Interesting Case Law - Large Capacity Magazines

[Gawernator]

One of my CADOJ friends literally told me "drive to Nevada and just get some. We don't do anything right now because it's stayed" because I complained about the 10 rd VP9 magazines lmao...

 

[lactoast]

One of my CADOJ friends literally told me "drive to Nevada and just get some. We don't do anything right now because it's stayed" because I complained about the 10 rd VP9 magazines lmao...

It's funny how so many LEOs have told me similar things. It's just an open secret nowadays -- an added tax of inconvenience, like everything else

 

[Gawernator]

It's funny how so many LEOs have told me similar things. It's just an open secret nowadays -- an added tax of inconvenience, like everything else

Yep... he's not even joking which is crazy. He's pretty serious about being a CADOJ turbo cop lol but also seems to not care about AW and mag laws for us non criminals

 

[lactoast]

Yep... he's not even joking which is crazy. He's pretty serious about being a CADOJ turbo cop lol but also seems to not care about AW and mag laws for us non criminals

I'd hope so, I'm sure there's countless better things they can be doing than going after productive members of society trying to enjoy their hobby without causing anyone trouble.

 

[dvoncock]

The California Court of Appeals just handed down an interesting case last week concerning Large-Capacity Magazines (People v Dumbrava). In this case, Dumbrava, in 2019, made a number of threats to commit a mass shooting. Officers served a search warrant and recovered component parts of a firearm (the decision is silent as to what parts), ammunition, and 22 large-capacity magazines. Dumbrava was a prohibited person and was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, along with violation of California's large-capacity magazine statute. At trial, Dumbrava moved to dismiss the Large-Capacity Magazine charges based on federal court decisions in the Duncan case. Those charges were dismissed and he was convicted on the remaining charges.

Following his release from prison, Dumbrava repeated his criminal actions (I'll refrain from using the obvious pun involving his last name). Officers located evidence that he had purchased five large-capacity magazines from out of state after they became illegal under PC 32310 and before his first trial. He was then charged with the unlawful importation of large-capacity magazines (PC 32310(a)). These charges are permitted under the federal court injunction in Duncan.

California has existing case law (Kellett v Superior Court) that generally requires prosecutors to file all charges resulting from a single caper into a single court filing. The idea is to prevent prosecutors from "trickling" an endless stream of charges.

Dumbrava moved to dismiss his Large-Capacity Magazine charges under Kellett since they could have been tried in his first trial. The trial court denied the motion.

The Court of Appeals upheld the denial. Central to their reasoning was that the effect of the Duncan litigation prevented the charges from going forward in the first trial and that the deterrent effect of the Kellett rule to prevent prosecutors from "trickling" charges was not realized in this case.

In many previous threads, when someone posts that the possession of Large-Capacity Magazines is "legal", or that "large-capacity magazines purchased during "Freedom Week" are legal to possess", I often correct them by pointing out that the simple possession of large-capacity magazines is currently illegal, it's just that the Duncan injunction prevents any enforcement. That creates a legal condition almost the same as if their possession were legal, but with one big difference. There is nothing that prevents a prosecutor, if the injunction were to be dissolved, and PC 32310 to remain in place, from "reaching back", to the limits of the SOL, to prosecute cases that occurred while the injunction was in place. There are many good reasons for a prosecutor not to do so, but there is no prohibition. The Dumbrava case reinforces their ability to do so.

Were the five noncompliant magazines he was charged with in the second case some of the twenty-two seized in the first?

I’m guessing they were because he raised a Kellett issue, but it wasn’t clear from the posts below.

PS—thanks for consistently pointing out the legally correct analysis about noncompliant magazines. The one time I did, I got called a FUD and fear monger.

 

[NorCALSpeed]

Yep... he's not even joking which is crazy. He's pretty serious about being a CADOJ turbo cop lol but also seems to not care about AW and mag laws for us non criminals

I thought the NV shops were looking at CA driver's licenses during purchases of such magazines or reporting them?

 

[Gawernator]

I thought the NV shops were looking at CA driver's licenses during purchases of such magazines or reporting them?

according to "buddies", they are not lol they don't ask for ID for a magazine

 

[RickD427]

Were the five noncompliant magazines he was charged with in the second case some of the twenty-two seized in the first?

I’m guessing they were because he raised a Kellett issue, but it wasn’t clear from the posts below.

