New rule 3.3.1 for 2014 rulebook.

[UFO]

I really think the issue for CA is those guys who choose to ride the ragged edge of illegality. I've never understood how Kali will enforce this particular regulation, since I've never seen a magazine that's date stamped or serial numbered. (I suspect, as with most of these laws, people are considered guilty by mere possession and would have to prove their innocence.) It's likely that USPSA would rather not be associated with someone getting busted for breaking the law ("But, officer, I only have the magazines to shoot my Open gun!").

The better route would be to create the Open 10/15 and Limited 15 Divisions (although I'd argue you could get away with Lim 10) and let MDs who want to use them in place of the standard divisions do so.

Speaking to an officer this last weekend, to quote him, "The burden of proof to prove you did not have them before 2000 is on them, and next to impossible to determine" and unless your a thug, most officers will be inclined to look the other way. They just don't have the time or resources to go after this.....

[Chills1994]

@ whitedog, here is just what a really quick google search came up with:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=11&SessionID=84&GA=97&DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=1294&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session=

I have no idea where that bill went to, if anywhere (like most anti-gun stuff in this state, if it fails to gain any traction this year, it will reappear next year).

I am just on my phone, so the legalese text of the bill is even harder to read. It appears that whoever wrote that wanted to force people with high cap mags to only be able to use them at the Shooting Complex, and only if your sport was sanctioned by the Olympic Committee.

Just me anecdotally, one range where I used to shoot USPSA was closed down, but that was privately owned by a lawyer, who I guess didn't want to spend any money on raising the side berms. But that appears to be strictly a private matter with no undue influence from any current or former Illinois state representative or official.

But, another range I am a life member of was basically forced out of its original location and then its new location allowed the county to sue it using eminent domain. Basically, the county was trying to bankrupt the club.

[outerlimits]

I really think the issue for CA is those guys who choose to ride the ragged edge of illegality. I've never understood how Kali will enforce this particular regulation, since I've never seen a magazine that's date stamped or serial numbered. (I suspect, as with most of these laws, people are considered guilty by mere possession and would have to prove their innocence.) It's likely that USPSA would rather not be associated with someone getting busted for breaking the law ("But, officer, I only have the magazines to shoot my Open gun!").

The better route would be to create the Open 10/15 and Limited 15 Divisions (although I'd argue you could get away with Lim 10) and let MDs who want to use them in place of the standard divisions do so.

Speaking to an officer this last weekend, to quote him, "The burden of proof to prove you did not have them before 2000 is on them, and next to impossible to determine" and unless your a thug, most officers will be inclined to look the other way. They just don't have the time or resources to go after this.....

i would agree-just look at post-2000 mags. when i lived there, there were countless folks who had hi-cap mags that weren't even old enough to drive when the ban passed, yet they had plenty. i was always amazed at the number of new shooters who somehow got into the sport in the post-ban era in that state.

[kneelingatlas]

i would agree-just look at post-2000 mags. when i lived there, there were countless folks who had hi-cap mags that weren't even old enough to drive when the ban passed, yet they had plenty. i was always amazed at the number of new shooters who somehow got into the sport in the post-ban era in that state.

Hey you don't have to old enough to drive to be a shooter, I was traveling internationally shooting rapid fire when I was 12!

[kneelingatlas]

Since there is no law against owning a regular capacity mag yet I believe it will be business as usual here. Creating open 10 will be an uphill battle, I have to fight to keep limited 10 still.

[Pseudonym]

Since there is no law against owning a regular capacity mag yet I believe it will be business as usual here. Creating open 10 will be an uphill battle, I have to fight to keep limited 10 still.

Thanks for posting that Atlas. I know the rule is open to some interpretation, but the California Penal Code is clear. Where, after 2000, could you legally purchase and use a magazine in the state of California of greater then 10 round capacity? How is that not being restricted by law to maximum

magazine capacity? We all know about the magazine/parts kits, but as soon as you assemble them in California you are in fact committing a crime.

[bikerburgess]

In California is it legal to purchase a magazine that was in California pre 2000? (not a rhetorical question I don't know) if so then I would say you are not restricted by law to a maximum magazine capacity I would say the law has restricted the supply of magazines. In some of the states there are laws

Mike

[Pseudonym]

In California is it legal to purchase a magazine that was in California pre 2000? (not a rhetorical question I don't know) if so then I would say you are not restricted by law to a maximum magazine capacity I would say the law has restricted the supply of magazines. In some of the states there are laws

Mike

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers.

