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 > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-06-2013, 12:14 PM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default Do I need to switch to 10rd mags in SF?

Is the 10rd mag city ordinance in SF in force? Heading there in a few weeks and am wondering, if I need to swap out my mags.

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-06-2013, 2:21 PM
MiddleKingdom's Avatar
MiddleKingdom MiddleKingdom is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northern California
Posts: 444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Not sure about that, but I think they frown upon the use of JHPs.
__________________
"Now why doesn't somebody take out a .45 and BANG... settle it?" - Mr. Lee
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-06-2013, 3:56 PM
Yaki Yaki is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Salinas (Monterey County)
Posts: 1,821
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Who would anything SF say be enforceable? For instance if your allowed to cc in California SF can't make their own special laws prohibiting it. State law trumps local and county..

Last edited by Yaki; 12-06-2013 at 5:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-06-2013, 3:58 PM
VendetAR's Avatar
VendetAR VendetAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As long as you arent packing Black Talons, they can go suck it.

As far as mags are concerned, if they are pre ban or rebuilt pre bans, the worst they can do is take them away (which I feel is illegal).

On the other hand, if you are rolling 10+ and they are post ban mags, I wouldn't wear them anywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-06-2013, 4:58 PM
Synergy's Avatar
Synergy Synergy is offline
I need more cowbell!!!!!!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The good part of California!
Posts: 14,310
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VendetAR View Post
As long as you arent packing Black Talons, they can go suck it.
I am always loaded with the "new" Black Talon.

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-07-2013, 10:52 AM
BrokerB's Avatar
BrokerB BrokerB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Folsom , outside the walls
Posts: 2,322
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

If you are licensed ccw...why would you care? You get pulled over a lot? Dont ask dont tell. I carry 15 rounders with no fear in San Fransicko.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-07-2013, 12:54 PM
spetsnaz's Avatar
spetsnaz spetsnaz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,508
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

My g19 mags broke. I just carry 10rd now. Still have the old ones in the safe. I just don't trust them to work correctly. Had problems with the plastic follower jamming the gun.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-07-2013, 1:54 PM
deadhawg deadhawg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 369
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertac916 View Post
Is the 10rd mag city ordinance in SF in force? Heading there in a few weeks and am wondering, if I need to swap out my mags.

Thanks
The 10 round limit is a state wide law, not something just for San Francisco. If you are legal to carry in California, there are no special rules for SF. There is no current restrictions on hollow point ammo in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-07-2013, 4:33 PM
Tiberius's Avatar
Tiberius Tiberius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,071
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I think SF passed an ordinance purporting to ban even the possession of mags holding more than 10 rounds. So that's what this is about - not the state ban on "making selling or importing" (but not on "possessing" or even "buying")
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-07-2013, 5:15 PM
VendetAR's Avatar
VendetAR VendetAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
I think SF passed an ordinance purporting to ban even the possession of mags holding more than 10 rounds. So that's what this is about - not the state ban on "making selling or importing" (but not on "possessing" or even "buying")
That is state law too. Even if you have pre ban mags, any LEO i the state can confiscate them as a nuisance, unless you have a high cap permit (and you wont have one without being an FFL/gun store owner). If you tell them that you bought them or came to possess them after 1/1/2000, you are seriously fk'd.

SF can make all the ordinances they want, but the cant preempt state law.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-07-2013, 5:56 PM
freedom-isn't-free freedom-isn't-free is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VendetAR View Post
That is state law too. Even if you have pre ban mags, any LEO i the state can confiscate them as a nuisance, unless you have a high cap permit (and you wont have one without being an FFL/gun store owner). If you tell them that you bought them or came to possess them after 1/1/2000, you are seriously fk'd.