PS—thanks for consistently pointing out the legally correct analysis about noncompliant magazines. The one time I did, I got called a FUD and fear monger.

The Appellate Decision only summarizes the trial record. It doesn't clearly indicate that five magazines charged in the second prosecution were included in the 22 seized in the first prosecution, but there is a strong inference that they were. Interestingly, the summary of events in the decision only show that receipts for the purchase of 5 large-capacity magazines were found in the second search. It does not report any actual large-capacity magazines being found in that search.

Your evaluation of this case is right on point. The appeal was centered on the Kellett issues. In sum, the court ruled against Dumbrava on the Kellett issues because the prosecutor was precluded from charging the LCM violations in the first prosecution due to events in the Duncan case. The decision considered the reasons and foundations of the Kellett rule and found them inapplicable to Dumbrava's situation.

I very often use the Kellett case when I teach on issues of law enforcement policy. I spend several years maintaining the operational polices of my department. One point that I often make (and just made in another thread about our complex gun laws) is that laws (and policies) have to be integrated and deconflicted with the existing bodies of law (and policy). A predecessor in my position during the mid-70's had to adopt policy responding to California's reducing marijuana possession from a felony to misdemeanor and imposing restrictions on record keeping. The critical restriction being that records could only be kept for two years. Most of our cases involved marijuana in conjunction with other crimes and that "two year" issue became really problematic. Looking only at the new law, and utterly failing to attempt the "integration and deconfliction" process, he authored policy that reports of combined offenses would be stored for two years, and then redacted of marijuana content, and then filed and that in cases where the marijuana charges could be isolated from other conduct, they would be reported separately with no mention made in the collateral criminal report. That worked if you consider only the new requirements. One day a training officer, duly instructing his trainee in the new policy arrested a gentleman for a very serious attempted murder, and, while arresting the suspect, they found a small quantity of marijuana in his pocket. He was issued a citation for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and booked for attempted murder. He bailed out and got a smart defense attorney who told him to get to court as fast as possible, plead guilty to the marijuana charge and pay the $100 fine. The defendant did so. Guess what the defense attorney did at the prelim for the attempted murder charge (hint: Kellett). The prosecutor had no knowledge of the marijuana charge due to the "separate reports" policy intended to avoid the need to redact the arrest report after two years. The resulting fireworks went as far as a personal phone call between the Sheriff and District Attorney that involved both shouting and the use of bad words.

But it gave me a great teaching example that lives on to this day.

Thanks for the kind comments about my postings, but I also get accused of "FUD." There is an example in this threat at Post #26, that includes a groovy image extracted from the "Wizard of Oz." But when you are commenting on an appellate court decision, there just ain't no "Uncertainty" or "Doubt" in the equation. Appellate Decisions are about as "Rock Solid" as you can get. The poster in #26 may just have to be satisfied with an "F".

 

[RickD427]

I thought the NV shops were looking at CA driver's licenses during purchases of such magazines or reporting them?

Many years ago, the California DOJ did attempt to "arm twist" out-of-state dealers from selling large-capacity magazines to California residents.

I doubt that any such dealers were desirous of doing so on their own, but were forced into compliance as "business decisions."

Ordinarily, what happens in Arizona or Nevada is outside the jurisdiction of California authorities. But California's Conspiracy statute has the ability to be applied to out-of-state defendants. The reason being that once any part of the Conspiracy law is violated within California jurisdiction, then all parties to the Conspiracy become subject to California law. A Conspiracy occurs when two or more folks agree to commit and illegal act and there is an overt act (which does not have to be an illegal act) is taken in furtherance of the Conspiracy.

The DOJ argument (which has not been tested in court to the best of my knowledge) works like this: Bill (a California resident) decides that he wants to acquire a large-capacity magazine. Since it it illegal both for him to possess the magazine in California and to import it into California, he drives to Nevada to buy one. He goes into a Nevada gun store and purchases the magazine. He drives a car with California plates, and pays with a credit card having a California billing address. DOJ suggests that the merchant either knows, or should have known, that Bill is a California resident and will be returning to California. At that point, the DOJ position is that Bill and the Merchant have agreed to the commission of an illegal act (but it hasn't occurred yet because Bill is still in Nevada). But when you look at the elements of California's Conspiracy law, there is no requirement that the illegal act be completed. It is only necessary that the act be agreed to and an overt act taken (like the sale of the magazine). Once Bill returns to California with the magazine, the jurisdictional part of the puzzle is complete, and the Arizona merchant is now subject to California law, even though he never set foot in California.

