PDA

View Full Version : MK23 mag tubes in to high cap mags (legal)


problemchild
06-17-2005, 2:02 PM
I was told it is legal to assemble mk23 mag tubes into a functional high cap for sole use in Cali.

Is this true?

I cant find anything at doj about assembling high cap mag parts.

problemchild
06-17-2005, 2:16 PM
so assembly is the same as manufacturing?

How do they know if you repaired your old mag or if its new?

bwiese
06-17-2005, 3:30 PM
If you assemble a hicap mag that didn't exist in assembled form before 12/31/99, then indeed you are manufacturing an illegal hicap.

No CA law bans getting or having hicap mag spare parts in CA, and it is indeed perfectly legal to get a replacement tube to repair an existing hicap mag.

But I would be wary of ordering/getting all spare 'repair' parts for a hicap - that could be regarded as 'intent' by a DA.

You simply cannot get a bunch of parts and build up hicap mags after 12/31/1999 - even if all the parts were made/acquired before this date.

Perhaps no one would know about this, but perhaps it could be readily apparent, too Different mold marks, machine marks, etc could be associated w/machining at different dates.

The BATF has become very skillful at determining approx. dates of origin on things where dates matter for legality (like M16 autosears, lightning links, etc.) They have a staff of 'toolmark examiners' plus have acquired 'exemplars' of items produced within date ranges.

The DOJ may have some forensic skill in this regard or could ask ATF for consultation. Credit card transaction info could be used to support prosecution too.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

problemchild
06-17-2005, 3:53 PM
I see.....

So if a person repairs his old dented mk23 mag tube with a new mag tube he is breaking the law because the new mag tube has machine marks from the year 2005.

-hanko
06-17-2005, 4:43 PM
Originally posted by problemchild:
So if a person repairs his old dented mk23 mag tube with a new mag tube he is breaking the law because the new mag tube has machine marks from the year 2005.
Nope. The concept is you use the new mag tube to replace the dented tube...you throw away the dented tube. You've repaired your single mag; you've not created a second new mag. That's all legal.

You buy tube/spring/baseplate/follower & make a new mag, that's against the law. The 'who's to know' concept doesn't figure into it, you're either ethical or not. Whether you believe the law is justified is a different story & doesn't enter into the equation.

The concept of 'proving intent' and having the time to prove intent are also functionally two separate issues...doubt you'd ever get caught, but a lot of folks are serving prison terms that started for being stopped for a burned out tail light.http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Calguns.net urges you to stay legal.

-hanko

Turbinator
06-18-2005, 7:55 AM
Especially with a gun like the MK23 where hi-cap mags prior to 2000 were a bit sketchy anyway, since HK claims (or so I've been told) that none were made prior to the cutoff of 1994. Yes, I've seen them for sale in Shotgun News post-1994 and pre-2004, but who knows? It's a grey area and some anxious DA could really pursue you on this one.

Better safe than sitting in jail, right?

Turby

gunsmithcat
06-18-2005, 9:36 AM
OFficially HK claims there were no high cap mk23 mags pre ban.
That statement alone could nab u in trouble, even if u did own LEO mags in california post 1994, u would be breaking federal law (unless you're law enforcement)

bwiese
06-18-2005, 10:44 AM
Yes, the Fed issue adds another shading to this.

If no Mk23 hicaps were made before 9/1994 you must have gotten them illegally - and were in illegal possession of them from whenever you got them thru 9/2004 when the Fed AWB sunset.

If you got the hicaps legally on a Fed basis, you must've have gotten them illegally on a California basis since you'd have to have gotten 'em after 9/2004, which is after 12/31/1999 (the last date in CA to legally acquire hicaps).

You wouldn't be prosecuted now for a Fed AWB violation since Fed AWB has sunset last September, but it could make things very hinky on the CA/local level. If this came to a jury trial I imagine a DA would love to show you violated Fed law (even if sunset).

Again, you can repair/replace any part of a legal hicap mag with another part without problem.

