PDA

View Full Version : Reevaluating "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds"


Fate
12-21-2008, 2:16 PM
Has the CalGuns community been reading too much into the law yet again?

As witnessed by our previously unenlightened reading of the regulations on "detachable magazines" and NRFs, I think we might be misreading the definition of "capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" when discussing fixed magazines with such items as a bullet button (and importantly, the concept of CA legal 10/20, 10/30 magazines).

I contend that simply inserting a plug inside the magazine meets the requirements of the law.

First, let's look at the actual law: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12275-12278.html
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
...
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
...
(d) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
...
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.Now clear your mind of preconceptions.

12276.1(a)2 states that "a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" triggers assault weapon status.

12276.1(d)2 clarifies that "'Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds' shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds,"

So regardless of what follows the comma in the above sentence, if a fixed mag cannot accept more than 10, it's not an AW.

The idea of permanence is brought into the discussion as a clarifying statement that says a higher capacity magazine can be made into a legal form by permanent alteration. While of and by itself, permanence is not necessarily a requirement in the law, it is worth looking at.

What is "permanent?" Sadly, the "Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989" does not define this.

However, a plug that can't be broken or removed without dis-assembly is good enough according to another branch of CA government.

According to CA Fish and Game Commission's Waterfowl Hunting Regulations, "Shotguns 10 gauge or smaller using shot shells only and incapable of holding more than three shells in the magazine and chamber combined may be used...

...If a plug is used to reduce the capacity of a magazine to fulfill the requirements of this section, the plug must be of one piece construction incapable of removal without disassembling the gun."

Here's the actual text of the regulations: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/current/waterfowlregs.asp#255
2008-09 Waterfowl Hunting Regulations

Subdivision 2. Game and Furbearers
Chapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions

§507. Provisions Related to the Taking of Migratory Game Birds.

(a) Authorized Methods. Only the following methods may be used to take migratory game birds:

(4) Shotguns 10 Gauge or Smaller. Shotguns 10 gauge or smaller using shot shells only and incapable of holding more than three shells in the magazine and chamber combined may be used. except no shotgun larger than 12 gauge shall be used in areas open to hunting on, over or adjacent to the waters of Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo County. If a plug is used to reduce the capacity of a magazine to fulfill the requirements of this section, the plug must be of one piece construction incapable of removal without disassembling the gun. Shotgun shells may not be used or possessed that contain shot size larger than No. BB in lead or T shot in steel or other nontoxic shot approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All shot shall be loose in the shell.So according to CAFGC, a shotgun with a legal length plug in the magazine is "incapable of holding more than three shells in the magazine." Yes, incapable. They require a one-piece construction and that it require dis-assembly of the gun to remove. It's not a huge leap to think that with a magazine-fed firearm that "dis-assembly of the magazine" would meet the requirements.

Thus we get back to the original premise that plugged magazines would be a legal way to comply with the requirement of "capable of holding 10 rounds or less" in a fixed magazine firearm.

The following photos are of a legally owned 20 round magazine. It is impossible to fit more than 10 rounds into the magazine when the "plug" is inserted into the middle of the magazine spring's coil.

http://i42.tinypic.com/263wzgm.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/xliexh.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/1rqb1h.jpg

Plug specs:
Material: Plastic waffleboard (found on most any freeway offramp in So Cal with an ad for lawn care)
Dimensions: 1 3/8" wide, 2 3/8" on short side, 2 5/8" on long side. Best to make it a little long and slowly trim your way from 9 rounds to 10)
Original magazine: Adventure Line 20 round mag from the dark ages. (Note: I am working on specs for a 10/30 style).

So with this simple device, one could buy a magazine parts kit, assemble everything except the buttplate, insert the plug and slide the baseplate on. You now have a legally configured 10 round magazine. Travel out of state? Remove the plug. Return it to CA legal prior to reentry.

For those who might fear a "renegade cop" removing the plug and then charging you with violating the PC, that same risk applies to MonsterMan- type grips or bullet-button devices. It's not that hard to remove/replace anything before it finds its way into court. I just don't think that would be any more likely to happen with a plugged magazine than it would any of the other widely accepted CA legal modifications.

So what do you, the brain trust of CalGuns think?

RP1911
12-21-2008, 2:28 PM
I like the way you think!

bwiese
12-21-2008, 2:32 PM
You might have a leg to stand on but you're forgetting about the mag definition in 12020:


12020(c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine"
means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept
more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of
the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that
it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.


Even if you got away with what you wrote in the first instance, the mag definition above would get you at least into trouble for the magazine since
it wasn't perm blocked (unless you had a legit pre-2000 hicap you strangely wanted to reduce its function), and might reflect back into consideration of the rifle configuration.

If you wanna use hicap mags go use a MonsterMan grip or U15 stock.

kermit315
12-21-2008, 2:39 PM
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
...
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
...
(d) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
...
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

This, I think, would be the sticking point. The plug is removable, thus not permanently altered. Also, this is one of a bunch of instances where F&G code dont synch with Penal code.

JMO

Librarian
12-21-2008, 2:43 PM
Interesting.

Seems that the section 507 reg is implementing F&G 2010
2010. It is unlawful to use or possess a shotgun larger than
10-gauge, or to use or possess a shotgun capable of holding more than
six cartridges at one time to take any mammal or bird. However, the
commission may, after public hearing, adopt regulations relative to
the ammunition capacity of shotguns for taking mammals or birds that
are further restrictive or that it determines may be needed to
conform to federal law. Shotguns that have been modified with the
insertion of a plug are deemed, for the purpose of this section, to
have a cartridge capacity equal to the number of cartridges that can
be loaded into the weapon as modified.

We already know that F&G has a different definition for 'loaded' than PC.

I'm not sure the F&G definition for magazine capacity transfers, any more than the definition for 'loaded' transfers, but I like the reasoning. Partly I think I hesitate because the F&G is talking about modifying the gun, the fixed internal or tube magazine of it, rather than a removable magazine. ( 12776.1 says "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: " ... "(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine." so I'm guessing removable box magazines are not common for shotguns. )

So, I dunno. Doesn't strike me as impossible you're right. Worth exploring some more.

hoffmang
12-21-2008, 2:56 PM
I think this may conflate two different issues. Let me lay out two scenarios that use your waffleboard plug.

1. Alice owns a STAG-15 with a bullet button and pistol grip. She also owns a bunch of 20 round large-capacity magazines that she acquired before 1999. She puts your waffleboard plug into one of these large-capacity magazines and attaches it to her STAG-15.

2. Bob owns a STAG-15 with a Monsterman Grip and no evil features. He has lived in California for only 30 months and owns no AR-15 magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. He imports a 20 round parts kit and assembles it with your waffleboard plug.

I think Alice is likely legal though I think Alice would be better served by a slightly more solid/serious plug. I don't see anywhere that permanence is required in the "capacity to accept" language as it refers to semiautomatic centerfire rifles - just like we pointed out in the OAL memo (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf).

However, I think Bob is illegally in possession of a large-capacity magazine. Bob has to contend with the "permanently altered" language as it pertains to magazines. We know that he can use any of the methods that were oultined to create permanent magazines in the attempted rulemaking (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/2006-Rulemaking-Attempt/modifiedtextnov1.pdf). It was clear from that that a rivet and locktite is enough to make a parts kit into a non large-capacity magazine.

I could be missing something so let the comments fly.

-Gene

RP1911
12-21-2008, 3:00 PM
humm...'capacity to accept a detachable magazine'. As far as ARs, if it takes a tool to detach, then it's not detachable right? With that in mind, what about a plug in a 'non-detachable' magazine (fixed mag AR with BB)?

Shotgun Man
12-21-2008, 3:15 PM
I think this may conflate two different issues. Let me lay out two scenarios that use your waffleboard plug.

1. Alice owns a STAG-15 with a bullet button and pistol grip. She also owns a bunch of 20 round large-capacity magazines that she acquired before 1999. She puts your waffleboard plug into one of these large-capacity magazines and attaches it to her STAG-15.

2. Bob owns a STAG-15 with a Monsterman Grip and no evil features. He has lived in California for only 30 months and owns no AR-15 magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. He imports a 20 round parts kit and assembles it with your waffleboard plug.

