PDA

View Full Version : Definition of Fixed Magazine


Shotgun Man
01-29-2009, 7:04 PM
Why did not the the AG define the term "fixed magazine" when they were defining AW terms? They went through the bother of defining a "detachable magazine."

As it stands, I'm not sure what the legislature meant when they used the term "fixed magazine" in defining an AW as "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds."

You say fixed, I think permanent, unchangable-- fixed income, the dog has been fixed. An OLL with a bullet button doesn't leap to mind when considering the definition of fixed.

RP1911
01-29-2009, 7:09 PM
There are several threads on this subject. As recently as 2-3 weeks ago with full analysis.

Shotgun Man
01-29-2009, 7:11 PM
There are several threads on this subject. As recently as 2-3 weeks ago with full analysis.

Sorry. First time I've ever done that. I thought I had searched.

ETA: I did search. Help me out.

inmyownsummerami
01-29-2009, 7:11 PM
By defining "detachable magazine" they did define what a "fixed magazine" is. Roughly a magazine that is not removable with out the use of a tool or disassembly of the action.

Seesm
01-29-2009, 7:31 PM
Bullet button needs a "Tool" to take the 10 round mag out out...

hoffmang
01-29-2009, 8:14 PM
Once "detachable magazine" was defined it made defining fixed magazine unimportant.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Non_detachable_magazines

-Gene

RP1911
01-29-2009, 8:28 PM
here's one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=144063&highlight=detachable+magazine

Shotgun Man
01-29-2009, 8:49 PM
Once "detachable magazine" was defined it made defining fixed magazine unimportant.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Non_detachable_magazines

-Gene

Apparently, this has been discussed before, but I can't find the thread.

The definition of fixed magazine would be important to defend against an AW prosecution based upon using a OLL with a bullet button with a large capacity magazine.

If a bullet button renders a firearm to have a "fixed magazine" it would be illegal.

Certainly, the attorney on the case would be asking for jury instructions on what fixed means-- permanent, unchangeable, etc.

The attorney would argue that a bullet button does not equal a fixed mag.

Shotgun Man
01-29-2009, 8:55 PM
here's one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=144063&highlight=detachable+magazine

The link you posted really is not even relevant to what I'm saying.

I'm saying that possession of bullet button OLL with a large capacity magazine inserted into it may be potentially defensible. Don't do it. I'm talking theory here.

I don't believe a BB results in a fixed magazine necessarily.

inmyownsummerami
01-29-2009, 9:00 PM
I don't believe a BB results in a fixed magazine necessarily.

Why? It requires a tool to remove the magazine.

rayra
01-29-2009, 9:04 PM
why didn't they? Because the gun-grabbing marxists that wrote the legislation don't know a goddamned thing about firearm technology definitions.
It's all 'the thing that goes up' to those authoritarian cretins.

hoffmang
01-29-2009, 9:04 PM
I don't even know where to start. I've debunked this so many times that I admit I'm sick of it.

"detachable magazine" is a defined term. It only means "any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool" - nothing more and nothing less.

The definition of fixed magazine has absolutely no bearing on whether a firearm has the capacity to accept any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.

Fixed magazine is undefined and therefor takes the plain/common meaning. A rifle with a magazine that is not readily removable absent a tool has a fixed magazine.

You need to read the entirety of the 2000 Final Statement of Reasons (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf) before you attempt to find a novel new interpretation of "fixed magazine."

-Gene

NiteQwill
01-29-2009, 9:10 PM
:popcorn: for the nth time in about a month

For post 9:
The use of a 10+ rd magazine in a BB equipped rifle has been covered numerous times, and saying "MAY be defendable" is a long stretch.

Gene summed it up several times.

bwiese
01-29-2009, 9:14 PM
Given that 'detachable magazine' was richly defined as it stands such that it avoids banning standard SKS rifles - which are commonly known as 'fixed magazine' rifles - I believe the common term usage would apply.

Defending a hicap-with-BB semiauto centerfire rifle would be difficult because there's no rational reason to do it given the number of warnings out there.

