"HIGH CAPACITY" MAGS CCW LAPD

[Gawernator]

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.

Def no plea deal in a legit self defense case we are taking that bad boy to trial. If your case facts are bad enough you got charged then you have a lot bigger issues to worry about. I recommend CCW safe

 

[vplaza96]

I don't have any freedom week mags but if I did, I would not carry them even if my IA said it was ok. If I go to a different part of the state that had different views about it, does my IA's opinion matter there?

I'd rather not chance it. But that's just me.

 

[RickD427]

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

They're illegal to possess under Penal Code section 32310. Here is the text of the statute:

"(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

(b) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.

(c) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;

(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or

(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction."

The answer to your question is found in sub-paragraph (c). Please note that the simple possession of a large-capacity magazine is a misdemeanor (and one that can also be filed as an infraction) and there is no "Grandfathering" of magazines legally acquired prior to the ban. Additionally, please note the inclusion of the words "regardless of the date the magazine was acquired" in the statute.

It's important to note that enforcement of sun-paragraph (c) has been enjoined by federal court order, but that order does nothing to remove the statute from the books, nor does it do anything to invalidate the statute. It only prevents the employment of the statute during the time the order is in effect.

A lot of folks like to suggest that the statute is unconstitutional in their own view, and that may be very true (my own personal view is that it is unconstitutional) but those opinions are quite meaningless in the absence of a final court decision so holding. And there hasn't been one yet. That ball is still in play. Under the Supreme Court case of Brown v Maryland, statutes are presumed to be constitutional until found otherwise.

 

[Hindsight]

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


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.

What function check is a mag needed for as part of the certification process? Especially if they’re off roster guns or older than the newer roster features requirements?

 

[bonesurf]

What function check is a mag needed for as part of the certification process? Especially if they’re off roster guns or older than the newer roster features requirements?

Well if it’s ON roster mag disco—again that’s IF the IA cares that if it’s present or not. That seems to be variable.
Lock back—i mean i get that testing with a magazine not actually shooting doesnt represent true function test but hey it SHOULD in general lock back right?
Does the mag release?
I mean i get that it sounds like for a lot of IAs this is cursory and mine seems to be one of the few that actually checks that the gun functions the way it’s supposed to. But hey it is what it is. Again “in theory” they are supposed to inspect that your gun is safe. Ie it works the way it’s supposed to. For MOST of us i would presume that means the magazine locks the slide back and drops free etc. but hey. If your IA just looks at the serial numbers to make sure they match and doesnt ask that you also provide a magazine during inspection shrug. Great for you. But this is way off topic.

 

[Enthused]

Do not carry high cap mags unless you are willing to accept the consequences if you get caught with them. In the unlikely case of you ever having to actually draw and fire, it is extremely unlikely that you will need more than 10 rounds.

All of my CCW instructors all carry high cap mags. They openly admit it. But they also say that they accept whatever consequences, if any, come from doing so when the time comes.

 

[Hindsight]

Do not carry high cap mags unless you are willing to accept the consequences if you get caught with them. In the unlikely case of you ever having to actually draw and fire, it is extremely unlikely that you will need more than 10 rounds.

All of my CCW instructors all carry high cap mags. They openly admit it. But they also say that they accept whatever consequences, if any, come from doing so when the time comes.

What are the legal consequences if the standard capacity magazines being carried were legally obtained during freedom week? AFAIK confiscation as a nuisance is about all I've seen or heard of.

 

[drinktothat421]

It would only become a potential problem in court for a use of force or if police have to take your firearm. Lota of people follow the law and still have to battle it out in court after the fact.

 

[Enthused]

What are the legal consequences if the standard capacity magazines being carried were legally obtained during freedom week? AFAIK confiscation as a nuisance is about all I've seen or heard of.

Freedom week is fake news. They are illegal to possess.

CPC 32310(c)

As for legal consequences, simple possession will probably be hit with an infraction. If the magazines are actually used in a shooting, they could nail you with a misdemeanor, which means up to a year in county.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know they are illegal regardless of whatever freedom week excuse people attempt to use.

 

[RickD427]

What are the legal consequences if the standard capacity magazines being carried were legally obtained during freedom week? AFAIK confiscation as a nuisance is about all I've seen or heard of.

It would only become a potential problem in court for a use of force or if police have to take your firearm. Lota of people follow the law and still have to battle it out in court after the fact.