I think Alice is likely legal though I think Alice would be better served by a slightly more solid/serious plug. I don't see anywhere that permanence is required in the "capacity to accept" language as it refers to semiautomatic centerfire rifles - just like we pointed out in the OAL memo (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf).

However, I think Bob is illegally in possession of a large-capacity magazine. Bob has to contend with the "permanently altered" language as it pertains to magazines. We know that he can use any of the methods that were oultined to create permanent magazines in the attempted rulemaking (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/2006-Rulemaking-Attempt/modifiedtextnov1.pdf). It was clear from that that a rivet and locktite is enough to make a parts kit into a non large-capacity magazine.

I could be missing something so let the comments fly.

-Gene

I agree with your analysis, however I think you meant to say Bob has illegally manufactured a large-capacity magazine.

hoffmang
12-21-2008, 3:45 PM
I agree with your analysis, however I think you meant to say Bob has illegally manufactured a large-capacity magazine.

The more I've thought about manufacturing the harder it is for a DA to prove. Putting in a non permanent alteration may in fact be the only place it could be proven, so you may actually be fully correct.

-Gene

Wildhawk66
12-21-2008, 3:46 PM
However, I think Bob is illegally in possession of a large-capacity magazine. Bob has to contend with the "permanently altered" language as it pertains to magazines. We know that he can use any of the methods that were oultined to create permanent magazines in the attempted rulemaking. It was clear from that that a rivet and locktite is enough to make a parts kit into a non large-capacity magazine.

So a standard metal AR mag is comprised of a Mag. body, floorplate, follower and spring. Is there any reason that it has to be the mag body that has to be riveted/epoxied? Can you do the same thing to the follower, rather than the body, and still be in compliance?

For example, modify a follower using the Aloharoller method (epoxy and pin a limiter) and then insert it into a 10/20 metal body without otherwise modifying the mag?

http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/pp110/wildhawk66/IMG_4123.jpg
http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/pp110/wildhawk66/IMG_4142.jpg

JDay
12-21-2008, 3:56 PM
Interesting.

Seems that the section 507 reg is implementing F&G 2010

We already know that F&G has a different definition for 'loaded' than PC.

I'm not sure the F&G definition for magazine capacity transfers, any more than the definition for 'loaded' transfers, but I like the reasoning. Partly I think I hesitate because the F&G is talking about modifying the gun, the fixed internal or tube magazine of it, rather than a removable magazine. ( 12776.1 says "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: " ... "(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine." so I'm guessing removable box magazines are not common for shotguns. )

So, I dunno. Doesn't strike me as impossible you're right. Worth exploring some more.

They're universally common in bolt action shotguns.

hoffmang
12-21-2008, 4:28 PM
For example, modify a follower using the Aloharoller method (epoxy and pin a limiter) and then insert it into a 10/20 metal body without otherwise modifying the mag?


That's probably enough though I'd probably do both sides to make sure it doesn't tilt. It has to be "permanent" if you ever go before a judge and jury. As such, nobody can really say that that is enough. It's up to your call.

I myself feel like that if to reverse it you have to cut or drill or somesuch (which that mod would require) then it probably meets the definition of permanent. Real adhesive used to hold the plug to the follower seems pretty permanent.

-Gene

383green
12-21-2008, 4:41 PM
I agree with Gene that Alice should be OK under the AW law. Taking for granted that kermit315's edited quote is entirely correct because I'm too lazy to go hit leginfo.ca.gov:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
...
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
...
(d) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
...
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

1) If the gun's magazine cannot accept more than 10 rounds: it's OK.

2) If the gun's magazine used to be able accept more than 10 rounds but was permanently modified: it's OK.

3) If the gun's magazine used to be able to accept more than 10 rounds but was non-permanently modified: this is not specifically covered by the AW law text, but it sounds to me like it should be covered by the first case above, for purposes of the AW/non-AW determination.


Alice already legally owned those >10 round magazines before alteration, so the magazine law does not come into play for him/her.

Regarding comments about modifying magazines in a non-permanent "needs a tool" manner, remember that the whole "needs a tool" idea is specifically defined in the AW law for purposes of discriminating between detachable and non-detachable magazines. It's not necessarily applicable anywhere else.

Now, let's think about Bob. He's OK on the AW matter, but did he run afoul of the magazine law? I'll quote lazily again, this time from Bill:

12020(c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine"
means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept
more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of
the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that
it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

...

This text has the same categories for determination of whether it's a large capacity ammunition feeding device:

1) If the magazine cannot accept more than 10 rounds: it's OK.

2) If the magazine used to be able accept more than 10 rounds but was permanently modified: it's OK.

3) If the magazine used to be able to accept more than 10 rounds but was non-permanently modified: this is not specifically covered.


Case 3 (non-permanent modification) is not specifically covered. Does the magazine have the "capacity to accept" more than 10 rounds, even though more than 10 can't be crammed in without disassembly, removal of a part, and then reassembly?

Should the languages in 12276 and 12020 be interpreted the same way, since they use slightly different terms to describe the same two overlapping but not all-inclusive classes?

If there's any ambiguity, will the rule of lenity apply?

Is there any legal reason that a follower must be one single piece, or is it just a convention that they're made that way? Why would it not be entirely reasonable to design and manufacture a magazine whose body is longer than necessary to accommodate the designed number of cartridges, but the magazine includes a block of some sort to limit spring compression in order to avoid metal fatigue, or to make it more tolerant of dirt and debris in the magazine body?

Even though the convention of including a cheap wood dowel with a brand new pump shotgun is due to hunting laws, is there any particular reason why the same technique would not also be applicable to other magazine capacity laws which do not specifically state that permanence is mandatory?

I'm not about to start buying big mag repair kits and 10ifying them with pieces of stolen lawn care signs (as an aside, I'd prefer to steal make money at home pyramid scheme signs rather than improperly-placed but otherwise legitimate service advertisements), but I don't think this idea is obviously unsound.

Hmm, another thought just occurred to me: If a non-permanent modification of a box magazine would not be OK, then why would it be OK to assemble belts of 10 or fewer cartridges with metal links? After all, those links aren't modified at all, and an infinite number of them could be assembled together. Is each link by itself a single-round magazine, or an infinite-round magazine? Or is it a zero-round magazine or even a non-magazine, because it doesn't actually play a role in ammunition feeding until another round+link is attached to it?

My personal unqualified opinion is that a non-permanent modification should either be OK under both laws, or not-OK under both laws, since they both describe the same overlapping but not all-inclusive categories. It seems to me that a non-permanent modification should be OK in both cases, but like Gene, I'd also like to see more discussion.

DDT
12-21-2008, 4:42 PM
I would argue that it Is permanent. If the delrin rod is permanently attached to the follower you would need to replace the follower in order to change the capacity therefore THAT magazine, as it is would be permanently altered to accept only 10 rds. In order to change its capacity you would need to change the constituent parts.

A magazine is such a simple piece of machinery the follower is actually one of the most complicated pieces. Now, could having only magazines altered in this way and possessing standard length followers be considered intent to manufacture?

383green
12-21-2008, 4:45 PM
It has to be "permanent" if you ever go before a judge and jury.

I'm not positive that it must be permanent before going in front of a judge and jury. Permanence should make it a slam-dunk not-guilty if the defense attorney is any good, but I didn't read anything in the law text that excludes non-permanence. Of course, I'm thinking like an engineer, and that kind of thinking doesn't always seem to be correct in matters of law. I'll agree that I do not want to be the first defendant to go argue this in front of a court!

hoffmang
12-21-2008, 4:54 PM
The word permanent is used nowhere in the AW ban. It is used in regards to large-capacity magazines. Therefor one has to assume that there is something different between the two which also follows logically. The SKS issue comes up if you try to apply permanent to rifles.

-Gene

383green
12-21-2008, 5:08 PM
The word permanent is used nowhere in the AW ban.

Wrong. It is used in 12276.1, in the definition of "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds". While this particular phrase is only used when referring to fixed magazines in rifles and pistols, the word permanent (specifically, "permanently") is used in the AW ban.

(This time I did go to leginfo.ca.gov to check on this, too! ;))

BillCA
12-21-2008, 7:00 PM
Good thinking Fate!
Some analysis of the situation

Both 12276.1(d) and 12020(c)(25) use the same language to do the same thing. A "large capacity magazine" is any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds ...
but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
The quoted wording is present and identical in both code sections.