SF can make all the ordinances they want, but the cant preempt state law.
FUD.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-07-2013, 6:06 PM
creampuff creampuff is offline
Village idiot
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VendetAR View Post
That is state law too. Even if you have pre ban mags, any LEO i the state can confiscate them as a nuisance, unless you have a high cap permit (and you wont have one without being an FFL/gun store owner). If you tell them that you bought them or came to possess them after 1/1/2000, you are seriously fk'd.

SF can make all the ordinances they want, but the cant preempt state law.
Please don't make up laws that don't exist.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-07-2013, 9:14 PM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Thanks guys for the replies. My mags are pre 2000, but I do have rebuild kits as well. I was curious because the NRA and Sheriff's departments are suing the city if SF and Sunnyvale because they recently passed city ordinances making it illegal to own and possess magazines that hold more than 10rds in their city limits. I wasnt sure if those laws are in force right now. From what I've read, they are even requiring LEO's to turn in their personal mags.

Never been stopped, checked, or hassled in the dozen years I've been carrying. In the slim chance I'll ever get stopped or have to use my gun in self defense in SF, I just want to make sure they don't try to make an example out of me.

I may just carry my Kimber Gold Combat with a few extra mags instead of my Glock. Just to be safe
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-08-2013, 8:03 AM
Charlie50 Charlie50 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere in the grey Bay Area
Posts: 967
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VendetAR View Post
That is state law too. Even if you have pre ban mags, any LEO i the state can confiscate them as a nuisance, unless you have a high cap permit (and you wont have one without being an FFL/gun store owner). If you tell them that you bought them or came to possess them after 1/1/2000, you are seriously fk'd.

SF can make all the ordinances they want, but the cant preempt state law.
I don't mean to pile on but it just amazes me - the FUD gets ankle deep. If you owned the standard capacity magazine prior to 2000 you are good to go. This has been hashed through so many times in this and other forums you'd think we have clarity. BTW lets get away from the hi cap term; standard capacity... its what my firearms came with, prior to Clinton.

The Black Talon ammo ban in SF is likely a bogus municipal thing that has no weight in California Superior Court... kinda like Berkeley, SF and Davis banning nukes.
__________________
'I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankind's shortcomings instead of pretending like they don't exist. There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family,'
Joshua Boston

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics, is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Plato
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-08-2013, 11:19 AM
VendetAR's Avatar
VendetAR VendetAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is no FUD about it. If you have pre-ban high caps, you can legally own them, but without a hi cap permit, a LEO could confiscate them as a nuisance. You wont be charged with anything, but you can lose it.

Quote:
32310 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, commencing January 1, 2000, 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, any large-capacity magazine is
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or
in the state prison.

32315 Upon a showing that good cause exists, the Department of
Justice may issue permits for the possession, transportation, or sale
between a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915,
inclusive, and an out-of-state client, of large-capacity magazines.

32390 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 large-capacity magazine is a
nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-09-2013, 1:00 PM
Charlie50 Charlie50 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere in the grey Bay Area
Posts: 967
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VendetAR View Post
There is no FUD about it. If you have pre-ban high caps, you can legally own them, but without a hi cap permit, a LEO could confiscate them as a nuisance. You wont be charged with anything, but you can lose it.
32310 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, commencing January 1, 2000, 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, any large-capacity magazine is
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or
in the state prison.

32315 Upon a showing that good cause exists, the Department of
Justice may issue permits for the possession, transportation, or sale
between a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915,
inclusive, and an out-of-state client, of large-capacity magazines.

32390 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 large-capacity magazine is a
nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.



VendetAR My first look at the above this is I don't know what "as provided in Article 2 with section 32400" its kind of hard to see what exceptions might exist - for example the mag was owned prior to 2000 or legally have possession for whatever reason. I do not have easy access to PC books but I do appreciate your effort in taking a closer look at this. If I am wrong about my FUD statement I can eat crow with the best of them . I have to say, I have never heard of a LEO taking standard cap mags from upstanding citizens. This prompts me to do a bit of research on my own.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-09-2013, 1:11 PM
VendetAR's Avatar
VendetAR VendetAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie50 View Post
32310 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, commencing January 1, 2000, 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, any large-capacity magazine is
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or
in the state prison.