Just don't assemble another new mag, and I'd also not possess a collection of spare parts that could form a new mag either.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Anonymous Coward
06-19-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by bwiese:
If you got the hicaps legally on a Fed basis, you must've have gotten them illegally on a California basis since you'd have to have gotten 'em after 9/2004, which is after 12/31/1999 (the last date in CA to legally acquire hicaps).

You wouldn't be prosecuted now for a Fed AWB violation since Fed AWB has sunset last September, but it could make things very hinky on the CA/local level. If this came to a jury trial I imagine a DA would love to show you violated Fed law (even if sunset).


Sorry, I'm getting slighlty off-topic...

How long could "the man" prosecute you for this? Let's say you bought the high caps on
a) 1/1/95. How long after this can the feds prosecute?
2) 1/1/05. How long after this can the CA DOJ prosecute?

I think the technical term for this is statute of limitations.

Anybody know how you can find this out?

Bill, you do realize that you define "manufacture" very differently depending what law we're talking about? Sometimes it includes "assembly/modifications" and sometimes not. How would one know what the definition in a specific law? I'm not arguing, but I'm curious...

bwiese
06-20-2005, 9:47 AM
AnonymousCoward wrote:
How long could "the man" prosecute you for this? Let's say you bought the high caps on

a) 1/1/95. How long after this can the feds prosecute?

2) 1/1/05. How long after this can the CA DOJ prosecute?

I think the technical term for this is statute of limitations.

Anybody know how you can find this out?


For the former case regarding Feds, they can't prosecute after the Fed AW Ban sunset in 9/2004.

[However IIRC there were some AWB cases (related to Big Reno gunshow) in 2004 - some of these cases' prosecution may have crossed over the line. I'd bet folks plea-bargained even in the face of a prospective AWB sunset just a few months down the line.]

I'm not sure about limitations. As I recall, not all laws have statue of limitations built in - there may be somewhere else outside of CPC 12xxx some 'general statute of limitations for prosecution'.

There's also the issue of "ongoing-ness". It's not just the transfer but the possession (and transport, I think) of illegal hicaps. Even if statute of limitations applied to the illegal acquisition, the fact that you retained the mags could be an ongoing crime.

Bill, you do realize that you define "manufacture" very differently depending what law we're talking about? Sometimes it includes "assembly/modifications" and sometimes not. How would one know what the definition in a specific law? I'm not arguing, but I'm curious...

I'm not quite sure of what you speak but guessing I'm talking about guns vs. mags. For guns, at least in CA sense, mfgring seems to be making a (serialzed) receiver from scratch. That's the basic "gun" - it's the fundamental element requiring legal transfer, FFL intervention, etc. (Of course, you can't buy a new 1911 frame in CA now.) If you legally get, say, a 1911 receiver in your hands and then build it up to a full gun w/bbl, slide, grips, etc. that's not manufacturing.

However, in case of hicaps, no one part is elevated over the other or requires special individual handling or legal status. Only when assembled together (or possibly constructively possessed as an independent collection of parts w/intent for assembly) so putting these together would be manufacturing, I think.

Bill W
San Jose

bwiese
06-20-2005, 9:51 AM
Originally posted by tooTactical:
Just yesterday I had all my pre-ban grandfathered magazines disassembled on my workbench for cleaning, carefully organized so as to keep all the parts of each magazine together. Suddenly there was an aftershock from last week's quake and all the parts fell off my workbench into one big pile on the floor. I am afraid to reassemble any of them for fear that I might not put the right springs/followers/floorplates back together with the right magazine tube, accidentally creating a completely new high capacity magazine! Although my garage door was shut and all the lights off at the time I think my nextdoor neighbor might have heard the magazines hit the floor and because some of the parts are plastic might figure out it was Glock magazine parts and report me. What do I do? I think in the future I may put a micro laser engraving on each magazine part to be sure all the parts stay with the right magazine body. Can I do that with a Dremel and a magnifying glass? Oh BTW if it matters this if for an Airsoft Glock 19...