The best defense would be to create enough handwaving atmospherics such that the poor 29yo junior asst DA girl gets a bit lost and an AB2728 resolution is reached - surrender gun, write a check for a small fine and some court costs.

DDT
01-29-2009, 9:45 PM
The definition of fixed magazine would be important to defend against an AW prosecution based upon using a OLL with a bullet button with a large capacity magazine.

If a bullet button renders a firearm to have a "fixed magazine" it would be illegal.

Certainly, the attorney on the case would be asking for jury instructions on what fixed means-- permanent, unchangeable, etc.

The attorney would argue that a bullet button does not equal a fixed mag.

There is no legal configurations for magazines in CA that isn't either fixed or detachable. You have to pick one.

Assuming your OLL has other "evil features" then claiming that a large-capacity magazine isn't a "fixed magazine" means that you have violated 12276.1(a)(1)

If you claim that it is fixed then you are violating 12276.1(a)(2)

This has been hashed out a number of times. If BBs aren't sufficient to make a "fixed magazine" then there will be hell to pay for lots of OLL owners.

lrdchivalry
01-30-2009, 9:57 AM
I'm saying that possession of bullet button OLL with a large capacity magazine inserted into it may be potentially defensible. Don't do it. I'm talking theory here.

A BB OLL with hi cap mag is an AW.

I don't believe a BB results in a fixed magazine necessarily.

There are only two types of magazines, detachable and fixed. A BB equipped OLL does not meet the legal definition of capacity to accept a detachable magazine due to requiring a tool to remove the magazine, therefore, the only other option is fixed.

As for you not thinking a BB results in a fixed magazine is irrelevent. The law shows that it is a fixed magazine, heck, even the Sacramento PD training bulletin backs that up.

Arkalius
01-30-2009, 2:23 PM
You're right, there's no specific definition of fixed magazine, but when it comes to the bullet button issue, it doesn't matter.

The law forbids a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a detachable mag and one or more of evil features. The law defines a detachable mag. Using a bullet button, a rifle does not have a detachable mag by that definition. You can call the mag whatever you want, as long as it isn't detachable. The law only forbids having a detachable mag (with all the other stuff), it doesn't say it must be a "fixed" mag.

The part of the law that mentions "fixed" mag is specifcally banning rifles that have fixed mags that hold more than 10 rounds. This is where the only potential ambiguity rises up. There are people that have said that they feel that a bullet button equipped rifle doesn't have a "fixed" mag and therefore this law doesn't apply. Their opinion isn't very useful though as the sac PD memo makes it clear that bullet-button + more than 10 round mag is illegal.

So, to be clear, the lack of a specific definition of the term "fixed" magazine does not in any way change the fact that a bullet-button equipped rifle is completely and unquestionably legal. There is no law in the books that require something to have a "fixed" magazine to be legal. The only requirement is that the magazine is not "detachable" which is defined specifically.

parcours
01-30-2009, 3:02 PM
I don't even know where to start. I've debunked this so many times that I admit I'm sick of it.

"detachable magazine" is a defined term. It only means "any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool" - nothing more and nothing less.

The definition of fixed magazine has absolutely no bearing on whether a firearm has the capacity to accept any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.

Fixed magazine is undefined and therefor takes the plain/common meaning. A rifle with a magazine that is not readily removable absent a tool has a fixed magazine.

You need to read the entirety of the 2000 Final Statement of Reasons (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf) before you attempt to find a novel new interpretation of "fixed magazine."

-Gene

Gene, I want to thank you for your patience in this matter...

I too was a non-believer, or better yet one that didn't understand what was being said. You throughly broke down the meaning(s), intent of the definition and application of the definition to where it's very easy to understand.

Don't give up, I know that repeating this just gets OLD, and I understand. There are many who will frequent this board and get curios at the way most evil looking rifles get built within the law withOUT understand what the law says.

It's been explained many times, and if we're to get the true message out, folks like yourself that have led this movement can't give up. Trust me, I teach code and I get many repeats to my classes because they didn't get it the first, second, third........ time.

motorhead
01-31-2009, 3:12 PM
i believe the fixed/over 10rd. provision was put in to address sks's with extended mags specifically. at the time of writing the sks was developing it's own evil aura. "almost an ak!" note that it's the only featureless rifle on the original list.

bwiese
01-31-2009, 10:20 PM
i believe the fixed/over 10rd. provision was put in to address sks's with extended mags specifically.