[bikerburgess]

In California is it legal to purchase a magazine that was in California pre 2000? (not a rhetorical question I don't know) if so then I would say you are not restricted by law to a maximum magazine capacity I would say the law has restricted the supply of magazines. In some of the states there are laws

Mike

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers.

got it, thanks

Mike

[Maksim]

Heh, did not even see this come up.

I can see how this is a non issue to those fortunate to live in the free states, but for those in ban states, this really is a big issue.

I think in NJ where we just have 15 round limit, with no pre-ban, this makes it clear, especially since on occasions I have seen people with more than 15, I don't know who they are or what not, however we always have the make sure you know the laws announcement, but there was no duty placed on the clubs. So this helps with the fairness part that now everyone has to comply with 15.

The issue I can see as others pointed out, is with states that have pre-ban/post-ban, or moto pointed out, states where a different CCW License lets you carry more rounds. If as Chuck pointed out, this was to make it fair for non-leo vs Leo folks, what about the fairness to the new gun owner who cannot LEGALLY purchase a new high cap mag, meanwhile someone else had legally purchased pre-ban high caps in his safe. I think the case should be in fairness to all the shooters, in which case, the rule should read, as Vlad's suggestion, the LOWER of Division limit OR Currently newly purchased magazine capacity legal in the state. But.... For states with pre-post ban, or states where status other than LEO status gives you more rounds, this just opened up that can quite a bit.

Secondly, how many classifiers do not require 10 rounds before a mag change that would now not be exactly equal, depending upon if you are legal or not with your state, and more so, with the new USPSA rule?

Easier solution? How hard would it be to add Open/10? Since there is already limited 10, this would essentially be the only division needed to truly give everyone in the United States a choice of shooting legal and staying competitive?

No matter the intention, adding this rule, just made USPSA get involved into gun laws, and as such, if you are going to address it, might as well address it right, instead of just a 5 min in passing law, without really doing research on the individual states. I think there was more discussion about Revolver minor. I am fairly positive there are more people shooting Open/Limited in banned states as opposed to total amount of shooters affected by Revolver division changes.

[Graham Smith]

Easier solution? How hard would it be to add Open/10? Since there is already limited 10, this would essentially be the only division needed to truly give everyone in the United States a choice of shooting legal and staying competitive?

This is what I've been saying. I live in DE and run the Southern Chester County PA match and neither state has a limit. But we get shooters from NJ and MD who do have limits. If there was an Open 10 division then that would give everyone a division they could shoot in with mags they owned.

While some people may say why bother with Open 10, I say that I would rather have that then to have to create all these additional issues by forcing MD's to decide what the capacity limits should be. If I can legally own a big stick, why should I be limited to 10 rounds? This is particularly an issue if I'm shooting classifiers. I'm not just competing against local people then, I'm competing against national.

[UFO]

Easier solution? How hard would it be to add Open/10? Since there is already limited 10, this would essentially be the only division needed to truly give everyone in the United States a choice of shooting legal and staying competitive?

This is what I've been saying. I live in DE and run the Southern Chester County PA match and neither state has a limit. But we get shooters from NJ and MD who do have limits. If there was an Open 10 division then that would give everyone a division they could shoot in with mags they owned.

While some people may say why bother with Open 10, I say that I would rather have that then to have to create all these additional issues by forcing MD's to decide what the capacity limits should be. If I can legally own a big stick, why should I be limited to 10 rounds? This is particularly an issue if I'm shooting classifiers. I'm not just competing against local people then, I'm competing against national.

My question is, how many of those that come from NJ and MD shoot open with more than 10 round mags?

[Graham Smith]

My question is, how many of those that come from NJ and MD shoot open with more than 10 round mags?

I've not taken a survey. But the real issue is if NJ becomes obligated to set the max round count for all divisions at 10, then Limited shooters can shoot L10 and be competitive nationally but Open shooters are going to be stuck trying to compete nationally in classifiers with a reduced round count.

And, if they do go to a level II or III match and all they have are 10 round magazines, they are really going to be at a disadvantage.

There's really no good answer to this but changing division round counts from state to state makes less sense than anything else. It throws equipment equality out the window.

[Chuck D]

The reason this is coming to the forefront is that there are liability issues here both for local clubs and USPSA.

It's simple, if you live in a capacity restricted State as I do in New York, we have a HARD 10 round limit and no more grandfathering of pre-ban magazines. Open is now Open 10 and Limited moves to Limited 10. If you come here from outside the State and you bring magazines that can hold more then 10 rounds of ammunition, you are breaking NYS law and are subject to arrest if you get caught. If that happens, it's bad PR for USPSA and the club you traveled to to shoot. That's what the new rule is designed to address, your legal liability and the liability of the sanctioning body based on either a mistake, receipt of bad information/advice, or your stupidity.

