On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:13:34 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 11:39 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:26:12 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 11:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:12:55 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 10:41 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:07:39 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 9:53 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. 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.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


It's nice that you support what Gunner said.

I did not, of course, support what gummer said. gummer's comment
suggestions one may obtain 40 round magazines legally in California.
That's false, of course.

The *fact*, as you showed, is that high capacity magazines

...may not be legally acquired, sold, offered for sale, bought, given,
or manufactured in California, since 2000.

...which, if you could read, would have figured out wasn't what was said.

If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

He said they're legal. Your article doesn't refute that.

It says they may not be legally obtained or sold or offered for sale or
manufactured or acquired since 2000. gummer suggests one may legally
make, sell, buy, import or transfer magazines with a capacity greater
than 10 rounds. He is wrong.

Try reading what was written

I did. gummer, the liar and dole scrounger and ignoramus, meant to
suggest that anyone may still acquire, sell, buy, offer for sale, import
or manufacture a 40 round magazine. He's full of ****, just like you.

You're *not* making your case.

I have made it quite well.

IFF your "case" was

My case is that gummer is full of **** about large-cap magazines.

You dumb ****, your cite *supported* what he said! Of course, you're too
stupid to have read what he wrote so you continue to make a damned fool of
yourself.

Why do ****eaters always stick together? Puzzling...

Good question?

Yes, it's a question for you. You're full of ****, just like gummer.
Why? Why don't you learn to distance yourself from stupid dole
scroungers like gummer?

Perhaps you could actually read what was written.

I did.

You certainly didn't understand anything you read. Try first grade again.

gummer very clearly was saying that anyone can lawfully obtain
and own a large-cap magazine, and he's wrong.

No, moron, that wasn't what was said in the post we're talking about.

He's full of ****, and
you're dining on the **** with him and calling it sirloin.

Well, Sir Loin of ****, you're a damned fool.