 

[DisgruntledReaper]

The biggest piece of in this whole 'large capacity magazine 'jerkfest was the state making the law changed to RETROACTIVELY BAN ALL GRANDFATHERED MAGAZINES that have been owned by firearms owners for decades..and also created a class of criminals in the folks that own old preban/70s/80s/90s firearms that NEVER HAD 10 rd mags made for them when new or subsequently...like a steyr GB handgun...factory 20rd(?) Capacity as STANDARD- NOT 'high capacity'....so you own 1 of these,a few mags aaaand you can never enjoy it because you dont have 10-rds for it and none ever made..No you could try fkn up what is a $200 magazine to try limiting to 10 rds... but honestly no owner will try that.
The dact that this corrupt state gov can freely retroactively ban things is against US CODE YET SOMEHOW A CASE OF THIS IS NEVER FILED.....

Sometimes i wonder what would happen if all the rats could be caught in 1 area and a large object took them out...would the replacements be worse...?

 

[RickD427]

The biggest piece of in this whole 'large capacity magazine 'jerkfest was the state making the law changed to RETROACTIVELY BAN ALL GRANDFATHERED MAGAZINES that have been owned by firearms owners for decades..and also created a class of criminals in the folks that own old preban/70s/80s/90s firearms that NEVER HAD 10 rd mags made for them when new or subsequently...like a steyr GB handgun...factory 20rd(?) Capacity as STANDARD- NOT 'high capacity'....so you own 1 of these,a few mags aaaand you can never enjoy it because you dont have 10-rds for it and none ever made..No you could try fkn up what is a $200 magazine to try limiting to 10 rds... but honestly no owner will try that.
The dact that this corrupt state gov can freely retroactively ban things is against US CODE YET SOMEHOW A CASE OF THIS IS NEVER FILED.....

Sometimes i wonder what would happen if all the rats could be caught in 1 area and a large object took them out...would the replacements be worse...?

What U.S. Code section do you think has been violated?

 

[GoldensRule]

What U.S. Code section do you think has been violated?

I can't think of a single U.S. Code that is violated by limiting LCM's. Throughout all of American history, things that were legal to own on Monday have been made illegal to own on Tuesday.

 

[DisgruntledReaper]

There is ..well at least WAS.. a law or section in the us code regarding either the feds or fed/states making laws that were retroactive in nature and creating 'issues'-
I consider the fact that a law can be made that can reach back and regulate ban or outlaw stuff that the populace has owned for xx amount of years to be retroactive... NOW when the aholes did the grandfather crap with mags and ban any from day x onward, it still blew BUT at least what anyone had was gtg. Then they decide to basically,retroactively ban ALL mags over 10 from the beginning of time(or at least the 1920s(tommyguns) and imperil every person who owns any.
Put another way... every car made before 1975(smog test cutoff year) now has to meet 2026 smog emission standards or be destroyed and you get a huge fine on top of it....dont laugh..the f..ks DID basically do that some years ago and EVERYONE was scrambling ever junkyard for stock carbs/smog pumps/etc...i had to deal with that crap... BUT somehow miraculously it was changed back to cars befor 1975 are and stay presmog ..
If i can locate the law or code i will post it and we can see what the word salad actually says.
The state probably pulled the outright ban because since mags are not serialized there is no way to say what is/is not made after day x aside from when new model firearms are produced using different magazines other than what are most common. Why do you think the rattlebox 1911 is still popular... any magazine fits the damn thing...if it was 10rd from day 1 and DA it would maybe be more popular...

Anyway i know my viewpoint on this /people dont get it and i really dont care but if i own stuff for 40+ yrs and then its not legal and im now a criminal by the stroke of a pen by some pos douche, i take a very big offense to it. Others just put on blinders.
Just the tack on charges and 'tail wagging the dog' bs DA's pull to get anything to stick in case they screwed up ..cant have anyone just walk...'gonna get you on something...' mentality

 

[RustVendor]

The biggest piece of in this whole 'large capacity magazine 'jerkfest was the state making the law changed to RETROACTIVELY BAN ALL GRANDFATHERED MAGAZINES that have been owned by firearms owners for decades..and also created a class of criminals in the folks that own old preban/70s/80s/90s firearms that NEVER HAD 10 rd mags made for them when new or subsequently...like a steyr GB handgun...factory 20rd(?) Capacity as STANDARD- NOT 'high capacity'....so you own 1 of these,a few mags aaaand you can never enjoy it because you dont have 10-rds for it and none ever made..No you could try fkn up what is a $200 magazine to try limiting to 10 rds... but honestly no owner will try that.
The dact that this corrupt state gov can freely retroactively ban things is against US CODE YET SOMEHOW A CASE OF THIS IS NEVER FILED.....

