Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:32 AM
rayrayz rayrayz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 513
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizcuits View Post
How do we prove a magazine was owned prior to July 2014 lol
I think that means any regular capacity (30 round) mags that is owned......so in effect banning all +10 rounders.
Even on es that have been permanently altered to only accept 10 rounds.

SEC. 2.SEC. 3.
Section 32310 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

32310.
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, or, commencing July 1, 2014, possess any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) Any person who, prior to July 1, 2014, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.
(2) Prior to July 1, 2014, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.
(4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

Last edited by rayrayz; 04-04-2013 at 9:40 AM.. Reason: added info.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:40 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,611
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” also includes a feeding device that had a capacity of more than 10 rounds but has been permanently modified to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition."

I have a magazine repair kit that was assembled to hold no more than 10 rounds, it never had a capacity of more than 10 rounds because it was never an assembled magazine so...legal!

its too bad they got rid of the sufficient body size wording, that was definitely unconstitutionally vague
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:45 AM
Bizcuits's Avatar
Bizcuits Bizcuits is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buckeye, AZ
Posts: 6,972
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

ah I misread your update
__________________
Owner of Patriot Apparel - Decals, Vintage Signs, Apparel and More!
Ebay Store Link
Etsy Store Link
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:51 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This is also confiscation without any compensation. It is clearly an ex post facto law and therefore unconstitutional. It also does not perscribe any method for disposal and proof of disposal to offer any protection from prosecution.

Do the writers of this law have any clue how many 11+ round mags there are out there much less how many blocked off mags there are? The blocked off mags are out there because dedicated ten rounds don't exist for most modern guns so they had to be made per instructions from California state law.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:54 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,611
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think a lot of people here dont understand what ex post facto really means
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:59 AM
1981's Avatar
1981 1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
Impossible...

When you consider handgun magazines, that must be a specific physical size to insert and lock into a magazine well/grip body.

Example: a 10 round Beretta 92 mag that is no longer/taller than need be for 10 rounds cannot be used mechanically for the gun, and does not exist.

This is simply an impossible one for them I'm afraid - and hope.

A.W.D.
those anti-human rights terrorists don't care if you can't use your guns...

they are going after mags, ammo, locks, registration, permits, taxes, etc...

you can keep your guns, but what good they do if no mags, no ammo and have to be locked up all the times?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-04-2013, 10:08 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,611
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

you cannot offer to sell them while in this state, not just to someone in this state. Remove from state and then sell, see option 1
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-04-2013, 10:29 AM
Write Winger's Avatar
Write Winger Write Winger is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In the immortal words of Dick Cheney, "go **** yourself."
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-04-2013, 10:39 AM
Uranium238's Avatar
Uranium238 Uranium238 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Marin, CA
Posts: 436
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So those who have 10/30s are now criminals.. got it. The inmocent alway suffer. The SOBs need to go down. Tyranny was out of style 237 years ago and deserves to stay that way.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-04-2013, 10:40 AM
Uranium238's Avatar
Uranium238 Uranium238 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Marin, CA
Posts: 436
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Apologies for spelling I am on a cell phone.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-04-2013, 11:08 AM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,668
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
I think a lot of people here don't understand what ex post facto really means
My understanding ...

ex post facto - you owned it when it was legal. Now it is illegal. We're punishing you for owning it when it was legal.

not ex post facto - you owned it when it was legal and continued to own it after it was made illegal. We're not punishing you for owning it when it was legal, we're punishing you for owning it after it was made illegal.

How'd we do? Keep in mind, I was graduated from a top notch MA liberal arts college that offered "Disco Dance" and "Principles of Bowling" as electives ...
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-04-2013, 11:15 AM
211275 211275 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 334
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

So has this passed and going into effect July 1st 2014?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-04-2013, 11:15 AM
Californio Californio is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,826
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So RAW owners that clearly had "Standard Capacity" magazines when they registered their RAW now have to get rid of the "Standard Capacity" magazines that the manufacture supplied when the RAW was purchased?
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-04-2013, 11:37 AM
Rackatak Rackatak is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 114
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 211275 View Post
So has this passed and going into effect July 1st 2014?
No. It is proposed legislation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
So RAW owners that clearly had "Standard Capacity" magazines when they registered their RAW now have to get rid of the "Standard Capacity" magazines that the manufacture supplied when the RAW was purchased?
Yes. According to the proposed legislation.