The pre vs. post ban argument is moot. If you live in a jurisdiction where you can't purchase a new handgun with a standard (greater than 10 round magazine) capacity magazine then the new shooter would almost never be able to acquire the equipment required to be competitive in Open or Limited. Never mind "parts kits" because once you assemble a magazine with all of the "new parts" that came in the "kit" (and please don't bother to tell me this isn't done) then you've broken the law and no one should have to break the law to shoot competitively.

Lastly, we do not need an Open 10 Division. What I would suggest is an Open 10 category that would be instituted if participation numbers warrant it at a major match.

The rest of the nation need not suffer like those of us caught behind enemy lines. We have Production, L10, and Single Stack Divisions already. Adding an Open 10 category at Nationals would give those who would like to participate a place to play.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Chuck D

[Nik Habicht]

My question is, how many of those that come from NJ and MD shoot open with more than 10 round mags?

Open shooters are going to be stuck trying to compete nationally in classifiers with a reduced round count.

Hmm, I don't think that's really an issue. As far as I can remember, classifiers either require a reload after 6 rounds, or 8 rounds max to complete -- if the open shooter with a ten rounder needs to reload on even an 8 round Comstock classifier -- his hit factor is already toast.....

A higher capacity magazine is of no help.doesn't provide an advantage in this scenario.....

As far as big matches go, you have a point -- but competitors have choices. When I lived in NJ, Open and Limited Division competition weren't good choices for me; fortunately Production was a viable playground, one I still enjoy more than any other division....

[Supermoto]

All these require 12 and don't have a mandatory reload

3-12

9-08

9-10

99-10

99-52

99-56

99-57

99-60

[Pseudonym]

Nik I am not trying to put words in your mouth so to speak, but is saying shoot in a different division if you are not willing to break the law an acceptable answer. That seems to be the attitude of the open shooters here in California with pre-ban magazines, or those playing in what some will call a "gray area". I was thinking the point of this rule was to make sure the people behind enemy lines were all on a level playing field. How is someone who came of age and wants to shoot open here in California, post 2000, and has to use 10 round magazines supposed not be at a competitive disadvantage to 30 round big sticks. Who knows it might even bring more people into open who are not willing to break the law to compete in another division.

[Nik Habicht]

Pseudo,

that's the exact opposite of what I was saying.....

Graham runs a match in Pennsylvania -- no restrictions. He was concerned about competitors from restricted states traveling to out of state matches, where they would not face restrictions, and pointed out that it would be difficult for them to compete in Open, and to an extent Limited, once at the Area or Nationals match.....

My point was that people need to choose what they want to compete in. I can guarantee that if I was moving to NY, I wouldn't consider starting the sport in Open or Limited; I'd pick from L10/P/R/SS. Why would I restrict myself in this manner? Simple -- I could be compliant with the law, learn the ins and outs of the chosen division, and have a division I could play in locally and on the road.....

I've lived in a state with restrictions. I wouldn't be comfortable shooting a match in CA, in Limited or Open, unless I was choosing to do so with ten round mags. Anyone else might make a different choice -- but people aren't victims here. We've got a bunch of options; pick one and shoot......

[Nik Habicht]

All these require 12 and don't have a mandatory reload

3-12

9-08

9-10

99-10

99-52

99-56

99-57

99-60

I'll give you the first three -- which probably should be considered for retirement. 99-10, 99-52, 99-56, 99-57, 99-60, all require between 12-40 feet of movement -- plenty of time to throw a reload....

[rishii]

All these require 12 and don't have a mandatory reload

3-12

9-08

9-10

99-10

99-52

99-56

99-57

99-60

I'll give you the first three -- which probably should be considered for retirement. 99-10, 99-52, 99-56, 99-57, 99-60, all require between 12-40 feet of movement -- plenty of time to throw a reload....

Welcome to my world

12-40' is plenty of time for a reload, but it's faster just to move there

We've been shooting open 10 for nearly 20 years, come to any match in Hawaii and you'll see about half the guys are shooting open with 10 round mags, the other half is split between l-10, production and SS

High cap mags have been illegal here since 1994, put it in a handgun, it's a felony, and you're looking at 5 years in prison

To risk that for a game is stupid.

This argument reminds me of when caspian refused to sell mag bodies during the assault weapon ban, the caught a lot of heat for the shooting community for that, but Gary Smith said in a article, that he refused to sell mag bodies because he didn't want shooters committing a federal crime to play a game

[lawboy]

People who are saying parts kits are not legal in CA are wrong. Penal code sec. 32310 does not restrict the transfer of parts kits nor the maintenance of legally owned mags of greater than 10 round capacity. The recently passed and signed AB 48 adds sec. 32311 which makes modifying mags with parts kits illegal as of 1/1/2014. However, 32311 does not state that parts kits are illegal to maintain existing mags.