32315 Upon a showing that good cause exists, the Department of
Justice may issue permits for the possession, transportation, or sale
between a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915,
inclusive, and an out-of-state client, of large-capacity magazines.

32390 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 large-capacity magazine is a
nuisance and is subject to Section 18010.



VendetAR My first look at the above this is I don't know what "as provided in Article 2 with section 32400" its kind of hard to see what exceptions might exist - for example the mag was owned prior to 2000 or legally have possession for whatever reason. I do not have easy access to PC books but I do appreciate your effort in taking a closer look at this. If I am wrong about my FUD statement I can eat crow with the best of them . I have to say, I have never heard of a LEO taking standard cap mags from upstanding citizens. This prompts me to do a bit of research on my own.
I'll break down all of it tonight. Basically, its says you are legally allowed to own them if you had them before 2000, but without a hi cap permit, they can be taken as a nuisance and destroyed per the instructions below. Because 32390 does not include a grandfather clause for pre-ban mags, they are subject to 18010 just like all other high cap mags. Personally, I think that is illegal considering they are doing a taking of legally owned property without due process or compensation.

There are a ton of threads regarding this in the 2A forums. Search HI CAP NUISANCE and see what you find

Quote:
18010. (a) The Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for sale,
giving, lending, or possession of, any item that constitutes a
nuisance under any of the following provisions:
(1) Section 19290, relating to metal handgrenades.
(2) Section 20390, relating to an air gauge knife.
(3) Section 20490, relating to a belt buckle knife.
(4) Section 20590, relating to a cane sword.
(5) Section 20690, relating to a lipstick case knife.
(6) Section 20790, relating to a shobi-zue.
(7) Section 20990, relating to a writing pen knife.
(8) Section 21190, relating to a ballistic knife.
(9) Section 21890, relating to metal knuckles.
(10) Section 22090, relating to a nunchaku.
(11) Section 22290, relating to a leaded cane or an instrument or
weapon of the kind commonly known as a billy, blackjack, sandbag,
sandclub, sap, or slungshot.
(12) Section 22490, relating to a shuriken.
(13) Section 24390, relating to a camouflaging firearm container.
(14) Section 24490, relating to a cane gun.
(15) Section 24590, relating to a firearm not immediately
recognizable as a firearm.
(16) Section 24690, relating to an undetectable firearm.
(17) Section 24790, relating to a wallet gun.
(18) Section 30290, relating to flechette dart ammunition and to a
bullet with an explosive agent.
(19) Section 31590, relating to an unconventional pistol.
(20) Section 32390, relating to a large-capacity magazine.
(21) Section 32990, relating to a multiburst trigger activator.
(22) Section 33290, relating to a short-barreled rifle or a
short-barreled shotgun.
(23) Section 33690, relating to a zip gun.
(b) These weapons shall be subject to confiscation and summary
destruction whenever found within the state.

(c) These weapons shall be destroyed in the same manner described
in Section 18005, except that upon the certification of a judge or of
the district attorney that the ends of justice will be served
thereby, the weapon shall be preserved until the necessity for its
use ceases.

Last edited by VendetAR; 12-09-2013 at 1:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-09-2013, 1:16 PM
Yellow Wing's Avatar
Yellow Wing Yellow Wing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Soon To Be Out Of This Hell Hole
Posts: 233
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

According to that section it looks like the 30 round magazine I found in the desert is legal.

Cool.

__________________
Purveyor Of Fine Hypno Heliostatic Stasis and Ecstato Euforo Fun With Patented Hinder 90 - MST3K
“Tolerance is the last virtue of a declining society” - Aristotle

Last edited by Yellow Wing; 12-09-2013 at 1:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-09-2013, 1:27 PM
VendetAR's Avatar
VendetAR VendetAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Wing View Post
According to that section it looks like the 30 round magazine I found in the desert is legal.