Although the nuisance seizure statute is unaffected by the federal court injunction, don't look for it to be used by LE while the injunction is in effect. I'm only aware of two instances where magazines have been seized by LE during the injunction. The obvious "face-saving" option for the involved LE agencies would have been to keep them under the nuisance statute, but in both cases, they were returned.

Some pundits have argued that if CCW permit restrictions are violated, that the CCW permit somehow goes "Poof" and they can then be charged with criminal CCW. I don't see any support for that view in the law, but don't know of any authoritative court cases on the point (there was one involving a DDA who violated conditions and then pled guilty to a CCW charge - but that was a plea deal and the case has no value as precedent). But if you violate CCW conditions, plan on your permit being revoked for cause just as soon as your IA can do the paper.

If you use force in a defensive encounter, plan on defending the inevitable lawsuit. The plaintiff's attorneys handing such cases have a ton of trial strategies to win judgements for their clients. One such strategy is to show that you were negligent in your use of your firearm. There is a presumption in the Evidence Code (section 669) that if you violated a regulation of a public entity (e.g. conditions of your CCW permit), that you failed to use due care. Your attorney can argue the relevance to the incident, but the outcome is far from certain. The city of Long Beach lost a ton of money in a police shooting case where the plaintiff's attorney made such an argument based on EC 669.

 

[Gawernator]

All of this is why a membership like CCW safe or similar is valuable, with both criminal and civil cost coverage, and civil liability payments AND bail money. I think my limit is like 1M or 1.5M cash bail

 

[Gawernator]

Freedom week is fake news. They are illegal to possess.

CPC 32310(c)

As for legal consequences, simple possession will probably be hit with an infraction. If the magazines are actually used in a shooting, they could nail you with a misdemeanor, which means up to a year in county.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know they are illegal regardless of whatever freedom week excuse people attempt to use.

Your chance of being convicted on this is very low if you look what Rick "the eagle" said, right now enforcement is basically paused. There is also the 3 year statute of limitations to overcome.

 

[Hindsight]

Your chance of being convicted on this is very low if you look what Rick "the eagle" said, right now enforcement is basically paused. There is also the 3 year statute of limitations to overcome.

Is he a "legal eagle"? For anyone that gets that reference.

 

[Gawernator]

Is he a "legal eagle"? For anyone that gets that reference.

Don't get me started on that clown show, lol he isn't even a defense attorney and pretends to be an expert on all these types of law and then gets debunked constantly

 

[cali_jazz]

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.

You are right about PC 26215—I misread the wording on the administrative process, so I stand corrected on that. No more 2:30AM legal responses.

To your core point that 'there is no penal code that states you cannot CCW with a lawfully obtained mag", that is technically accurate but not necessarily a legal loophole that would prevent a DA from charging you under PC § 32310 - public possession in a public space. Again for the third time, without an explicit exemption, a CCW is subject to the overarching State law.

If you're comfortable risking your CCW on a technical loophole and willing to die on that hill, that is a personal choice.

 

[Gawernator]

You are right about PC 26215—I misread the wording on the administrative process, so I stand corrected on that. No more 2:30AM legal responses.

To your core point that 'there is no penal code that states you cannot CCW with a lawfully obtained mag", that is technically accurate but not necessarily a legal loophole that would prevent a DA from charging you under PC § 32310 - public possession in a public space. Again for the third time, without an explicit exemption, a CCW is subject to the overarching State law.

If you're comfortable risking your CCW on a technical loophole and willing to die on that hill, that is a personal choice.

I'd say yes since right now enforcement is paused, and it's looking like we are going to win at the supreme court on multiple fronts. Plus around where I live the DA's are not super anti gun owner like that. In Alameda county specifically... I'd be more worried. El Dorado/ Placer/ Sac County, doubt you would ever see charges like that filed. The risk of being attacked by a group and running out of rounds is worse, to me.

 

[Gawernator]

You are right about PC 26215—I misread the wording on the administrative process, so I stand corrected on that. No more 2:30AM legal responses.

To your core point that 'there is no penal code that states you cannot CCW with a lawfully obtained mag", that is technically accurate but not necessarily a legal loophole that would prevent a DA from charging you under PC § 32310 - public possession in a public space. Again for the third time, without an explicit exemption, a CCW is subject to the overarching State law.

If you're comfortable risking your CCW on a technical loophole and willing to die on that hill, that is a personal choice.

I asked chatgpt and it said this, fwiw

"For a genuine Freedom Week magazine lawfully acquired between March 29 and April 5, 2019, I do not think Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Yuba, or Sutter County should successfully prosecute you merely because it was inserted in your lawfully carried CCW handgun.


