User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2016 10:50:04 PM EDT
[#1]
High capacity magazines, as an item in and of itself, cannot be bought or sold or imported into California. So, if. you brought it here from Oregon, that was a felony
If you legally possessed them here in CA prior to Jan 1, 2001, you can still use them in your registered assault weapon. If you make a post-ban, AR-15 style rifle that is not an assault weapon (as your son did), you cannot use high capacity magazines in that rifle even if it were a fixed magazine. At least, that's how I understand it from my investigations for my own rifles/mags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2016 10:50:56 PM EDT
[#2]
The ban started 1/1/2000. There is only an exemption to keep the magazines you already owned lawfully in the state prior to the ban. There is no exemption for importing to colluding to import one now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2016 11:47:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ban started 1/1/2000. There is only an exemption to keep the magazines you already owned lawfully in the state prior to the ban. There is no exemption for importing to colluding to import one now. This. Date of the mag doesn't matter. You would need to have owned it and posessed it in CA prior to 2000. If you brought it down here on a road trip in 1999 then you legally possessed it in CA prior to the ban and can bring it back. Same rules would apply to your kid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2016 3:18:59 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Date of the mag doesn't matter. You would need to have owned it and posessed it in CA prior to 2000. If you brought it down here on a road trip in 1999 then you legally possessed it in CA prior to the ban and can bring it back. Same rules would apply to your kid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The ban started 1/1/2000. There is only an exemption to keep the magazines you already owned lawfully in the state prior to the ban. There is no exemption for importing to colluding to import one now. This. Date of the mag doesn't matter. You would need to have owned it and posessed it in CA prior to 2000. If you brought it down here on a road trip in 1999 then you legally possessed it in CA prior to the ban and can bring it back. Same rules would apply to your kid. that's a fiction that won't keep the OP's son out of court, even if you could win with it. Especially in Sacramento. If your son is in his 20s, then he'd be ~10 when the ban took effect. No one going to buy the idea that he had it / possessed it prior to that date. L.A. just recently completely criminalized any mag greater than 10rd capacity, regardless of the state pre-ban law. I'd expect the leftists running Sacramento to do the same soon if they haven't already. Learn more about the laws and the associated punishments, before you decide on your course of action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2016 11:28:31 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: that's a fiction that won't keep the OP's son out of court, even if you could win with it. Especially in Sacramento. If your son is in his 20s, then he'd be ~10 when the ban took effect. No one going to buy the idea that he had it / possessed it prior to that date. L.A. just recently completely criminalized any mag greater than 10rd capacity, regardless of the state pre-ban law. I'd expect the leftists running Sacramento to do the same soon if they haven't already. Learn more about the laws and the associated punishments, before you decide on your course of action. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The ban started 1/1/2000. There is only an exemption to keep the magazines you already owned lawfully in the state prior to the ban. There is no exemption for importing to colluding to import one now. This. Date of the mag doesn't matter. You would need to have owned it and posessed it in CA prior to 2000. If you brought it down here on a road trip in 1999 then you legally possessed it in CA prior to the ban and can bring it back. Same rules would apply to your kid. that's a fiction that won't keep the OP's son out of court, even if you could win with it. Especially in Sacramento. If your son is in his 20s, then he'd be ~10 when the ban took effect. No one going to buy the idea that he had it / possessed it prior to that date. L.A. just recently completely criminalized any mag greater than 10rd capacity, regardless of the state pre-ban law. I'd expect the leftists running Sacramento to do the same soon if they haven't already. Learn more about the laws and the associated punishments, before you decide on your course of action. Counter argument. A father could purchase and give his living children magazines prior to the ban, no matter the age. This will hold up in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2016 4:44:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
High capacity magazines, as an item in and of itself, cannot be bought or sold or imported into California. So, if. you brought it here from Oregon, that was a felony If you legally possessed them here in CA prior to Jan 1, 2001, you can still use them in your registered assault weapon. If you make a post-ban, AR-15 style rifle that is not an assault weapon (as your son did), you cannot use high capacity magazines in that rifle even if it were a fixed magazine. At least, that's how I understand it from my investigations for my own rifles/mags. Possession of ANY standard capacity magazine isn't regulated regardless of date of manufacture. (except LA county). Buying or importing standard capacity magazines is illegal. Has nothing to do with registered assault weapons. Lawfully owned standard cap mags can be used in any non AW handgun and in any "featureless" AR, AK or other rifle that lacks the state defined "evil features". DO NOT use a magazine that holds over 10 rounds in a fixed magazine rifle, that in and of itself creates an "assault weapon". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2016 5:11:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Counter argument. A father could purchase and give his living children magazines prior to the ban, no matter the age. This will hold up in court. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The ban started 1/1/2000. There is only an exemption to keep the magazines you already owned lawfully in the state prior to the ban. There is no exemption for importing to colluding to import one now. This. Date of the mag doesn't matter. You would need to have owned it and posessed it in CA prior to 2000. If you brought it down here on a road trip in 1999 then you legally possessed it in CA prior to the ban and can bring it back. Same rules would apply to your kid. that's a fiction that won't keep the OP's son out of court, even if you could win with it. Especially in Sacramento. If your son is in his 20s, then he'd be ~10 when the ban took effect. No one going to buy the idea that he had it / possessed it prior to that date. L.A. just recently completely criminalized any mag greater than 10rd capacity, regardless of the state pre-ban law. I'd expect the leftists running Sacramento to do the same soon if they haven't already. Learn more about the laws and the associated punishments, before you decide on your course of action. Counter argument. A father could purchase and give his living children magazines prior to the ban, no matter the age. This will hold up in court. Reality: does not prevent, at minimum, confiscation of magazines as public nuisance. If the "my daddy gave these to me and told me so through the womb" story doesn't pass the smell test (just like the "just say you """"FOUND"""" them story) it might not lead to a conviction, but the legal standard of evidence for an arrest is lower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2016 10:09:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Thanks to everyone for your insights & information. My son is in his 40's, lived in CA prior to 2000 but the magazine will stay here in OR. No fuss, no muss, no cops. He has a very high security level clearance from CA DOJ so he can do contract IT work inside CA prisons. He also has Top Secret clearance from his time in the Army when he worked on satellite comm systems. After he got out he was a military contractor and has maintained the clearance. Ten extra rounds aren't worth screwing all of that up.