Comparison to the DF&G regulations:
Comparable laws under the DF&G limit shotgun magazine capacities by the insertion of a one-piece plug. This prevents insertion of more than the requisite number of shells into a longer magazine tube.

At first blush, it appears that inserting a single-piece "plug" into a detachable box magazine would satisfy the requirement to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Different Criteria:
The AW ban issues different criteria. It states that the magazine must be permanently altered to accept no more than 10 rounds.

Permanent(ly):
Merriam-Webster: continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change.
Cambridge: lasting for a long time or forever.

The primary question here is whether the loose plug meets the criteria of permanent. That is, will the honeycomb sign material be "enduring"? If one can crush the plug enough to load 11 rounds (even after a number of attempts) it is not permanent. If it is easily removed, the question is if it is really permanently altered.

But let's assume the plug is made of durable material such as wood or solid plastic.

Tool Requirement?
Some may argue the need for a tool, following the logic of the definition of a "permanently attached" or "fixed" magazine. This does not necessarily follow. The magazine release was originally designed to be routinely manipulated to replace magazines. The use of a tool negates that rapid replacement. With magazines, however, they are not designed for routine disassembly for the operation of the firearm. They are generally used in their assembled form and reloaded without disassembly. Any disassembly of magazines is for cleaning and maintenance, not routine operation.

Also note that the DF&G shotgun plug does not require a tool to remove the plug. On most shotguns, the user can unscrew the magazine cap, remove the spring and plug, then reassemble without the plug for non-game purposes.

Arguable Point: Capacity
Cambridge: the total amount that can be contained or produced.
Merriam-Webster: a: the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating <a large seating capacity> b: the maximum amount or number that can be contained or accommodated <a jug with a one-gallon capacity>

Legal arguments may be made that the magazine has "the capacity" to hold more than 10 rounds. The definition of capacity includes the use of terms like "potential" and "maximum amount...that can be contained". The argument may be that the magazine body has the ability to contain more than 10 rounds.

Capacity Counter-point:
The capacity argument is moot. The legislature clearly intended to focus on the ability to hold more than 10 rounds and not the physical volume capacity of a magazine - as evidenced when they wrote the definition of a "high-capacity feeding device:
shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
Accommodate means to make room for or to hold without crowding or inconvenience (Merriam-Webster). Additionally the legislature's intent is clear. If the magazine, of whatever size, has been permanently altered to hold 10 or fewer rounds, it is not unlawful.

A court is likely to spot the difference between the shotgun plug (used when hunting game, but removed for home defense for instance) and the intent of the legislature to prevent the use of high-capacity magazines. That is, according to the legislature, there is no legitimate use for hi-cap magazines on non-registered AW's.

It would seem that the most prudent test would be to form a plug with sufficient base width to accomodate a small self-tapping or sheet-metal screw. The screw would be attached through the base plate into the plug. This would suffice to meet the criteria of "permanent" by requiring a tool to remove the plug. The screw need not be substantial. One could use the thin, coarse-threaded self-tapping screws from old VCR cassettes.

The plug must be substantial in strength to resist compression or fracturing over time. Metal, Delrin®, polycarbonate, acrylic or similar materials are easily adapatable. Cardboard, fiberboard, pressboard (chipboard), frozen cream cheese, soft urethane plastics and similar materials are unlikely candidates.

Comments?

Librarian
12-21-2008, 7:07 PM
They're universally common in bolt action shotguns.That's cool - I've never seen one, but now that I know to look, I see Mossberg and Savage models, and some others apparently no longer made (e.g. Browning A-Bolt).

Do those have plugs for bird hunting, or do they use by-design limited magazines? Because that kind of plug, if existing, might be useful in this context.

DDT
12-21-2008, 7:23 PM
Someone ought to mold out followers with a shaft out the bottom that fits through the spring. Just make the shaft 30 rounds long with marks every 10 rounds.

Have a 30 round case and want a sled. Just insert the follow as-is.

Just cut off 10 rounds worth of shaft and you have a sled in a 20 round case or a 10/30 magazine.

Cut off 20 rounds worth of shaft and you have a sled in a 10 round case or a 10/20 or a 20/30 if that's your thing for some odd reason.

Cut off all 30 rounds worth of shaft and you have a max capacity follower for whatever magazine you have.

artherd
12-21-2008, 7:46 PM
Eh - maybe, but what's the point here?

We still end up with 10 round mags - which are easy and cheap enough to obtain without toeing the legal line.

After all that, there the old 'tools and time' test, which you just might loose in a higher court. Why?

Fate
12-21-2008, 8:31 PM
Eh - maybe, but what's the point here?

We still end up with 10 round mags - which are easy and cheap enough to obtain without toeing the legal line.

After all that, there the old 'tools and time' test, which you just might loose in a higher court. Why?
The point? Well some of it is academic. But it's also practical.

The genesis of this "plug concept" is a bullet button build I'm working on (still waiting on BB and LPK from Freakshow's Group Buy). I have pre-ban magazines and wondered if instead of having to go out and buy 10 round mags, if I could legally mod them to only accept 10 rounds for use in the BB equipped AR and yet retain the ability to reconfigure them back into their full glory for use in my non-BB rifles. I came across this post by uclaplinker in the How To Build a 10/30 PMAG threadIt gets worse than that... if you can open the floor plate and shove a few rounds in the bottom of, say, a 10/20 you're holding more than 10rds. The current definition does not define the ability to feed all rounds of the capacity as a magazine capable.

Again, with the DOJ abdicating their responsibility and ability to define, I would argue we have a wide degree of latitude here. If they're unwilling to say what "permanent" means, what exactly is a 10rd mag, etc. the argument could be made we're in the clear just by something simple - like what's done with hunting shotguns.

Which, again, leads us back to doing what you're comfortable with as sufficiently "permanent."So I began looking up the CAFGC regulations and wondering. And then I got a few parts together and built a prototype. It runs just fine in my "featureless" AR build.

And then the concept of NRFs came along and the true potential began to shine through. What if the NRF you want only has high cap mags available? Is this "plug" a way to convert the magazine parts kit into usable form that would not affect reconfiguration into "free state" mode if you leave CA?

So, yes, 10/20 AR-15 mags aren't hard to come by. But there are a lot of guns out there that can be CA legal except for their stock magazine capacity.

I appreciate that some of you very bright people are seriously looking at this to potentially find any flaws, etc. I'm pretty confident that the eventual consensus (whichever that may be) will be defensible, based on the law, not FUD.

Sgt Raven
12-21-2008, 8:37 PM
Wrong. It is used in 12276.1, in the definition of "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds". While this particular phrase is only used when referring to fixed magazines in rifles and pistols, the word permanent (specifically, "permanently") is used in the AW ban.

(This time I did go to leginfo.ca.gov to check on this, too! ;))

Marlin lever rifles were sold with a 'plug' in their magazine tubes like shotguns.

kermit315
12-21-2008, 8:38 PM
The point? Well some of it is academic. But it's also practical.

The genesis of this "plug concept" is a bullet button build I'm working on (still waiting on BB and LPK from Freakshow's Group Buy). I have pre-ban magazines and wondered if instead of having to go out and buy 10 round mags, if I could legally mod them to only accept 10 rounds for use in the BB equipped AR and yet retain the ability to reconfigure them back into their full glory for use in my non-BB rifles.

And then the concept of NRFs came along and the true potential began to shine through. What if the NRF you want only has high cap mags available? Is this "plug" a way to convert the magazine parts kit into usable form that would not affect reconfiguration into "free state" mode if you leave CA?

So, yes, 10/20 AR-15 mags aren't hard to come by. But there are a lot of guns out there that can be CA legal except for their stock magazine capacity.

I appreciate that some of you very bright people are seriously looking at this to potentially find any flaws, etc. I'm pretty confident that the eventual consensus (whichever that may be) will be defensible, based on the law, not FUD.

As I said before, I see this as being the sticking point. If you can turn them back into standard cap mags, then it doesnt seem permanent to me.