Cool.

Just make sure you "found" it at least 7 years ago.

Statute of Limitations is a SOB
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-09-2013, 1:41 PM
Ritchie8719 Ritchie8719 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,434
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
you are legally allowed to own them if you had them before 2000, but without a hi cap permit, they can be taken as a nuisance and destroyed per the instructions below.
this is true. Ven, precise language is important, and that is why you confused some.

Quote:
Just make sure you "found" it at least 7 years ago.

Statute of Limitations is a SOB
SOL on illegal import is 3 years, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-09-2013, 6:12 PM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertac916 View Post
I may just carry my Kimber Gold Combat with a few extra mags instead of my Glock. Just to be safe
HO-CHEE-MAMA!! Just a "few extra mags" eh? Supertac, let me bring you up to snuff on something here, the Taliban are pretty much concentrated in the middle east!!
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-09-2013, 6:33 PM
VendetAR's Avatar
VendetAR VendetAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritchie8719 View Post
this is true. Ven, precise language is important, and that is why you confused some.
Not to be smug, but how in the hell is this

Quote:
That is state law too. Even if you have pre ban mags, any LEO i the state can confiscate them as a nuisance, unless you have a high cap permit (and you wont have one without being an FFL/gun store owner). If you tell them that you bought them or came to possess them after 1/1/2000, you are seriously fk'd.
different from this?

Quote:
you are legally allowed to own them if you had them before 2000, but without a hi cap permit, they can be taken as a nuisance and destroyed per the instructions below.
I prefaced the first one to include PRE BAN in my statement of the type of mags and further backed it up by saying when it would be illegal to sell, import, lend, borrow or manufacture a 10+ mag.

Im surprised Librarian didn't back me up before I cited the facts.

Im happy to be questioned though, its rather satisfying to see people figure out what their toes taste like
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-09-2013, 8:53 PM
boromokot boromokot is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: frisco, the kids call it
Posts: 79
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

the san francisco law goes into effect this month(not totally sure but it may have been this first week) As i read, it gives 90 days to turn in any mags, so i would assume if you're travelling through or within San Francisco you SHOULD still be good til march
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-09-2013, 9:34 PM
Michael Ehline's Avatar
Michael Ehline Michael Ehline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 1,103
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Actually the way I read it, 32420 provides an exception to the act of importation only. I.e. they can not prosecute you for reimportation. But, perhaps they can seize them.

32420. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation of a
large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000,
lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with
the same large-capacity magazine.
__________________
Shoot and shoot often. "Rights not claimed are considered waived" (Marbury v. Madison)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-09-2013, 9:37 PM
Michael Ehline's Avatar
Michael Ehline Michael Ehline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 1,103
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Large capacity magazines acquired via a non-exempt method (such as "finding" or admitting to importing/manufacturing after the 3 year statue of limitation) are nusiance items and can be legally confiscated.

The possesor of said large capacity magazines will not be charged with a crime, but they will not be able to legally keep said magazines.


Thanks for the reference. That's what I was reading yesterday. The nuisance stuff complicates what we THOUGHT we knew about the high-cap mag laws.
__________________
Shoot and shoot often. "Rights not claimed are considered waived" (Marbury v. Madison)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-09-2013, 9:55 PM
VendetAR's Avatar
VendetAR VendetAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Ehline View Post
Large capacity magazines acquired via a non-exempt method (such as "finding" or admitting to importing/manufacturing after the 3 year statue of limitation) are nusiance items and can be legally confiscated.

The possesor of said large capacity magazines will not be charged with a crime, but they will not be able to legally keep said magazines.


Thanks for the reference. That's what I was reading yesterday. The nuisance stuff complicates what we THOUGHT we knew about the high-cap mag laws.
Yeah I was mistaken about SOL for this "crime".

