"HIGH CAPACITY" MAGS CCW LAPD

[TheRatDragon]

your knowledge and additions are a blessing to this forum,

I love the Gawernator, don't you? Haha

 

[dvoncock]

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

The case you linked is interesting, but it’s only a written District Court ruling on a motion to suppress evidence.

In the federal system, District Courts are trial courts. The District Court that wrote that ruling is located within the Ninth Circuit, but isn’t *THE* Ninth Circuit. When we reference the X, Y, or Z Circuit, that’s just shorthand for a U.S. Court of Appeals for a particular circuit.

 

[dvoncock]

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.

In both criminal and civil litigation following a shooting, details like using “RIP” hollow points, having a punisher skull on your grips, large cap mags, lack of a CCW, etc. can be brought up to attack the legitimacy a self-defense claim.

 

[Gawernator]

In both criminal and civil litigation following a shooting, details like using “RIP” hollow points, having a punisher skull on your grips, large cap mags, lack of a CCW, etc. can be brought up to attack the legitimacy a self-defense claim.

the RIP meme rounds xD

 

[Hindsight]

In both criminal and civil litigation following a shooting, details like using “RIP” hollow points, having a punisher skull on your grips, large cap mags, lack of a CCW, etc. can be brought up to attack the legitimacy a self-defense claim.

Do you have an example of someone being prosecuted or successfully convicted of a defensive shooting event where they employed a standard capacity magazine in a state or IA that has magazine capacity restrictions?

Prosecutors can attempt to spin anything out of anything, but some are more likely and more effective than others and I've yet to hear of a case as outlined in my ask above as I don't think they're really grouped the same way or seen the same way. Do you have examples you could share?

 

[miles888]

The case you linked is interesting, but it’s only a written District Court ruling on a motion to suppress evidence.

In the federal system, District Courts are trial courts. The District Court that wrote that ruling is located within the Ninth Circuit, but isn’t *THE* Ninth Circuit. When we reference the X, Y, or Z Circuit, that’s just shorthand for a U.S. Court of Appeals for a particular circuit.

Fact of the matter is no one has been prosecuted for simple possession. It’s always tacked on to additional crimes. Don’t be a criminal and there’s nothing to be worried about

 

[Gawernator]

Do you have an example of someone being prosecuted or successfully convicted of a defensive shooting event where they employed a standard capacity magazine in a state or IA that has magazine capacity restrictions?

Prosecutors can attempt to spin anything out of anything, but some are more likely and more effective than others and I've yet to hear of a case as outlined in my ask above as I don't think they're really grouped the same way or seen the same way. Do you have examples you could share?

I'm curious too since he is an actual defense attorney but I'm guessing no, I've searched for this before and similar searches and it's almost always internet FUD. The only thing that I think is legit is like having the punisher I'm gonna kill everyone stuff scribbled on your gun. That's just bad optics

 

[cali_jazz]

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

I use AOR Attorney's On Retainer. I don't trust insurance companies to not drop me the way CCW Safe dropped Kayla Giles.

The second bullet below in particular should interest you.


California's strict legal environment makes AOR a highly attractive choice due to its lack of exclusions.

• The "Gun-Free Zone" Catch-22: California heavily restricts where you can legally carry. If you accidentally step onto a prohibited property (like a park, public gathering, or a business with improper signage) and are forced to defend yourself, CCW Safe may deny coverage because you technically violated a local weapon law. AOR will defend you anyway, even in restricted zones.
• The "Illegal Configuration" Trap: If your firearm is found to violate California's highly restrictive rules (e.g., an unapproved modification or a magazine compliance issue) during an incident, an insurance-backed plan can dropped you for a "criminal act". Because AOR is a criminal defense law firm, they will legally defend you regardless of weapon status.
• Plea Bargains are Protected: California prosecutors are notoriously aggressive and often offer plea deals to lesser charges. If you accept a plea deal under CCW Safe, it can muddy your coverage. AOR continues to defend you through plea negotiations without recouping fees.
  
