PDA

View Full Version : hi-capacity magazine question (interesting backstory)


stan
12-25-2009, 11:50 AM
many of you are aware of my ar-15 seizure by ocsd. when i got everything back, somehow they had managed to disasssembled one of my 10/30s, and put it back together again. why? i have no idea. i didn't get in trouble for it. but i got extremely paranoid and dealt with it.

i've researched the relevant law but what i seem to be finding is that if you have high capacity magazines in your posession, it isn't exactly illegal. say my magazine had somehow come to fit 11,12, etc rounds due to something they did while it was in impound, would I be liable? i already rectified the problem because i really don't want more trouble, but i was just pondering the whole thing right now and thought i'd ask you guys.

G17GUY
12-25-2009, 12:13 PM
A magazine that holds over 10 rounds is not illegal. If you search you will find many threads on the subject.

A magazine that holds over 10 rounds in a rifle that has a fixed magazine, or bulletbutton can create legal issues.

please read this thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709&highlight=magazines

lorax3
12-25-2009, 12:37 PM
Interesting.

The issue here is less the legal ownership of the magazines, but the permanence.

A 10/30 magazine should be 'permanent'. If you can disassemble a 10/30 back to a 30 without destroying part of the magazine, I would not consider it permanent.

I assume the magazine they were able to disassemble was not the one in your rifle. If one could dissemble the '10/30' in your rifle back to a 30 without destroying a part of the magazine I would not be surprised if the DA would attempt an AW charge on a fixed magazine rifle with the capacity to hold over ten rounds. 12276.1(A)(2)

bodger
12-25-2009, 12:44 PM
I have many 10/30 mags. I got them from RifleGear. I always check to make sure they hold only ten rounds, and it is not possible to cram an eleventh in there.

But I have never checked any of them to insure that they are permanently fixed to only accept ten rounds. manufacturing defects and errors do occur, I think I will take them apart and verify them.

I can imagine someone looking to prosecute me might do it.

tgriffin
12-25-2009, 12:46 PM
This is not legal advice.

If you found a high capacity magazine...anywhere... it is not illegal to keep. Generally speaking, it's not worth it to find out in this case if you are right or not.

wildhawker
12-25-2009, 12:47 PM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/What_about_MAGAZINES%3F

CSACANNONEER
12-25-2009, 12:51 PM
If the mag ends up holding more than 10 rounds and they reinstalled it into your rifle, they created an AW! If it is not in your rifle and they just gave it back to you, they (LAPD) illegally manufactured a high capacity magazine and gave it to you.

SJgunguy24
12-25-2009, 1:11 PM
If the mag ends up holding more than 10 rounds and they reinstalled it into your rifle, they created an AW! If it is not in your rifle and they just gave it back to you, they (LAPD) illegally manufactured a high capacity magazine and gave it to you.

Zactly what I was gonna say. 10 or less before police got a hold of it. Now holds more then 10 after they played with it.....the cops are criminals and should be prosocuted the same as if you did it.

CHS
12-25-2009, 2:25 PM
If the mag ends up holding more than 10 rounds and they reinstalled it into your rifle, they created an AW! If it is not in your rifle and they just gave it back to you, they (LAPD) illegally manufactured a high capacity magazine and gave it to you.

Actually, LEO's are exempt and allowed to manufacture hi-cap mags. The problem is, they can't legally transfer any hi-cap mag to you unless it was yours (and hi-cap) to begin with.

Basically, they legally manufactured a hi-cap mag, then illegally transferred it back to you.

anthonyca
12-25-2009, 2:25 PM
Zactly what I was gonna say. 10 or less before police got a hold of it. Now holds more then 10 after they played with it.....the cops are criminals and should be prosocuted the same as if you did it.

Can you imagine the irony is the LAPD asked CGF for
legal representation?

bwiese
12-25-2009, 2:44 PM
Can you imagine the irony is the LAPD asked CGF for legal representation?

Hmmm. It would be very interesting for CGF to trigger an arrest of an LA-area police officer, then fund his legal defense using the Right People.

(Plan B, if certain favorable politico-legal results from multiple depts were not attained, would be that all The Right People were entangled in conflicting situations such that they could not represent the officer(s) in question, and he'd have to use an ordinary lawyer, who'd be sure to raise many issues of nonclarity.

