Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Connecticut

Discussions related to articles

Re: Connecticut

Postby Big Dad » Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:04 pm

There is No Grandfathering what so ever with Magazines in California. Even to have them tucked away and LEO finds them, Bad news. For all the Cal/Legal what is and what is Not Legal one can find all the anwsers at Calguns.net.
Big Dad
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:21 am

Re: Connecticut

Postby fxlnll » Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:14 pm

Big Dad wrote:There is No Grandfathering what so ever with Magazines in California. Even to have them tucked away and LEO finds them, Bad news. For all the Cal/Legal what is and what is Not Legal one can find all the anwsers at Calguns.net.

Who to believe, who to believe, from calguns.net
This sounds like if you aquired them before 2000 then yes they are OK to have in Kalifornia.
Legal Considerations
California restricts certain things about magazines greater than 10 rounds; it has created a silly legal name for them - "large-capacity magazines" - and says we 'regular people' cannot import, sell or manufacture them. ("Dealer" FFLs may get licenses from DOJ for these activities; curio and relic licensees cannot.) The restriction applies to both centerfire and rimfire weapons.

It is perfectly legal - no restrictions at all in the Penal Code - to own and possess and use those "large-capacity magazines" in any gun*(see footnote), at any time, under any circumstances where it is legal to use a gun. Ownership, possession and use of "large-capacity magazines" are not crimes in PC; there is no section under which you could be charged.

Those who own "large-capacity magazines" are not required to keep records or receipts, and not required to explain how they got them.

The age of the magazine and the age of the gun mean nothing. The critical item is possession of the magazine(s) in California before January 1, 2000.

Yes, you can go out of state and buy magazines of any capacity - but you may not bring "large-capacity magazines" back to CA as complete magazines - that would be importing and that can be charged as a felony. 'Importing' ALSO applies to moving here or visiting here.

Yes, you can buy part kits to repair your existing magazines - but you cannot assemble them into complete "large-capacity magazines" inside CA - that would be manufacturing and that can be charged as a felony. Once you have a parts kit, you can resell it if you choose; the buyer may not assemble it into a complete magazine inside CA, either.

Yes, you can take one of those kits and create a 10-round magazine from the parts and some method of blocking the capacity; one example here. The modification is supposed to be 'permanent', but there is no guidance on what that means in law, regulation, or court cases. Use your best judgement.

You can have "large-capacity magazines"; no one may give them or sell them to you in California, and you may not give or sell them to anyone else in California. This includes sales from LEO and intrafamilial transfers - that would be included in selling and that can be charged as a felony.

There is no such thing as a "pre-ban" or "post-ban" "large-capacity magazine", and it doesn't matter. Markings on magazines have no legal meaning.

If you acquire large-capacity magazines legally, for example as a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), yes, you may keep those magazines and continue to use them when/if you are no longer a LEO.
If you think your legal question has not been answered, follow the links at the top of this post and read the articles, then re-read items (2) and (3) above several times. Other questions are addressed below.


* Note: it is not a part of the "large-capacity magazine" law, but part of the 'assault weapon' law that says a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is an 'assault weapon'.
fxlnll
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:42 am

Re: Connecticut

Postby Big Dad » Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:45 am

fxlnll wrote:
Big Dad wrote:There is No Grandfathering what so ever with Magazines in California. Even to have them tucked away and LEO finds them, Bad news. For all the Cal/Legal what is and what is Not Legal one can find all the anwsers at Calguns.net.

Who to believe, who to believe, from calguns.net
This sounds like if you aquired them before 2000 then yes they are OK to have in Kalifornia.
Legal Considerations
California restricts certain things about magazines greater than 10 rounds; it has created a silly legal name for them - "large-capacity magazines" - and says we 'regular people' cannot import, sell or manufacture them. ("Dealer" FFLs may get licenses from DOJ for these activities; curio and relic licensees cannot.) The restriction applies to both centerfire and rimfire weapons.

