SB 776: California bill to prohibit the possession of large-capacity magazines.

[Howzit]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_776_bill_20090415_amended_sen_v98.html

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, and subject to
specified exceptions, prohibit the possession of large-capacity
magazines. Violation of these provisions would be punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, and subject to
exceptions, require registration of large-capacity magazines with the
Department of Justice. The bill would require registration of
large-capacity magazines no later than January 1, 2011, for magazines
that are already possessed, as specified, and would provide that
large-capacity magazines acquired after January 1, 2011, be
registered within 30 days of taking possession. The bill would
establish exceptions to these provisions.

The bill would require local and state entities to register their
large-capacity magazines as institutionally owned, as specified,
and would require those entities to report to the department the \
disposition of large-capacity magazines by those entities that
constitute a nuisance, as specified. The bill would authorize
the Department of Justice to charge a fee, not to exceed $20,
for registration of large-capacity magazines, and would authorize
increases in that fee, as specified. The bill would exempt local
and state entities from that registration fee.


So, how often would one have to pay $20 per magazine, subject to a possible
fee increase? Every year, or just until you have to surrender them to
local authorities?

Seriously, If I had 100 magazines and registered 5, how are they going
to know which magazine is which - by inscribing serial numbers?

If you want to tell the CA govt what you think of this bill, contact the
representatives at:

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), Chair
[phone]
[e-mail]

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37), Vice-Chair
[phone]

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22)
[phone]

State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9)
[phone]

State Senator Robert Huff (R-29)
[phone]

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
[phone]

State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25)
[phone]

[rl6214]

1. So does that mean

I shouldn't order the new Springfield XDm...19+1 rounds of 9mm.

Seriously though, I don't own a pistol with a capacity of under 15 rounds and I must have 75+ 30rd ar15 mags. I would have to pay $20 to register each one.

No thanks, I'll stay in the free state of Texas.

[corruptmewithpower]

2. Is there some stated purpose for this arbitrary legislative item?

[old mark]

3. What do they mean by "large capacity"? Do they seriously expect

someone who has a weapon for use in committing crimes to show up and register a magazine?
I have long thought California lawmakers stupid - this provces my point.

mark

[inkool]

4. More then 10 rounds

I don't really think 11 is high capacity. I can't even buy magazines that small for some of my firearms.

I think California is simply trying to make the cost and difficulty of owning a firearm so high that most people will just not bother. Banning by bureaucracy.

Aside form the lame duck Rendell I'm glad I live in a mostly sane state.

[old mark]

5. I live in PA, too - lived in Northern California in the '70's, glad to be

back here.
I recently retired from PA State civil Service - rendell is an superior asshole-he as a website that is sent to all state employees every month telling us what a wonderful guy he is, and how much we are appreciated.
he also has another web site aimed at business stating how little we are paid and how much work we do for little money and benefits. It also tells everyone what a wonderful guy Ed is.
I believe he needs politics or he will dry up from lack of attention.
I carry mainly 1911 type .45's with 7 round mags, but I do have evil black rifles with 20 rounders as well.

mark

[inkool]

6. I was not fond of PA

when I was younger. Thought it was too boring. Now that I am a little older and a little less stupid I realized that PA is a great place to live. Plus if I need excitement I can be in a half dozen major cities or a beach in less then 4 hours.

Rendell seem to only care about himself and Philly sports. At least he is term limited. We get elect a new crappy governor soon.

I mostly carry a .38 jframe so I am limited to 5.

[old mark]

10. Funny, no? What used to be adventure

is now a pain in the ass.

I would not go back to California if they paid me to do it.
ADDED: I have an older nickel plate Chief special, too - one of my all time favorite revolvers.
mark

[Statistical]

7. The problem is the bll as is

doesn't define "large capacity".

I looked it up @ the link and the proposed ammended statute.
Nothing defines in law that <=10 is standard & 11+ is large.

So like any undefined law "large" becomes what cop/DA believes it should be.

If LEO needs it then 7 round could be "large" (compared to 6 round revolver it is).
10 round semi-auto rifle is "large" compared to 5 round one.

[old mark]

9. Great - then it becomes as muddy as knife laws are - they vary from town to town

sometimes from cop to cop. You can be charged with carying a "prohibited offensive weapon" if the pocket knife you carried for years fails a cop's idea of what is legal or not. The charge might not stick, but you will be inconvenienced at least, and the charge will be on your record forever.
Laws like this make it possible for any LEO who feels like t to fuck with anyone at all for any reason or none.

Just great, California.


mark

[inkool]

11. I could be reading it..

Wrong. I really just skimmed the linked bill.

I pulled the over 10 rounds from this part. It is near the bottom.

"large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with
the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.
(d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section.

I have no idea why it mentions knives???

I do have little doubt that they will continue to redefine what large is until it is anything greater then 1.

[Statistical]

12. ok I missed that section.

Well at least it is clear.

It still is a bad/stupid/infringing law but at least it is a clear bad/stupid/infringing law.

[jmg257]

8. Wow - and they are going after state institusions too? There is something new.

Weren't we having this discussion the other day re: "gun control that makes sense" thread?

[slackmaster]

13. I lost all of my standard-capacity magazines in a tragic boating accident

:argh:

[Statistical]

14. Heard that happens a lot.

Some sort of correlation between oppressive gun control and lost items.

[east texas lib]

15. What magazines?

Oh,you must mean the National Geographics!;-)

[yay]

16. No, Hot VW's

[Yavapai]

17. California blows goats!

That is why we left there upon retirement.

Been in Arizona for five years, haven't missed one damn thing about that insane asylum.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Just another stupid law that criminals will ignore.