As I said before, this is just my opinion, but I see this as a risk vs. benefit scenario, where the benefit doesnt outweigh the risk.

bohoki
12-21-2008, 8:42 PM
i'm confused on the letter of the law

if a device has to be permanatly altered to only hold 10 that tells me that it previously held more than 10

and if you are making a 10 rounder from a replacement parts kit it was not a magazine so if you modify any one part and assemble it and it only holds 10 it should be fine

a plug on the follower, a floorplate that is an extended block,or a rivit in the body

other wise requireing other extreme methods such as doing all the above and bonding the magazine so it is undisassembleable

brings up the thought you could slap a +2 on a glock 26 mag so how is that magazine permanantly altered?

alex00
12-21-2008, 8:56 PM
I think the biggest issue is permanence. There is no codified definition of permanent. One persons permanent, is another's mild roadblock. Is a loose piece of delrin permanent if placed in a magazine? It won't ever degrade and would outlast the metal parts of the magazine. But simply removing the floorplate and taking the delrin out restores the original capacity. It seems like it would be permanent unless the floorplate was removed.

What about glue? How permanent is that? One could simply break the plug and restore capacity. The same goes for welding, soldering and whatever else. There is nothing you could do to a magazine to render it permanently incapable or holding more than ten rounds. Anyone with a few tools, a strong hand, or whatever can alter a permanent modification.

My house is permanently affixed to the foundation, but I bet a bulldozer could remove it. All I'm trying to say is that permanent is too subjective a term to use when it comes to this law. I think that if you make a good-faith effort to attain permanence, you should be Ok. We pay these clowns lots of money to write laws, you think they could use better words. It's just one more reason this silly law needs to go away.

Fate
12-21-2008, 8:57 PM
As I said before, I see this as being the sticking point. If you can turn them back into standard cap mags, then it doesnt seem permanent to me.If the plug material is something that is unbreakable/uncompressable then it would be permanently installed as long as you didn't disassemble things to remove it. Think of the more modern bullet buttons. They are removable, though it requires disassembly to do it. At the core, there is no difference as to the permanency of either. Of and by themselves, an installed BB or a magazine plug, would be there forever until the parts themselves rust away.

hoffmang
12-21-2008, 9:07 PM
Think of the more modern bullet buttons. They are removable, though it requires disassembly to do it. At the core, there is no difference as to the permanency of either. Of and by themselves, an installed BB or a magazine plug, would be there forever until the parts themselves rust away.

However, there is no mention of permanence in the law as it pertains to detachable magazines while there is as it pertains to large-capacity magazines. That is a very important difference.

-Gene

kermit315
12-21-2008, 9:11 PM
I understand what you are saying, and I see where you are going with it. However, I dont believe permanence is ever mentioned with regards to the fixed 10 rd magazine in the AW laws. It merely states a fixed magazine, not a permanently affixed magazine. Permanence isnt discussed until you get to the actual magazine.

Like I said, I see where you are going with this, and would love for it to be so, however, I am trying to play devils advocate to help iron out any wrinkles that I can see.

ETA: Gene beat me to it.

Fate
12-21-2008, 9:17 PM
However, there is no mention of permanence in the law as it pertains to detachable magazines while there is as it pertains to large-capacity magazines. That is a very important difference.

-Gene
True, but is permanence actually required (even though a plug might actually be viewed as permanent as well)?
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.The last bit of the code could read "...but shall not be construed to include a tuna sandwich" and the meaning of "capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" wouldn't really change, would it?

Again, not trying to be difficult, but enjoying the volley.

383green
12-21-2008, 9:26 PM
If you can turn them back into standard cap mags, then it doesnt seem permanent to me.

Again, I don't see why folks are saying that the modification must be permanent. The magazine law states:

...
(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any
ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it
cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
...

If it has a "capacity to accept more than 10 rounds", then it is a large-capacity magazine.

If it has been permanently modified so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds, then it is not a large-capacity magazine.

This law says nothing at all about whether a non-permanently modified magazine is a large-capacity magazine or not. It does not state that only a permanent modification removes a magazine's large-capacity status; it just lists permanent modification as one of the exceptions (along with other exceptions, such as rimfire tube magazines). I do not see wording that suggests to me that the list of exceptions is all-inclusive.

I also note that the law does not even use consistent wording about the number of rounds held. In one place it uses "capacity to accept", and in another it uses "accommodate". If these two wordings do not have identical meanings in this context, then this discussion might get even more interesting.

This all boils down to one (and only one) question:

If a magazine has been non-permanently modified do hold only 10 rounds, does it still have the "capacity to accept more than 10 rounds"?

If it does not have the "capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" when this phrase is interpreted in whatever way is required by case law, rules of construction, or whatever legal stuff applies, then the magazine is not a large-capacity magazine.

Is there any case law that connects permanence to "capacity to accept"? Is "capacity to accept" itself defined anywhere? Is there any relevant and binding case law that has determined whether permanence is mandatory (not merely sufficient) to remove something in class "B" from restricted class "A"?

Disclaimer: I'm not personally advocating trying this; I jumped into this debate as an academic matter. I'm even playing the Devil's advocate a bit here.


Ah, let me respond to something that was posted while I was writing this long missive:

However, there is no mention of permanence in the law as it pertains to detachable magazines while there is as it pertains to large-capacity magazines. That is a very important difference.

The way I read the magazine law, permanence is sufficient to remove a magazine from the large-capacity class. However, is it necessary? I don't see wording that clearly makes permanence necessary. Rather, I see an unaddressed situation in this law, hinging upon whether a non-permanent modification still leaves the magazine with "capacity to accept".

hoffmang
12-21-2008, 10:00 PM
If permanence isn't required then "A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds." is surplussage and courts don't enjoy surplussage.

I certainly agree with the logic of your statement but logic doesn't always dictate statutory construction.

-Gene

383green
12-21-2008, 10:15 PM
I certainly agree with the logic of your statement but logic doesn't always dictate statutory construction.

As an engineer, programmer, and particularly anal-retentive person, those cases where logic does not apply really bother me! ;)

Are you aware of relevant case law or other "legal stuff" that helps determine whether the permanence is necessary vs. sufficient?

Also, do you know how "rule of lenity" stacks up against "don't enjoy surplussage" in cases like this where there is an unaddressed category, and the classification of that category determines whether a person goes home or to jail?

Personally, if I had a burning desire to make a 10 rounder out of large-capacity parts for some gun for which 10 rounders are not readily available, I think I'd take the safer "permanent" route. Still, I find this debate to be interesting and educational. After all, careful study of what the law says vs. what is does not say is what got us things like OLLs and (soon!) NRFs. I don't even want any particular NRF, but it's still fun to chip away at unjust laws.

hoffmang
12-21-2008, 10:19 PM
Are you aware of relevant case law or other "legal stuff" that helps determine whether the permanence is necessary vs. sufficient?


The only history we have on point are depositions in Hunt. There DOJ BoF made it clear that they interpret magazines as requiring permanence but that permanence wasn't anything special above what we'd all expect. Duct tape isn't permanent. Rivet and Red Locktite keeping the follower from going down too far - permanent.

-Gene

383green
12-21-2008, 10:34 PM
The only history we have on point are depositions in Hunt. There DOJ BoF made it clear that they interpret magazines as requiring permanence but that permanence wasn't anything special above what we'd all expect.

Ok, so whether the "lawn care sign" modification is legal or not, this suggests that DOJ would be on the prosecution's side. That in itself could be undesirable. While DOJ's interpretations of gun laws are notoriously inaccurate, they could still convince a judge/jury, make unpleasant case law, and get poor Fate locked up. :(

Rivet and Red Locktite keeping the follower from going down too far - permanent.

Uh, what purpose does the red Locktite serve with a rivet? :rolleyes: I could see red Locktite being needed to make a screw installation permanent, but a metal rivet (either a blind rivet or a solid one) isn't coming back out without being cut, drilled, ground, or otherwise destroyed.

artherd
12-21-2008, 10:38 PM
The point? Well some of it is academic. But it's also practical.

The genesis of this "plug concept" is a bullet button build I'm working on (still waiting on BB and LPK from Freakshow's Group Buy). I have pre-ban magazines and wondered if instead of having to go out and buy 10 round mags, if I could legally mod them to only accept 10 rounds for use in the BB equipped AR and yet retain the ability to reconfigure them back into their full glory for use in my non-BB rifles. I came across this post by uclaplinker in the How To Build a 10/30 PMAG thread


There are about 6 reasons why this is a Bad Idea(tm). I'll only go over the first 3:

1) If you do comply with the law re; permanence (as a court will likely require you to) then you have destroyed a high capacity magazine and have created a 10-round capacity magazine. If/when you go back it is possibly that you will be illegally manufacturing a high capacity magazine.

