User Panel
Posted: 12/16/2016 3:36:37 PM EDT
<img src=http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_rolleyes.gif border=0 align=middle> - I don't think this is fake news.
The Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) finds that an emergency exists, and that the
immediate adoption of sections within Chapter 39, of Division 5, of Title 11 is necessary to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. Specific Facts Demonstrating the Need for Immediate Action Proposition 63, a measure banning the possession of large-capacity magazines, was approved by the voters on November 8, 2016 and took effect November 9, 2016. In anticipation of its passages, the Legislature pre-amended Proposition 63 with the passage of Senate Bill 1446 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2016). The clarifying amendments take effect on January 1, 2017. Pursuant to Proposition 63, as amended, beginning July 1, 2017, it will be an infraction punishable by a fine for a person to possess any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired. (Penal Code, § 32310, subdivision (b).) The new law requires a person in lawful possession of a large-capacity magazine prior to July 1, 2017 to dispose of the magazine. Some persons are exempt from the ban, including active and retired law enforcement, armored car entities, and licensed gun dealers. (Penal Code, §§ 32400, 32405, 32406, 32410, 32430, 32435, 32450.) Starting July 1, 2017, anyone who violates the ban is subject to a year in jail, and a $100 fine for a first offence, $250 fine for a second offense, and a $500 fine for a third offense. (Penal Code § 32310, subdivision (b).) These emergency regulations are necessary for the implementation and on-going enforcement of the ban on large-capacity magazines. The proposed regulations provide guidance to California residents on how to comply with the ban. These regulations need to be established as soon as possible so the Department has time to notify gun owners and gun owners have time to make the necessary changes to comply with the ban. There are likely hundreds of thousands of large-capacity magazines in California at this time. In recent years, there has been an increase in these types of firearms on the market. The Department therefore expects many gun owners to be affected by the new ban. Under the new law, gun owners have six months to dispose of or permanently alter their large-capacity magazines. Pursuant to Penal Code section 32310, subdivision (c), a person who legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means prior to July 1, 2017: (1) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; (2) sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; (3) destroy the large-capacity magazine; or (4) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction. Alternatively, gun owners may permanently alter large-capacity magazines by reducing their ammunition capacity so that it no longer meets the definition of a “large-capacity magazine.” Penal Code section 16740 defines “large-capacity magazine” to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. If a gun owner chooses to permanently reduce the capacity of their large-capacity magazines, these emergency regulations provide guidance for doing so with what the Department has determined to be the acceptable minimum level of permanence. By providing this information to the public in a timely manner, through the emergency process, the Department will avert serious harm to public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. View Quote What complete and utter bull shit. Source |
|
California is awesome ... sounds to me like that large conservative base has been preserving freedom again.
|
|
|
Cali guys can contact me directly for a fair price on your contraband.
|
|
DOJ, besides being corrupt. They don't know shit.
I'm guessing it's FAKE NEWS. Aloha, Mark |
|
I will hold any magazines for any Cali resident if needed, I would suggest moving.
|
|
Magazine capacity is not an emergency..... that kind of thinking however.
|
|
How hard is it to get an FFL? How long would that take? Is it even allowed/realistic in Cali?
|
|
Fuck California, tell them to take this shit and shove it up their ass,
Better yet, tell them to bend over and you will shove a few large cap magazine up their ass! |
|
Sounds like jaywalking or making it illegal for the wife to give ya a blow job.. ignore it. With national CCW needs regs on mag capacity and ammo. fucking cali,ny, and nj gun control freaks would be pretty glorious.