RideIcon
12-25-2009, 3:18 PM
possession of it would not be illegal, although the construction/changing of it to hold more rounds would be illegal, but if they are the ones who altered it its all good, as long as you don't throw it in a BB gun

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 5:41 PM
If it now holds 11 or more rounds, turn it into a 30 rounder and enjoy. Seems a fair trade for the 25 rounds of .223...

-Gene

bohoki
12-25-2009, 6:59 PM
Actually, LEO's are exempt and allowed to manufacture hi-cap mags. The problem is, they can't legally transfer any hi-cap mag to you unless it was yours (and hi-cap) to begin with.

Basically, they legally manufactured a hi-cap mag, then illegally transferred it back to you.


i didnt see any manufacturing exemptions for leo? they are allowed to buy though

CSACANNONEER
12-25-2009, 8:26 PM
i didnt see any manufacturing exemptions for leo? they are allowed to buy though

This is what I thought too.

RideIcon
12-26-2009, 12:34 AM
i didnt see any manufacturing exemptions for leo? they are allowed to buy though

weather they be exempt or not, at least its not on him... they broke the law

lorax3
12-26-2009, 12:49 AM
i didnt see any manufacturing exemptions for leo? they are allowed to buy though

LEO's can also manufacture large-capacity magazines.

PC 12020(b)(30)(B)
The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for use by a
sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with
Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a
firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.

CSACANNONEER
12-26-2009, 10:00 AM
LEO's can also manufacture large-capacity magazines.

PC 12020(b)(30)(B)
The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for use by a
sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with
Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a
firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.

Please correct me if I am wrong. The way I read this, it says that ANYONE can manufacture a high cap magazine as long as it is for the use of a sworn peace officer. Since, in the case in question, a sworn peace officer MIGHT have (it has not been confirmed) manufactured a high cap mag solely for civilian use, it would be a crime.

lorax3
12-26-2009, 10:35 AM
Please correct me if I am wrong. The way I read this, it says that ANYONE can manufacture a high cap magazine as long as it is for the use of a sworn peace officer. Since, in the case in question, a sworn peace officer MIGHT have (it has not been confirmed) manufactured a high cap mag solely for civilian use, it would be a crime.

I read it the same way. As long as the large-capacity magazine is manufactured for use by a peace officer then the manufacturer's are exempt.

Although in this case if I am interpreting the OP correctly, the magazine was already a large-capacity one.

As we know a large-capity is a magazine is one that can accommodate more than ten rounds, but does not apply to a magazine that has been permanently altered to not hold more than ten rounds. If the PD was truly able to disassemble his permanent 10/30 back to a 30rd magazine without destroying some functionality or part of the mag then I would not consider that modification permanent.

As it was not permanent, it does not meet the exemption and was always a large-capcity magazine. I doubt any kind of criminal charge will result from this besides possibly the one I noted in a previous post.

Just wanted to once again speculate on permanence. :)

CSACANNONEER
12-26-2009, 11:20 AM
I read it the same way. As long as the large-capacity magazine is manufactured for use by a peace officer then the manufacturer's are exempt.



So, what law would keep me or anyone else from assembling a parts kit at the range and allowing a peace officer to use it. Once it is legally manufactured, it would still be mine and I could now take it home and use it. This is assuming that I originally manufactured it for use by a peace officer. This seems to follow the letter of the law since, the law does not state how long the peace officer must use it and it does not specifically except civilian use or ownership of said magazine.

ke6guj
12-26-2009, 12:12 PM
I can just us now purchasing a box of repair kits and assembling them at the range and having an LEO friend be the first to use them. Nothing in that exemption seems to say that they must stay with the LEO. And letting him USE them does not mean that they were given or lent to him, which would then require they be given back to the non-LEO friend who owned the repair kits.

RideIcon
12-26-2009, 1:56 PM
I like where this is heading

hoffmang
12-26-2009, 2:17 PM
I can just us now purchasing a box of repair kits and assembling them at the range and having an LEO friend be the first to use them. Nothing in that exemption seems to say that they must stay with the LEO. And letting him USE them does not mean that they were given or lent to him, which would then require they be given back to the non-LEO friend who owned the repair kits.

Enh... You "gave or lent" or the manufacturing was for a LEO and he's now restricted from giving or lending them back to you. It's not exploitable.