  CCW Safe covers you for damages in a civil suit (assuming they find you acted 100% legally) , AOR does not. This is why I carry a 1M umbrella liability policy as well.

 

[Hindsight]

I use AOR Attorney's On Retainer. I don't trust insurance companies to not drop me the way CCW Safe dropped Kayla Giles.

The second bullet below in particular should interest you.


California's strict legal environment makes AOR a highly attractive choice due to its lack of exclusions.

• The "Gun-Free Zone" Catch-22: California heavily restricts where you can legally carry. If you accidentally step onto a prohibited property (like a park, public gathering, or a business with improper signage) and are forced to defend yourself, CCW Safe may deny coverage because you technically violated a local weapon law. AOR will defend you anyway, even in restricted zones.
• The "Illegal Configuration" Trap: If your firearm is found to violate California's highly restrictive rules (e.g., an unapproved modification or a magazine compliance issue) during an incident, an insurance-backed plan can dropped you for a "criminal act". Because AOR is a criminal defense law firm, they will legally defend you regardless of weapon status.
• Plea Bargains are Protected: California prosecutors are notoriously aggressive and often offer plea deals to lesser charges. If you accept a plea deal under CCW Safe, it can muddy your coverage. AOR continues to defend you through plea negotiations without recouping fees.
  
  CCW Safe covers you for damages in a civil suit (assuming they find you acted 100% legally) , AOR does not. This is why I carry a 1M umbrella liability policy as well.

Wasn't Kayla Giles with USCCA and not CCW Safe? Also, pretty sure AOR does offer civil liability coverage up to 100k and the ability to pay more for additional coverage, but I don't know what the cap is and whether they even really do that/don't know of anyone who's tried that. In any event, 100k is almost nothing, so you're right to have a separate way to cover it.

 

[cali_jazz]

Wasn't Kayla Giles with USCCA and not CCW Safe? Also, pretty sure AOR does offer civil liability coverage up to 100k and the ability to pay more for additional coverage, but I don't know what the cap is and whether they even really do that/don't know of anyone who's tried that. In any event, 100k is almost nothing, so you're right to have a separate way to cover it.

Ah, you're right thanks for the corrections. USCCA and $100k it is, I forgot they added that later.

My general point about insurance companies remains, I trust 'em as far as I can throw 'em.

 

[Gawernator]

I use AOR Attorney's On Retainer. I don't trust insurance companies to not drop me the way CCW Safe dropped Kayla Giles.

The second bullet below in particular should interest you.


California's strict legal environment makes AOR a highly attractive choice due to its lack of exclusions.

• The "Gun-Free Zone" Catch-22: California heavily restricts where you can legally carry. If you accidentally step onto a prohibited property (like a park, public gathering, or a business with improper signage) and are forced to defend yourself, CCW Safe may deny coverage because you technically violated a local weapon law. AOR will defend you anyway, even in restricted zones.
• The "Illegal Configuration" Trap: If your firearm is found to violate California's highly restrictive rules (e.g., an unapproved modification or a magazine compliance issue) during an incident, an insurance-backed plan can dropped you for a "criminal act". Because AOR is a criminal defense law firm, they will legally defend you regardless of weapon status.
• Plea Bargains are Protected: California prosecutors are notoriously aggressive and often offer plea deals to lesser charges. If you accept a plea deal under CCW Safe, it can muddy your coverage. AOR continues to defend you through plea negotiations without recouping fees.
  
  CCW Safe covers you for damages in a civil suit (assuming they find you acted 100% legally) , AOR does not. This is why I carry a 1M umbrella liability policy as well.

I hate to um actually you again lol but USCCA is who dropped her, not CCW safe. USCCA is structured as insurance, which is insane to me because then you have an adjuster that's deciding to cover you or not. CCW safe and the others are a membership plan, not insurance products luckily.

