Fraudulent "Pre Ban" Magazines

[LiveLife]

You have correctly pointed out that Judge Benitez's Preliminary Injunction only covers subparagraphs (c) and (d) of California Penal Code section 32310, and does not cover subparagraphs (a) and (b)

To not hijack the thread, I would agree to discuss our differences in a new thread. (And believe me, we are on the same "side" of magazine ban discussion and probably shot at the same ranges as I belonged to Lemoore Sportsman's Club and Visalia indoor shooting range before it was sold and range equipment shipped out)

As to OP of "Fraudulent 'pre ban' magazines for sale?", be sure to check your state's laws as you may be violating them.

Peace.

 

[RickD427]

To not hijack the thread, I would agree to discuss our differences in a new thread.

As to OP of "Fraudulent 'pre ban' magazines for sale?", be sure to check your state's laws as you may be violating them.

Peace.

No need for a separate thread. All of the issues here on on the table. As you can tell, I took issue with your postings, but the main value of this forum is to inform the folks that read it. The Duncan v Bonta case is one that is worth following. It has taken enough "twists and turns" to confuse even the most ardent of followers. While I don't think the "Wall of Text" post addressed our area of disagreement, it does do a very good job of informing other readers of this forum as to the effects of the case. I hope that folks here will focus on the case, and what it holds for our community.

For the record, I tend to be very exact in word usage, I've found that the inexact use of language can frustrate the efforts of folks to understand issues, and is sometimes deliberately done in an effort to confuse (not the case with your postings, but has been with others).

Peace. seems to be the best way to end this.

 

[LiveLife]

For the record, I tend to be very exact in word usage, I've found that the inexact use of language can frustrate the efforts of folks to understand issues, and is sometimes deliberately done in an effort to confuse (not the case with your postings, but has been with others).

You are correct. The reason why I requested that we discuss the details in another thread was this (Very CA specific and kinda moot at this point):

In post #11, I was responding to member Kyle911's post of "hypothetical" situation where CA resident import larger than 10 round capacity magazine (LCM) without being caught and how CA would enforce such possession.

How would anyone really know though? Let's say you skipped over to another state and just got a new full load magazine....no one is checking you at the state line. How would such a thing be enforceable much less a deterrent? Unless you put yourself on someones radar that is.

And this was my reply and you are correct, my wording would seem that CA stopped enforcing "possession" of LCM on their own instead of judge Benitez ruling/preliminary injunction.

These laws are "enforcable" only when you get caught (Hence why CA stopped enforcing "possession" of larger than 10 round capacity magazines).

So either don't get "caught" or in the spirit of "High Road", don't violate such state laws.

Information I got from Tom Gresham's "Gun Talk" episode was that preliminary injunction had to do with not criminalizing owners of "grandfathered" magazines legally purchased. And of course, "Freedom Week" legalized all other LCM manufactured/imported/assembled/bought/sold/gifted/transferred by 5 PM PST 4/5/2019. And CA did tried to somehow enforce "possession" of LCMs manufactured/assembled/imported after 4/5/2019.

So apparently CA approached various magazine manufacturers and requested date of manufacture be stamped on magazines/bodies so CA could enforce "possession" of LCM manufacturered after 4/5/2019. Well, the manufacturers told CA to go kick rocks and now the burden of provig LCM in possession was manufactured/assembled/imported after 4/5/2019 was on CA and that was very challenging unless caught in the act of manufacturing/assembling/importing/selling/transfering. So according to "Gun Talk", CA stopped enforcing "possession" of LCM manufactured/assembled/imported after 4/5/2019 unless it was obvious that particular brand/model of magazine did not exist before 4/5/2019 or had manufacture date.

So yes, you were correct and I should have clarified my post better (I was busy diagnosing my daughter's computer and was distracted).

OK, back to OP.

 

[CapnMac]

The federal AWB was never as neat, complete, nor all-encompassing as either side depicted it.

The requirement to mark any new "forbidden fruit" was poorly followed at best, and impossible at worst.