The current legal posture is narrower and stranger than “magazines are legal.” The Ninth Circuit upheld California’s magazine ban in March 2025, but subsequently stayed its mandate in part to preserve protection for magazines lawfully acquired during Freedom Week while Supreme Court review remains pending. The Supreme Court petition in Duncan v. Bonta, No. 25-198, was still pending after repeated conferences through June 29, 2026, with no final disposition shown on the docket.


That means:

• Possession of an authentic Freedom Week magazine remains protected for now.
• Buying, importing, manufacturing, lending, giving, or receiving a new magazine over ten rounds is not protected.
• The stay is not a general suspension of Penal Code §32310 for everyone or every magazine.
• There is no separate statewide criminal statute saying a lawful Freedom Week magazine becomes illegal merely because it is carried in a CCW handgun.

Could a local DA nevertheless file charges?​

Technically, a DA can file charges whenever the office believes there is probable cause. That does not mean the charge would be legally sustainable.


The real dispute would usually be provenance: was that specific magazine actually acquired during Freedom Week, or was it acquired or imported later?


California normally cannot force you to prove innocence. In a criminal case, the prosecution ultimately bears the burden of establishing the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. But that does not stop officers from seizing the magazine, booking it as evidence, questioning you about when you obtained it, and referring the matter to the DA. A magazine has no acquisition date stamped onto it, so the factual history can become messy.


My practical assessment:

• Placer/El Dorado/Yuba/Sutter: Unlikely to pursue a standalone charge when the person is otherwise lawful and gives a credible Freedom Week explanation.
• Sacramento: Probably would not prosecute a clean standalone case either, but the office may examine it more closely—especially after a defensive shooting.
• Yolo: More uncertainty, although still not an obvious prosecutable case if the magazine is clearly protected.
• Bay Area counties: Greater risk of aggressive seizure, investigation, or adding the allegation to a larger case, even if the magazine count ultimately fails.

After a defensive shooting​

This is where the risk becomes more practical. The police will almost certainly seize:

• the handgun;
• the magazine and remaining ammunition;
• your CCW license;
• possibly other firearms pursuant to a warrant, depending on the circumstances.

If the shooting is plainly justified, I would not expect Sacramento County to manufacture a magazine prosecution solely because you used a 12-, 15-, or 17-round Freedom Week magazine. But if the shooting itself is disputed, prosecutors may scrutinize every possible firearm violation. A questionable magazine could become an additional charge or bargaining chip.


The magazine’s capacity does not make an otherwise justified shooting unlawful. Nor does firing round 11 automatically change the self-defense analysis. Every shot is judged by whether deadly force remained reasonably necessary at the moment it was fired.

The major caveat: CCW administrative restrictions​

Your Sacramento County CCW card apparently does not list a ten-round restriction. That matters when discussing a restriction supposedly imposed under Penal Code §26200, which speaks of restrictions “indicated on the license.” But the issuing agency could still attempt administrative action—suspension or revocation—based on its policies or your signed application paperwork, even where a criminal magazine prosecution would fail. Criminal liability and permit administration are separate questions."

 

[grandpapeepap]

They're illegal to possess under Penal Code section 32310. Here is the text of the statute:

"(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

(b) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.

(c) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(d) Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine commencing July 1, 2017 shall, prior to July 1, 2017:

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;

(2) Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; or

(3) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction."

The answer to your question is found in sub-paragraph (c). Please note that the simple possession of a large-capacity magazine is a misdemeanor (and one that can also be filed as an infraction) and there is no "Grandfathering" of magazines legally acquired prior to the ban. Additionally, please note the inclusion of the words "regardless of the date the magazine was acquired" in the statute.

It's important to note that enforcement of sun-paragraph (c) has been enjoined by federal court order, but that order does nothing to remove the statute from the books, nor does it do anything to invalidate the statute. It only prevents the employment of the statute during the time the order is in effect.

A lot of folks like to suggest that the statute is unconstitutional in their own view, and that may be very true (my own personal view is that it is unconstitutional) but those opinions are quite meaningless in the absence of a final court decision so holding. And there hasn't been one yet. That ball is still in play. Under the Supreme Court case of Brown v Maryland, statutes are presumed to be constitutional until found otherwise.

your knowledge and additions are a blessing to this forum,

 

[Gawernator]

your knowledge and additions are a blessing to this forum,

you're a blessing to me

 

[grandpapeepap]

you're a blessing to me