It is perfectly legal - no restrictions at all in the Penal Code - to own and possess and use those "large-capacity magazines" in any gun*(see footnote), at any time, under any circumstances where it is legal to use a gun. Ownership, possession and use of "large-capacity magazines" are not crimes in PC; there is no section under which you could be charged.

Those who own "large-capacity magazines" are not required to keep records or receipts, and not required to explain how they got them.

The age of the magazine and the age of the gun mean nothing. The critical item is possession of the magazine(s) in California before January 1, 2000.

Yes, you can go out of state and buy magazines of any capacity - but you may not bring "large-capacity magazines" back to CA as complete magazines - that would be importing and that can be charged as a felony. 'Importing' ALSO applies to moving here or visiting here.

Yes, you can buy part kits to repair your existing magazines - but you cannot assemble them into complete "large-capacity magazines" inside CA - that would be manufacturing and that can be charged as a felony. Once you have a parts kit, you can resell it if you choose; the buyer may not assemble it into a complete magazine inside CA, either.

Yes, you can take one of those kits and create a 10-round magazine from the parts and some method of blocking the capacity; one example here. The modification is supposed to be 'permanent', but there is no guidance on what that means in law, regulation, or court cases. Use your best judgement.

You can have "large-capacity magazines"; no one may give them or sell them to you in California, and you may not give or sell them to anyone else in California. This includes sales from LEO and intrafamilial transfers - that would be included in selling and that can be charged as a felony.

There is no such thing as a "pre-ban" or "post-ban" "large-capacity magazine", and it doesn't matter. Markings on magazines have no legal meaning.

If you acquire large-capacity magazines legally, for example as a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), yes, you may keep those magazines and continue to use them when/if you are no longer a LEO.
If you think your legal question has not been answered, follow the links at the top of this post and read the articles, then re-read items (2) and (3) above several times. Other questions are addressed below.


* Note: it is not a part of the "large-capacity magazine" law, but part of the 'assault weapon' law that says a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is an 'assault weapon'.


Some of the laws are hard to understand, however check out Ca Penal code 12020 thru 12040: Unlawful to carrying or Possessing! Also LEO can only have Large capacity magazines in the lawful coarse of duty, and not for personel use.
Big Dad
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:21 am

Re: Connecticut

Postby fxlnll » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:13 am

The way I read it, it says you can not have one to sell or give one to someone. Another problem with politics is they write laws in Legalese not english. I do agree it is very confusing. It should not be that difficult to figure out if granfathered in or not.

(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.
fxlnll
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:42 am

Re: Connecticut

Postby Bagger » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:08 pm

The correct info can be found on the CA. DOJ firearms website.
The FAQs discuss the large capacity magazines directly.

The law is written to prevent the sale,import or manufacture of these large capacity magazines,NOT THE POSSESSION of them.

It is not a Federal offense,it is a CA.State law.

It is important to get the terminology correct when discussing Gun Laws.
Clips feed cartridges into magazines,fixed or removable.
Magazines feed cartridges into a firearm.
Automatics fire continously with a pull of the trigger.
Semiautomatics fire one cartridge with each pull of the trigger and eject and reload the cartridge into the chamber of the firearm.
Revolvers are neither automatic or semiautomatic.

Correct me if I am wrong.
Bagger
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: Connecticut

Postby PetalumaGal » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:13 am

Well, this has been very informative. In posting this query I've learned that the most passionate response in the Petaluma forum to the issue of crazies with guns is regarding gun ownership. I'm not judging this - it is very interesting. Thanks to all who responded.
PetalumaGal
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:08 pm

Re: Connecticut

Postby walk2k » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:13 pm

BORN HERE wrote:walk2k
I use a bolt action .223 for deer hunting, who are you to tell me that I don't need that rifle.
lol
extremely large difference between a bolt action hunting gun and a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 100-round magazine.

