CA: Do you own a magazine that was EVER capable of holding more than 10 rounds?

[Subdeacon Joe]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/alerts/alert-berkeley-senator-introduces-bill-to-take-your-magazines/

 

 

Do you own a magazine that was EVER capable of holding more than 10 rounds? If so, Senator Loni Hancock’s (D-Berkeley) SB 1446 will make you a criminal.

SB 1446 will ban mere possession of ALL standard capacity magazines that can hold over 10 rounds, including those that were permanently modified by the owner and those that were originally factory designed to hold more than 10 rounds.

Under SB 1446, no “high” capacity magazine would be allowed to be grandfathered in. If you have any pre-ban magazines, you would have to either turn them over for destruction or figure out a way to get them out of state.

But that also means that if you converted a 30 round magazine into a 10/30 for your AR or AK, you would have to turn those over as well.

Additionally, and even more insidiously, SB 1446, as it is currently written, would mean that ANY factory designed and altered magazine that was ever capable of holding more than 10 rounds would have to be turned over.

SB 1446 would mean that many full-size handguns would be rendered inoperable in California. Many full-size handguns CANNOT function without a larger magazine, which is modified by the factory to make it CA legal before it is shipped out.

Hancock’s proposal totally ignores this. To say that she is after your guns is an understatement. She wants to disarm you of your current magazines and render millions of firearms useless.

Help us defeat this backdoor attempt at disarmament TODAY.

 

 

[Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life]

I've owned several .22 rifles with a tubular magazine that would hold 15 or so .22 shorts. Do tubular mags fall under this or just detachable?

[Subdeacon Joe]

I've owned several .22 rifles with a tubular magazine that would hold 15 or so .22 shorts. Do tubular mags fall under this or just detachable?

 

 

So far:

 

 

 

Section 16740 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

5 16740.

begin insert(a)end insertbegin insert end insert As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine”

6means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept

7more than 10begin delete rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of

8the following:end deletebegin insert rounds. As used in this part, “large-capacity

9magazine” also includes a feeding device that had a capacity of

10more than 10 rounds of ammunition but has been permanently

11altered to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition.end insert

begin insert

12( As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” does not

13include any of the following:

end insertbegin delete

14(a)

end delete

15begin insert(1)end insert Abegin delete feeding device that has been permanently altered so that

16it cannot accommodateend deletebegin insert magazine that is only of sufficient size to

17hold noend insert more than 10begin delete rounds.end deletebegin insert rounds of ammunition.end insert

begin delete

18(

end delete

19begin insert(2)end insert A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.

begin delete

20©

end delete

21begin insert(3)end insert A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action

22firearm.

 

 

I'm fair certain sure that they will get around to "closing this loophole" in the final draft.