-
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.
-
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.
Keltec pf9
- Thread starter rmodel65
- Start date
Iopencarry
Regular Member
imported post
I looked up both guns on their websites, and I dont see why they would nopt be legal. Just make sure you only have 10 round mags.
I looked up both guns on their websites, and I dont see why they would nopt be legal. Just make sure you only have 10 round mags.
imported post
they are 7 rounds in the Pf9 and the M&P are 15...so id have to get a 10 round mag for the smith if i made my trip to Cali
also is a holster required for OC of is a Belt Clip acceptable??i have a serpa for my M&P but the keltec i only have a CC pocket holster
they are 7 rounds in the Pf9 and the M&P are 15...so id have to get a 10 round mag for the smith if i made my trip to Cali
also is a holster required for OC of is a Belt Clip acceptable??i have a serpa for my M&P but the keltec i only have a CC pocket holster
ryanburbridge
Regular Member
imported post
Why can't you have a high capacity mag. It is leagle to have hi caps just can't offer to sell. If you Owned them befor the ban you can still have them. Any PC code stating different.
9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of
it?
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions
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))
Why can't you have a high capacity mag. It is leagle to have hi caps just can't offer to sell. If you Owned them befor the ban you can still have them. Any PC code stating different.
9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of
it?
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions
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))
Gundude
Regular Member
imported post
ryanburbridge wrote:
ryanburbridge wrote:
Does anyone have receipts from 2000?
ryanburbridge
Regular Member
imported post
I did not read that part. Where did you see anything about reciepts in the law?
I did not read that part. Where did you see anything about reciepts in the law?
Gundude
Regular Member
imported post
ryanburbridge wrote:
ryanburbridge wrote:
The burden of proof is on you to show they were purchased before the deadline.
heliopolissolutions
Regular Member
imported post
^
Ermm........
^
Ermm........
L in Oakland
Regular Member
imported post
If you want to know what guns are allowed/authorized for sale in Cali checkout the official website. Unbelievable, do your homework people it's not really that hard. I have not commented on so many forms and just looked at a lot of the questioned asked with utter disbelieve. If there's a law in place in the state and people still try and skirt around it, then in my opinion they deserve what's coming to them. I have fought just to keep the firearms I have now and I know personally that they do not want me to have them so I don't give them a reason to say I can't have them. All I see are little adults acting like innocent children which I have enough of!! That's my 2 cents because "a little common sense goes a long way in my life time". I don't mean to offend anyone but some of the conversations go way and above the purpose. Carry on folks.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/
If you want to know what guns are allowed/authorized for sale in Cali checkout the official website. Unbelievable, do your homework people it's not really that hard. I have not commented on so many forms and just looked at a lot of the questioned asked with utter disbelieve. If there's a law in place in the state and people still try and skirt around it, then in my opinion they deserve what's coming to them. I have fought just to keep the firearms I have now and I know personally that they do not want me to have them so I don't give them a reason to say I can't have them. All I see are little adults acting like innocent children which I have enough of!! That's my 2 cents because "a little common sense goes a long way in my life time". I don't mean to offend anyone but some of the conversations go way and above the purpose. Carry on folks.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Gundude wrote:
I know that may be how it washes out in the end, but theoretically, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.
And I only keep receipts for about 3 days, unless it's for a major purchase (pretty much anything over $500). I don't think I even have the receipt for the rebuild kits I bought 2 years ago when I fixed up my rusty "pre-ban" 20-rd mags for one of my rifles.
Gundude wrote:
Do you have a citation for this claim?
I know that may be how it washes out in the end, but theoretically, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.
And I only keep receipts for about 3 days, unless it's for a major purchase (pretty much anything over $500). I don't think I even have the receipt for the rebuild kits I bought 2 years ago when I fixed up my rusty "pre-ban" 20-rd mags for one of my rifles.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
L in Oakland wrote:
The OP was asking about the legality of "importing" his firearm for personal use. Which requires some analysis of the guns "features" to see if CA law declares it to be an illegal "assualt weapon" of some sort. (E.g. threaded barrel, forward pistol grip, etc.)
No offense, but maybe you should read and understand what the adults are discussing before you launch into a name-calling tirade about using your dome for something other than growing hair out of.
L in Oakland wrote:
The author of the thread was not asking about importing a new firearm for retail as an FFL. That's all the list you linked applies to is NEW firearm sales.