OK OK, funny guy http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In seriousness though, there's nothing in the law (nor could the law be construed to read)
that you couldn't disassemble all your legally- owned hicaps of one type and randomly reassemble them from random parts (i.e., each mag now has parts from several other mags).

As long as no new mags were created, you're OK.

As a true paranoid, I would be careful of "multiple sequential repairs" of one mag - first replacing the follower, then the spring, then the tube, then the floorplate. Even if you destroyed the old parts, that's getting into quetionable territory though I doubt this'd ever be prosecuted.

Bill W
San Jose



http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/QUOTE]

Anonymous Coward
06-20-2005, 7:27 PM
Originally posted by bwiese:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AnonymousCoward wrote:
How long could "the man" prosecute you for this? Let's say you bought the high caps on

a) 1/1/95. How long after this can the feds prosecute?

2) 1/1/05. How long after this can the CA DOJ prosecute?

I think the technical term for this is statute of limitations.

Anybody know how you can find this out?


For the former case regarding Feds, they can't prosecute after the Fed AW Ban sunset in 9/2004.

[However IIRC there were some AWB cases (related to Big Reno gunshow) in 2004 - some of these cases' prosecution may have crossed over the line. I'd bet folks plea-bargained even in the face of a prospective AWB sunset just a few months down the line.]

I'm not sure about limitations. As I recall, not all laws have statue of limitations built in - there may be somewhere else outside of CPC 12xxx some 'general statute of limitations for prosecution'.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I'm reading this right Penal code 801 provides a limitation of 3 years for all kinds of offenses that are punishable by prison (799 deals with murder and 800 deals with long term offenses):
"PC 801. Except as provided in Sections 799 and 800, prosecution for an
offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison shall be
commenced within three years after commission of the offense."




There's also the issue of "ongoing-ness". It's not just the transfer but the possession (and transport, I think) of illegal hicaps. Even if statute of limitations applied to the illegal acquisition, the fact that you retained the mags could be an ongoing crime.



That's the thing. Unlawful posession isn't prohibited as far as I can see. Loaning it to a friend might be a problem.

It's not that I necessarily want to test this...

bwiese
06-21-2005, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by AnonymousCoward:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">bwiese wrote:
There's also the issue of "ongoing-ness". It's not just the transfer but the possession (and transport, I think) of illegal hicaps. Even if statute of limitations applied to the illegal acquisition, the fact that you retained the mags could be an ongoing crime.


That's the thing. Unlawful posession isn't prohibited as far as I can see. Loaning it to a friend might be a problem.

It's not that I necessarily want to test this... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I think the "having" is continuation of the "getting". I wouldn't wanna risk it.

Bill W
San Jose

saki302
07-13-2005, 6:38 AM
Here's a question I pose.

Let's say you have a legal H&K USP pre-ban .45ACP mag. (or 9mm mag, or whatever USP pre-ban mag)
Now, you disassemble it. Then you use one, two, or more components from that mag to build up a functional SOCOM mag using a socom tube.

Is this legal? Armalite sold kits to convert legal pre-ban M14 mags into AR-10 mags when the fed. ban was in effect, so it's legal at least on a federal level to adapt a mag to another gun and have it remain pre-ban.

By keeping the old pre-ban mag tubes, you can prove you had THAT mag prior to the ban, and it 'died' to create your Mk23 mag (well, not really died, but ceased to exist so the Mk323 mag could).

-Dave

rawny@mac.com
07-13-2005, 8:09 AM
Originally posted by Rawny:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave A.:
Here's a question I pose.

Let's say you have a legal H&K USP pre-ban .45ACP mag. (or 9mm mag, or whatever USP pre-ban mag)
Now, you disassemble it. Then you use one, two, or more components from that mag to build up a functional SOCOM mag using a socom tube.

