Richmond, CA shoots down municipal magazine ban

[derby378]

On Tuesday, The Richmond City Council voted to repeal its ill-advised ordinance banning the possession of magazines that hold over ten rounds.

The City opted to repeal the ordinance (initially passed in 2007 but apparently never enforced) in the face of a pre-litigation demand letter recently served on the City by lawyers for the NRA and CRPA Foundation. The letter pointed out that the City’s ordinance was preempted by state firearm laws which allow the possession of such magazines.

The City Council’s decision came after being advised by the City Attorney, who studied the authorities, cited in the demand letter, that the law was not legally defensible.

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/12/03/richmond-california-city-council-repeals-magazine-ban/

Here's the offending ban in question, which outlaws civilian possession of +10-round magazines without any grandfathering clause:

http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/archives/66/ord.%2040-07%20large%20capacity%20magazine%20ban.pdf

And here's the City Council Agenda for December 1 in which the ban is given its last rites:

http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/archives/30/cc1December2009Agenda.Final%20Revised.pdf

:woohoo:

[Kolesar]

1. ill-advised (sic) ordinance

Brought to you by "Ammoland", the people who created the fake-ass run on ammunition sales at your local Wal*Mart.

[derby378]

2. ???

AmmoLand wasn't responsible for the magazine ban - they're just reporting on its death.

And the nationwide run on ammo is starting to wind down, which is also a good thing.

[Euromutt]

9. Ill-advised and ill-egal

California has a preemption statute, so the city ordinance banning 11+ round magazines was unlawful to begin with. It's frankly ridiculous the city council even needs to vote on scrapping an illegal ordinance to begin with.

[slackmaster]

3. A prudent decision - They surely would have lost a court challenge

Killing the ordinance will save the taxpayers some money.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

4. I think the <=10 rounds magazine is state law.

It's the reason I can't buy the H&K P30 that I lust for. Comes with a 15 round mag, thus unavailable in Ca.

Am I missing something?

[derby378]

5. Are +10 rounds grandfathered if they were already in CA before the ban was enacted?

If so, you probably can't buy a new 30-round magazine at a store or gun show, but if you already have one grandfathered in your possession, the cops might leave you alone.

[slackmaster]

6. Yes, ones owned before 2000 are grandfathered

The law is impossible to enforce, because very few magazines have identifying marks that can establish a manufacturing date.

It's also legal to import to the state or to manufacture replacement parts for grandfathered magazines.

[aikoaiko]

10. What's deal with getting hi-cap mag replacement parts kits that include follower, mag body, & spring

:shrug:

Isn't that a magazine?

[slackmaster]

12. Such a kit would not be a magazine unless someone assembled it into one

That would be illegal in California.

[cowcommander]

7. How exactly does this change anything?

The ban on mags over 10 rounds still applies to the entire state, so what's the difference?

[Euromutt]

8. That you can now own a grandfathered 11+ round mag

The full-cap magazine ban did allow magazines already in the state to be registered and kept. So if you moved to Richmond from elsewhere in the state (though I can't imagine why you would), you could bring your carefully maintained full-cap mags with you.

In practice, of course, this actually doesn't change anything simply because California has a preemption statute, and any city ordinance on possession of firearms, ammunition or ammunition feeding devices is null, void and unlawful.

[slackmaster]

11. One correction to Euromutt's post

The full-cap magazine ban did allow magazines already in the state to be registered and kept.

State law does not require registration of standard-capacity magazines. There would be no practical way to do that, because they are not serialized.

[Euromutt]

15. You're absolutely right

From the California DoJ's FAQ on firearms (http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#5):

If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

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.

(PC Section 12020 (b)(19-29))

I guess I got my recollections muddled because I read about Senate Bill 776 earlier this year (which would have required registration of full-cap mags), and remembered it incorrectly as having passed.

[oneshooter]

13. Makes me glad I live in Texas! N/T

[east texas lib]

14. Roger that!

:D

[Kolesar]

16. I'm glad you live in Texas, too! eom

[SteveM]

17. Me too...

...I live in Texas as well.

[derby378]

19. High-capacity magazine WHAT?

Another Texan here. :hi:

[SteveM]

18. Some discussion on the falling fortunes of Richmond, CA:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/san-francisco/68949-richmond-ca-3.html

NPR also had a discussion of the gang-rape of a 15-yr-old girl at a local school. Seems there are a lot of problems with Richmond which go way beyond the capacity of a magazine; 'wish they are dealt with.