Posted: 12/17/2013 2:36:09 PM EDT
|
Will 20 - 30rd magazines already blocked to 10rds still be legal next year ??
I remember reading about a new law stating a magazine can not be longer than needed to hold 10rds. Also after reading the hi-cap mag law I not sure if my grandfathered mags will be legal or not. |
|
Get your magazine repair kits this month!
AB 48 (Skinner): Strengthening Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban AB 48 prohibits the use of “conversion kits” to manufacture large capacity ammunition magazines. It also prohibits the purchase of large capacity ammunition magazines and tightens the definition of “manufacture” in the current law to clarify that manufacturing includes assembling the parts of a magazine. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 48, Skinner. Firearms: large-capacity magazines. (1) Except as specified, existing law makes it a crime to manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend any large-capacity magazine, and makes a large-capacity magazine a nuisance. Existing law defines “large-capacity magazine” to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds but excludes, in pertinent part, a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. This bill would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, to knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine conversion kit that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor or a felony to buy or receive a large-capacity magazine, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 32310 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 396 that would become operative if this bill and SB 396 are both enacted and this bill is enacted last. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. |
|
Quoted:
Get your magazine repair kits this month! AB 48 (Skinner): Strengthening Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban AB 48 prohibits the use of “conversion kits” to manufacture large capacity ammunition magazines. It also prohibits the purchase of large capacity ammunition magazines and tightens the definition of “manufacture” in the current law to clarify that manufacturing includes assembling the parts of a magazine. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 48, Skinner. Firearms: large-capacity magazines. (1) Except as specified, existing law makes it a crime to manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend any large-capacity magazine, and makes a large-capacity magazine a nuisance. Existing law defines “large-capacity magazine” to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds but excludes, in pertinent part, a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. This bill would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, to knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine conversion kit that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor or a felony to buy or receive a large-capacity magazine, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 32310 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 396 that would become operative if this bill and SB 396 are both enacted and this bill is enacted last. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. I don't see a single piece of text that states it is illegal to own or possess for personal use. Everything I read states it is illegal to "knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine". To me that is pretty straightforward. If you own it prior to 01/01/14 and have already modified it, or if you have a RAW, you aren't in violation of any laws, and there really isn't any problem. |
|
Quoted:
"and makes a large-capacity magazine a nuisance." <~ This is a problem. I believe nuisance items are subject to confiscation. You know the internet "lawyers" who say "just say you found them" and "well the statute of limitations is 3 years"? Those guys? The nuisance classification is for them, not for people in lawful possession of their large-capacity magazines. |
|
Quoted:
I don't see a single piece of text that states it is illegal to own or possess for personal use. Everything I read states it is illegal to "knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine". Quoted:
I don't see a single piece of text that states it is illegal to own or possess for personal use. Everything I read states it is illegal to "knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine". Correct. To me that is pretty straightforward. If you own it prior to 01/01/14 and have already modified it, or if you have a RAW, you aren't in violation of any laws, and there really isn't any problem. Having a RAW has nothing to do with it. If you possessed large capacity magazines in CA before 1/1/2000 then you may keep them. If you have the component parts to assemble a large capacity magazine ("large cpacity magazine conversion kit"), whether you intend to convert them to a low-capacity magazine or repair an existing magazine, you need to have obtained then before 1/1/2014 |
|
Quoted:
Having a RAW has nothing to do with it. If you possessed large capacity magazines in CA before 1/1/2000 then you may keep them. Yeah, I screwed the pooch on that comment. I meant if you owned a RAW you could legally use an unmodified (unblocked) high cap mag. |
|
Quoted:
If you have the component parts to ... repair an existing magazine, you need to have obtained then before 1/1/2014 If the text above is complete, I do not see this requirement in it. Are you referring to the "conversion kit" wording? After all, what is a "conversion kit"? Please explain. |
|
Quoted:
If the text above is complete, I do not see this requirement in it. Are you referring to the "conversion kit" wording? After all, what is a "conversion kit"? Please explain. Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have the component parts to ... repair an existing magazine, you need to have obtained then before 1/1/2014 If the text above is complete, I do not see this requirement in it. Are you referring to the "conversion kit" wording? After all, what is a "conversion kit"? Please explain. The text above is missing the verbiage about obtaining all the parts of a large capacity magazine for the purposes of repair. AB48 has two provisions pertaining to this. First, "manufacture" of a large capacity magazine has been defined as simply assembling the component parts together to create a new large capacity magazine. Second, "coversion kit" has been defined as "combination of parts of a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.." inclusive of the individual component pieces. So, getting just a magazine body to repair your legitimate large capacity magazine? Legit. Getting a PMAG disassembled and shipped into CA? Not ok. |
|
I meant if you owned a RAW you could legally use an unmodified (unblocked) high cap mag. I believe even if you haven''t owned a CA registered assault weapon (RAW) you can still legally use an unmodified high cap mag. A high cap magazine can be used in a non RAW CA featureless rifle. |
|
So blocked mags will be good to go next year it sounds like?
What is the best way to block it? "excludes, in pertinent part, a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. " Is a strip of kydex and the floorplate superglued considered permanent under the law? |
|
Quoted:
I believe even if you haven''t owned a CA registered assault weapon (RAW) you can still legally use an unmodified high cap mag. A high cap magazine can be used in a non RAW CA featureless rifle. Quoted:
I meant if you owned a RAW you could legally use an unmodified (unblocked) high cap mag. I believe even if you haven''t owned a CA registered assault weapon (RAW) you can still legally use an unmodified high cap mag. A high cap magazine can be used in a non RAW CA featureless rifle. Yeah, Mini 14/30 and M1A immediately comes to mind, as well as various EBRs with Monster Man Grip and similar accessories. How about the standard fixed mag SKS? I know there are 30 rd mags and even drums available. They don't have a pistol grip. What's the story with those? |
|
Quoted:
So blocked mags will be good to go next year it sounds like? What is the best way to block it? "excludes, in pertinent part, a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. " Is a strip of kydex and the floorplate superglued considered permanent under the law? Quoted:
So blocked mags will be good to go next year it sounds like? What is the best way to block it? "excludes, in pertinent part, a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. " Is a strip of kydex and the floorplate superglued considered permanent under the law? Just gonna refer to this, which refers back to CA DOJ from a few years ago: Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks guys. Sure would be nice if we could get an actual definition/description/whatever as to what the law considers permanent. Wishful thinking I know. The law doesn't have a definition of permanence. What we do have as a guideline for what DOJ considered permanent is from an attempt they made to re-define what a fixed magazine meant, by defining "permanently attached" or something like that. The definition included a continuous bead weld, rivets, or epoxy cement as examples of permanent. The general concensus is that putting in a magazine capacity limiter like Magpul has available, along with epoxying the baseplate in place from the inside constitutes permanence in compliance with DOJ's proposed definition from years ago. The "parts kits" are no good after 1/1/14. It appears that permanently modified magazines are ok. |
|
We really, really need to get all this new legislation into a stick thread on this forum. No discussion or opinions, just a sticky with the full text of the new laws. <--Really, we need this.
Just look in this thread, it's full of all sorts BS and misinformation. Even the premise for the thread is due to misinformation. |
|
Quoted:
We really, really need to get all this new legislation into a stick thread on this forum. No discussion or opinions, just a sticky with the full text of the new laws. <--Really, we need this. Just look in this thread, it's full of all sorts BS and misinformation. Even the premise for the thread is due to misinformation. People don't read the stickies ... they just post questions right below the stickie that explains what they're asking. 
I did update the CA weapons primer with the new restrictions. |
|
Quoted:
We really, really need to get all this new legislation into a stick thread on this forum. No discussion or opinions, just a sticky with the full text of the new laws. <--Really, we need this. Just look in this thread, it's full of all sorts BS and misinformation. Even the premise for the thread is due to misinformation. Feel free to call out the misinformation; however, simply posting the text of the law will do nothing to alleviate the confusion since some laws are circularly defining, reference other sections, or create terms that are obscurely -or simply aren't- defined. There's a reason why lawyers are so highly paid, and it's because they have so much garbage interpretation, references, and precedent to base their opinions off of (which, still, can be judged wrong). |
|
Quoted:
People don't read the stickies ... they just post questions right below the stickie that explains what they're asking.
I did update the CA weapons primer with the new restrictions. Quoted:
Quoted:
We really, really need to get all this new legislation into a stick thread on this forum. No discussion or opinions, just a sticky with the full text of the new laws. <--Really, we need this. Just look in this thread, it's full of all sorts BS and misinformation. Even the premise for the thread is due to misinformation. People don't read the stickies ... they just post questions right below the stickie that explains what they're asking.
I did update the CA weapons primer with the new restrictions. It is painstakingly obvious that I'm not an attorney, nor do I possess the legalese interpretive acumen to assimilate and convey to others the exact meaning of laws as they are written. Hell, I have a hard enough time deciphering them for myself. In the absence of a clear and concise, accurate definition in simple laymen terms, I think opening a dialogue to seek information is better than not bringing it up at all. My two cents, and whatnot. |
|
Quoted:
People don't read the stickies ... they just post questions right below the stickie that explains what they're asking.
I did update the CA weapons primer with the new restrictions. Thanks, Paul, that is great. Perhaps update the title with, "Updated with Changes for 2014", or some such to highlight the new information. |
|
Quoted:
In the absence of a clear and concise, accurate definition in simple laymen terms, I think opening a dialogue to seek information is better than not bringing it up at all. My two cents, and whatnot. I agree, completely. I have no problem with numerous posts on the same topic, espeically given the ambiguity, lack of clarity and all the other problems with the firearms laws, and their importance. |
|
Quoted:
I don't see a single piece of text that states it is illegal to own or possess for personal use. Everything I read states it is illegal to "knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine". To me that is pretty straightforward. If you own it prior to 01/01/14 and have already modified it, or if you have a RAW, you aren't in violation of any laws, and there really isn't any problem. Quoted:
Quoted:
Get your magazine repair kits this month! AB 48 (Skinner): Strengthening Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban AB 48 prohibits the use of “conversion kits” to manufacture large capacity ammunition magazines. It also prohibits the purchase of large capacity ammunition magazines and tightens the definition of “manufacture” in the current law to clarify that manufacturing includes assembling the parts of a magazine. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 48, Skinner. Firearms: large-capacity magazines. (1) Except as specified, existing law makes it a crime to manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend any large-capacity magazine, and makes a large-capacity magazine a nuisance. Existing law defines “large-capacity magazine” to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds but excludes, in pertinent part, a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. This bill would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, to knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine conversion kit that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor or a felony to buy or receive a large-capacity magazine, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 32310 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 396 that would become operative if this bill and SB 396 are both enacted and this bill is enacted last. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. I don't see a single piece of text that states it is illegal to own or possess for personal use. Everything I read states it is illegal to "knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine". To me that is pretty straightforward. If you own it prior to 01/01/14 and have already modified it, or if you have a RAW, you aren't in violation of any laws, and there really isn't any problem. Yea, previously owned rebuild kits are still legal to own. Thing of it as pre-ban. It's just illegal to buy or sell anymore after the first |