Is this legal? Again, there is no such thing as a pre-ban SOCOM mag. Read this excerpt from HKPRO:

"The existence of so called "pre-ban" 12 round magazines for the USP45 has been hotly debated on the Internet. Though never definitively answered by either side, it is the position of HK that no civilian legal 12 round USP45 mags ever existed. (Gun debuted in 1995, Crime Bill signed in late 1994)"

Besides, is it really worth getting into trouble for two more rounds? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turbinator
07-13-2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Rawny:
"The existence of so called "pre-ban" 12 round magazines for the USP45 has been hotly debated on the Internet. Though never definitively answered by either side, it is the position of HK that no civilian legal 12 round USP45 mags ever existed. (Gun debuted in 1995, Crime Bill signed in late 1994)"

Besides, is it really worth getting into trouble for two more rounds?

Ok, that kills it off for a MK23, but would this work for other guns for which pre-bans existed prior to 1994 and 2000?

Turby

saki302
07-17-2005, 2:45 AM
Here's a different take on the same question I posed-

What if you used a piece of a genuine pre-ban USP 9mm mag to create a USP .45 SOCOM.Tactical/Expert mag?
Or use a piece of ANY legal pre-ban mag that ifts to complete your USP mags (example: springs, baseplate locking piece, etc.- assuming you find something that fits).

Point being- if a legal pre-ban mag DIES to create your new USP mag, does it make it legal? It's easy to prove if you keep the old parts..

-Dave

bwiese
07-18-2005, 12:12 AM
Dave A..

You're getting into some grey areas here.

My read of the situation is that when you radically modify a mag to get more rounds or misapply it (wrong caliber to get more rounds) after 1 Jan 2000, you're illegally 'manufacturing' a hicap magazine.

It might be one thing to take a legally-owned Uzi magazine, say, and punch an extra hole in it so it'll work on a Colt 9mm AR15. The orig mag function has not changed. But when you destroy a mag (say, 9mm HK mag) to make a new hicap mag, and it can't be reversed, I think there's legal risk of this being considered manufacturing.

Pieces of mag don't really count. You can't 'inherit' legality thru a baseplate and a spring.

It is legal to take a current legal hicap mag and replace parts on it. Eventually all parts could be replaced and it's essentially a new mag, but I wouldn't do this all at once, and I would NOT retain any of the old mag parts at all. I think the standard is that you need to keep the number & type of hicap mags you've owned since 1 Jan 2000 in CA constant.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

saki302
07-20-2005, 8:11 AM
Hey Bill!

The reason I came up wiht hte ideain the first place was the AR10 mag kits which were sold after the '94 national ban. The kit came with a mag tube and follower. You took a legal M14 mag, stripped off th ebaseplate and spring, and made your now-legal AR10 mag with those two M14 parts. This was legal nationally.

I'm just thinkign aloud if you could take a legal baseplate/spring retainer and spring you already have in a hicap and make a legal H&K hi-cap 45 mag from it. I suppose you could also destroy the old tubes (pound them flat) and save them as proof if you feel destructive http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It is a little gray, but I wonder if CA follows the old national-ban rules for the mags.

-Dave

bwiese
07-20-2005, 10:16 AM
Dave A...

That might've flown with the ATF. And no one (Fed prosecutors) challenged that.

So-calledl loopholes only go so far, and then you deal with concept of 'legislative intent'.
Loopholes seem to be allowed when the law is so detailed and there are gaping holes allowing some behavior - courts can say, if they really wanted to stop that behavior they'd've specifically codified that because the rest of the law is very detailed. When a more general law is present without lots of fancy details, then sometimes broad intent can be inferred.

Courts do esp. honor the concept of 'legislative intent' and a DA could well argue the intent of law includes creation of new magazines - esp when there was no legal magazine application created before. (That is, no one could have legally owned Mk23 mags in CA - Federally illegal until 9/2004, and banned by state by definition as hicap since 1/2000.)

I just think there's risk that some DA - if you were ever somehow busted for this - could interpret this as creation of a new magazine, regardless of what DOJ considers.


Bill Wiese
San Jose