Yes, we should be thankful for SKS variations being listed because that gave us something to leverage from...

note that it's the only featureless rifle on the original list.

Um, not quite: the Roberti-Roos list bans the Springfield Armory BM59 (Beretta BM59 clone, kind of a detachable mag. Garand variant). The Kasler list bans the Kalashnikov USA Saiga, and the Valmet Hunter. All of these rifles are topologically equivalent to the Mini14s and M1As sold in CA gunshops.

We are fortunate that AB2728's passage in 2006 protected brother versions of these rifles. Before AB2728, any semiautomatic - even 'pretty ones with wood' was at risk of being banned/listed by a judge of a highly populated county. AB2728 is far more valuable than most folks realize.

The NRA and its legal & legislative team really shined and it showed how the mass attacks of Calgunners can render situations where NRA folks can leverage situations.

MiniFan
02-08-2009, 2:53 PM
After reading this post will someone let me know If I'm understanding this correctly. The "grey" area people are trying to address is Having a non detachable magazine with MORE than 10 rounds. As long as its non detachable With 10 rounds or less it's legal right?

Dr Rockso
02-08-2009, 3:42 PM
After reading this post will someone let me know If I'm understanding this correctly. The "grey" area people are trying to address is Having a non detachable magazine with MORE than 10 rounds. As long as its non detachable With 10 rounds or less it's legal right?
Yes, and as far as I can tell there is no "gray area". It seems that to make this argument you'd have to claim that your mag was neither detachable nor fixed.

NiteQwill
02-08-2009, 4:39 PM
After reading this post will someone let me know If I'm understanding this correctly. The "grey" area people are trying to address is Having a non detachable magazine with MORE than 10 rounds. As long as its non detachable With 10 rounds or less it's legal right?

There is no GREY area... folks from incompetent gunstores decided to spread the FUD and insist on the grey area terminology. The result is exactly this.

BB = 10 rd fix mag. Easy peasy, life could not be simpler.

hoffmang
02-08-2009, 5:14 PM
When using a Bullet Button you can only use 10 round magazines due to the seperate definition of "assault weapon" in PC 12276.1 (a) (2) "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds."

-Gene

vandal
05-14-2009, 1:40 PM
Sorry for the thread resurrection but this was the best match.

Why don't you do to "fixed" what you did to "detachable"?

I would not assume that the only possible definition of "fixed" is the alternative to "detachable." Find somewhere where CADOJ wrote that "fixed" = epoxied + riveted or "not removable without destruction" and we'd be good to go with BB + full-cap pre-bans, avoiding the (2) definition of an assault rifle.

KCM222
05-14-2009, 1:50 PM
Find somewhere where CADOJ wrote that "fixed" = epoxied + riveted or "not removable without destruction" and we'd be good to go with BB + full-cap pre-bans, avoiding the (2) definition of an assault rifle.


I don't believe that the CADOJ has defined "fixed = epoxied + riveted" for high caps, or anything similar.

That's why when describing how to make your own 10/20 or 10/30 mags people make a point to let you know that you should go to great lengths in ensuring that anyone inspecting your mag would not be tempted to say it is not permanently modified. If there was a definition people would just reference it.

ETA: Also, fixed for a magazine (in the well) vs fixed (as in a permanently altered) would probably not be interchangeable.

vandal
05-14-2009, 1:59 PM
There is a lot of crossover thought on this topic. Here I'm not thinking about "fixed" as it pertains to blocking a mag to 10 rounds. Thinking about "fixed" as it pertains to how it is attached to the gun. I think it could be argued that "fixed" means something other than "not detachable", given that detachable has been defined to mean only "requires the use of a tool to remove."

I don't believe that the CADOJ has defined "fixed = epoxied + riveted" for high caps, or anything similar.

