View Single Post
Old 12-04-2011, 12:56 PM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,353
iTrader: 9 / 100%

Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
You, Sir, are obviously not a true aficionado of shrimp cocktail!
This is correct. If something came from the factory with more than 4 legs or less than two, I'm not eating it.

Originally Posted by theicecreamdan View Post
IMO A dog is property, your scenario is not very different from asking them to put your car into jail because the mags were in the trunk

Actually, I'd argue that it's completely different, because you are in control of the car, in that it has no will of its own other than what you as the operator do with it. The dog, on the other hand, unless it's on a leash, may (or may not) actually follow or come when it's called.

On the other hand, though, 12020 doesn't seem to set out intent as an element of importation. As such, it would not be a violation of due process to instruct a jury that "a person may be presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of his or her voluntary actions." (Where intent is an element of the crime, it must be proven as a fact, and cannot be presumed.)

If you have a dog which is accustomed to following you around without a leash on, and you strap something to it (a voluntary action), and it follows you across the border, a jury will more than likely be instructed that it may presume you intended for things to work out the way they did.

As far as not being able to clean and reassemble, when I put magazines back together, my intent is for them to be used for the same purpose as when they were purchased.
Also, if I leave the state and return, I am not illegally importing magazines, returning with magazines that I intend to use in the same way they were originally imported.

This is irrelevant, unfortunately.

Unless you legally possessed the magazine(s) in question within the borders of the state of California prior to 1/1/2000, it doesn't really matter how they came to be within the state in the first place ... if you take them out and bring them back, it is effectively a new importation, and therefore a new crime. Arguably, the same issue arises for assembly of a magazine that you had disassembled, if it was not legally possessed within the borders of the state of California prior to 1/1/2000.

I'd certainly rather be the prosecutor than the defense on that issue, to say the least.

Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
If it was your dog and you were present when the dog crossed you’d most likely be arrested on conspiracy charges (especially if you attached said mags to the dog).

Nope, because a dog can't consent, you cannot have a true agreement between the parties to commit a crime. I'd LOVE to be the defense on that one.

(Now, if someone else attached the magazines to the dog, you could easily make the argument for conspiracy with that party.)

Originally Posted by nobody_special
The experts all say that, and that sending magazines into the state from across the state line would get you imprisoned.

That may be the case, but I keep pointing out that PC 32310 reads (emphasis added):

any person in this state who [...] imports into the state
That language would seem to preclude long-arm jurisdiction.

Even if jurisdiction is given and charges brought, how is it that a person who was not physically in California could be convicted under a law which explicitly only applies to a "person in this state"?

I don't think this can be reasonably read as "person who, in this state, imports."

Of course, a recipient in California would still be vulnerable. Though shipping to themselves from out of state would be an interesting situation if my interpretation were correct...

Actually, I'd never thought about this aspect of it before, and a close reading actually brings up an interesting question that I'd never noticed before.

(2)Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.
Manufacturing is a crime, if done within California. Causing manufacturing is a crime, if done within California. Importing is a crime, if done within California ... but ...

It doesn't say anything about causing the import of a large-capacity magazine.

So how is mail order of "large-capacity magazines" actually illegal?
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote