"HIGH CAPACITY" MAGS CCW LAPD

[bonesurf]

You guys are conflating two things. I’m not saying they are inspecting the magazines per se, but you gotta provide a magazine, so why poke the bear so to speak.
Also, again, given that it’s generally speaking illegal to have standard magazines why Poke, the bear when carrying on a daily basis. I get that some of y’all think you’re gonna be in the shootout from heat and that’s again individual choice and judgement

Shrug. BHPD

 

[Gawernator]

You guys are conflating two things. I’m not saying they are inspecting the magazines per se, but you gotta provide a magazine, so why poke the bear so to speak.
Also, again, given that it’s generally speaking illegal to have standard magazines why Poke, the bear when carrying on a daily basis. I get that some of y’all think you’re gonna be in the shootout from heat and that’s again individual choice and judgement

Shrug. BHPD

If your IA says on your card you can’t use them then that sucks but for those with legal standard mags there’s no reason to handicap yourself.

 

[bonesurf]

If your IA says on your card you can’t use them then that sucks but for those with legal standard mags there’s no reason to handicap yourself.

Your choice, my choice. Shrug

 

[Brilliant-Bat7063]

Because I can. F12

 

[TheNotoriousKIM]

You guys are conflating two things. I’m not saying they are inspecting the magazines per se, but you gotta provide a magazine, so why poke the bear so to speak.
Also, again, given that it’s generally speaking illegal to have standard magazines why Poke, the bear when carrying on a daily basis. I get that some of y’all think you’re gonna be in the shootout from heat and that’s again individual choice and judgement

Shrug. BHPD

No one is conflating anything. You literally said, and I quote: "one is what magazine you submit with your firearm for IA inspection."

If you misspoke then you misspoke and own it. Don't make it sound like people understood you wrong lol
It's not a coincidence that everyone started asking what IA you have and shared that we have never had a magazine inspection before.

 

[Gawernator]

Your choice, my choice. Shrug

What restrictions does it say on the card? pic?

 

[SlowMoe]

2 different things here IMO. one is what magazine you submit with your firearm for IA inspection. why risk it? just have your handguns inspected with "cali-safe" mags. your inspector/IA may or may not care, but why find out?

then there is the issue of what to do on a day to day basis. this is my own personal paranoia. as GENERALLY speaking 10 round mags are what are "legal" in this state, IF you were in an incident and there were any doubt as to it being "clean" or not, its the kind of thing a lawyer could use against you painting you as a trigger happy gun nut or something. again. this is my own personal evaluation of the risk benefit. also given that the vast vast vast majority of incidents are rule of 3 i personally dont carry standard mags. i carry 10 rounders (also mostly i carry micros that typically only go to 12/13 anyways). again YOU decide how you wanna balance these things.

It feel as though when talking about court, everyone forgets to mention both the defendant and prosecution BOTH have a lawyer.

 

[cali_jazz]

It also has to be printed on the card to be legally enforceable per PC
Wonder what their cards say

Please cite the PC or law that states this.

The California Penal Code does not work on a 'permissive' basis; silence does not mean permission. A CCW permit only exempts you from specific concealed carry statutes (PC § 25400 and PC § 25850). It provides absolutely zero exemptions from PC § 32310 (large-capacity magazines). Also, PC § 26200 explicitly gives Issuing Agencies the legal authority to enforce restrictions outside of what is printed on the physical card.

My CCW card doesn't list any restrictions at all, yet the papers (online forms) I signed listed them.

 

[11thfinger]

As long as it’s allowed by your IA and you legally obtained and possess them, sure.

Some IAs disallow standard cap mags despite them being legal if legally obtained and possessed. Not sure what the latest from LAPD is, but I doubt they ban them like SB does.

I asked my IA and never got a response. I'm guessing they don't want to say yes or no.

 

[Gawernator]

Please cite the PC or law that states this.

The California Penal Code does not work on a 'permissive' basis; silence does not mean permission. A CCW permit only exempts you from specific concealed carry statutes (PC § 25400 and PC § 25850). It provides absolutely zero exemptions from PC § 32310 (large-capacity magazines). Also, PC § 26200 explicitly gives Issuing Agencies the legal authority to enforce restrictions outside of what is printed on the physical card.

My CCQ card doesn't list any restrictions at all, yet the papers (online forms) I signed listed them.

PC § 26200(b) allows an issuing authority to impose reasonable license restrictions, but you omitted § 26200(c), which expressly says: “Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.”

Separately, violating a permit condition is not necessarily a standalone criminal offense. If the conduct independently violates PC § 32310, criminal exposure comes from § 32310. Any permit revocation would be a separate administrative issue.

And to my original point there is no PC that says you can't CCW with a lawfully obtained standard cap mag.

