• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Magazine Dump 2017 - California wants our magazines. A response to SB1446

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
SB-1446 (California's Large Capacity Magazine Ban) will be in effect July 1, 2017. This law makes magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition illegal to possess.

To comply with the law, the law abiding have the option to do any of the following;

(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.
(2) Prior to July 1, 2017, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.
(4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

If California's government wants our magazines, we should give them the ones we are willing to part with.

Post your unwanted magazines (ie: 'Guns and Ammo', American Rifleman', 'Glamour', 'Cosmopolitan', 'People', 'Tiger Beat' or others.) via USPS ONLY between July 1st thru the 8th, 2017 to the following address;

Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

Sending any number of magazines up to one pound should cost about $3.00 depending where you are sending them from. You should also include a cover letter, addressing Governor Brown, letting him know your disapproval of SB1446. Whether you tell the recipient "I Will Not Comply" is optional. Participation is NOT limited to residents of the state of California... in fact, we should encourage other groups, friends and family nationwide to support us in Magazine Dump 2017.

Think of this as a bunch of rebels boarding ships laden with chests of tea in Boston harbor to make a statement. If you are on Facebook you can share this event with friends family and other groups here; https://www.facebook.com/events/1238918046194561/ And please share your feedback in this thread as to whether you are participating.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,026
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I bet the law will be challenged as unconstitutional. Existing mags would have to be grandfathered for the law to be constitutional, no ex post facto law.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I bet the law will be challenged as unconstitutional. Existing mags would have to be grandfathered for the law to be constitutional, no ex post facto law.
That isn't what ex post facto means.

Cali can't constitutionally enact a law that imposes criminal sanctions for something one did last year that was legal at the time one did it.

But, within the limits of other constitutional provisions, Cali most certainly can outlaw conduct this year and require that now illegal contraband be disposed of in some way.

I should think the "takings" clause of Amendment 5 would be a stronger protection against this law than would the ex post facto prohibition in Art 1, Sec 9. The takings clause should require the s/State to provide just compensation for property taken for the public good. But I doubt any court that allows common firearm components like normal sized magazines to be banned in spite of the 2nd amendment are going to see the 5th amendment the same way I do either.

Charles
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,026
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
That isn't what ex post facto means.

Cali can't constitutionally enact a law that imposes criminal sanctions for something one did last year that was legal at the time one did it.

But, within the limits of other constitutional provisions, Cali most certainly can outlaw conduct this year and require that now illegal contraband be disposed of in some way.

I should think the "takings" clause of Amendment 5 would be a stronger protection against this law than would the ex post facto prohibition in Art 1, Sec 9. The takings clause should require the s/State to provide just compensation for property taken for the public good. But I doubt any court that allows common firearm components like normal sized magazines to be banned in spite of the 2nd amendment are going to see the 5th amendment the same way I do either.

Charles
Double speak.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Can we count on the cooperation and participation of all prior contributors to this thread, in this demonstration of resistance against the California government?

If so, please signify so in this thread and share with other sympathetic venues.
 
Top