Also read your policy because the exclusions might say something about intentional acts, which could leave you uncovered in a self defense shooting.

We should note that Giles did murder her husband too, lol.

Also a couple of those points seem to be AI hallucinations because they don't exist in the terms and conditions https://39654901.hs-sites.com/hubfs/PDFs/Terms & Conditions.pdf?hsCtaAttrib=180078915364

 

[cali_jazz]

I hate to um actually you again lol but USCCA is who dropped her, not CCW safe. USCCA is structured as insurance, which is insane to me because then you have an adjuster that's deciding to cover you or not. CCW safe and the others are a membership plan, not insurance products luckily.

Yea, someone else already beat you to it on the wrong company.

From what I read CCW fronts it's own insurance company which still adheres to policy exclusions regarding "criminal acts" or local carry violations to keep its insurance backing compliant:

"In the United States, it is a foundational insurance principle that you cannot buy a policy to cover the costs of committing an intentional crime. If an insurance provider pays out to protect someone who broke the law on purpose, it is legally considered a violation of public policy.
Because CCW Safe is funded by their captive insurance fund, 2A Insurance, they are bound by this rule. Their contract must state that coverage applies only to a "recognized self-defense use of force incident". If a prosecutor charges you with an act that falls completely outside of lawful self-defense, or if evidence emerges pointing to a crime, the insurance mechanism can force them to deny or pull coverage to remain compliant with insurance laws. "

It still looks, walks, and quacks like a duck to much for my comfort level. If you're cool with it, great but I would triple-check and read the fine print. I've been burned more than once by coverage denials where I thought I was G2G.

 

[Gawernator]

Yea, someone else already beat you to it on the wrong company.

From what I read CCW fronts it's own insurance company which still adheres to policy exclusions regarding "criminal acts" or local carry violations to keep its insurance backing compliant:

"In the United States, it is a foundational insurance principle that you cannot buy a policy to cover the costs of committing an intentional crime. If an insurance provider pays out to protect someone who broke the law on purpose, it is legally considered a violation of public policy.
Because CCW Safe is funded by their captive insurance fund, 2A Insurance, they are bound by this rule. Their contract must state that coverage applies only to a "recognized self-defense use of force incident". If a prosecutor charges you with an act that falls completely outside of lawful self-defense, or if evidence emerges pointing to a crime, the insurance mechanism can force them to deny or pull coverage to remain compliant with insurance laws. "

It still looks, walks, and quacks like a duck to much for my comfort level. If you're cool with it, great but I would triple-check and read the fine print. I've been burned more than once by coverage denials where I thought I was G2G.

That's just how they work. AOR has catch all phrasing in their terms too: "AOR still requires a reasonable, good-faith self-defense assertion, conflicts clearance, ethical compliance, and an incident occurring after membership. Its own explanation says good faith means you were defending against danger rather than provoking, punishing, or fabricating self-defense."

The problem with that analysis is that it conflates CCW Safe’s criminal-defense subscription benefits with its separately insured civil-liability damages benefit.

CCW Safe’s terms expressly say the membership itself is not insurance and that criminal-defense costs are paid upfront by CCW Safe. The insurance policy described in the agreement insures CCW Safe for civil judgments it pays; it does not say an insurer adjudicates whether CCW Safe may retain criminal counsel.

It is also not a general rule that insurance or a legal-services plan cannot fund a defense against intentional criminal allegations. California’s Supreme Court has specifically distinguished between indemnifying proven willful wrongdoing and paying to defend allegations of intentional wrongdoing. Otherwise every member could be denied the moment a prosecutor filed charges, which would defeat the entire product..