The code allows for keeping and owning 10+ as well as takign them out of state and back in, but there is no stated grandfather clause in place that makes those mags exempt from PC 18010 and unless you have bona fide proof that the mag is pre ban (and no one can since they arent serialized ad registered), they are free game for confiscation. That is the f'd up part of the law, yet the only part of the law that is vague enough in our favor to keep them without getting thrown in jail.

I will say this, DO NOT try to claim you have pre ban 10+ mags for a gun that didnt exist prior to 2000. Im not talking about rebuilding Gen 3 and earlier Glock mags with the ambi notch Gen4s, Im talking about guns that have proprietary mags and didnt exist back then, such as an M&P. Even with the SOL, you will have a good chance of going though the legal system because of that.

IANAL so take it for what its worth, but to stay on the safe side of the law, your assembled 10+ mags should be for gun models over 13 years old.

Last edited by VendetAR; 12-09-2013 at 9:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-09-2013, 10:59 PM
oops...'s Avatar
oops... oops... is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 149
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergy View Post
I am always loaded with the "new" Black Talon.

YEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHHH.... BAD-GUY stoppers! Those are the only rounds I carry!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-09-2013, 11:06 PM
oops...'s Avatar
oops... oops... is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 149
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Where is GENE at.... I was hoping he would chime in on this. I have bee ntold now for quite some time the law pertaining to NUISANCE is not constitutional and they are NOT allowed to take anything!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-09-2013, 11:10 PM
Ritchie8719 Ritchie8719 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,434
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
how in the hell is this..........
I forget what my point was.

Quote:
Im surprised Librarian didn't back me up
He has to sleep sometime.

Quote:
IANAL so take it for what its worth, but to stay on the safe side of the law, your assembled 10+ mags should be for gun models over 13 years old.
And absolutely for gun models over 3 years old.

Last edited by Ritchie8719; 12-09-2013 at 11:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-20-2013, 9:06 AM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Sean Brady called me the other day and said that they are fighting the SF and Sunnyvale city ordinances regarding it being illegal to possess magazines holding more than 10 rounds in their city's. He said that I didn't have to worry about it because the law hasn't taken effect as of yet.

I didn't ask, if our magazines could legally be confiscated as a nuisance. However, IMO the only time they could be confiscated is if LEO's knew I was carrying and checked the mags. There are only three scenarios in which that would happen. If I had to use it to defend myself and my family, if I didn't remain concealed and someone called the police, or if I broke the law and LEO's had probable cause to arrest or frisk me.

I carried while my wife and I were there without incident. I did carry my Kimber with two spare mags, which were loaded with 230 grain FMJ's. Wife and I don't make it to the city that much and we ended up walking through some sketchy areas on accident. Amazing how it goes from busy Market street to the ghetto, if you turn down the wrong street. It was nice getting away and enjoying the city. My wife was also much more comfortable with me carrying.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-20-2013, 9:13 AM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus View Post
HO-CHEE-MAMA!! Just a "few extra mags" eh? Supertac, let me bring you up to snuff on something here, the Taliban are pretty much concentrated in the middle east!!
If I thought I was going into battle, I'd bring more than 25 rounds. I'm one of those guys that would rather have too much, than not enough.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-23-2013, 2:19 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertac916 View Post
If I thought I was going into battle, I'd bring more than 25 rounds. I'm one of those guys that would rather have too much, than not enough.
If I thought I was going into battle, I wouldn't bring a pistol....nor would the friends I would bring.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-11-2014, 10:06 AM
ndekens ndekens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 100
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just remember if you do get pulled over don't say you have a CCW because they will take it. You will then have to wait until they mail it back to your local sheriffs office to go pick it up. Apparently the local SF fuzz don't care if its legal or not.

