California: Los Angeles Mayor Signs Large-Capacity Magazine Ban Ordinance

California: Los Angeles Mayor Signs Large-Capacity Magazine Ban Ordinance
California: Los Angeles Mayor Signs Large-Capacity Magazine Ban Ordinance
NRA - Institute for Legislative Action
NRA – Institute for Legislative Action

Fairfax, VA -(AmmoLand.com)- On Friday, August 7, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti signed Council File 13-0068 into law, which will take effect on September 19, 2015.

This means that residents of Los Angeles who legally possess magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition must sell those magazines, remove them from the city, or turn them over to Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) by November 20, 2015.  All California residents, except for a special few, will be precluded from entering the City of Los Angeles with such magazines.

In addition to being a flawed policy that inhibits one’s inherent right to self-defense, this is extremely problematic because it is almost impossible to go any significant distance in Southern California without passing through the City of Los Angeles.

What Is Considered a “Large Capacity Magazine”

Los Angeles’ definition of a “large-capacity magazine” is identical to that found in California Penal Code section 16740. This includes any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.There are three notable exceptions:

1)  Any feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot hold more than 10 rounds;

2)  Any .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; and

3)  Any tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

This definition is applicable whether the magazine is assembled or disassembled.  There are also several uses and categories of individuals that are exempt from the magazine ban. Those exemptions can be viewed here (page 6).

You may store your magazines outside of Los Angeles. Be aware, however, that storing your magazines with friends or family outside of Los Angeles may qualify as an “unlawful transfer” under state law.

Help Stop These Measures from Passing in Other Jurisdictions

With Los Angeles taking this misguided step, it is becoming even more likely that other California cities will follow suit.

You can assist in the fight to defend gun owners’ rights in California courts by donating to the NRA Legal Action Project today. For a summary of some of the many actions the NRA has taken on behalf of California gun owners, including the tremendous recent victory in the Peruta case, click here.

About the NRA-ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For more information, please visit: www.nra.org. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

AmmoLand Encourages you to Join the NRA today!
  • 14 thoughts on “California: Los Angeles Mayor Signs Large-Capacity Magazine Ban Ordinance

    1. Re. JohnC. We are opposing magazine bans because it violates the human right and duty to self defense. Compromise is not appropriate. You might accept less than asking price for your old car or seek an adjustment in your property line but I don’t think you’d allow your daughter to be raped “just a little”.

    2. Since when does a mayor have the power to rule on constitutional law the mayor is over stepping his authority

    3. I would just hide them and keep my mouth shut about it they don’t know who has what . Don’t tell friends because folks talk. If you’re buddy’s ask just say you sent them to someone .

    4. This “law” is known as a “nullity.”

      It is null, void and of no effect as if it had never existed.

      It’s a prima facie violation of the prohibition on ex post facto laws in the US Constitution which all these asswipe politicians swore oaths to support, protect and defend and they are ALL IN VIOLATION of their oaths of office and openly commiting INSURRECTION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!

      Every citizen charged should immediately file a counter claim in Federal Court against the arresting officer, his supervisor, the department and City for KNOWING VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

      Re. 18 USC Sections 3, 4, 241, 242
      42 USC Sections 1983, 1985, 1986

      Use the 14th Amendment to pierce their customary “qualified immunity” and go after ALL OF THEM professionally and INDIVIDUALLY, civil AND CRIMINAL!

      Anyone being charged that doesn’t make a counter claim will have to rely on their fellow citizens being informed regarding the topic of JURY NULLIFICATION otherwise these USURPERS will ruin the lives of many Americans who are only exercising fundamental, individual, “incorporated” natural rights which the government’s primary duty is to PROTECT.

    5. I can only say I’m glad …….after 35years …….I Stiffed the City of L.A. for a nice chunk of change and I was able to MOVE as far away as possible and live on their dime………. and after working South Central for years does the Mayor think that the Boys in the Hood will turn in their large capacity Mags. at the local Police Station……….WHAT A STUPID BUNCH IN CITY HALL…… STUPID BUNCH IN CITY HALL ! Bloomberg must have called and offered something under the table.

    6. I guess if you “rent” space outside of L.A. … like $1/year for some closet/garage space for a box or two, then you’ve not really transferred them…just stored them in a location you rent, right?

      Just another “Feels Good; Does Nothing Positive” law from LiberalLand. No logic behind it, just “feelings…nothing more than feelings”. No data supports their claims. And it only harms decent citizens.

      But then…what do you expect from Liberals? Common Sense? Yeah, I didn’t think so either.

      1. You’re either being obscurely sarcastic, incredibly stupid or you’re a supporter of repressive legislation that only affects law abiding citizens whilst leaving violent criminals to do as they please.

        1. Or perhaps I strongly support a citizens right to own and carry firearms but not guns with large ammo capacity. There seems to be almost no middle ground in the fight to either ban all guns or allow all guns. I believe unless a middle position is established and supported that most guns will be banned in the near future.

          1. The infamous “middle ground” argument. Unfortunately the middle ground is totally fluid. First they banned normal capacity magazines, grandfathering them–no confiscation. Now a few years later they are confiscating normal capacity magazines and permitting ONLY diminished capacity magazines–10 or few rounds. It won’t be long before they ban magazines which hold more than 6 rounds, grandfathering or confiscating (what difference does it make) what used to be acceptable diminished capacity.

            It’s not over–once the principal is established, it can be applied freely. It’s not difficult to see where this is heading. They’ll ban any firearm that can accept a detachable magazine or has a fixed magazine or “ammunition holding device” beyond the acceptable limit. So, one’s 7 shot revolver must go. Why limit it to 6? Good bye anything but a 5-shot j-frame. Hold on, these are easily concealable. They must go along with all pocket pistols.

            The thing about slippery slopes is that there is no place to put the breaks on EXCEPT to repeal any and all magazine bans. Don’t expect any compromise to be effective for any length of time.

    7. Why do they go after standard capacity magazines ? What is this nonsense suppose to accomplish or prevent ?

    Comments are closed.