"A “Self-Defense-Related Legal Matter” is defined as a matter that satisfies each of the three criteria
below:
1. Client is charged with or reasonably concerned about being charged with any state or federal
criminal offense;
2. The incident giving rise to the alleged or potentially alleged criminal offense entirely occurred
after becoming an active AOR Member and Client of AFF; and
3. Self-Defense or Defense of a Third Party can be asserted in good faith as a legally sufficient
complete defense to the alleged or potentially alleged criminal offense.
B. Excluded Matters: Any matter that does not satisfy each of the three criteria in Section III above is
not a Self-Defense-Related Legal Matter pursuant to this Agreement. Any matter that arises wholly
or partially from any event occurring prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement is not a Self-
Defense-Related Legal Matter. The date upon which any formal criminal charges are filed is
irrelevant and inapplicable to the analysis of whether a criminal charge constitutes a Self-Defense-
Related Legal Matter"

So it's not like you can just kill someone and get defense with AOR while the others will deny you, they'll deny you also. AOR didn't offer the huge defense fee and bail coverage so it was a no brainer for me. I have no qualms if I have to use my CCW lawfully (again lmfao).

 

[cali_jazz]

I hate to um actually you again lol but USCCA is who dropped her, not CCW safe. USCCA is structured as insurance, which is insane to me because then you have an adjuster that's deciding to cover you or not. CCW safe and the others are a membership plan, not insurance products luckily.

Also read your policy because the exclusions might say something about intentional acts, which could leave you uncovered in a self defense shooting.

We should note that Giles did murder her husband too, lol.

Also a couple of those points seem to be AI hallucinations because they don't exist in the terms and conditions https://39654901.hs-sites.com/hubfs/PDFs/Terms & Conditions.pdf?hsCtaAttrib=180078915364

I read the policy, in GREAT detail. As a matter of fact AOR requires you to read the policy and they have a long video which explains every single clause and what it means. That is what convinced me to go with them vs the others. You may want to check it out.

Giles murder conviction was successfully appealed and vacated by the Louisiana Supreme Court. She was released from prison with all charges dropped. The top 3 lawyers from AOR actually joined the defense team.

 

[Hindsight]

BTW - I think technically AOR is still organized as a form of insurance. They're still a RRG. Supposedly it's in part to get around the restrictions they face in some states about selling self defense "insurance" but I'm sure there are plenty of reasons (good and bad) that exist.

 

[Hindsight]

I use AOR Attorney's On Retainer. I don't trust insurance companies to not drop me the way CCW Safe dropped Kayla Giles.

The second bullet below in particular should interest you.


California's strict legal environment makes AOR a highly attractive choice due to its lack of exclusions.

• The "Gun-Free Zone" Catch-22: California heavily restricts where you can legally carry. If you accidentally step onto a prohibited property (like a park, public gathering, or a business with improper signage) and are forced to defend yourself, CCW Safe may deny coverage because you technically violated a local weapon law. AOR will defend you anyway, even in restricted zones.
• The "Illegal Configuration" Trap: If your firearm is found to violate California's highly restrictive rules (e.g., an unapproved modification or a magazine compliance issue) during an incident, an insurance-backed plan can dropped you for a "criminal act". Because AOR is a criminal defense law firm, they will legally defend you regardless of weapon status.
• Plea Bargains are Protected: California prosecutors are notoriously aggressive and often offer plea deals to lesser charges. If you accept a plea deal under CCW Safe, it can muddy your coverage. AOR continues to defend you through plea negotiations without recouping fees.
  
  CCW Safe covers you for damages in a civil suit (assuming they find you acted 100% legally) , AOR does not. This is why I carry a 1M umbrella liability policy as well.

I think the gun free zone bullet, if it was created using AI, is inaccurate/outdated.

Per the FAQ I think you'd be covered.

CCW Safe FAQs - Memberships, Plans & Support - CCW Safe

If you have questions about CCW Safe memberships, plans, coverage and support, then we have answers. Visit our CCW Safe FAQ Page to learn more.

ccwsafe.com

 

[Gawernator]

I read the policy, in GREAT detail. As a matter of fact AOR requires you to read the policy and they have a long video which explains every single clause and what it means. That is what convinced me to go with them vs the others. You may want to check it out.

