California mag high capacity

Does anyone know if California still bans owning or having in your possession mags that hold 10 rounds or more? The California PC 32310 is unclear whether or not it has been revoked.

1 Like

Hi @Taylor, welcome to the group!
@KenM is pretty on top of what’s happening in CA, maybe he or @Dawn can tell you.


Here is the ruling from the latest opinion of the California courts.

The stay in the ruling means California gun owners cannot buy magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. … Judge Roger Benitez on March 29 published a fiery opinion finding that California’s ban on high-capacity magazines violated Californians’ Second Amendment right to own firearms.

Although the judges opinion seemed to have struck down Penal Code 32310, he is holding off implementing his ruling while the states gets ready to challenge that decision.

I just purchased a Glock 22 (in the state of Missouri) and it came with 2 10 round magazines and 2 15 round magazines. The Glock was destined for a dealer in California, (hence the 2 10 round magazines), but the dealer changed his order, so the gun came to me with the the 2 10 round magazines for California laws and the 2 normal 15 round magazines that normally come with a G22. Hope this helps, but yes, California is still in limbo concerning “High Capacity” magazines.


Yes that helps thank you

1 Like

Welcome to the Community, @Taylor. The USCCA Reciprocity Map has a ton of great information beyond just concealed carry laws. Here’s what it has to say about the high capacity magazines.

On March 29, 2019, a federal judge upheld his earlier decision blocking a California law barring gun owners from possessing high-capacity magazines. However, Judge Benitez issued a stay and the law criminalizing the importation or sale of the high-capacity magazines was reinstated on April 5, 2019, pending the attorney general’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Those who have imported high-capacity gun magazines into California in the week since he declared the state’s ban on the weapons unconstitutional do not have to give up their weapons or be criminalized for owning them.


Hello Taylor, welcome to the community. As you can see we’re all ready to jump in and comment. We’re not attorneys so make sure to consult with the CA penal code, CA DOJ, and other advocacy groups such as Calguns or CRPA.

Now with that said, here is my understanding, I have both 10rd and standard capacity magazines over 10rds. It is legal to possess and use these in CA. Yet if found to have purchased/obtained and or importing into CA that’s a no no.

So for example I take my 17rd magazines with me out if state and return with them that’s a no no.

If I place a magazine over 10rds in my fixed magazine mag locked AR rifles that’s a no no as it’s deemed an assault weapon at that point.

If it’s a featureless then you’re golden.

Prudence and discretion is your best bet.

As was pointed out during “freedom week” magazines already are owned miraculously reappeared and found their way back into the state. Then there was the massive amounts of purchases that occurred.

Once that window closed it’s basically smoke em if ya got em until it gets back to court to be heard and ruled upon.

Again my understanding and opinion,

I have a CCW here in California and I carry with a 10 round mag. Both my glocks were purchased out of state and came with 15 round magazines. I was stationed here in California so I brought my mags with me from out of state. So from my understanding I cannot use those 15 round magazine’s according to the current California Penal Code even though I was stationed here on military orders? Again I am carrying 10 round magazines to play it safe. Let’s just see what the final decision is from the court ruling, might be a while though. Thank you KenM


I’d like to preface that I’m not advising breaking the law…

But it isn’t any of the government’s damn business what you have, if you are are an otherwise law abiding citizen. Bump stocks, “high cap” magazines, whatever - you only expose yourself by trying to comply with the law. See Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann’s case - he tried to register his firearms and accessories, as required by the law, to be compliant - and he was raided, arrested, charged with 12 felonies, and had all his firearms seized.

Here in WA, people who sold their bump stocks to the WSP almost had their personal information released publicly in response to a request that specifically outlined the requestor’s intent to create an interactive map showing where these individuals lived. Fortunately this was stopped by an emergency bill that surprisingly passed our legislature, but the anti-gun camp is determined to ram their agenda through, as we saw with I-1639. 1639 becoming law means that I could potentially be considered to be breaking the law should I refuse to comply with what I see as absolutely unconstitutional. But, I’m not going to go around bragging about it, and nobody is searching my house or my vehicle without a warrant.


Welcome to the Community, @Shadyn!

That interactive map idea is wrong on so many levels. It makes responsibly armed Americans targets for anti-firearm protesters and for criminals looking for additional guns.


Yep. And worse, the WSP was just going to hand it over - without knowing the identity of the requestor. It was an anonymous email request.

Exactly why I never EVER advocate compliance with any program that retains personal information. The promise always is “We won’t use this record/list/registration/database/etc for anything nefarious”. Okay, so why do they need it?

WHAT YOU HAVE IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. By registering yourself and your weapons, the only thing you’re doing is handing over your personal information to politicians who have already demonstrated no regard for your privacy, much less your presumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a court of law…when they have no reasonable need for it!


You’re very welcome, taking the side of caution is a wise choice as there are so many laws I can guarantee that most law enforcement have to look up PC when it falls outside of more frequent violations, would be a bad day if things went sideways should you find yourself in a stop.

Which part of California are you located? I’m in the Santa Clarita Valley just north of Los Angeles.

1 Like

Still illegal. Unless you bought them in the window when they were legal and lost the receipt of course… … … … …lost the receipt…

1 Like

Hey @Timsierramist! Welcome to the community!
Bummer about your receipts… boating accident?


Ya what’s not illegal in California

1 Like

Being active duty doesnt’ exempt you from state law. You’re probably fine on base but I would not be caught off base with them until this is worked out.

No one is exempt from state law. Military Bases fall under federal rules so unless you have special permission no carry on bases are authorized. I carry 10 rd mag in California.

1 Like

I live in CA and carry a G19. I like many others purchased a bunch of standard capacity magazines during that window. As I understand it I am legally allowed own these magazines until a final decision is made. My question is whether or not it would be advisable to use these magazines in my carry gun, I legally own them after all and there is no stipulation on my CCW itself. I understand any advice is just that but as far as I can see if they’re legal to own they are legal to use correct? Anyways I’d love to hear some advice!

1 Like

Welcome to the Community, @Connor!

Great question - what magazines (how many rounds) did you carry before you got the “high capacity” magazines?

It may be legal to carry those high capacity magazines until there’s a final decision, however, what kind of political hoops will come up in your legal defense if - God forbid - you have to physically defend yourself? Can you carry multiple of the magazines you carried before?

I would highly recommend talking with your local sheriff or DA to get their take on the situation. They’ll have a better idea what may happen if you need to defend yourself physically.