Featureless rifles can or can not have high capacity magazines.

[RickD427]

That is why "freedom week" is no longer relevant. If you acquired large capacity magazines legally or illegally longer than 3 years ago, you can no longer be prosecuted for the acquisition, and possession is not illegal at this point (and unlikely to be in the future). However, large capacity magazines are in and of themselves a "nuisance" (a legal term!), and can be confiscated and destroyed without compensation.

You're right on point with the Statute of Limitations, and that's why there is really no remaining legal significance to "Freedom Week".

But I do have to respectfully point out that it is not currently "legal" to possess Large-Capacity Magazines unless one is an exempt person. The simple possession of Large-Capacity Magazines was made illegal in 2016 by Penal Code section 32310 and nothing has yet occurred to invalidate that statute. It's currently in litigation, and the federal court has issued an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the possession clause of PC 32310, but that does not make possession "legal", even though it does create a condition that, for practical purposes, is very similar to possession being legal.

But it's not the same, and here is the difference:

As of today, everything hinges on the federal court injunction. If the injunction were to be dissolved, prosecutors would have the ability to move forward with criminal prosecutions under the 2016 version of PC 32310. The Statute of Limitations applies to such prosecutions, and allows prosecutors to go back one year (for misdemeanor violations) for the filing of charges. If the injunction were dissolved today, the nice prosecutor could file charges for any possession occurring after January 25th of 2024. There are many very good reasons why a prosecutor would not want to do that, but there is no clear legal prohibition that would stop them from doing so.

OTOH, if possession were "legal" as of today, and as you have suggested, and then became "illegal" again at some future point, the "ex post facto" clause would provide a clear prohibition to prosecution.

That's a big difference.

 

[AR15barrels]

It is always illegal to put mags over 10 rounds in a centerfire rifle. Yes, you can possess them if you had them prior to the ban or bought during freedom week, or found some other legal loophole, but under no circumstance can you legally put them in a rifle.

FALSE.

Registered assault weapons, featureless semi-auto rifles and any firearm that legally accepts detachable magazines can use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
The issue is only the importing/manufacturing/acquisition of the magazines.
There is nothing making them illegal to use in firearms that can legally accept detachable magazines.

 

[AR15barrels]

And legal in a (BB)RAW also - correct me if I’m wrong.

Legally possessed large capacity magazines are legal to USE in ALL types of RAWs.
It does not matter if it's a 1989, 2000, 2005, 2016 or 2020 RAW.

 

[Joker67]

It is always illegal to put mags over 10 rounds in a centerfire rifle. Yes, you can possess them if you had them prior to the ban or bought during freedom week, or found some other legal loophole, but under no circumstance can you legally put them in a rifle.

This is FUDD. I have taken a few carbine classes , shot at many public and private ranges with 30 round mags in my featureless rifle. I have 30 round mags loaded to 28 for home defense in my featureless rifle. Why, because it's absolutely legal.

Our IA told us , right after Freedom Week, that we could legally concealed carry any standard cap mag we had bought. For a while I carried 15 and 17 round mags in a P-01, but the added extension was harder to conceal. I'm fine with 11 in the gun and 10 or more as back up.

I had an SF cop tell me they could care less about mag capacity for CCW carriers. It's the least of your problems in a good shoot or home defense situation.

 

[SteamedHams]

I wish there were a way to give a thumbs down to posts that contain incorrect information. Reddit mods (Librarian et al) did a pretty good job of outright deleting wrong info, especially info that could land someone in cuffs had they acted on it.

 

[NATEWA]

CALIFORNIA FEDERAL JUDGE FINDS LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL | Renzulli Law Firm

renzullilaw.com

 

[Hit Factor]

Moving Forward with "Large Capacity" Magazine Court Ordered Stay - CRPA

California Rifle & Pistol Association

crpa.org

 

[treelogger]

But I do have to respectfully point out that it is not currently "legal" to possess Large-Capacity Magazines unless one is an exempt person.

Thank you for the correction. I didn't think about that angle.

I wish there were a way to give a thumbs down to posts that contain incorrect information.

I absolutely agree! And there are two kinds of incorrect information. One is the one where a person makes a mistake, gets corrected, and accepts the correction. On reddit, I frequently go back and edit my post after people tell me that I was wrong, usually by leaving the wrong content in there but changing it to strikeout, and commenting why it is wrong. Sadly, this forum doesn't allow editing one's posts after a few hours; I understand why, but in this case, it would be desirable to allow it. This is an area where much more work ought to go into moderation, but I also understand why there just aren't enough resources available to do it right.

The other kind of wrong is people with "bad attitude", who encourage others to ignore the law. The one piece of such wrong advice that I have started getting really upset about is "concealed is concealed", to which I now give the standard answer: "The jails are full of people who thought they wouldn't get caught".