Giles killed murder conviction was successfully appealed and vacated by the Louisiana Supreme Court. She was released from prison with all charges dropped. The top 3 lawyers from AOR actually joined the defense team.

Danggg she got off lol. More coverage especially with cash bail is important to me, and their military plan is cheap

 

[cali_jazz]

That's just how they work. AOR has catch all phrasing in their terms too: "AOR still requires a reasonable, good-faith self-defense assertion, conflicts clearance, ethical compliance, and an incident occurring after membership. Its own explanation says good faith means you were defending against danger rather than provoking, punishing, or fabricating self-defense."

The problem with that analysis is that it conflates CCW Safe’s criminal-defense subscription benefits with its separately insured civil-liability damages benefit.

CCW Safe’s terms expressly say the membership itself is not insurance and that criminal-defense costs are paid upfront by CCW Safe. The insurance policy described in the agreement insures CCW Safe for civil judgments it pays; it does not say an insurer adjudicates whether CCW Safe may retain criminal counsel.

It is also not a general rule that insurance or a legal-services plan cannot fund a defense against intentional criminal allegations. California’s Supreme Court has specifically distinguished between indemnifying proven willful wrongdoing and paying to defend allegations of intentional wrongdoing. Otherwise every member could be denied the moment a prosecutor filed charges, which would defeat the entire product..

"A “Self-Defense-Related Legal Matter” is defined as a matter that satisfies each of the three criteria
below:
1. Client is charged with or reasonably concerned about being charged with any state or federal
criminal offense;
2. The incident giving rise to the alleged or potentially alleged criminal offense entirely occurred
after becoming an active AOR Member and Client of AFF; and
3. Self-Defense or Defense of a Third Party can be asserted in good faith as a legally sufficient
complete defense to the alleged or potentially alleged criminal offense.
B. Excluded Matters: Any matter that does not satisfy each of the three criteria in Section III above is
not a Self-Defense-Related Legal Matter pursuant to this Agreement. Any matter that arises wholly
or partially from any event occurring prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement is not a Self-
Defense-Related Legal Matter. The date upon which any formal criminal charges are filed is
irrelevant and inapplicable to the analysis of whether a criminal charge constitutes a Self-Defense-
Related Legal Matter"

So it's not like you can just kill someone and get defense with AOR while the others will deny you, they'll deny you also. AOR didn't offer the huge defense fee and bail coverage so it was a no brainer for me. I have no qualms if I have to use my CCW lawfully (again lmfao).

OK boss, I'm not going to engage in endless circular argument which seems to be a sport for you. Since you have such an amazing grasp of all subjects, I will defer to your infallible, infinite, knowledge.

 

[Gawernator]

I think the gun free zone bullet, if it was created using AI, is inaccurate/outdated.

Per the FAQ I think you'd be covered.

CCW Safe FAQs - Memberships, Plans & Support - CCW Safe

If you have questions about CCW Safe memberships, plans, coverage and support, then we have answers. Visit our CCW Safe FAQ Page to learn more.

ccwsafe.com

A lot of the AI was hallucinated/ made up. Hard to trust it on legal concepts right now.

Also I was curious why she got off the murder and according to this post it was a technicality off the jury instruction? Not sure if true.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/1lu2060/aor_doesnt_know_the_law_and_doesnt_want_you_to

And she is not off the hook, they will be trying her again apparently and she has another charge: https://www.thetowntalk.com/story/n...eanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

 

[Gawernator]

OK boss, I'm not going to engage in endless circular argument which seems to be a sport for you. Since you have such an amazing grasp of all subjects, I will defer to your infallible, infinite, knowledge.

Very good. Definitely not all subjects which is why I'm always asking questions and learning here!

Analyzing documents though, I'm your guy.