It would not be difficult to make a branding iron with the same style date-stamp markings that come on PMags.  No need to alter the month "dial", just the circle and 2-digit year.

A flat iron would remove the old digits and make a smooth base.  Then a numbered iron would create the raised digits.

CNC laser-based cottage industry?   

How is this going to work?  So, no more can goto any public range in Hawaii with hi-caps?  Have to rebuy 10rounders or block all hi-caps?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I don't believe using them is prohibited, provided they were grandfathered in.

If use is prohibited, even if grandfathered, then what's the point of having them after the law is enacted? Fancy paperweight?

How is this going to work?  So, no more can goto any public range in Hawaii with hi-caps?  Have to rebuy 10rounders or block all hi-caps?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

As long as u purchased them pre-ban, you can use them anywhere legally. But you cannot let someone else use them. So if u take a friend shooting, they will need a blocked mag.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Leave it to Hawaii lawmakers to change an ambiguous, unenforced ban/not-a-ban on >10rd AR mags, and by doing so making those "gray area" >10rd AR mags now explicitly legal under the new grandfather clause.   

If they really want to ban them, they aren't doing it right!     

While they are enacting a more clearly-written law, which I appreciate, they are also making self defense and defense of property for the law abiding gun owner more difficult if the gun owner does not own the grandfathered rifle mags they may require one day.  They are also adding one more "gotcha" law that can potentially make a peaceful, responsible gun owner a felon.

I would truly like to see the EVIDENCE that mag capacity limits save lives.  Anecdotal events like the Giffords shooting and "feelings" are not evidence. 

If Trump were pushing this issue, the MSM would preface every headline with the phrase, "Without Evidence...".

...But you cannot let someone else use them. So if u take a friend shooting, they will need a blocked mag....

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Ummm. What? That needs clarifying big time.  So you can let a friend shoot the firearm, but it cannot be with that quote on quote highcap mag?  All of sudden we're both criminals because of that?  The legislators better know how fucking ridiculous this sounds before they vote on it. I'm going to resend my email with that added, and I suggest everyone do the same.

Ummm. What? That needs clarifying big time.  So you can let a friend shoot the firearm, but it cannot be with that quote on quote highcap mag?  All of sudden we're both criminals because of that?  The legislators better know how fucking ridiculous this sounds before they vote on it. I'm going to resend my email with that added, and I suggest everyone do the same.

Prohibits possession ...

So, you can loan someone your long gun, just not the 30rd mags you bought pre-ban.   

Prohibits possession ...

So, you can loan someone your long gun, just not the 30rd mags you bought pre-ban.   

The context was the range--say we're at Kokohead popping off some rounds.  Edit: Also, I'm not keen on lending any firearm to anyone.

Or if ur taking a rifle class. Very common to toss someone a mag, especially during team relays.

And if your spouse uses the rifle for self defense, how they articulate who owns the mag thats in the rifle is important. Its legal to own just a mag, and not own a rifle.

Its unlikely hpd will be at the range counting shots. And rifle side dont allow more than 5 anyways. They would need probable cause to test the mag thats in the rifle to see if its a 30rd or blocked to 10rds.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The context was the range--say we're at Kokohead popping off some rounds.  Edit: Also, I'm not keen on lending any firearm to anyone.

Case-by-case hypothetical situations are not covered in laws.  The term "possession" is among the prohibitions for >10rd mags.  If you hand someone a 30rd mag for your AR at the range, he/she is in possession of it, are they not?

If we are talking the bullseye range, you're limited to 5 rds per mag anyway.  Why take the chance?

Case-by-case hypothetical situations are not covered in laws.  The term "possession" is among the prohibitions for >10rd mags.  If you hand someone a 30rd mag for your AR at the range, he/she is in possession of it, are they not?

If we are talking the bullseye range, you're limited to 5 rds per mag anyway.  Why take the chance?

You might be conflating possession with ownership.

The law will prohibit ownership of all high-cap magazines purchased when the law is active.  Any grandfathered mags should not change legal status if they don't change hands--unless they change hands in a commercial exchange sense (one sells it to another person, which would clearly be illegal).  There are gray areas that need to be resolved before this law should even be signed. Let me illustrate:

Possession and ownership are two different things, right?  Because while they (a friend or anyone you authorize) may possess that magazine, they certainly do not own it; otherwise, by that logic, they possess (own) that firearm as well.  It's the same sense as lending your car to someone: they need to be legally capable of operating that car. With that said, the rules governing a legal (grandfathered) magazine should be commensurate with the rules governing a legal firearm. After all, they are one required the other. People treat them as different things, but that's another discussion.