2) Tools+Time. This will bite you. If you don't know what it is, stop right now. (common way for 'permanence' to be tested & defined)

3) The bare cost savings are not a compelling reason to toe the line of legality. (especially toe over it.)

Fate
12-21-2008, 10:43 PM
While DOJ's interpretations of gun laws are notoriously inaccurate, they could still convince a judge/jury, make unpleasant case law, and get poor Fate locked up. :(Yeah pretty sure I'd prefer to remain a free man, hence the discussion. ;)

Captain Evilstomper
12-21-2008, 10:46 PM
my only problem with epoxying the floorplate, is how do you take apart the mag to clean it?
i think that having a dowel or a block of wood epoxied to the follower would be sufficient, because if you were to try to remove said block or dowel you would probably destroy the follower. which suggests that permanence is inherent. how much more permanent would it have to be if removing it would destoy the part?
and keep extra followers in case you go to a free state. 5 mags, 5 minutes, done. just remember to reinstall neutered followers before re-entering the PRK.

383green
12-21-2008, 10:51 PM
2) Tools+Time. This will bite you. If you don't know what it is, stop right now. (common way for 'permanence' to be tested & defined)

I'm looking at one of my old pre-ban 20-rounders at the moment out of curiosity. I'm not sure whether it's military issue or commercial production. It has a metal follower that won't come out the top of the magazine, and a tool is needed to get the floorplate off. A 5.56 bullet tip will work; there's a metal tab holding the floorplate in position, and the floorplate has a 1/8" diameter hole that allows the metal tab to be depressed.

How does this magazine look under a "tools+time" test?

I have neither a desire nor an intention to use this magazine as anything but a 20-rounder, and I have new-production dedicated Bushmaster 10-rounders for all of my fixed-mag builds. The "10 that looks like a 30" thing doesn't appeal to me. I'm just asking this to learn more about "tools+time".

Fate
12-22-2008, 7:17 AM
I'm looking at one of my old pre-ban 20-rounders at the moment out of curiosity. I'm not sure whether it's military issue or commercial production. It has a metal follower that won't come out the top of the magazine, and a tool is needed to get the floorplate off. A 5.56 bullet tip will work; there's a metal tab holding the floorplate in position, and the floorplate has a 1/8" diameter hole that allows the metal tab to be depressed.

How does this magazine look under a "tools+time" test?

I have neither a desire nor an intention to use this magazine as anything but a 20-rounder, and I have new-production dedicated Bushmaster 10-rounders for all of my fixed-mag builds. The "10 that looks like a 30" thing doesn't appeal to me. I'm just asking this to learn more about "tools+time".
The exemplar magazine in the photos above meets the "tools + time" requirement to remove the plug as noted by 383green. Without a tool (small screwdriver or rim), the floorplate does not come off by hand. And with a tool, it requires at least two actions to remove the floorplate, plus another to remove the plug (actually more than that as the plug doesn't just slide out).

DDT
12-22-2008, 8:27 AM
EVERYTHING in this post was incorrect, I deleted it to prevent the dissemination of FUD. The correct info, to the best of my knowledge, with cites is in #43. (I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice, yada yada yada)

EBR Works
12-22-2008, 8:51 AM
So, if you own a pre-ban registered AW you can use the magazine at full capacity and you can use it at full capacity in a featureless firearm but once that same magazine is attached in a non-detachable manner to a firearm with "evil features" it must be round-limited to 10, this wouldn't have to be a permanent alteration AS long as the magazine is a legal high capacity magazine.




I do own pre-ban standard cap mags that I use in a featureless off list AK rifle and have been agonizing over this. I want to take one of my pre-ban 40rd AK mags and limit it to 10 rounds for an off list AK pistol with a jumbopanda lock. I don't want to permanently alter the mag with glue, rivets or welding. Inserting a piece of wood or corrugated plastic to limit the mag to 10 seems like an easy solution. Can I be assured that this is a legal course of action?

DDT
12-22-2008, 9:18 AM
I was completely wrong in post #41.

I was just reviewing 12276.1 again and unfortunately it does mention permanence with regard to being considered an AW. The Off list AK pistol I will assume has other evil features which would make it an AW if it weren't for the jumbopanda. (otherwise no need for the lock)

according to 12276.1(a)(2) "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. " is considered an assault weapon.

12276.1(a)(4) covers impactco's pistol "A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: " is considered an AW.


The problem comes in with 12276.1.(d)(2)
In reference to the above definitions of Assault Weapons. 12276.1(d)(2) states that "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds."

383green
12-22-2008, 9:29 AM
My feeling at this point in the discussion is that non-permanently modified large-capacity magazines might be OK for purposes of AW/non-AW classification and/or the magazine ban, but they're on much shakier legal ground than things like OLLs were when first tried. My opinion is that the risk vs. reward ratio does not favor trying this at this time.

That being said, I'd put the idea on the shelf for now, and keep my eyes open for any events which might change this situation. Also, I'd definitely like to continue brainstorming about ideas like this! This sort of brainstorming is exactly how we find aspects of our messed-up gun laws that can either help us or hurt us, so that we can exercise our rights as fully as possible without breaking any laws.

EBR Works
12-22-2008, 9:30 AM
My understanding is that an AK pistol absolutely requires a mag lock, regardless of features, to make it Cali compliant since it has a magazine outside the pistol grip. Correct?

I guess I'm going to get some epoxy and rivets and make a permanent mod to a mag for this pistol. Too much uncertainty being presented here!

383green
12-22-2008, 9:36 AM
I guess I'm going to get some epoxy and rivets and make a permanent mod to the mag for this pistol. Too much uncertainty being presented here!

Why wouldn't you buy a dedicated 10-round magazine for your pistol rather than permanently neutering one of your precious pre-ban magazines?

EBR Works
12-22-2008, 9:48 AM
Why wouldn't you buy a dedicated 10-round magazine for your pistol rather than permanently neutering one of your precious pre-ban magazines?

I have some rebuild kits for the 40 rounders and I'll permanently convert one to a 10/40 mag. The original mags will remain safe and unmolested!

hoffmang
12-22-2008, 9:52 AM
My understanding is that an AK pistol absolutely requires a mag lock, regardless of features, to make it Cali compliant since it has a magazine outside the pistol grip. Correct?


Correct.

Also note that if you can find a rostered handgun's magazine modifications, that should presumptively serve as permanent.

-Gene

EBR Works
12-22-2008, 9:55 AM
Also note that if you can find a rostered handgun's magazine modifications, that should presumptively serve as permanent.


Please explain this to me like I'm a 4 year old. Not sure what you mean. Thanks.

383green
12-22-2008, 9:59 AM
Please explain this to me like I'm a 4 year old. Not sure what you mean. Thanks.

I had to read it a few times, too. I think he meant: Find out how the manufacturer of a rostered handgun modified their large-capacity magazine design for their CA model of the gun. Whatever they did to their design to get approved for sale in CA should be a safe approach.

EBR Works
12-22-2008, 10:04 AM
Understood. Thanks!

DDT
12-22-2008, 1:09 PM
My feeling at this point in the discussion is that non-permanently modified large-capacity magazines might be OK for purposes of AW/non-AW classification and/or the magazine ban,


Taking into account the wording of PC 12276.1(d)(2) why do you think that non-permanently modified magazines might be acceptable in a BB'ed AR?

hoffmang
12-22-2008, 1:20 PM
I had to read it a few times, too. I think he meant: Find out how the manufacturer of a rostered handgun modified their large-capacity magazine design for their CA model of the gun. Whatever they did to their design to get approved for sale in CA should be a safe approach.

What 383 said :D.

Sorry - at work and didn't have time to unpack the sentence.

-Gene

383green
12-22-2008, 1:23 PM
Taking into account the wording of PC 12276.1(d)(2) why do you think that non-permanently modified magazines might be acceptable in a BB'ed AR?

In both 12276 and 12020, nearly the same language is used with respect to permanence. I think that the debate over whether permanence is necessary or merely sufficient should reach the same conclusion in both cases, and if court cases reached conflicting conclusions under the two sections, then I think that might in itself be grounds for additional court cases.

Given the way permanence is discussed in both cases, I think that non-permanent modifications are not explicitly discussed in either section, and thus could be decided either way in court. This is why I think that a non-permanently modified magazine might be acceptable in a BB'd AR.