|
|
a person who legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means prior to July 1, 2017:
(1) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; (2) sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; (3) destroy the large-capacity magazine; or (4) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction. View Quote I'm sure all the criminals out there will get right on it to make sure they're in compliance with the law. Oh, wait... |
|
Quoted:
I will hold any magazines for any Cali resident if needed, I would suggest moving. View Quote IJR.com just posted an article yesterday. "It should come as no great surprise that Hillary Clinton significantly outperformed President-elect Donald Trump in Democrat strongholds like California and New York — in some cases by millions of votes. While the results of the election almost certainly ran a current of heartbreak through these left-leaning states, it seems the top-ten states which Hillary carried by the widest margins all have something else in common: people are clamoring to move out of them. Here is an amazing statistic. Of the 10 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest percentage margins — California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut — every single one of them lost domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years (2004-14). Nearly 2.75 million more Americans left California and New York than entered these states." |
|
Quoted:
<img src=http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_rolleyes.gif border=0 align=middle> - I don't think this is fake news. The Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) finds that an emergency exists, and that the
immediate adoption of sections within Chapter 39, of Division 5, of Title 11 is necessary to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. Specific Facts Demonstrating the Need for Immediate Action Proposition 63, a measure banning the possession of large-capacity magazines, was approved by the voters on November 8, 2016 and took effect November 9, 2016. In anticipation of its passages, the Legislature pre-amended Proposition 63 with the passage of Senate Bill 1446 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2016). The clarifying amendments take effect on January 1, 2017. Pursuant to Proposition 63, as amended, beginning July 1, 2017, it will be an infraction punishable by a fine for a person to possess any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired. (Penal Code, § 32310, subdivision (b).) The new law requires a person in lawful possession of a large-capacity magazine prior to July 1, 2017 to dispose of the magazine. Some persons are exempt from the ban, including active and retired law enforcement, armored car entities, and licensed gun dealers. (Penal Code, §§ 32400, 32405, 32406, 32410, 32430, 32435, 32450.) Starting July 1, 2017, anyone who violates the ban is subject to a year in jail, and a $100 fine for a first offence, $250 fine for a second offense, and a $500 fine for a third offense. (Penal Code § 32310, subdivision (b).) These emergency regulations are necessary for the implementation and on-going enforcement of the ban on large-capacity magazines. The proposed regulations provide guidance to California residents on how to comply with the ban. These regulations need to be established as soon as possible so the Department has time to notify gun owners and gun owners have time to make the necessary changes to comply with the ban. There are likely hundreds of thousands of large-capacity magazines in California at this time. In recent years, there has been an increase in these types of firearms on the market. The Department therefore expects many gun owners to be affected by the new ban. Under the new law, gun owners have six months to dispose of or permanently alter their large-capacity magazines. Pursuant to Penal Code section 32310, subdivision (c), a person who legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means prior to July 1, 2017: (1) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; (2) sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; (3) destroy the large-capacity magazine; or (4) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction. Alternatively, gun owners may permanently alter large-capacity magazines by reducing their ammunition capacity so that it no longer meets the definition of a “large-capacity magazine.” Penal Code section 16740 defines “large-capacity magazine” to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. If a gun owner chooses to permanently reduce the capacity of their large-capacity magazines, these emergency regulations provide guidance for doing so with what the Department has determined to be the acceptable minimum level of permanence. By providing this information to the public in a timely manner, through the emergency process, the Department will avert serious harm to public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. View Quote What complete and utter bull shit. View Quote Your taxes are paying for the chains they want to use to enslave you. If California gun owners move to Colorado, you'll have 3 times the size of house for the money, you can help us tip the tide back to red, you'll have a political voice, and you'll still have enough money left over to vacation in the land of fruits and nuts whenever you want. (Disarmed, like a plebe, of course while you are there). So c'mon over. We have 300 days of sun a year and skiing! In seriousness, though, it should have been apparent some time ago that Calguns could not play "lets thread the needle through an ever decreasing loophole" forever. This sucks, but given how lopsided your state is politically, its time to move. |
|
Ive had a few calls from folks in ca the last couple of weeks. I feel bad for the people who are targeted by the leftwing nuts that run the place. I tried to figure out a way to register a couple of lowers for my 2 sons but they arent old enough. One guy has been collecting magazines for years, like 400 USGI non marked that are now worthless in CA and he wont sell them at a loss so Im guessing he has high hopes for trump fixing the courts and getting us a good court case.