[Graham Smith]

Let me ask this a different way.

USPSA has decided it has to do something. Their solution is to tell local clubs that they can specify an across the board magazine limit. That will solve the problem, but it leaves the larger problem that open shooters from these states cannot go out of their state and compete on equal footing. Open is the only division that is really effected by this since there is already an L10 Division.

Adding an Open 10 division would solve both problems. It would give shooters a division they could compete equally regardless of what state they are from/in. Isn't that a better solution than one that results in modified round counts in some states and not others?

It would also provide a solution for shooters from other states who want to go to one of the restricted states. Everyone would have a division they could legally compete in regardless of what state they were from or shooting in. And every state could use the same mag limits.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Graham Smith

[Pseudonym]

People who are saying parts kits are not legal in CA are wrong. Penal code sec. 32310 does not restrict the transfer of parts kits nor the maintenance of legally owned mags of greater than 10 round capacity. The recently passed and signed AB 48 adds sec. 32311 which makes modifying mags with parts kits illegal as of 1/1/2014. However, 32311 does not state that parts kits are illegal to maintain existing mags.

I have not seen a single post saying magazine kits are illegal in California, but once you assemble them into a magazine that holds greater then 10 rounds in California you are committing a crime, not for the purpose of maintaining a grandfathered magazine. The California Penal Code is clear on that: Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers.

*Edit* I just wanted to add this for the people who are buying "magazine kits", I think it will eventually get tossed or dismissed because of AB48, but something to keep an eye on.http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130610-908124.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Edited October 22, 2013 by Pseudonym

[lawboy]

You have incorrectly stated the law. It says nothing about buying or receiving magazines or kits. It says nothing about assembling kits into magazines. Sec. 32310 prohibits Manufacture, sale, offering for sale, keeping for sale and importing magazines. It was designed to attack businesses offering magazines into the stream of commerce in the state. It does not address the conduct of individual consumers. This loophole is precisely why ab 48 has been enacted creating sec. 32311 specifically dealing with assembling mags from kits and specifically stating that sec. 32310 DOES NOT GOVERN KITS IN ANY WAY. What you are extrapolating from the language you quoted is incorrect and is not the law in CA. Until 1/1/2014. The governor's letter released when he signed ab 48 2 weeks ago explicitly states the law is designed to close the kit assembly loophole.

Google the statute. Read it. The words buy, receive, purchase, and kit do not appear in sec. 32310.

Edited to add that ab 48 amends sec. 32310 to include buying and receiving mags to the list of prohibited acts as of 1/1/2014. Mags. Not kits. Again, no mention of assembly in the statute even as amended.

Edited October 22, 2013 by lawboy

[Pseudonym]

You have incorrectly stated the law. It says nothing about buying or receiving magazines or kits. It says nothing about assembling kits into magazines. Sec. 32310 prohibits Manufacture, sale, offering for sale, keeping for sale and importing magazines. It was designed to attack businesses offering magazines into the stream of commerce in the state. It does not address the conduct of individual consumers. This loophole is precisely why ab 48 has been enacted creating sec. 32311 specifically dealing with assembling mags from kits and specifically stating that sec. 32310 DOES NOT GOVERN KITS IN ANY WAY. What you are extrapolating from the language you quoted is incorrect and is not the law in CA. Until 1/1/2014. The governor's letter released when he signed ab 48 2 weeks ago explicitly states the law is designed to close the kit assembly loophole.

Google the statute. Read it. The words buy, receive, purchase, and kit do not appear in sec. 32310.

Edited to add that ab 48 amends sec. 32310 to include buying and receiving mags to the list of prohibited acts as of 1/1/2014. Mags. Not kits. Again, no mention of assembly in the statute even as amended.

Let us put AB48 to rest for the moment as legal minds and those minds better then mine are still trying to interpret what will exactly come of this. Once again and read the previous posts, I have not said magazine kits are illegal to have, but once you assemble said kits into a magazine of greater then 10 rounds in California you are guilty of a crime(manufacture). I am not talking about repair parts to be used for grandfathered in magazines, or taking said kits out of California and using them. See below, this is the PC you are saying I am misquoting, the language is pretty clear.

Penal Code 32310 (a)(2)) states:

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 January 1, 2000, 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, or lends, any large-capacity magazine is

punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or

in the state prison.

*Edit* for Lawboy and anyone else who would like more information you can use these links.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=387409

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709

Edited October 22, 2013 by Pseudonym