However, given the points that Gene brought up, I think that a non-permanent modification sounds too risky to be worth the benefit under either 12276 (AW ban) or 12020 (large-capacity magazine ban). This is why I've reached the conclusion that Fate's idea is not a good thing to try out at this time, though it's still worth remembering it in case the legal situation changes in some relevant way in the future.

Just my two cents' worth, and I'm hardly authoritative on this stuff! I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. I'm reasonably good at thinking things through logically, but not necessarily any good at thinking through legal matters. ;)

aplinker
12-22-2008, 1:43 PM
It's funny you quote that posting of mine, because this was the exact "though experiment" discussion I was having with friends around the time I posted that.

It's my opinion that the "permanently altered" language is not a singly exclusive possibility - but is making explicit one possible way.

In the end we essentially came to the conclusion that the value:liability was insufficient to make us want to push what I think could be potentially legal. All you gain is not having to buy some mags.

I'm much more interested in attaining things I can't have by common analysis. :)

EBR Works
12-22-2008, 1:50 PM
Who's willing to be a test case? I'm not available to volunteer since my wife won't let me have another "girlfriend" in the slammer, even for one night. ;)

383green
12-22-2008, 2:02 PM
Who's willing to be a test case? I'm not available to volunteer since my wife won't let me have another "girlfriend" in the slammer, even for one night. ;)

NOT IT! :D

Personally, if I'm just going to have 10 rounds on tap in a gun, I don't want another 10+ rounds worth of useless mag body hanging down and getting in my way.

EBR Works
12-22-2008, 2:12 PM
Personally, if I'm just going to have 10 rounds on tap in a gun, I don't want another 10+ rounds worth of useless mag body hanging down and getting in my way.

AKs just don't look "right" with a 10 round mag IMO. It's all about the evil. Legal evil, of course! :D

DDT
12-22-2008, 2:16 PM
In both 12276 and 12020, nearly the same language is used with respect to permanence. I think that the debate over whether permanence is necessary or merely sufficient should reach the same conclusion in both cases, and if court cases reached conflicting conclusions under the two sections, then I think that might in itself be grounds for additional court cases.

I had to read that damn thing 10 times to see what you mean

Are you arguing "shall not be construed to include" means that what follows meets the preceding requirement but may not be the only way to do so?


(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

383green
12-22-2008, 2:30 PM
Are you arguing "shall not be construed to include" means that what follows meets the preceding requirement but may not be the only way to do so?

Yes, to a certain extent. I think that this is what Fate was getting at in his original post, too.

To my legally-untrained eyes, the language about permanence in both 12020 and 12276 appears to state that permanence is sufficient, but it doesn't appear to state that it is necessary (as you wrote, "the only way to do so"). This is why I think that the non-permanent modification might be OK in either case. However, Gene's comments shed just enough doubt on that interpretation that I wouldn't want to bet my freedom on a favorable interpretation at this time. It just seems to uncertain, and there are better things to work on at this moment, IMHO.

Still, I think that the idea has enough merit to keep it on a shelf for future reconsideration.

Seesm
12-25-2008, 9:40 PM
I say keep your hi cap mags just the way they are and run em when you can out of state etc etc...

Get too close to the "crazy cali" edge you may fall in...

Or save for in a SHTF situation on a legal ca. gun...? (Of course with no evil features hahhaha plooooddd ) and then run just 10 rd mags everywhere else...

Nobody is gonna look out for you like yourself... Be careful....


The poster that mentioned seeing how the gun manufacturer made there high caps legal is a good way to go however...

artherd
12-25-2008, 11:56 PM
Unfortunately, the "tools + time" element is fluffy and vauge. It is weighed individually in every case. There's no such thing as "ok, it takes the average 10 year old kid more than 5 minuets - so it's legal."

Tools + time test is a concept who's reach far exceeds just the firearms industry btw.

And at the end of the day, it's only one of many many elements that will be weighed.

Bottom Line - this may be sort of defensible. It could very easily go either way in a higher court. You'll almost certainly be convicted by a lower court.

I'm looking at one of my old pre-ban 20-rounders at the moment out of curiosity. I'm not sure whether it's military issue or commercial production. It has a metal follower that won't come out the top of the magazine, and a tool is needed to get the floorplate off. A 5.56 bullet tip will work; there's a metal tab holding the floorplate in position, and the floorplate has a 1/8" diameter hole that allows the metal tab to be depressed.

How does this magazine look under a "tools+time" test?

I have neither a desire nor an intention to use this magazine as anything but a 20-rounder, and I have new-production dedicated Bushmaster 10-rounders for all of my fixed-mag builds. The "10 that looks like a 30" thing doesn't appeal to me. I'm just asking this to learn more about "tools+time".

Casual Reader
12-26-2008, 10:09 AM
I have a question that may add to the discussion here and that i am curious to know the answer to anyway... forgive me if i misunderstand or misuse any terminology.

What exactly is a "magazine" or "feeding device?" is there a solid legal definition?

Is it the housing that the rest of the parts parts fit into? Is it only a fully assembled and functional mag?

If a "magazine" is the housing then it doesn't seem to me that it matters what you do to modify any other parts to prohibit inserting more than 10 rounds, if those parts can be changed back out then the "magazine" has not been modified whatsoever and therefore still accepts its full capacity.

If it is only a fully assembled mag then inserting a piece of plastic, wood or whatever between the floorplate and follower to prevent it depressing enough to accommodate an eleventh round should be plenty permanent if it requires removing the floorplate to remove the obstruction - once said floorplate is removed a "magazine" would no longer exist it would only be magazine parts.

I can stack Colt AR-15 parts from floor to ceiling in my house and as long as I don't have a receiver I wouldn't own a firearm let alone an assault weapon. I can even attach them to a different company's bullet buttoned receiver and it doesn't matter how evil the features are it still would not be a "Colt AR-15."

So exactly what piece of a high capacity magazine is the "magazine" and therefore evil in the eyes of DOJ?

bwiese
12-26-2008, 10:25 AM
So exactly what piece of a high capacity magazine is the "magazine" and therefore evil in the eyes of DOJ?

A magazine is not a magazine until all the parts are assembled.

You are allowed (we have letter from DOJ confirming) to import parts to repair hicap magazines. By extension, the assemblage of those parts into a locap magazine whose capacity was permanently restricted to 10rds or less would also be legal.

No one part of a hicap magazine has more or less priority than another: a mag tube is no more or less important than a follower or floorplat.

Casual Reader
12-26-2008, 10:52 AM
A magazine is not a magazine until all the parts are assembled.

You are allowed (we have letter from DOJ confirming) to import parts to repair hicap magazines. By extension, the assemblage of those parts into a locap magazine whose capacity was permanently restricted to 10rds or less would also be legal.

No one part of a hicap magazine has more or less priority than another: a mag tube is no more or less important than a follower or floorplat.

Then any modification that required damaging or replacing any single part of the magazine to undo would be "permanent" would it not? because in disassembling the magazine and permanently removing a part, then replacing it with a new part would be the destruction and creation of a new magazine?

Although this seems logically inconsistent with the idea that you could replace parts on pre-ban mags since you cannot create new high cap mags. only repair existing ones.

If I can replace ANY and ALL parts of the mag then why can't a new mag be assembled? If the spring breaks in my pre-ban 30 round mag and I replace the mag's internal parts then a few months later the mag's housing gets damaged because i accidental close my car's trunk lid on it Would I then be allowed to replace the housing? resulting in a "pre-ban" mag made of brand new parts?

What if I take the internals out of a pre-ban mag and put them into a new housing then put brand new internal parts into the now empty old housing resulting in 2 functional mags both of which are made up of parts from pre-ban mags.

What percentage of the mag must be made of pre-ban parts before it becomes a new mag?

Librarian
12-26-2008, 11:13 AM
Then any modification that required damaging or replacing any single part of the magazine to undo would be "permanent" would it not? because in disassembling the magazine and permanently removing a part, then replacing it with a new part would be the destruction and creation of a new magazine?

Although this seems logically inconsistent with the idea that you could replace parts on pre-ban mags since you cannot create new high cap mags. only repair existing ones.

If I can replace ANY and ALL parts of the mag then why can't a new mag be assembled? If the spring breaks in my pre-ban 30 round mag and I replace the mag's internal parts then a few months later the mag's housing gets damaged because i accidental close my car's trunk lid on it Would I then be allowed to replace the housing? resulting in a "pre-ban" mag made of brand new parts?