I went to a NRA meeting in central ca about the lead ban, the chico state wingnuts got caught out right lying but the state just went ahead and a made a law anyhow. I am so happy now that I have moved, I was born there, stationed there and had to finally leave. The bad thing is it will always come to other states when democrats are voted in. The carson city sheriffs office used to sign my form4 applications the same day but it wont be long before they elect a wingnut like Lion CO did. He would make people wait 6 months for a sign off. Here in NM I see we are going through a CCW law change, I made the calls and emailed my thoughts but I have a feeling the state will do something to make the law less like AZ. NV and NM are pretty close as far as I can tell when it comes to firearms laws. |
|
Quoted:
I will hold any magazines for any Cali resident if needed, I would suggest moving. View Quote In all seriousness, how have Arfcom members NOT put together some kind of reciprocal storage program for folks behind enemy lines? No joke, I'd help someone out by storing their shit. Obv. would need to hold people accountable somehow, but I think the willingness to help is there. |
|
|
I have read the new regs, AND I have read arfcom's COC's.
I'm SOOOOO CONFLICTED! FCADOJ |
|
|
Crazy! Wonder what the compliance rate will be or if most folks who can't leave will just neuter them to 10 rounds.
|
|
I'm missing something. Isn't this exactly what was already happening? High caps had to be removed or permanently altered. What changed? |
|
Quoted:
Why would retired Leo's be exempt? View Quote Huge labor union contributions and the 14th Amendment doesn't actually say "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". |
|
So I guess Everyone that has a AR/AK etc. should expect a knock on the door?
|
|
SAFE was passed under "emergency" provisions. The courts ruled that an emergency is whatever the state says it is.
|
|
Those are NOT 30 round mags...those are 10 round .458 socom mags...
Hell a 30 round mag really only holds about 7-8 rounds of 6.8 spc until the feed lips break or the entire frame splits. |
|
|
Quoted:
In all seriousness, how have Arfcom members NOT put together some kind of reciprocal storage program for folks behind enemy lines? No joke, I'd help someone out by storing their shit. Obv. would need to hold people accountable somehow, but I think the willingness to help is there. View Quote I'm willing. |
|
Quoted:
I'm missing something. Isn't this exactly what was already happening? High caps had to be removed or permanently altered. What changed? View Quote It was legal to own and use high caps so long as they were owned before the ban. This new law bans ownership regardless of when the magazine's were purchased/owned. Anything over 10 is illegal after July 17... Period. |
|
I believe the retired LEO clause would open up a 14 amendment challenge.
The challenge would be equal application of the law. |
|
I wonder how many Californios will become dangerous criminals in six months???
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
I'm missing something. Isn't this exactly what was already happening? High caps had to be removed or permanently altered. What changed? View Quote Yup - this was the legislation that was signed a few months back....it's just that now they are coming out with the actual policies and instructions... For instance, if you want to keep your standard cap mags and neuter them into low cap mags, to be in compliance you have to epoxy your follower to the mag and then rivet it shut. |
|
Quoted:
In all seriousness, how have Arfcom members NOT put together some kind of reciprocal storage program for folks behind enemy lines? No joke, I'd help someone out by storing their shit. Obv. would need to hold people accountable somehow, but I think the willingness to help is there. View Quote I also have offered several times over the last few months. |
|
I'd say it's time to GTFO. I can understand someone who's close to retirement not wanting to quit and move but that's about it.
It's pretty obvious now that Cali is going full moonbat. Instead of being a persecuted minority I'd be looking for somewhere to live that is more amenable to my life. |
|
Quoted:
SAFE was passed under "emergency" provisions. The courts ruled that an emergency is whatever the state says it is. View Quote Our "Emergency Provision" creates a state law that cannot be overturned by citizen initiative. A fucking piece of legislative bullshit used to fuck the people. When the Cascadia Subduction Zone lets go, I hope our legislature is in session and they are all bug smashed. |
|
|
|
Are they going to ban gun magazines like Guns & Ammo and American Rifleman?
|
|
|
|
I will modify my M1A magazines with an internal stop that will be fixed with pop rivets filled with epoxy and the bases of the magazines will get a pop rivet and glue. This is legal at this point. What is sad is that 10 of my 13 mags are Vietnam era and I will be fouling them up.
Do I expect to die in my home state of California where one side of my family has been here since 1863! fuck no. I will be out when I can. I would be gone tomorrow if my wife wasn't very ill and needing to be around family |
|
|
Quoted:
It was legal to own and use high caps so long as they were owned before the ban. This new law bans ownership regardless of when the magazine's were purchased/owned. Anything over 10 is illegal after July 17... Period. View Quote Nope. The November vote eliminated the grandfathered mags of which I have many. What is changed in this "emergency" notice? |
|
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.