See also Penal Code § 26215 which requires your IA to issue a new license if they change any conditions of carry.

;D

 

[11thfinger]

It also has to be printed on the card to be legally enforceable per PC
Wonder what their cards say

My card says that I can't engage in any activity that would make me a criminal

 

[Gawernator]

Best to check with your IA.

Large-Capacity Magazines remain illegal to possess in California regardless of when, or how, the magazine was acquired. Nothing in the current litigation has done anything to make possession lawful.

What has occurred is that federal court has issued an injunction prohibiting enforcement of both the possession clause, and the dispossession clauses of PC 32310. That creates a condition that is very similar to the possession being legal, but is not the same.

An Issuing Agency would be on solid legal ground requiring that any magazine carried under the authorization of their permit be legally possessed. The injunction prohibiting criminal prosecution for possession has no applicability to CCW permits.

OTOH, the issuance of the injunction supports the belief that PC 32310 is not constitutional, and that an Issuing Agency could also reasonably support that view by allowing large-capacity magazines to be carried.

Until the issue is settled, your IA could reasonably subscribe to either belief.

How would pre 01/01/2000 ban magazines be illegal to possess though

 

[cali_jazz]

PC § 26200(b) allows an issuing authority to impose reasonable license restrictions, but you omitted § 26200(c), which expressly says: “Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.”

Separately, violating a permit condition is not necessarily a standalone criminal offense. If the conduct independently violates PC § 32310, criminal exposure comes from § 32310. Any permit revocation would be a separate administrative issue.

And to my original point there is no PC that says you can't CCW with a lawfully obtained standard cap mag.

See also Penal Code § 26215 which requires your IA to issue a new license if they change any conditions of carry.

;D

(I Am Not A Lawyer / I Am Not Your Lawyer - this is just my understanding of the law and how it applies)

Your interpretation of the Penal Code relies entirely on flipping the legal burden of public carry upside down.

First, PC § 26200(c) dictates how administrative restrictions must be documented on a license. However, a missing note on a piece of plastic does not grant immunity from an active, blanket state law. The restriction on large-capacity magazines is not an 'administrative IA restriction' that needs to be listed on your card—it is an independent criminal statute under PC § 32310. Your CCW card also doesn't explicitly state 'No fully-automatic switches' or 'No armor-piercing ammunition,' yet carrying those would still result in immediate felony arrests. A state prosecutor will charge you directly under PC § 32310 because a CCW license lacks any statutory text exempting you from magazine bans. Whether or not your specific Sheriff printed it on your card is legally irrelevant.

Regarding Penal Code § 26215, you have completely flipped the meaning of the statute.

PC § 26215(a) outlines the procedure for the CCW holder to initiate a modification (such as adding a gun or changing an address). It is not a rule requiring an IA to print you a new card every time the state enforces a pre-existing weapons ban. An IA cannot 'authorize' you to bypass a statewide criminal statute in the first place.

Go read the CCW exemptions under the Penal Code. They provide an explicit exemption to PC § 25400 (concealed carry) and PC § 25850 (loaded carry). They provide absolutely zero exemptions to PC § 32310.

Lawfully owning a 'Freedom Week' mag at home does not give you a statutory exemption to transport and use it in a public space under the active Duncan v. Bonta framework. I challenge you to cite a single PC section that explicitly exempts a CCW holder from PC § 32310.

Having said all this, people need to make their own decisions, but they should be based as much as possible on facts and reality. When in doubt consult a real attorney and don't take your advice from a gun forum.

 

[cali_jazz]

Who is your IA? That’s a IA you got there, most are not doing any of that

Also the claim that you’ll be convicted of murder in a self defense case because the magazine was 12 rounds is pretty silly. Can you show any conviction that happened because of this factor?

It's not about being convicted solely due to an LCM, it's the additional leverage a DA can use with an add-on charge to negotiate a plea-deal or influence a jury to obtain a conviction.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

You know why criminals don't need CCW? They don't intend to stand around and wait for the police to arrive so they can do the jobs the police should be doing.

IA says no standard capacity mags. One shooter will tactifully replace the standard for a ed mag, another will be the good wittle boy and tell the truth that cops don't give a f about.

 

[bonesurf]

What restrictions does it say on the card? pic?

Mine? None. I said it was my choice vis a vis the current legalities of standard cap mags in this state and the probabilities of needing more than 3 rounds. The restrictions part is specifically blank

No one is conflating anything. You literally said, and I quote: "one is what magazine you submit with your firearm for IA inspection."

If you misspoke then you misspoke and own it. Don't make it sound like people understood you wrong lol
It's not a coincidence that everyone started asking what IA you have and shared that we have never had a magazine inspection before.

They ask for a magazine so they can check function. BHPD. Not saying they are inspecting the magazine, they need one for function check. Why submit something that may or may not be legal during your weapon inspection? Like how are they function checking if there is no magazine to function check with?