What if I take the internals out of a pre-ban mag and put them into a new housing then put brand new internal parts into the now empty old housing resulting in 2 functional mags both of which are made up of parts from pre-ban mags.

What percentage of the mag must be made of pre-ban parts before it becomes a new mag?

So long as you wind up with the same number of large-capacity magazines as you started with, for exactly the same weapon(s), repair should be fine.

And it would be helpful to take out the 'pre-ban' language. It's not a 'ban' until possession and use are illegal.

Casual Reader
12-26-2008, 11:25 AM
Fair enough on the use of the language "pre-ban."

I dont think i would want to try to defend myself using what effectively is a new mag and claim that it is an old mag that just has all new replacement parts - maybe if you were to keep the pile of old broken parts to document that you actually owned them.

I just get frustrated with the stupidity of these laws and the people who draft them.

40caldeserteagle
12-26-2008, 12:17 PM
Fair enough on the use of the language "pre-ban."

I dont think i would want to try to defend myself using what effectively is a new mag and claim that it is an old mag that just has all new replacement parts - maybe if you were to keep the pile of old broken parts to document that you actually owned them.

I just get frustrated with the stupidity of these laws and the people who draft them.

The burden of proof is on the state. They would have to prove that you did not own a "high cap mag" in Cali prior to 2000. The DOJ has already stated that it is perfectly legal to change/ replace/ repair every single part of the mag with a new part, as long as you do not end up with more high cap mags than when you started. There's no need to keep old parts laying around but if it makes you feel more comfortable then do it.

David F.

grammaton76
01-08-2009, 12:04 AM
On the subject of replacement parts... a few folks are presently working up a "mag parts compatibility list", the goal of which is to cart out most of the desirable ways to mutate one large capacity magazine into another, while remaining within CA law.

The goal here is that with photos of the conversion process and demonstrations that the resultant mags DO function normally (including during transitory states) that it'll provide a resource to Calgunners for this specific issue.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=143357

motorhead
01-08-2009, 8:57 AM
if you were to add an aluminum pop rivet to the floorplate it might be considered permanant. requires a tool (and about 30 sec.) to remove.

sorensen440
01-08-2009, 9:05 AM
The burden of proof is on the state. They would have to prove that you did not own a "high cap mag" in Cali prior to 2000. The DOJ has already stated that it is perfectly legal to change/ replace/ repair every single part of the mag with a new part, as long as you do not end up with more high cap mags than when you started. There's no need to keep old parts laying around but if it makes you feel more comfortable then do it.

David F.

There is also no way to prove that you acquired those old broken parts legally so its a waste of space in my opinion.

Remember its not the date of manufacture on the mag that matters but when you acquired it.

FreedomIsNotFree
01-08-2009, 9:14 AM
Recognize that the "permanence" issue only comes into play for modified magazines...meaning, you are making a change from an original manufacture. If you are the original manufacturer of a magazine, there is no permanence requirement.

CSACANNONEER
01-08-2009, 11:23 AM
That's cool - I've never seen one, but now that I know to look, I see Mossberg and Savage models, and some others apparently no longer made (e.g. Browning A-Bolt).

Do those have plugs for bird hunting, or do they use by-design limited magazines? Because that kind of plug, if existing, might be useful in this context.

I've only seen factory two round mags for bolt SGs. Since 2+1=3, they are good to go for bird hunting. Although, detachable mag bolt action shotguns are the most common kind of bolt action shotgun, recently, I saw/handled a tube feed bolt action shotgun. So, detachable mags are not "universal" when it comes to bolt action shotguns.

grammaton76
01-08-2009, 1:58 PM
Recognize that the "permanence" issue only comes into play for modified magazines...meaning, you are making a change from an original manufacture. If you are the original manufacturer of a magazine, there is no permanence requirement.

This is a very important distinction.

Permanence comes into place when "exorcising the evil" from a large capacity magazine, and is an exemption for large cap mags.

FreedomIsNotFree
01-08-2009, 2:07 PM
This is a very important distinction.

Permanence comes into place when "exorcising the evil" from a large capacity magazine, and is an exemption for large cap mags.

The $64,000 question is how do we make this distinction work for us. If I take individual magazine parts, which have never been assembled into a magazine, and put them together for the first time, am I the manufacturer or simply an assembler? I argue that I would be the manufacturer because the individual pieces that make up a magazine in and of themselves do not constitute a magazine under the PC.

My thinking is, as the original manufacturer, there is no requirement under the law to show permanence because I am not "altering" or "modifying".

grammaton76
01-08-2009, 2:25 PM
The $64,000 question is how do we make this distinction work for us. If I take individual magazine parts, which have never been assembled into a magazine, and put them together for the first time, am I the manufacturer or simply an assembler? I argue that I would be the manufacturer because the individual pieces that make up a magazine in and of themselves do not constitute a magazine under the PC.

My thinking is, as the original manufacturer, there is no requirement under the law to show permanence because I am not "altering" or "modifying".

That MAY work IF the parts had been (verifiably) never, ever assembled into a magazine before. Given that rebuild kits have always started off as assembled mags (and even when ordering new parts a la carte from Brownells, "30rd mag body" as an item decription sounds innately large capacity), I would say that's way too close to the line.

I will say that you are certainly manufacturing and not assembling if you're actually bending the sheet metal to make the mag yourself. I have been curious how to do this for some time btw, because I am really fed up with not having 10 round mags for my Desert Eagle. :)

Bottom line here though - it's certainly fine and cool to wrangle this from a legal perspective. However, in risk:reward there is no significant reason to mess with the heightened risk of prosecution when the alternative is to spend $20 more on an airtight herd-immunity-covered professionally converted mag.

Or, do what I do and just buy factory 10's for fixed mag builds.

FreedomIsNotFree
01-08-2009, 2:35 PM
That MAY work IF the parts had been (verifiably) never, ever assembled into a magazine before. Given that rebuild kits have always started off as assembled mags (and even when ordering new parts a la carte from Brownells, "30rd mag body" as an item decription sounds innately large capacity), I would say that's way too close to the line.

I will say that you are certainly manufacturing and not assembling if you're actually bending the sheet metal to make the mag yourself. I have been curious how to do this for some time btw, because I am really fed up with not having 10 round mags for my Desert Eagle. :)

Bottom line here though - it's certainly fine and cool to wrangle this from a legal perspective. However, in risk:reward there is no significant reason to mess with the heightened risk of prosecution when the alternative is to spend $20 more on an airtight herd-immunity-covered professionally converted mag.

Or, do what I do and just buy factory 10's for fixed mag builds.

I agree. Dancing with the devil often has its consequences regardless of legal technicalities. Also, considering the availability of rebuild kits, the risk v reward of manufacturing your own, again, isn't worth it.

Take note though, Cproducts does not advertise "disassembly" of complete magazines as their rebuild kits like 44mag.com does. They manufacture the parts individually and sell them as such.

Saym14
09-18-2009, 7:48 AM
Permanant = durable or stable, long lasting (websters) if not defined in the law, courts will look at the common dictionary meaning of a word. Permanant does not mean not easily reversable or not reversable.

i think the OP is right as long as a mag is ever assembled in CA it must have a sturdy durable block that prevents more than 10 rounds. if I can jam rounds in and your block buckles and accepts more thenits not sturdy or durable.

now, who wants to be the test case? :)

Decoligny
09-18-2009, 8:00 AM
This, I think, would be the sticking point. The plug is removable, thus not permanently altered. Also, this is one of a bunch of instances where F&G code dont synch with Penal code.

JMO

It actually reads "shall not be construed to include......"

What that means is: Here is an example of something that "capacity to accept" does not mean. It is similar to the "openly in a belt holster is not concealed" language in 12025. It show an example, not an all inclusive list.

However, the word capacity, while meaning "amount it can hold", also means "ability", so a 20 round fixed magazine, even though it has had a plug put in it, actually has the capacity (ability) to hold all 20 rounds. You just need to pull the plug out of it.

I see this as a very dark blackish grey area bordering on "you are going to jail" for possession of an unregistered AW.

Saym14
09-18-2009, 8:22 AM
guys! put away your pre-conceived idea of permanant and look it up in the dictionary.

if my lic plate is permanantly attached to my car it does not mean its welded on. its screwed. If I obtain permanant residency in CA it does not mean I cant move out of the state in 30 days.

McCrown
09-18-2009, 9:33 AM
I see a plug as being a permanent fix to a magazine, in order to create a hi-cap mag from it you have to take out the plug, but in doing so you wil no longer have a magazine but parts. And if you put that mag back together with a different plug or without one it is no longer the same mag since the parts are different.

I see this as no different than epoxying a plug to a mag's base plate, then taking it apart and replacing the the base plate. It's no longer the same mag since it no longer has the same parts.

Decoligny
09-18-2009, 11:41 AM
I see a plug as being a permanent fix to a magazine, in order to create a hi-cap mag from it you have to take out the plug, but in doing so you wil no longer have a magazine but parts. And if you put that mag back together with a different plug or without one it is no longer the same mag since the parts are different.

I see this as no different than epoxying a plug to a mag's base plate, then taking it apart and replacing the the base plate. It's no longer the same mag since it no longer has the same parts.

A flaw in your logic. If it is no longer the same mag, then you have just manufactured a new hi-cap mag and are in violation of the law. What you have done is replace a single part on an existing magazine.

dantodd
09-18-2009, 12:00 PM
You might have a leg to stand on but you're forgetting about the mag definition in 12020:


12020(c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine"
means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept
more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of
the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that
it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.


Even if you got away with what you wrote in the first instance, the mag definition above would get you at least into trouble for the magazine since
it wasn't perm blocked (unless you had a legit pre-2000 hicap you strangely wanted to reduce its function), and might reflect back into consideration of the rifle configuration.

If you wanna use hicap mags go use a MonsterMan grip or U15 stock.

I don't see anything here that says the magazine MUST be permanently altered only that IF IT IS permanently altered it is not a large capacity magazine. A temporarily altered magazine is not a violation of 12020 as far as I can see. That being said, it is much more likely to be prosecuted and the argument is primarily academic.

Fate
09-18-2009, 3:59 PM
Woohoo, back on page 1. LOL

It actually reads "shall not be construed to include......"

What that means is: Here is an example of something that "capacity to accept" does not mean. It is similar to the "openly in a belt holster is not concealed" language in 12025. It show an example, not an all inclusive list.

However, the word capacity, while meaning "amount it can hold", also means "ability", so a 20 round fixed magazine, even though it has had a plug put in it, actually has the capacity (ability) to hold all 20 rounds. You just need to pull the plug out of it.

I see this as a very dark blackish grey area bordering on "you are going to jail" for possession of an unregistered AW.Agree with your first statement. Second (bolded) is playing word games. Just as "permanent" doesn't mean impervious to change (I like the permanent resident concept), capacity means "what it's capable of holding at that moment in it's "permanently altered state".

You can feel it's dark, dark blackish grey, but that's YOUR opinon based on your comfort level. This is still America, so you're entitled to believe what you want.

Personally, I still believe it's legal. Probably not expedient. But legal, nonetheless.

Fate
09-18-2009, 4:02 PM
I see a plug as being a permanent fix to a magazine, in order to create a hi-cap mag from it you have to take out the plug, but in doing so you will no longer have a magazine but parts. And if you put that mag back together with a different plug or without one it is no longer the same mag since the parts are different.

I see this as no different than epoxying a plug to a mag's base plate, then taking it apart and replacing the the base plate. It's no longer the same mag since it no longer has the same parts.

The deleted stuff makes no sense. Better now. :D

BillCA
09-19-2009, 2:12 PM
The issue of "permanence" in the alteration of the magazine is the issue. One might add a pair of long screws thru the side of the mag body to prevent the loading of more than 10 rds. Or a floorplate to which a plug or "block" (waffle board?) is fixed with adhesive.

If the L.E. agency involved "proves" that an 11th round can be loaded, but requires a wood dowel and a mallet to drive it in and distort the magazine alteration, then it can be argued that such "capacity" is merely the result of excessive abuse or misuse of the product. That's like L.E. "proving" your V8's exhaust is too loud by revving the engine to 10,000 rpm (if it doesn't come unglued first).

If you can force an 11th round in without damaging the alertation or the magazine using thumb pressure or a common loading tool (without resorting to extraordinary effort - like say using vice grips), then they might have an argument.

If the argument is that the mag body itself has the "capacity", even though 2/3 or 1/2 of it is "blocked off", then the state has to apply that logic across the board to include shotguns with plugs in their mag tubes and any other definition that uses "capacity to accept".

Saym14
09-19-2009, 8:44 PM
The issue of "permanence" in the alteration of the magazine is the issue. One might add a pair of long screws thru the side of the mag body to prevent the loading of more than 10 rds. Or a floorplate to which a plug or "block" (waffle board?) is fixed with adhesive.



a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds

Permanant: enduring, lasting, stable. It seems a strong solid block/spacer installed under a floorplate would meet this definition. without glue, rivets screws etc.

dantodd
09-20-2009, 9:39 AM
a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds

Permanant: enduring, lasting, stable. It seems a strong solid block/spacer installed under a floorplate would meet this definition. without glue, rivets screws etc.

Saym, the problem is that you are not quoting the limitation on the ammunition feeding device. You are quoting one of any innumerable possible exceptions to the limitation. While the law states that a permanently altered magazine conforms to the the law it does not say that a temporarily altered magazine is not.

BillCA
09-20-2009, 12:33 PM
Is a block of wood or metal inserted into the magwell a permanent block if you can remove the floorplate (and block) without tools?

Is a piece of waffleboard sign glued to the floorplate a permanent alteration, even if I can remove the floorplate without tools?

Would a simple pair of screws through the mag body be sufficient because they might require the use of a tool to remove them?

If the block is not sufficiently sturdy or resilent and compression of the block allows the loading of more than 10-rounds thereafter, is it a "permanent" block?¹

¹ That is, if the block is compressed by "forcing" a round in so that the block material compresses but does not thereafter prevent an 11th round from loading. Where the force required would be obviously "abusing" the product as manufactured.

bodger
09-20-2009, 2:02 PM
Semi-Necro Thread. :D

Saym14
09-20-2009, 3:52 PM
Saym, the problem is that you are not quoting the limitation on the ammunition feeding device. You are quoting one of any innumerable possible exceptions to the limitation. While the law states that a permanently altered magazine conforms to the the law it does not say that a temporarily altered magazine is not.
agreed - but temporary and permanant are neither defined in that section. it doesnt say it requires tools or cutting to undue it.

if I put a sturdy lasting block in and never remove it isnt that permanant?

and if I glue, weld, pin, rivet, and solder a 10 round mag, but then I undo all this the next day. wasnt that temporary?

hayasa
09-20-2009, 5:03 PM
So not to hijack, but I'm moving to Cali in a few weeks and really trying to wrap my head around all the freekin' rules you guys have. I have a half dozen high cap Glock mags that I'm trying to figure out what to do with. Can I just disassemble them and take them in to Cali, or do I have to dump them before setting foot in the state? Can I just mod them somehow like with some aftermarket floorplate or something? Thanks!

Fate
09-20-2009, 5:09 PM
Is a block of wood or metal inserted into the magwell a permanent block if you can remove the floorplate (and block) without tools?

20 round mags require a tool to remove the floorplate.

Fate
09-20-2009, 5:10 PM
So not to hijack, but I'm moving to Cali in a few weeks and really trying to wrap my head around all the freekin' rules you guys have. I have a half dozen high cap Glock mags that I'm trying to figure out what to do with. Can I just disassemble them and take them in to Cali, or do I have to dump them before setting foot in the state? Can I just mod them somehow like with some aftermarket floorplate or something? Thanks!Disassembled parts ok to bring in. Modifying them to 10 rounds also legal. For asking for specific recommendations starting another thread would be best.

Saym14
09-20-2009, 9:17 PM
So not to hijack, but I'm moving to Cali in a few weeks and really trying to wrap my head around all the freekin' rules you guys have. I have a half dozen high cap Glock mags that I'm trying to figure out what to do with. Can I just disassemble them and take them in to Cali, or do I have to dump them before setting foot in the state? Can I just mod them somehow like with some aftermarket floorplate or something? Thanks!

they must be never assembled here or they must be "permanantly altered" to accept no more than 10 rounds. "permanantly altered" is the topic of much debate.