View Full Version : ...

11-12-2008, 5:32 PM

11-12-2008, 6:05 PM
Lol. On first read this sounds like manufacturing a large-cap to me.

11-12-2008, 6:19 PM
That's what makes me wary. The mag is already a hi-cap if it holds 11 rounds, but if there's any evidence of the spring being modified, then there's no proof that in its original configuration it was a large capacity magazine and it appears to have been modified specifically to turn it from a 10 round into a 11+ round magazine.

Why Dedeye, why?

11-12-2008, 7:35 PM
Not the usual question, however.

Say you've got a magazine that's sold as a 10 rounder. However, through no fault of your own you can quite easily load 11 rounds into it.

Common consensus is there's nothing illegal about that.

What if, though, you can insert a 12th round without much difficulty? That's still not illegal. Here's where the legal question comes in which isn't as easily answered:

Can you cut down the spring marginally to improve reliability of feeding the 12th round? It wouldn't be manufacturing, since the magazine can already hold 11 rounds (which it can reliably feed) or 12 rounds (with some possible difficulty feeding). Still, my gut tells me that there's too much legal danger to risk that for the marginal benefit received from the 12th round.

What sayest thou, almighty Calguns?

Seriously? The "danger" started when you received the magazine. The sale (or transfer) was an unlawful transfer of a large-capacity magazine {PC 12020 (2)} - it doesn't matter whether or not the magazine was modified before you got it, if it holds 11 rounds, it's a large-capacity magazine by definition. I wouldn't keep it at all, never mind modifying it to hold yet another round.

11-12-2008, 8:19 PM
Some of the early 10/30 mags had "tabs" in the side (looked like they were created with a can opener) that supposedly stopped the follower at 10 rounds, however, it was all too easy to press hard on the 11th round, bend the tabs back, and therefore "create" a high-capacity mag. We didn't sell them because we felt that, by bending the tabs, customers would in fact create a high-cap magazine.

11-12-2008, 10:00 PM
So what you're getting at is that buying a high capacity mag marked as a non-high capacity magazine is somehow not purchasing a high capacity magazine?

I don't think that's gonna fly in court, or on the street.

11-12-2008, 10:43 PM
My thought process on this goes along lines similar to a 10 round .40/.357Sig magazine holding 13-15 rounds of 9mm. The magazine is manufactured and sold as a ten round magazine and is designed to hold 10 rounds. However, without any modification to the magazine, it is capable of holding more rounds than marked.

An apples to oranges comparison.

In one case you are talking about putting smaller sized ammunition than what the magazine is intended to use. In the other, you're fitting the correct caliber ammunition into the magazine.

Does it matter if the only magazines made for said firearm are 10 rounds, and no design or product exists offering >10 round magazines for that firearm design?

According to the Penal Code, this hypothetical seems just fine according to PC12020(b)(20), (21), or (27). I was wondering a separate issue and ended up defending the line of reasoning behind it.

The 12020 exemption for sales of high capacity magazines is not clearly worded to make such an assumption. While I'm hopeful it might one day be clarified finely, it simply doesn't lead itself to our point just yet.

Here's how I see it going for someone following your thoughts:

Scene - court room:

Mr. Eye, is this your magazine?


How many rounds of ammunition for wich it was designed does it currently hold?


And you made it hold 12 rounds?

>Yes, but it's a 10 round magazine.

You have a receipt for this?

>Yes, it's right here. (shows receipt for a 10 round magazine)

So how did it come to hold 12 rounds?

>Well I modified the folower so the 12th round would fit better.

So what you're telling me is that you bought a 10 round magazine, according to your receipt here, and modified it to hold 12 rounds? Sounds like manufacture of a high capacity magazine to me.

You have a magazine sold as a 10 rounder, and you modify it and now it holds more then 10 rounds.

It's not a difference of caliber conversion, or anything like that. I think it'd be clear enough to convict for manufacture of a high capacity magazine, don't you think?

11-13-2008, 11:34 PM
Hm. Ask the hypothetical, then when you get the answer you don't want, say, "No, I really meant...". We have a name for lawyers like that... we call them the losing side. Invite me to the trial, please? I want to watch. I'll bring my own popcorn. :rolleyes:

11-14-2008, 12:04 AM
DedEye was actually pretty clear in explaining this hypothetical situation, including the part where the alleged 10rd mag happens to hold at least 11 rounds UNMODIFIED. Leelaw just didnt include the whole 11 round part in the hypothetical result in court. I dont think we can put DedEye on the losing side for sumthin like that.

11-14-2008, 10:55 AM
DedEye was actually pretty clear in explaining this hypothetical situation, including the part where the alleged 10rd mag happens to hold at least 11 rounds UNMODIFIED. Leelaw just didnt include the whole 11 round part in the hypothetical result in court. I dont think we can put DedEye on the losing side for sumthin like that.

You don't think the prosecutor would gloss over the 10-but-really-crams-in-11 bit, too?

What they would present to the jury is this:

Magazine purchased as "10 round magazine"
Receipt verifies it was sold as such.
Magazine now holds 12 rounds.
Magazine was modified in some way between it being sold as a "10 round magazine" to the present "12 round magazine" state.

The defense, I'm sure, would say "well it was sold with the capacity to hold 11 rounds!" but without documentation or a receipt selling it as such, and with the 12020 FFL/HCM exemption being too shakey to base a defense off of, with documentation supporting the prosecutor's "manufacture of a high capacity magazine" argument... it's not good.

They'd have the jury infer the difference, and I don't think any jury, aside from OJ's, would fail to convict on that.

11-14-2008, 11:45 AM
Since it is not illegal to purchase or possess 'large capacity' magazines, the worst that could happen is that the magazines would be evidence of an illegal sale. Remember the prosecution has to meet the burden of proof. They would have to convince 12 jurors that you intentionally modified the magazines AND that it was that act that turned it into a high-cap.

The solution would be to buy another identical magazine. Have a running video camera documenting continuously from the point of purchase to the point where you demonstrate that the magazine easily holds 11 rounds. Send the video off to your attorney for safe keeping. I think video evidence like this would be excellent "reasonable doubt" for a jury.

Then buy 10 more mags and buy normal capacity 'rebuild kits' so you have normal-cap mags. Since you can prove they were all 'large capacity' to begin with, you will not in fact be manufacturer a new large capacity magazine, only modifying an existing large capacity magazine.

11-14-2008, 4:13 PM
I was simply stating that you did not include the 11rd part of the story Lee, thats all. I'm sure the prosecutor would act in the way you think he/she would as well. However, if the mag holds at least 11 rounds already, even though it was sold as a 10, is it not still a high capacity magazine by CA law? And by it already meeting the definition of a high capacity magazine, should it be a problem to put in a different follower that happened to make the already high capacity magazine hold the 12th round "better" than without the new follower (keep in mind it could already hold 12, but just not reliably feed)? I'm not saying I would do such a thing or suggest someone to do it, but I think the questions that DedEye and others have like these are valid and something to consider before making any judgement. Either way Im sure it wouldn't be a nice process to have to go through in real life.