One of the things that irritates me about California's laws, besides how restrictive they are, is how complex they are. There is a general ban on importing, selling, loaning, etc. magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, after 1999. But if you had it before 2000, you can keep it, no problem.
However, in the case of rifles, a separate law bans assault weapons, which are listed by brand, etc. but also by definition:
The term “assault weapon” also means any firearm that falls under one of the following definitions pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
.
.
.
In other words, "assault weapon" includes a rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds. So, even if you have a rifle with a "bullet button" requiring a tool to remove the magazine and therefore qualifying as a fixed magazine, you can't use a magazine with more than 10 rounds with it, even if the magazine is from before 2000. As soon as you pop in the magazine, it's a felony, because you then have an unregistered assault rifle. You can have the rifle, and you can have the magazine, but put the two together and you've committed a crime. I could be wrong, but it does seem that way.
That's just crazy.
It seems, then, that the only way to have a magazine with more than 10 rounds is to have a rifle that doesn't fall under (1) above, and to have magazines that you owned before 2000.
High taxes, high unemployment, high cost of living, poorly run government. About the only thing good about California these days is the weather.