High capacity magazines in CA...

[Capt.Jim]

In my great(!) state of CA another lawsuit is filed regarding this High Capacity Magazines issue.

People having magazines with more than 10 rounds capacity must get rid of them by November 15th 2015 or face the consequences.

This is one of the dumbest issues regarding the efforts towards so called "gun violence prevention".

Anti-gun lobby promotes that mass murders are happening because these horrific weapons have magazines capable of carrying 30-40-50 even 100 rounds or more...

This is like saying fatal car accidents are happening because cars on the roads are capable of going 90-100-120 even 160mph or more..

I mean my car is capable of going 145mph while the highest allowed speed limit in my state by law is 70mph. If we apply the anti-gun lobby's logic I am a criminal by owning that car.

What if you have a 30 round capacity magazine but only load 10 cartridge in it? Why it is still considered illegal?
After all, you're not exceeding the allowed round limit in your magazine.

It is hard to understand the logic behind these useless rules and regulations.

[fordson]

Well, the mag has the capability to hold more then the number permitted, so they would be trusting in you not to load beyond the permitted amount. And that gets to the bottom line issue: they don't turst people with guns. They turst you with a speed limit, but not a mag.

[Watchdog]

Well, here are some facts about this, without getting into all the "what ifs" and comparisons to cars or alcohol or drugs or whatever.

The lawsuit is being filed against the city of Los Angeles. That city has passed an ordinance banning/outlawing magazines capable of holding over ten rounds.

State law prohibits the manufacture and importation of high capacity mags into the state, but does not outlaw their possession.

Quoting from the Los Angeles Times of October 23:

"State law already generally bans the manufacturing of such ammunition magazines, offering them for sale or bringing them into the state. But California does not actually prohibit people from possessing them, which Krekorian and other gun control advocates see as a dangerous loophole.
Under the state rules, residents can generally continue to hold onto such magazines if they owned them in the state before a certain date."

The deadline for Los Angeles gun owners to turn in their high capacity mags is November 20, not November 15, according to the NRA-ILA website.

The legal basis for the lawsuit is stated as being that the L. A. ordinance creates a contradiction to state law that isn't acceptable. The attorneys filing the suit say that state law prohibits cities from enacting their own laws on firearms issues.

Quoting from My News LA: "A National Rifle Association affiliate, 30 county sheriffs and law enforcement organizations filed a lawsuit Friday in an attempt to block the city of Los Angeles’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines from taking effect next month."

I figure one of two things will happen. Either the law will take effect, or someone will find a friendly judge to strike down the law for a while...then it'll wind its way through the California judicial system, and who knows where that will end.

Possession of the high capacity magazines will only be a misdemeanor (so far). Personally I'm wondering about enforcement and how that will happen.

L. A. officials are talking about "turning in magazines". Well, turn 'em in to who? Gun shops? The police? Or maybe take them down to city hall and dump them on City Councilman Paul Krekorian's desk or something?

Really, who's gonna know if gun owners dispose of their mags?

Krekorian, by the way, is the author of this law, or ordinance, or whatever you want to call it.

[cmj8591]

This ought to put a dent in MS-13!!

[Comrad]

Show of hands here. How many of us have ever been questioned about the size of their magazines or had one inspected by LEO?

Will these new mag limit laws come with a stop and frisk provision? I just don't know who can or will enforce this.

Hypothetically, if you have acres and acres of land and want to use a high capacity magazine who is coming down your driveway to question you?

I just don't see it as an enforceable law.

[Capt.Jim]

What bothers me is that the anti-gun legislator is simply trying to make the ownership and possession of a gun related "part" at an individual's home, illegal.

Imagine this; Let's say you own ten 30 round capacity magazines at your home in CA and because of the new new law you do not plan to use them and store them at your basement inside a box with the hope that sometime in the future if the law changes again you may use them again.

Even on their own these "parts" does not present any danger to anyone or classified as a "firearm" still, you are guilty.

That's why I mentioned car example in my OP. I mean what if you ban from owning a car just simply because it is capable of going over the speed limit.

Even if you were not going fast or even if you are not using it, what if simply having that car in your garage makes you automatically guilty?

Now they say any magazine or gun with over 10 round capacity may cause a mass casualty therefore it must be banned!

How do we know tomorrow they will not try to forbid the possession of more than 10 rounds of ammo in anyone's home?

I mean after all, the same logic can argue why anybody with max 10 round capacity magazine will need more than 10 cartridge for self defense?

Or how about the question of "why people will need more than one magazine?"

This high capacity magazine issue is the beginning of the limitations wanted to be pushed on gun owners and since it sounds more innocent because it presented just a simple accessory/part ban and not a "gun ban"...

Just wait and see.

[TTSH]

Originally Posted by Capt.Jim

People having magazines with more than 10 rounds capacity must get rid of them by November 15th 2015 or face the consequences.

Hmmm. This might help explain why I am suddenly seeing a marked increase in pre-ban magazines offered for sale here in Massachusetts... just as it happened after the NY Un-SAFE Act was rammed through.

[M29since14]

No need to wait and see anything. Everyone knows what they are up to. When the ridiculous 10 rd thing gets its feet on the ground our friends will bite off another chunk and see if they can get away with that one too.

It's easier for all concerned, including us, if we lose our rights and freedom a little bit at a time.

[g-dad]

Originally Posted by M29since14

It's easier for all concerned, including us, if we lose our rights and freedom a little bit at a time.

That's little bit like the frog sitting in the water as its brought to a boil. He doesn't notice it until its too late.

[Chubbs103]

Originally Posted by Comrad

Show of hands here. How many of us have ever been questioned about the size of their magazines or had one inspected by LEO?

