine – third and subsequent offenses

SB 1446

Its vague for a reason and we all know the reason to make someone an instant felon because ignorance of the law is no excuse and stuff like that.

Not an optimal solution but if one doesn't want to give up grandfathered mags and doesn't want to sell them but can't move right now what about a storage unit in AZ or NV?

Might be worth it if one was to start small and stockpile their stuff up out of state in anticipation of a future move.

Wrong answer chief, we all need to fight for these rights.

Possession of parts does not appear to be regulated by this.
I am sure a followup bill in the next year or two will address that, but for now, parts is parts.

Unless I'm misremembering possession of mags obtained prior to 2000 was specifically addressed. They were grandfathered, now they are magically not.  Seems like a lawsuit to me.  



 

You are allowed to sell them out of state.  



 

Keep them in a safe at your home. Do not under any circumstance turn them in to authorities. Cops will keep them as their own property or sell them for a profit.

 
FIFY






 

Yes, the grandfathered status of those magazines will be revoked effective 7/1/2017 IIRC.  Not only do owners of grandfathered magazines face an non-reimbursed loss of their investment in those magazines, we have no recourse for the expense we will incur in replacing them with 10-rounders, without which our firearms become non-functional.



The grandfathered status of magazines owned before 1/1/2000 should be viewed as a promise, because it was one of several compromises that made the existing AW and magazine restrictions politically possible.



The word of the government is supposed to mean something.



 

Keep your 30 rounders in your safe and don't bring um out. Spend $100 and buy 10 new 10 rounders for going to the range or any other type of use (hunting)

One day you'll be happy you still have the 30 rounders.

Ps fuck California I'm leaving. It's been my home for over 20 years, but enough is enough with their bullshit laws. Plus housing and living expenses keeps getting worse.

What part of the law says "no blocked mags" (not necessarily in those exact words)?  I didn't find it.  As long as it's something that you actually have to take apart the magazine to remove at minimum, and with it installed it will absolutely prevent more than 10 rounds from being loaded (and will last as long as a mechanical part can reasonably be expected to last), it should be fine.

Of more interest, and possibly open to interpretation, are the exemptions for hi-cap mags for which there are no 10-round or less magazines available The definition of availability is the part open to interpretation and which needs clarification; for some guns there are 10-round mags, but they are rare or home-made and not currently produced, and thus very expensive on the rare occasion you can find one for sale; the BM-59 is a perfect example.  Does the latter count as availability?  Does the exist of a single magazine of low-capacity negate the exemption?  Is the line somewhere in-between?

Also of interest is the exemption for magazines owned by a trust.  Does this mean any trust capable of owning chattel property?  Who can possess trust-owned magazines?  Does a specific kind of trust have to be made, and is it something the average person can have created?  What will be accepted as defence against prosecution, or getting ticketed and the mags confiscated in the first place?  If a mag is confiscated but found to have been lawfully possessed, is the act of receipt illegal in that case?  Is it inherently contraband and you are only exempt from fines and court fees and the infraction on your record?

Offering for sale while in CA is currently a crime and will continue to be one.

Since permanent is not defined in the law, the dictionary/common definition prevails.  Under that definition, something like epoxy or riveting is not necessary if the block cannot be removed while the magazine is assembled, holds up to use and cannot flex or break with the application of reasonable force to get more than ten rounds in, etc.  Epoxy and riveting would, by the letter of the law and traditional legal principles, be more of a voluntary CYA thing.  But CYA mentalities may be warranted in our State.  If more than ten rounds cannot be loaded, I seriously doubt that a cop would have legal warrant to disassemble the magazine to be sure of "permanence."  Then again, cops cannot be relied on to follow the law or be anything but ignorant about the technical aspects of gun laws, so...

The CalGuns people tried to claim that this makes them illegal "conversion kits," which is bullshit; the only reason that might stand up is because while the wording of the law is to the contrary (and technically of poor quality), banning disassembled hi-cap mag parts was the intent of the legislators.

They weren't grandfathered per se.  Our mag ban is not based on a date with pre-ban/post-ban distinctions like in other States.  Certain acts involving magazines were prohibited except as provided for by law.  Possession was not among those acts, nor, until a couple of years ago, buying or receiving (and keeping what one finds is still not prohibited); the law's intent is hampered also by a three-year statute of limitations.

A government that violates your rights and is intentionally mildly totalitarian in character can never be trusted enough to view anything it says as a binding promise.