That's why when describing how to make your own 10/20 or 10/30 mags people make a point to let you know that you should go to great lengths in ensuring that anyone inspecting your mag would not be tempted to say it is not permanently modified. If there was a definition people would just reference it.

ETA: Also, fixed for a magazine (in the well) vs fixed (as in a permanently altered) would probably not be interchangeable.

DDT
05-14-2009, 2:23 PM
There is a lot of crossover thought on this topic. Here I'm not thinking about "fixed" as it pertains to blocking a mag to 10 rounds. Thinking about "fixed" as it pertains to how it is attached to the gun. I think it could be argued that "fixed" means something other than "not detachable", given that detachable has been defined to mean only "requires the use of a tool to remove."

So you are looking for something along the lines of: "A fixed magazine is one which is not intended to be removed from the firearm in the normal course of the operation or loading of the firearm"

This would be interesting as "fixed" would mean that removal requires significant disassembly of the firearm, "not-detachable" would mean that a tool is required to release the magazine from the mag well and "detachable" means the magazine could be detached from the mag well without the use of any tool.

vandal
05-14-2009, 2:35 PM
Sure, along those lines. What I'd actually like is: As used in this section "fixed magazine" refers to an ammunition feeding device that is as an integral part of the firearm.

I would not be surprised if that is what the authors intended anyway, since it is lumped with tubular magazines. Broomhandle Mauser definition is what I'm looking for.

So you are looking for something along the lines of: "A fixed magazine is one which is not intended to be removed from the firearm in the normal course of the operation or loading of the firearm"

This would be interesting as "fixed" would mean that removal requires significant disassembly of the firearm, "not-detachable" would mean that a tool is required to release the magazine from the mag well and "detachable" means the magazine could be detached from the mag well without the use of any tool.

DDT
05-14-2009, 2:51 PM
Sure, along those lines. What I'd actually like is: As used in this section "fixed magazine" refers to an ammunition feeding device that is as an integral part of the firearm.

I would not be surprised if that is what the authors intended anyway, since it is lumped with tubular magazines. Broomhandle Mauser definition is what I'm looking for.

Integral is a tricky word. Integral to the physical structure? Integral to the operation? You would have to be more specific than this.

If I were to seriously try to attack this I would look to why the "bullet is a tool" clause was put in. This would then tell us what the legislature had intended by the exemption of such weapons from the "detachable" magazine AW limitations. If the intention can be shown to merely allow "evil features" on such guns then you may have a little wiggle room for establishing 3 types of "magazine attachment" rather than 2. If the intention was to make these guns subject to other laws regarding "fixed" magazines then you clearly have no wiggle room.

Either way I don't think we'd be able to get this through procedurally as we did BBs. I think this would require the courts and at that point going after the magazine capacity laws in general may be more productive than going after magazine capacity for a narrow category of firearms.

Vtec44
05-14-2009, 2:57 PM
So you are looking for something along the lines of: "A fixed magazine is one which is not intended to be removed from the firearm in the normal course of the operation or loading of the firearm"

This would be interesting as "fixed" would mean that removal requires significant disassembly of the firearm, "not-detachable" would mean that a tool is required to release the magazine from the mag well and "detachable" means the magazine could be detached from the mag well without the use of any tool.

THen you have to go through the trouble of defining "significant".

DDT
05-14-2009, 3:02 PM
THen you have to go through the trouble of defining "significant".

Significant was not intended to be in the definition but rather the explanatory section after the definition. The definition I offered up was:

"A fixed magazine is one which is not intended to be removed from the firearm in the normal course of the operation or loading of the firearm"

Now, you may want to define intended or ask if you need a statement from the mfg regarding their intentions but it was just a strawman and we will NEVER get such a thing through the CA legislature. The courts would write their own version so my wordsmithing for that purpose is immaterial.

ad6mj
05-14-2009, 3:30 PM
So if you repair a magazine, does it become a "fixed" magazine? ;)

hoffmang
05-14-2009, 6:25 PM
When "fixed" isn't defined in the law or CCR, then it will have its dictionary or common definition. A magazine in a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that is retained by the bullet button is going to be fixed in a Judge or jury's eyes.

-Gene