Again, to the original topic are there people out there carrying with standard cap mags that may or may not be legal? Sure. Do the individual IAs care? Hard to say. But is that really the issue? given that RIGHT NOW it’s very debateable whether or not your standard cap mags are legal period in CA why tempt fate/courts etc when the VAST majority of incidents are 3 rounds or less. Like the overwhelming majority. Id rather keep a spare or 2 somewhere. Again. My choice. Not yours. You may decide the risk benefit profile leans a different direction.

Are the IAs supposed to safety check your firearms? Yes. Does that mean you are supposed to submit it for inspection with a mag? I mean not sure how they function check it without one. My logic is why temp fate and submit it with a standard cap mag. Just throw a 10 rounder in there when it’s being inspected and dont worry about it. You got enough to worry about with whatever “safety” rules your given IA will have about your guns. It DOES sound like it’s very cursory in some IAs and mine (BHPD) does an actual inspection.

 

[Joker67]

Right after Freedom Week, we asked the Sheriff and got an email saying they were ok with us carrying them. I did for a few years. We now have a new Sheriff and it’s been mixed reviews. We are also in a time in which anti gun politicians and bureaucrats are angry they keep losing court cases. They had been unchecked bending the law to their ideology. They hate that CCW’s are up and there is no correlating rise in shootings. They are looking for a reason and if there is no reason they will make your life hell out of spite.

I’m back to carrying 10 rounders. 1 in the chamber makes 11 and a spare. Personal choice to avoid grief in this time in which people get their news from Tik Tok and Reddit but don’t know anything.

 

[dvoncock]

When I got my CCW from LAPD, they did not inspect anything, although both autoloaders on my card have single stack magazines that hold fewer than ten rounds. One of those autoloaders is also off roster, because it went out of production long before that went into effect, and was not an issue either.

 

[miles888]

Possession of magazines that fall within the protected categories covered by Benitez’s injunction (including Freedom Week magazines) remains protected while the partial stay of the mandate is in effect.

An officer can’t tell if a magazine was lawfully or unlawfully acquired just by looking at it.

Relevant case

This was a ruling by the ninth circuit. “by itself, Mr. Moore’s possession of a high-capacity magazine does not provide reasonable suspicion…” because officers would need evidence of when and how it was acquired.’

Legal status depends on acquisition history.

I have heard advice like ‘don’t have large cap for anything that wasn’t around during freedom week and pay cash.’

I’m not a lawyer

 

[Gawernator]

(I Am Not A Lawyer / I Am Not Your Lawyer - this is just my understanding of the law and how it applies)

Your interpretation of the Penal Code relies entirely on flipping the legal burden of public carry upside down.

First, PC § 26200(c) dictates how administrative restrictions must be documented on a license. However, a missing note on a piece of plastic does not grant immunity from an active, blanket state law. The restriction on large-capacity magazines is not an 'administrative IA restriction' that needs to be listed on your card—it is an independent criminal statute under PC § 32310. Your CCW card also doesn't explicitly state 'No fully-automatic switches' or 'No armor-piercing ammunition,' yet carrying those would still result in immediate felony arrests. A state prosecutor will charge you directly under PC § 32310 because a CCW license lacks any statutory text exempting you from magazine bans. Whether or not your specific Sheriff printed it on your card is legally irrelevant.

Regarding Penal Code § 26215, you have completely flipped the meaning of the statute.

PC § 26215(a) outlines the procedure for the CCW holder to initiate a modification (such as adding a gun or changing an address). It is not a rule requiring an IA to print you a new card every time the state enforces a pre-existing weapons ban. An IA cannot 'authorize' you to bypass a statewide criminal statute in the first place.

Go read the CCW exemptions under the Penal Code. They provide an explicit exemption to PC § 25400 (concealed carry) and PC § 25850 (loaded carry). They provide absolutely zero exemptions to PC § 32310.

Lawfully owning a 'Freedom Week' mag at home does not give you a statutory exemption to transport and use it in a public space under the active Duncan v. Bonta framework. I challenge you to cite a single PC section that explicitly exempts a CCW holder from PC § 32310.

Having said all this, people need to make their own decisions, but they should be based as much as possible on facts and reality. When in doubt consult a real attorney and don't take your advice from a gun forum.

Wat
PC 26215
(4) Change any restrictions or conditions on the license, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(b) If the licensing authority amends the license, a new license shall be issued to the licensee reflecting the amendments.

Your AI is failing you rn bro lol. Just read the codes. And nobody said anything about the IA authorizing you to break the law. I’m not sure why you’re ignoring what I said and changing the subject. For the third time there is no penal code that states you cannot CCW with a lawfully obtained mag.