REMEMBER, IT IS PROPOSED LEGISLATION! LET'S NOT DEBATE THE MERITS OR WHAT IF'S!

We need to work to kill this bill. Period.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-04-2013, 11:39 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,611
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
My understanding ...

ex post facto - you owned it when it was legal. Now it is illegal. We're punishing you for owning it when it was legal.

not ex post facto - you owned it when it was legal and continued to own it after it was made illegal. We're not punishing you for owning it when it was legal, we're punishing you for owning it after it was made illegal.

How'd we do? Keep in mind, I was graduated from a top notch MA liberal arts college that offered "Disco Dance" and "Principles of Bowling" as electives ...
looks good to me, one of the few
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-04-2013, 12:06 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,557
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
Magazines were NOT cheap during the 1990s fed ban. I did not break the law when I bought them but now I'm being made a felon for magazines I purchased 20 years ago when it was lawful to do so???? WTF????
welcome to the United Socialist States of America (USSA)
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-04-2013, 5:52 PM
boltstop's Avatar
boltstop boltstop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 553
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

So magazines that were legally purchased and used would now be illegal to possess. I'm speaking of 30 round magazines that were permanently converted to hold 10 rounds because there were no 10 round magazines available.

Even though continued possession and use of these would harm nobody and they could never be converted back to 30 round capacity.

And no compensation.

Anybody care to estimate how much money is involved here? Say $20 per magazine, 5 magazines per AR and 500,000 AR's in the state. That's $50million of other people's money.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-04-2013, 6:05 PM
1981's Avatar
1981 1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltstop View Post
Anybody care to estimate how much money is involved here? Say $20 per magazine, 5 magazines per AR and 500,000 AR's in the state. That's $50million of other people's money.
that's chump change for them... the terrorists waste billions of our tax dollars every day...
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-04-2013, 6:30 PM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,726
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Well it needs to include ALL, meaning ALL magazines, even those used by cops,swat, poli****in security,etc........ IF it passes.... Tired of getting foooked BUT cops and other 'privileged' people get to have keep and use.......... hey if they are going to F us, they need to F EVERYONE!!!!

...so i can see tons of gun owners maybe going to jail because we give them the middle finger .....and all the druggies, molesters,real criminals get released because of 'overcrowding'...... bunch of fiikin dooks
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

[SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-04-2013, 6:35 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
you cannot offer to sell them while in this state, not just to someone in this state. Remove from state and then sell, see option 1
So, let me get this straight.

Federal law says a sale between two out of state parties requires an FFL, as per the 1968 GCA. California law under this whacked out proposal says sale out of state via said CA FFL is illegal.

Did I get that right?
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 04-04-2013, 8:42 PM
boltstop's Avatar
boltstop boltstop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 553
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1981 View Post
that's chump change for them... the terrorists waste billions of our tax dollars every day...
The point being that this is $X million of private citizens property, legally acquired in good faith, that must now simply be thrown away for no substantive reason at all - purely cosmetic.

As a reminder, in this thread, I'm talking exclusively about 30 or 20 round magazines that have been permanently modified to hold only 10 rounds. Therefore, functionally identical to a "factory" 10 round magazine.

Surely an injunction would be granted to stop this going into effect. And, if not, a class action lawsuit.

Where's the NRA on all this?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:07 PM
Calzona's Avatar
Calzona Calzona is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 301
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I think we need to stop worrying about what ifs. Lets work to crush this bill. If it still passes, comply if you want... I won't.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:14 PM
john67elco's Avatar
john67elco john67elco is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alta Loma
Posts: 3,192
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Ca legal full size factory G19 mags appear
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwalker99 View Post
""Calgunners couldn't wait to start falling all over themselves as to how to best comply""


half of you here are weak and lame that will basically wind up being happy with .22 single shot pistols or single barrel shotguns..

Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:24 PM
1981's Avatar
1981 1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltstop View Post
The point being that this is $X million of private citizens property, legally acquired in good faith, that must now simply be thrown away for no substantive reason at all - purely cosmetic.

As a reminder, in this thread, I'm talking exclusively about 30 or 20 round magazines that have been permanently modified to hold only 10 rounds. Therefore, functionally identical to a "factory" 10 round magazine.

Surely an injunction would be granted to stop this going into effect. And, if not, a class action lawsuit.