As a side note, we've all heard that Juvenile records are sealed once a person turns 18. Baloney - there was a hangup with my son getting high level CA DOJ clearance because he had simply been QUESTIONED by the Sac County Sheriff's office. They interviewed him and two other kids when he was 17 but no charges were ever filed. Apparently the Sheriff's office didn't finalize the paperwork to close everything out & the CA DOJ caught it. The US Government gave him high level clearance when he was in his early 20's so either they didn't care about it or didn't find it during his background check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2016 8:50:48 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
High capacity magazines, as an item in and of itself, cannot be bought or sold or imported into California. So, if. you brought it here from Oregon, that was a felony Unless - the magazine was possessed inside the state of CA at any time. They are then welcomed back. I had boxes of them when I was stationed here in the 1990's. I then left on orders to Washington. The magazine ban passed. I then legally returned the magazines back into the state. The magazines can be gone for a weekend or years, they're still welcomed back. Not sure it's a felony. Not sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2016 9:02:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:If your son is in his 20s, then he'd be ~10 when the ban took effect. No one going to buy the idea that he had it / possessed it prior to that date. Thankfully that sort of defense is only needed in Russia. Here the state would need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that your son didn't possess the magazines inside the state lines at any time. I have photographs of a California district judge signing each and every one of my magazines in permanent ink. Those signatures were notarized and countersigned by a sheriff, the chief-of-police, and the Pope who just happened to be on a goodwill tour visiting. Those photos were published in both the New York Times and People Magazine in a full color spread ... still not good enough for an affirmative defense. Here in America you can be arrested and held on $100,000 bail for merely videotaping the crime of animal abuse - not participating at all - just videotaping the crime and walk out of jail 18 months later with a felony conviction. The videotape showed zero participation by the guy with the camera other than being in the same room as the idiots abusing the cat. It was a spontaneous act and the guy just happen to have the camera on him. I couldn't believe my eyes when the DA prosecuted the guy. That act changed my opinion of American justice and changed my life. The criminal justice system is not what you see from Hollywood. Not anything close to it at all. You walk free today only because the system has allowed you to. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2016 9:06:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Reality: does not prevent, at minimum, confiscation of magazines as public nuisance. If the "my daddy gave these to me and told me so through the womb" story doesn't pass the smell test (just like the "just say you """"FOUND"""" them story) it might not lead to a conviction, but the legal standard of evidence for an arrest is lower.
And neither does honest reality prevent the confiscation of your magazines.
Run across a cop on a bad day or a DA trying to make a name for himself and they can bring the full power of the government to bear upon you. You may walk after $25,000-$50,000 or more in legal expenses. The republic is on it's deathbed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:20:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ban started 1/1/2000. There is only an exemption to keep the magazines you already owned lawfully in the state prior to the ban. There is no exemption for importing to colluding to import one now. Correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2016 5:47:28 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ban started 1/1/2000. There is only an exemption to keep the magazines you already owned lawfully in the state prior to the ban. There is no exemption for importing to colluding to import one now. Parts kits used to be legal. A parts kit could include every part of the magazine, just not assembled. This would cover the OP. Has that been railroaded? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2016 12:05:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Parts kits used to be legal. A parts kit could include every part of the magazine, just not assembled. This would cover the OP. Has that been railroaded? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The ban started 1/1/2000. There is only an exemption to keep the magazines you already owned lawfully in the state prior to the ban. There is no exemption for importing to colluding to import one now. Parts kits used to be legal. A parts kit could include every part of the magazine, just not assembled. This would cover the OP. Has that been railroaded? New legislation dubbed them magazine conversion parts or something like that. Banned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2016 11:22:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This will hold up in court. That is quite the statement right there. |
|
|
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.