The OP was asking about the legality of "importing" his firearm for personal use. Which requires some analysis of the guns "features" to see if CA law declares it to be an illegal "assualt weapon" of some sort. (E.g. threaded barrel, forward pistol grip, etc.)
No offense, but maybe you should read and understand what the adults are discussing before you launch into a name-calling tirade about using your dome for something other than growing hair out of.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
ryanburbridge wrote:
So, having owned them prior to January 1, 2000 isn't sufficient. You must have owned them in California prior to January 1, 2000.
Gundude wrote:
ryanburbridge wrote:
So, having owned them prior to January 1, 2000 isn't sufficient. You must have owned them in California prior to January 1, 2000.
Gundude wrote:
False.
Gundude
Regular Member
imported post
If an LEOsees you with a 20 rd mag, even though you tell him you bought it in 1990, he has PC to arrest you. When you show up in court, you may need to convince a jury when you bought it. A receipt would come in handy.
If an LEOsees you with a 20 rd mag, even though you tell him you bought it in 1990, he has PC to arrest you. When you show up in court, you may need to convince a jury when you bought it. A receipt would come in handy.
L in Oakland
Regular Member
imported post
I think the 1st paragraph spells out exactly what I was refer to: I could be wrong though. But if you bring in a illegal gun into this state then the bets are all off. That's my point.
Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement.
As far as the name calling, I don't feel I sad anything that was considered name calling. If you or others feel offended by myremarks then "I'll take them back". I'm not her to bash others. I'm here to hear valid points and opinions and not what if's. I have read many of you opinions and respect them! I think I will just sit and read the posts as I have been for many months now because we come from the different side of the tracks. Carry on.
I think the 1st paragraph spells out exactly what I was refer to: I could be wrong though. But if you bring in a illegal gun into this state then the bets are all off. That's my point.
Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement.
As far as the name calling, I don't feel I sad anything that was considered name calling. If you or others feel offended by myremarks then "I'll take them back". I'm not her to bash others. I'm here to hear valid points and opinions and not what if's. I have read many of you opinions and respect them! I think I will just sit and read the posts as I have been for many months now because we come from the different side of the tracks. Carry on.
ryanburbridge
Regular Member
imported post
As far as the name calling, I don't feel I sad anything that was considered name calling. If you or others feel offended by my remarks then "I'll take them back". I'm not her to bash others. I'm here to hear valid points and opinions and not what if's. I have read many of you opinions and respect them! I think I will just sit and read the posts as I have been for many months now because we come from the different side of the tracks. Carry on.
Don't stop posting because someone gets upset. We need everyones thoughts. Just try to add actual law or case law.
As far as the name calling, I don't feel I sad anything that was considered name calling. If you or others feel offended by my remarks then "I'll take them back". I'm not her to bash others. I'm here to hear valid points and opinions and not what if's. I have read many of you opinions and respect them! I think I will just sit and read the posts as I have been for many months now because we come from the different side of the tracks. Carry on.
Don't stop posting because someone gets upset. We need everyones thoughts. Just try to add actual law or case law.
Mike Hawk
New member
imported post
ryanburbridge wrote:
ryanburbridge wrote:
Not illegal to buy.
heliopolissolutions
Regular Member
imported post
I really was under the impression that we all better understood one of the more throughly researched (albeit inadequately phrased) PCs regarding "large capacity magazines".
Imagine how others who may be sympathetic to our goals might feel if they wandered in here to the inanity of supposition and hearsay thats laced in this thread.
Current factional differences aside, you might find it worthwhile and enlightening to explore the Calguns wiki and the more legally focused posts on their forum.
I really was under the impression that we all better understood one of the more throughly researched (albeit inadequately phrased) PCs regarding "large capacity magazines".
Imagine how others who may be sympathetic to our goals might feel if they wandered in here to the inanity of supposition and hearsay thats laced in this thread.
Current factional differences aside, you might find it worthwhile and enlightening to explore the Calguns wiki and the more legally focused posts on their forum.
ryanburbridge
Regular Member
imported post
L in Oakland wrote:
At what point do you stand up against a LAW that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Just because it's state law dose not make it right. It is our job to resist and change bad laws.
L in Oakland wrote:
At what point do you stand up against a LAW that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Just because it's state law dose not make it right. It is our job to resist and change bad laws.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Gundude wrote:
Gundude wrote:
Citation?
Gundude
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
marshaul wrote:
The person making the original post seems, from his past posts,to befrom Georgia. If he is found here with a high cap mag, it would follow that he imported it. Thats where the RS would come into play.