Consider my hand up. When I was stationed in California, I did a fair amount of shooting in the desert. One day as my wife and I were packing up, a BLM Ranger pulled up and asked about the capacity of our magazines. I believe we had a couple of revolvers, a 1911, and a Sig P220 with us.

He claimed it sounded like someone was shooting with "high-capacity" magazines.

I remained polite, and chalked it up to living in CA.

Chubbs

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by Capt.Jim

Imagine this; Let's say you own ten 30 round capacity magazines at your home in CA...

Keep in mind, this is not a state law. It applies only to the city of Los Angeles, although it is similar to laws in effect in San Francisco and Sunnyvale. So everyone who has a "home in California" will not be affected by this.

Now they say any magazine or gun with over 10 round capacity may cause a mass casualty therefore it must be banned!

No, they are not saying any gun with a capacity of over ten rounds. This does not apply to guns with tubular magazines like .22 rifles or shotguns.

[Capt.Jim]

Originally Posted by WATCHDOG

Keep in mind, this is not a state law. It applies only to the city of Los Angeles, although it is similar to laws in effect in San Francisco and Sunnyvale. So everyone who has a "home in California" will not be affected by this.

No, they are not saying any gun with a capacity of over ten rounds. This does not apply to guns with tubular magazines like .22 rifles or shotguns.

I am not pinpointing this law in L.A. in general. What I mean is the general consensus tried to be generated by the anti-gun lobby is : " guns with 10+ round capacity magazines IS the main culprit in mass shootings"...
With that argument they initiate their reasoning and the people with lack of gun knowledge buying it as so called :common sense" argument.
That's what I am talking about.

I know it is NOT a state law and a city doing this. But a city here another city there, they are making life harder and harder for legal gun orders.

What good it does if you are not able to move around comfortably within your state even with a state issued CCW because of every city impose another restriction on you?

Like someone mentioned on this thread (without naming the issues clearly, due to board rules here) the social concept dictated by few minorities has been changed within the last few years at a level that it was unimaginable for majority of Americans.

A generation of kids grew up by playing Cowboys and Indians with their cap guns in their hands, chasing each other on the streets of their neighborhoods, now seeking therapy for their kids because a six yr old brought a 1 inch long rifle of his toy G.I. Joe character.

Whatever we (you) believe... The argument is LOST, and in a few years or maybe within a decade or so same thing will happen to the Guns and so called 2A as same as what happened at every other issue once we (you) thought as "Nooo that will never happen in the U.S.A."...

Like I said, wait and see...

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by Capt.Jim

Whatever we (you) believe... The argument is LOST, and in a few years or maybe within a decade or so same thing will happen to the Guns and so called 2A as same as what happened at every other issue once we (you) thought as "Nooo that will never happen in the U.S.A."...

The argument is lost? Really?

If that's your belief, all of us may as well just stop sending in our money to the NRA, just disband the NRA, right? Stop writing our elected representatives. Maybe even just stop voting, period, right? I mean, what's the point if we've already lost the argument?

I reckon it's a good thing Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and that bunch of guys didn't think that way or no telling where we'd be today. Probably a good thing, too, that we didn't think that way after December 7, 1941.

Sorry, but I don't buy into that whole argument-is-lost mindset, and I won't just roll over and quit. I won't be a defeatist. I remain optimistic about our country and our rights.

And since I think this thread is drifting off course. I won't comment on it again.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Los Angeles county has a population of over 10 million. Last time I checked there were only a few hundred people with a carry permit.
Magazine capacity restrictions on guns that no one carries anyway seems rather silly for all involved.

Heck, the population of California is close to 40 million. Less than 100k have carry permits. The people of California first need to get Shall Issue. Until folks understand that a gun is for more than hiding under the bed there's no hope.

[Big Cholla]

I first started doubting the effectiveness of "laws" in general when I realized that I had flown small airplanes for 33 years after/while jumping thru all the legal laws, requirements, licenses and hoops required for both private and commercial piloting and not one time was I ever asked to produce one of those licenses. Then as a LEO , I watched time and time again other LEO's decide just which and how much of any given legal law that they were going to enforce. I still am wondering just how much of the hundreds of thousands of local, county, state, federal and now international law are really worth the paper they are written on. ........

[jag312]

I'm sure that everyone with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds will rush to the local PD to turn in their magazines. Then there will be no more shootings in California, and peace and love will reign supreme. And I'll be playing a flute and dancing naked in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.

[Warren Sear]

Bill Ruger was a champion of banning "high capacity" magazines. This piece of legislature should be named in his "honor".

[steelslaver]

What amazes me is how anyone could think that a law against a magazine size is going to make someone who is bent on mass murder keep from obtaining and using something that already exist in huge quantities.

It is like thinking outlawing beer in anything larger than a 2 pack will in LA will stop drunken driving there.

[Comrad]

Wen I went to school a search warrant or probable cause was necessary to search. I have a Ruger take down with a backpack and it came with a 10 round magazine. I have added some 15 rounds because the are legal in NJ but as a devils advocate here, what if my back pack had some 30 round magazines in the zippered compartment? Is that subject to a search for no reason other than a fishing expedition? Or, I'm allowed 7 in a 10 shot magazine while at my son's place in NY. Can I be stopped and have my magazine searched?

[HeyJoe]

the 7 round thing was thrown out in federal court

[jupiter1]

Originally Posted by Comrad

I'm allowed 7 in a 10 shot magazine while at my son's place in NY. Can I be stopped and have my magazine searched?

Not without probable cause:

Judge drops charges against man for violating NY SAFE Act 7-round magazine limit