Where's the NRA on all this?
so what's going to stop them by offering our tax money to "buy back" the mags from us, even at some inflated prices? they just borrow more from the Chinese or print more money...

we're still the ones left paying for the debt they are creating...ironic...
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-04-2013, 10:48 PM
boltstop's Avatar
boltstop boltstop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 553
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Buy backs are voluntary. I cannot be compelled to sell.

Whatever. You can have the last word if you want.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-05-2013, 8:35 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,611
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
So, let me get this straight.

Federal law says a sale between two out of state parties requires an FFL, as per the 1968 GCA. California law under this whacked out proposal says sale out of state via said CA FFL is illegal.

Did I get that right?
we were talking about magazines
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-28-2013, 7:51 PM
Bolt_Action Bolt_Action is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 250
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default updates?

Have there been any updates on the status of this bill? I haven't been able to find any new information.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-28-2013, 8:12 PM
AnarchoPunk's Avatar
AnarchoPunk AnarchoPunk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolt_Action View Post
Have there been any updates on the status of this bill? I haven't been able to find any new information.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...4c30bf4162921d

Passed through appropriations committee on 5/23. Scheduled for floor vote today, but it was delayed and should be voted on tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-28-2013, 8:49 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,557
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
I think a lot of people here dont understand what ex post facto really means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Quote:
Some common-law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though new precedent generally applies to events that occurred before the judicial decision. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
I found this part rather interesting.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-28-2013, 8:51 PM
Bolt_Action Bolt_Action is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 250
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

There's nothing ex post facto about this law, why do people keep bringing that up?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 05-28-2013, 9:04 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,557
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolt_Action View Post
There's nothing ex post facto about this law, why do people keep bringing that up?
maybe this part is what people are referring to.

Quote:
32310.
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, or, commencing July 1, 2014, possess any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
but you knew this part already.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-28-2013, 9:58 PM
.30-06 .30-06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hacked
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This law is so stupid i cant even think of how to respond.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-28-2013, 10:24 PM
doctor_vals's Avatar
doctor_vals doctor_vals is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 1,368
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
maybe this part is what people are referring to.

Quote:
32310.
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, or, commencing July 1, 2014, possess any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
but you knew this part already.
It will be a GOOD idea that this law apply on all politicians in Sacto and all LEO officers.
We have to be equal, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
__________________
doc Vals
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Sale: - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1442127
***
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."
Harry Truman - As quoted in The New York Times 07/24/1941
* * * * *
"We do not keep anybody as our enemies;
But we do not recommend others to consider us as their enemy." V. Putin - 04/16/2015
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-28-2013, 10:31 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,162
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Don't let up. Contact your reps. ASAP.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-28-2013, 11:13 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 991
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

"well magazines are bullets, and once the bullets are fired you see, they are gone, so these magazines will disappear" so everyone save your deadly heat seeking armor piercing assault banana clips because once you use them there all done!!

.....said a retarded CO legislator
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-28-2013, 11:22 PM
robledo's Avatar
robledo robledo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 919
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Section 16350 says that it doesn't apply to magazines that have been permanently altered to accept only 10 rounds, but then in section 16740 it reads that it does apply to magazines that have been permanently altered.....
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-28-2013, 11:31 PM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,054
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doctor_vals View Post
It will be a GOOD idea that this law apply on all politicians in Sacto and all LEO officers.
We have to be equal, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
Haha. How do you expect that these laws are ever going to apply to law enforcement? It simply is not part of the agenda.

The people who don't want us to have guns believe that only cops should have guns. I've heard it many times, from the voters who support this agenda.

Last edited by Shotgun Man; 05-28-2013 at 11:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-29-2013, 12:46 AM
Justintoxicated's Avatar
Justintoxicated Justintoxicated is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Escondido
Posts: 3,780
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

scary looking mags banned in the name of progress.... check
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-29-2013, 5:50 PM
thegamettt's Avatar
thegamettt thegamettt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Orange County, PRK
Posts: 2,541
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

sorry if this is a stupid question but would this apply to preban handgun magazines too?
__________________
Have a good day!
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-29-2013, 6:00 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,774
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamettt View Post
sorry if this is a stupid question but would this apply to preban handgun magazines too?
In CA, there is no such distinction as pre/post ban.

You either obtained them legally, or you did not. Period.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:43 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.