Sometimes i wonder what would happen if all the rats could be caught in 1 area and a large object took them out...would the replacements be worse...?

Unfortunately wasn't the state, it was a voter referendum prop 63

 

[Ro-bo]

The DOJ argument (which has not been tested in court to the best of my knowledge) works like this: Bill (a California resident) decides that he wants to acquire a large-capacity magazine. Since it it illegal both for him to possess the magazine in California and to import it into California, he drives to Nevada to buy one. He goes into a Nevada gun store and purchases the magazine. He drives a car with California plates, and pays with a credit card having a California billing address. DOJ suggests that the merchant either knows, or should have known, that Bill is a California resident and will be returning to California. At that point, the DOJ position is that Bill and the Merchant have agreed to the commission of an illegal act (but it hasn't occurred yet because Bill is still in Nevada). But when you look at the elements of California's Conspiracy law, there is no requirement that the illegal act be completed. It is only necessary that the act be agreed to and an overt act taken (like the sale of the magazine). Once Bill returns to California with the magazine, the jurisdictional part of the puzzle is complete, and the Arizona merchant is now subject to California law, even though he never set foot in California.

"Not been tested in court" is in the same category as saying there's lot's of good reasons a prosecutor wouldn't do this, that or the other, as you said in another post. This is where theory meets actual practice, and the actual practice of prosecuting people for these crimes as standalone offenses just isn't happening.

And when you couple that to the fact that SB23 has made the importation of >10rd magazines illegal for over a quarter century, and the very real fact that the hypothetical above has likely occurred tens of thousands of times throughout its history, the theory becomes that much more flimsy. More specifically, it's quite a stretch that the state would ever succeed proving the key element of this theory, that the merchant in this scenario was a willing accomplice/"should have known"/etc or otherwise.

Besides all that, if CADOJ *really* cared, they could very easily just use the AFS to collate data for likely owners of >10rd magazines based on sales of certain handguns which never had a non-LCM offering at the time of purchase. They'd have a field day just with me. The reason none of these things are happening is obvious though.

None of that is to say people should throw caution to the wind, but there's just no reason to invest a lot of mental energy into owning a LCM regardless of the injunction's status.

 

[Ro-bo]

...but if i own stuff for 40+ yrs and then its not legal and im now a criminal by the stroke of a pen by some pos douche, i take a very big offense to it.

It would work to our advantage if prosecutors aggressively pursued charges against broad swathes of people in such a situation. It's the exact remedy for getting the message out to the average non-gun person that these laws ensnare ordinary Joe/Josephine Sixpacks, instead of hardened criminals.

 

[nakatomi]

I thought the NV shops were looking at CA driver's licenses during purchases of such magazines or reporting them?

False information engineered to raise fear, uncertainty and doubt.

 

[NorCALSpeed]

False information engineered to raise fear, uncertainty and doubt.

See attorney's response to my question.

 

[sirdutch]

and now we will have wait another six years just to see if the SCOTUS will reject the LCM case. meanwhile bonta and california have already made another seven laws to cap that ruling. hence, the endless lawsuit game. i find it amusing that people think and hope that any of this is/ has gone anywhere in the last ten years. i mean all anyone has to do is look at the reality that is occurring and has been occurring. (shrugs)

It seems absurd to declare that people who had purchased standard capacity magazines before they were banned could automatically be undiscovered felons that could be charged at anytime. Are there no grandfathering limitations on this?

I needed a firing pin spring for a 1911 but had to transmit my driver's license to the seller and was required to sign for it in person. How can the State of California get away with this foolish!

 

[MK6M9]

California get away with this foolish!

because we allow them to, just read this whole site. no one wants to do anything about it except file lawsuits that go nowhere for ten years, and also just want to rant/ whine bout it. that is the problem and nothing more