No case-by-case? That is stupid. It's stupid to think that there are cut-and-dry situations when this is clearly a nuanced topic.

Again, if I am to follow this law, it must be at the very least a law that you can follow easily. People ARE going to say shit like "I didn't know that" and rightfully so, since it's hard to make Po'o to Okole with laws with gray areas.  One thing we know for sure that is black and white is this: your okole is going to OCCC even if you didn't know you were breaking a law.

You might be conflating possession with ownership.

The law will prohibit ownership of all high-cap magazines purchased when the law is active.  Any grandfathered mags should not change legal status if they don't change hands--unless they change hands in a commercial exchange sense (one sells it to another person, which would clearly be illegal).  There are gray areas that need to be resolved before this law should even be signed. Let me illustrate:

Possession and ownership are two different things, right?  Because while they (a friend or anyone you authorize) may possess that magazine, they certainly do not own it; otherwise, by that logic, they possess (own) that firearm as well.  It's the same sense as lending your car to someone: they need to be legally capable of operating that car. With that said, the rules governing a legal (grandfathered) magazine should be commensurate with the rules governing a legal firearm. After all, they are one required the other. People treat them as different things, but that's another discussion.

No case-by-case? That is stupid. It's stupid to think that there are cut-and-dry situations when this is clearly a nuanced topic.

Again, if I am to follow this law, it must be at the very least a law that you can follow easily. People ARE going to say shit like "I didn't know that" and rightfully so, since it's hard to make Po'o to Okole with laws with gray areas.  One thing we know for sure that is black and white is this: your okole is going to OCCC even if you didn't know you were breaking a law.

Since this is a new law, there is no available case law from which to gauge the specifics.  If you think that's stupid, then that's not my problem.

"Possession" is plain language.  The law doesn't say "ownership" -- simply states "possession."

Here's the official synopsis taken from the bill:

Prohibits the manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition
magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds, regardless of the type of firearm with which the magazine is
compatible. Allows possession of large-capacity magazines that were legally possessed prior to the effective date
of this Act. Allows acquisition by means of inheritance of large-capacity magazines that were legally in possession
prior to the effective date of this Act. Allows possession and use by law enforcement agencies and officers. Allows
the use of blank-fire assault weapons and detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds
for use solely as props for motion picture film or television program production when authorized by the chief of police
of the appropriate county and not in violation of federal law. (SD2)

The acts listed are:

manufacture
possession
sale
barter
trade
gift
transfer
acquisition

No matter how the thing wound up in your hands, if it's not grandfathered to you by law or willed to you by someone for which it was grandfathered, you're in violation. 

If you look up the definition of "possession", one of the synonyms is, in fact, "owning".  It also means "to be in control of".  To argue "Ownership, not possession" is really a distinction without a difference.

If you get charged with drug possession, good luck arguing, "But, it doesn't belong to me!"   

You are missing my point entirely. But that's alright.

From your synopsis:

"...Allows possession of large-capacity magazines that were legally possessed prior to the effective date
of this Act."

Prima facie (face value) interpretation suggests that as long as it's a grandfathered magazine, there's nothing stating nor suggesting that it cannot be lent in the same context as we have previously stated (at a rifle range).

The following statement doesn't seem to hold to the aforementioned assertion, does it? To quote: "...[a magazine] not grandfathered to you by law or willed to you by someone for which it was grandfathered, you're in violation."   Now hang on. There's floating about two concrete definitions of possession--by means of purchase outside of dates to which the law is in effect, and by inheritance.  Somehow possession by lending gets wedged into it.  After all, you can lend a weapon, but not a grandfathered magazine?  The heart of question is the why disparity between that and should not that be resolved before the law is put into effect.

You offered spurious explanation. Let us speak or discuss it fairly. For one thing, drugs are a completely different matter altogether. There are a variety of drugs and their legality is based on certain conditions.  Furthermore, nobody can lend you their marijuana or oxycodone.  I've already stated you can lend a weapon, so let's not contest that any further. 

It's not exactly a new law since there's are nine other states with the same or similar law in effect.  I admit I am not well versed in any of it, nor are aware of any case laws to which we can discuss the subject in earnest. 

But perhaps someone here is, and we can get the air cleared up on the matter. With that said, I don't think you're helping that cause in any way--I'm sorry, but you aren't.

I am hoping our legislators understand the implications of this well enough in order to be qualified to be able to legislate it.  I fear that it's a law implemented as a result of irrational fear, to which they will likely do more harm to our society than good.

Side Note: Devin just started taking orders for STANAG style mags on his website

http://www.baa808.com/OKAY-IND-SUREFEED-AR-15-30-ROUND-MAGAZINE--BLACK_p_52.html?fbclid=IwAR1MB0xPgstmAXLVLnZHczp94Z0N8xXmtYP2fU8WN_w6svnfAsNKY9vJmoI

You are missing my point entirely. But that's alright.