-Gene

GuyW
12-26-2009, 3:01 PM
The issue here is less the legal ownership of the magazines, but the permanence.

A 10/30 magazine should be 'permanent'. If you can disassemble a 10/30 back to a 30 without destroying part of the magazine, I would not consider it permanent.


Where did permanence come in?

The need for tool(s) to disassemble it should be sufficient...

IIRC, some folks use Pop-rivets....can be considered "permanent", but a drill bit works wonders...
.

lorax3
12-26-2009, 4:11 PM
Where did permanence come in?

The need for tool(s) to disassemble it should be sufficient...

IIRC, some folks use Pop-rivets....can be considered "permanent", but a drill bit works wonders...


Permanence is codified both in 12020 and 12276.1. As the OP was dealing with a fixed magazine rifle it was noteworthy to mention that if the modification was not permanent it may be afoul of 12276.1(a)(5).

We do know however that permanent is not defined. Although possible methods of permanence were mentioned in the 'detachable magazine permanence rulemaking (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/2006-Rulemaking-Attempt/modifiedtextnov1.pdf)'

I would personally hesitate with just a pop rivet (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=380140&postcount=12) without any epoxy. As I have said before, if the method can be reversed without destroying part of the magazine I would not consider it permanent enough to risk a felony charge.

hoffmang
12-26-2009, 4:41 PM
I would personally hesitate with just a pop rivet (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=380140&postcount=12) without any epoxy. As I have said before, if the method can be reversed without destroying part of the magazine I would not consider it permanent enough to risk a felony charge.

When you're done removing a pop rivet there is a pile of detritus. It takes a new pop rivet to put it back together. That's about as close as one can get to some reasonable definition of "permanent" as something had to be destroyed to change the state.

-Gene

ke6guj
12-26-2009, 4:47 PM
Enh... You "gave or lent" or the manufacturing was for a LEO and he's now restricted from giving or lending them back to you. It's not exploitable.

-Gene

While I'm sure you are most likely correct in that there is no exploit available, there are some scenarios in which one can legally "lend" a large-capacity magazine, and if it is lent to one party, I think that the return back to the owner is legal.

12020(b)(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.

(22) The loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.
(B) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.

Now, would it be possible for a non-LEO to manufacture a large-capacity magazine for an LEO's use under 12020(b)(30)(B), but only lend him the magazine under 12020(b)(20) instead of selling them to him?

CSACANNONEER
12-26-2009, 6:38 PM
While I'm sure you are most likely correct in that there is no exploit available, there are some scenarios in which one can legally "lend" a large-capacity magazine, and if it is lent to one party, I think that the return back to the owner is legal.



Now, would it be possible for a non-LEO to manufacture a large-capacity magazine for an LEO's use under 12020(b)(30)(B), but only lend him the magazine under 12020(b)(20) instead of selling them to him?

That's exactly what I was thinking. While, I don't need to do this and doubt that I'd ever have the need for any more +10 round mags, it is an interesting thought.

BTW, for those new here, this is only an intelectual discussion and no one should even attept to actually do this. I don't want to see anyone in jail or a good LEO loose his/her job doing something like this.

SixPointEight
12-26-2009, 6:47 PM
If it now holds 11 or more rounds, turn it into a 30 rounder and enjoy. Seems a fair trade for the 25 rounds of .223...

-Gene

+1 on this, if it's over 10 rounds now, you aren't breaking a law by having it. THEY broke the law giving it to you. Take out the plug, convert it to a 30round mag and laugh all the way to the range.

hoffmang
12-26-2009, 8:39 PM
Now, would it be possible for a non-LEO to manufacture a large-capacity magazine for an LEO's use under 12020(b)(30)(B), but only lend him the magazine under 12020(b)(20) instead of selling them to him?

No. Manufacture for means that title is transferring regardless of possession. If you manufactured it for a LEO and only lent it to them, the implication is that you manufactured it for yourself - a prohibited act - as title didn't transfer to the LEO.

-Gene

CSACANNONEER
12-26-2009, 8:42 PM
No. Manufacture for means that title is transferring regardless of possession. If you manufactured it for a LEO and only lent it to them, the implication is that you manufactured it for yourself - a prohibited act - as title didn't transfer to the LEO.

-Gene

The exception specifies LEO USE not ownership.