How bad was it? Well, the government contractor for disintegrating MG belt links in both 7.62nato and cal..50 had to wait 9.5 years for ATFE to give them a "permission slip" to sell links to the government. (They were allowed to put a date & serial on the cardboard bulk box they were sold in, this despite the specific legislative language to the contrary.)

Now, the fact that no one in the legislative process realized that a belt link is a device "...which can readily be assembled...into an ammunition feeding device...able to hold more than ten rounds..." was typical of the pig-headed way all such legislation gets made.

That pig-headedness then became fodder for endless, and utterly irresolvable arguments over "glitch" versus "feature," which exist to the present day. And, in many extents, continues from the way too many State AWB just "xeroxed" the fed AWB language. Sadly, Occam's Razor cannot cleave "ignorance" from "malice" in such matters, so both "our side" and "their side" both persist in various forms of 'conspiracy theories' to this very day.

To OP's point, though, I've seen, at various gun shows, rather a lot of "pre ban" magazines offered for sale, almost always AR mags. I've not seen any at inflated prices of late, though. Despite the number touting "genuine Colt" provenance for the mags. Now, I note that all of the ones I have seen have had very used bodies, and good-as-new floor plates, and almost always, well-used green followers.
Which, then, makes me recall all the post-ban "follower color" fads. And where otherwise NIB mags would have the "old hotness" follower removed to substitute the "new hotness" color, and for, typically, a 50% markup. (There would be bag & boxes of the old color followers on the same tables--pay no attention to the man behind the curtain despite there not being a curtain).

It's all really rather inane, what with only the tiniest fraction of "feeding devices" were ever stamped for either date, or "restricted use" (or both), making pre-ban indistinguishable from "post ban." (Mirroring the time where various rifles were being offered, typically at inflated prices, as "pre ban" as if that had any significance where they were legally for sale.)

 

[Kyle911]

To not hijack the thread, I would agree to discuss our differences in a new thread. (And believe me, we are on the same "side" of magazine ban discussion and probably shot at the same ranges as I belonged to Lemoore Sportsman's Club and Visalia indoor shooting range before it was sold and range equipment shipped out)

As to OP of "Fraudulent 'pre ban' magazines for sale?", be sure to check your state's laws as you may be violating them.

Peace.

Yes, I may have inadvertently redirected us to a different topic on this but it was not my intention. My apologies.

 

[jmorris]

You wouldn’t, living in Iowa, but there are states where you are forbidden to purchase or posess magazines made after a certain date.

I think the OP's question is how to know when it was made?

You really can't, unless the firearm its for wasn't made before the ban.

During ban, over 10 round mags were marked LEO, glocks even have the date (right) pre or post ban ones look like the one on the left.

 

[LiveLife]

During ban, over 10 round mags were marked LEO, glocks even have the date (right) pre or post ban ones look like the one on the left.

And for CA, all the larger than 10 round capacity magazines, including those marked "RESTRICTED LEO/GOVT ONLY" became legal during "Freedom Week" of 3/29/2019 - 4/5/2019.

I think the OP's question is how to know when it was made?

You really can't, unless the firearm its for wasn't made before the ban.

That's what CA found out.

Unless magazine manufacturer stamps date of manufacture or that particular brand/model of magazine didn't exist prior to 4/5/2019, only other way is to catch in the act of manufacturing/assembling/importing as once in "possession", there isn't much CA can do.

 

[Bcwitt]

Would any laws be broken if new manufactured mags were made w a preban date stamp? Just a thought.....

 

[CapnMac]

Would any laws be broken if new manufactured mags were made w a preban date stamp? Just a thought.....

That would likely depend on the jurisdiction and the letter of the controlling law.

There's no real reason (other than skipping a manufacturing step) for not putting 18APR1775 or 21JUN1788 or the like on magazines.

 

[rust collector]

Conversely, seems like nothing to be gained by date stamping other than placating repressive regimes and ensuring one's mags are not purchased there.

 

[Palladan44]

As to OP of "Fraudulent 'pre ban' magazines for sale?", be sure to check your state's laws as you may be violating ththem.

Thanks for looking out, but all good here