From your synopsis:

"...Allows possession of large-capacity magazines that were legally possessed prior to the effective date
of this Act."

Prima facie (face value) interpretation suggests that as long as it's a grandfathered magazine, there's nothing stating nor suggesting that it cannot be lent in the same context as we have previously stated (at a rifle range).

The following statement doesn't seem to hold to the aforementioned assertion, does it? To quote: "...[a magazine] not grandfathered to you by law or willed to you by someone for which it was grandfathered, you're in violation."   Now hang on. There's floating about two concrete definitions of possession--by means of purchase outside of dates to which the law is in effect, and by inheritance.  Somehow possession by lending gets wedged into it.  After all, you can lend a weapon, but not a grandfathered magazine?  The heart of question is the why disparity between that and should not that be resolved before the law is put into effect.

You offered spurious explanation. Let us speak or discuss it fairly. For one thing, drugs are a completely different matter altogether. There are a variety of drugs and their legality is based on certain conditions.  Furthermore, nobody can lend you their marijuana or oxycodone.  I've already stated you can lend a weapon, so let's not contest that any further. 

It's not exactly a new law since there's are nine other states with the same or similar law in effect.  I admit I am not well versed in any of it, nor are aware of any case laws to which we can discuss the subject in earnest. 

But perhaps someone here is, and we can get the air cleared up on the matter. With that said, I don't think you're helping that cause in any way--I'm sorry, but you aren't.

I am hoping our legislators understand the implications of this well enough in order to be qualified to be able to legislate it.  I fear that it's a law implemented as a result of irrational fear, to which they will likely do more harm to our society than good.

My intention is not to help or hurt "the cause."  I'm simply voicing my understanding of the bill as it's worded.  If you think opinions of fact are supposed to be 100% in favor of one's ideological beliefs, then you're part of the problem.  If both sides refuse to be rational about these issues, those in power will continue to ignore any arguments that conflict with their beliefs no matter how erroneous or contradictory to the Constitution they may be.

I've already stated I don't think there is any evidence that Mag capacity limits save lives.  If that isn't supporting the cause enough for you, it really doesn't bother me.  I'm okay with you having an opinion about who is helping and who is not.  It's just an opinion.

This is really annoying at a time when we should be pinching our pennies that we have to drop hundreds of dollars on consumables, but then again with inflation set to skyrocket maybe the ledge accidentally did us a favor?

As for your hypothetical and the "possession" of a pre-ban mag >10rd at the range...

Since the RSOs are not checking firearm registrations, they have no idea who owns what nor who is on the registration (registration does not necessarily equate  to ownership, and HPD would have a fit if we went down that road).  If I say someone stole my gun -- and I have the receipt from when I bought it -- the person on the registration would also have to produce proof of ownership if they have it.  People bring guns in all the time to register with no bill of sale (out of state arrivals).  As long as it wasn't listed as stolen in a database, the gun gets registered.  So, registration is in no way proof of ownership.

Anyway, if I can hand someone a loaded firearm at the range to shoot, and there's no attempt to ascertain which of us is the owner, and for that matter whether the person being handed the weapon is prohibited from possessing guns, I don't think a magazine that might be blocked to 10 rds (can't tell just by looking from a distance) will be high on their list of laws to investigate.

There are two sides to the coin:  what is lawful, and what is 99% unlikely to be reported.  This bill, like most so-called "firearms violations" would be used either to pile onto other crimes they are investigating, or in place of statutes for which they were unable to find sufficient evidence to charge you.

In short, the whole "what about at the range?" debate is a special case.  As I said, if you're at the bullseye range, you aren't allowed to load more than 5 rds in a mag at once anyway.  If you feel strongly enough to want to take pre-ban mags to shoot and not have 10 rd or smaller mags also, that's up to you 100%.  While you might be technically in violation of the law when you hand someone your handgun, or a rifle with a pre-ban mag, I'm confident nobody will be waiting to pounce.

There’s lots of info cited in the Duncan v Becerra case on no apparent effect of mag cap laws and increased lethality of shooting events. I’d have to look it up but it cited many incidents were the average number of shots was less than 10, including incidents where STANDARD capacity magazines were used. I believe many cases involved handguns, where STANDARD capacity mags are routinely in the 15-17 and more range.

Lots of sales for 4th of July. Lots of sales on Magpul mags, as wells as USGI. Where are the sales in Lancer mags... 

Just dropped custom surfboard money on mags and not happy about it. Is there anyone who ships 10/22 ones here any more?