you don't need to hunt deer either, they sell meat in stores now.
:lol:

but seriously, I have no problem with people owning guns for hunting or home protection, but within reason. you don't need a machine gun. you're not allowed to own hand grenades or bazookas either. or nuclear missiles.. lol

the 2nd amendment was never intended to protect private gun ownership, it allowed the formation of a militia for public protection from foreign invasion, period. a militia by the way that operates under the orders of the POTUS - that's also in the constitution, see if you want to quote the constitution to support your arguement you have to keep reading beyond the 2nd paragraph.. lol. it was only very recently that a conservative SCOTUS voted by a 1 vote margin (5 conservative judges to 4) to interperet the 2nd amendment that way, something which can and should be easily overturned.

you're also correct that CA and other states, like CT have never gotten rid of their own state bans on assault weapons. but a federal ban has more teeth, as anyone can prove by driving across a state border and legally purchasing a gun at a gun show (with NO background check!) and smuggling it home - which is illegal but trafficking is how guns spread. a federal ban would prevent that. my friend in CT also pointed out that their state ban on assault rifles doesn't ban the AR-15 that was used in Newtown because it doesn't meet all the criteria - in addition to being semi-auto with a high capacity clip it also has to have a collapsable stock (so is easier concealed) and a bayonet mounting. so obviously that ban isn't strict enough.. I don't think anyone is really concerned about bayonets. LOL
walk2k
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: Connecticut

Postby Big Dad » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:33 pm

walk2k wrote:
BORN HERE wrote:walk2k
I use a bolt action .223 for deer hunting, who are you to tell me that I don't need that rifle.
lol
extremely large difference between a bolt action hunting gun and a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 100-round magazine.

you don't need to hunt deer either, they sell meat in stores now.
:lol:

but seriously, I have no problem with people owning guns for hunting or home protection, but within reason. you don't need a machine gun. you're not allowed to own hand grenades or bazookas either. or nuclear missiles.. lol

the 2nd amendment was never intended to protect private gun ownership, it allowed the formation of a militia for public protection from foreign invasion, period. a militia by the way that operates under the orders of the POTUS - that's also in the constitution, see if you want to quote the constitution to support your arguement you have to keep reading beyond the 2nd paragraph.. lol. it was only very recently that a conservative SCOTUS voted by a 1 vote margin (5 conservative judges to 4) to interperet the 2nd amendment that way, something which can and should be easily overturned.

you're also correct that CA and other states, like CT have never gotten rid of their own state bans on assault weapons. but a federal ban has more teeth, as anyone can prove by driving across a state border and legally purchasing a gun at a gun show (with NO background check!) and smuggling it home - which is illegal but trafficking is how guns spread. a federal ban would prevent that. my friend in CT also pointed out that their state ban on assault rifles doesn't ban the AR-15 that was used in Newtown because it doesn't meet all the criteria - in addition to being semi-auto with a high capacity clip it also has to have a collapsable stock (so is easier concealed) and a bayonet mounting. so obviously that ban isn't strict enough.. I don't think anyone is really concerned about bayonets. LOL


Funny you mentioned Gun shows. I went to the Reno gun show last month and just for kicks inquired about buying some AR lowers and other parts, (The ones that need to be registered with the DOJ by law) all was good until I told the guy I lived in California. He pointed to a table that was a California dealer and said Sorry, Can't sell to out of State folks unless you have an FFL. Also I may add, they had Armed guards at the doors that checked your bags and the womens purses for handguns, just in case someone did make a slippery deal?
Even the Gun shows are starting to tighten up.
Big Dad
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:21 am

Re: Connecticut

Postby BORN HERE » Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:27 am

Nevada pawn shops are the same way. Wanted to buy a older shot gun a year or so ago when in reno and no such luck.
BORN HERE
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:45 pm

Re: Connecticut

Postby fxlnll » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:07 pm

Big Dad wrote:
walk2k wrote: Even the Gun shows are starting to tighten up.

That can't possibly be true, I just heard feinstein and her ilk claim guns shows were a huge loop hole. they wouldn't lie to us would they?
Or maybe it was dick Gregory on Meet the Press claiming gun shows were evil, all the while holding a 30 round magazine in a DC studio, where just possession of it is a crime!! Do you think La Pierre would have been able to leave the studio, if he was stupid enough to bring in that magazine?
fxlnll
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:42 am

Previous

Return to In the news

cron