When I was getting my CCW last year my local sheriff warned my about this.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-11-2014, 10:15 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 2,941
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ndekens View Post
Just remember if you do get pulled over don't say you have a CCW because they will take it. You will then have to wait until they mail it back to your local sheriffs office to go pick it up. Apparently the local SF fuzz don't care if its legal or not.

When I was getting my CCW last year my local sheriff warned my about this.
And as has been stated at least a thousand times before this myth is total BS.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-11-2014, 4:54 PM
Wicked Pete's Avatar
Wicked Pete Wicked Pete is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Unbanned
Posts: 4,955
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They drag hang in you Sunnyvale for big mags. It must be a weird place. Yunno, like a bunch of big ego yuppy communistic tree hugging bleeding hearts (head up rear, very far) universal love - but screw the public, and enjoy doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-14-2014, 4:00 PM
SARC_Mike SARC_Mike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fresno
Posts: 693
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

ugh
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

Last edited by SARC_Mike; 01-18-2014 at 9:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-14-2014, 4:26 PM
Old_Bald_Guy's Avatar
Old_Bald_Guy Old_Bald_Guy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 2,565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ndekens View Post
Just remember if you do get pulled over don't say you have a CCW because they will take it. You will then have to wait until they mail it back to your local sheriffs office to go pick it up. Apparently the local SF fuzz don't care if its legal or not.
Repeat ten times: This is apocryphal nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true.

Quote:
When I was getting my CCW last year my local sheriff warned my about this.
No.
__________________
“Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-14-2014, 5:43 PM
QuarterBoreGunner's Avatar
QuarterBoreGunner QuarterBoreGunner is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West Oakland, low crawling up on Emeryville and Berkeley.
Posts: 8,988
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ndekens View Post
Just remember if you do get pulled over don't say you have a CCW because they will take it. You will then have to wait until they mail it back to your local sheriffs office to go pick it up. Apparently the local SF fuzz don't care if its legal or not.

When I was getting my CCW last year my local sheriff warned my about this.
Total and complete nonsense.

I've been hearing this for years and no one, I mean absolutely NO ONE has ever been able to back it up with any sort of evidence. Your sheriff is completely wrong

I LTC in San Francisco every single day of the work week and have for the past dozen years. I think I would have heard something.
__________________
/Chris

I have a perfect Burning Man attendance record: zero.

You do know there are more guns in the country than there are in the city.
Everyone and their mums is packin' round here!
Like who?
Farmers.
Who else?
Farmers' mums.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-17-2014, 6:07 AM
Supertac916 Supertac916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuarterBoreGunner View Post
Total and complete nonsense.

I've been hearing this for years and no one, I mean absolutely NO ONE has ever been able to back it up with any sort of evidence. Your sheriff is completely wrong

I LTC in San Francisco every single day of the work week and have for the past dozen years. I think I would have heard something.
I agree, I asked the lady about any additional restrictions I need to worry about besides the usual, when I picked up my permit a year and half ago. She mentioned that we might get hassled in SF because their police chief wasn't fond of CCW holders. However, she mentioned it's completely legal and we shouldn't have problems there. If I ever run into a problem, just contact my sheriff's department because our sheriff believes in the right to carry including SF. She also mentioned that she's never heard of any actual problems in SF. Only issues they had were when a permit holder tried to go through airport security.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-17-2014, 7:03 AM
QuarterBoreGunner's Avatar
QuarterBoreGunner QuarterBoreGunner is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West Oakland, low crawling up on Emeryville and Berkeley.
Posts: 8,988
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

^And I think the largest part of that may be that the average SFPD officer so rarely sees a valid LTC that there's a certain amount of confusion on the issue.

Anyway, I really wish I could find where this myth originated. Was there some incident in the past and it just got re-told and added onto through the years? I'd love to know.
__________________
/Chris

I have a perfect Burning Man attendance record: zero.

You do know there are more guns in the country than there are in the city.
Everyone and their mums is packin' round here!
Like who?
Farmers.
Who else?
Farmers' mums.
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 7:21 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.