PDA

View Full Version : Is the Xrail Shotgun Accessory legal in CA?


WeThePeople
02-02-2010, 2:20 PM
Is this legal? Not a magazine? Not a revolving cylinder?

http://xrailbyrci.mivamerchant.net/


Shotguns
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or
vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

JSilvoso
02-02-2010, 2:38 PM
Looks like a "large capacity magazine" to me.

A large capacity magazine means 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, a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm, or a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device. (Penal Code 12020(c)(25).)

The company's website states the following:

Magazine Bans: Due to current local or state legislation restricting magazines based on capacity, RCI will not ship XRAIL Systems to the following: District of Columbia, CA, IL (Aurora & Chicago), MD, MA, NJ, NY and OH (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus & Toledo). For more detailed information from NRA-ILA Office of Legislative Counsel 1-6-10, click here. Also refer to the ATF 2005 Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (pub. 5300.4).

http://xrailbyrci.mivamerchant.net

The "compact" versions I've seen for the Remington and the Benelli hold 14+1 and 13+1 cartridges, respectively.

WeThePeople
02-02-2010, 2:50 PM
Looks like a "large capacity magazine" to me.

A large capacity magazine means 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, a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm, or a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device. (Penal Code 12020(c)(25).)

The company's website states the following:

Magazine Bans: Due to current local or state legislation restricting magazines based on capacity, RCI will not ship XRAIL Systems to the following: District of Columbia, CA, IL (Aurora & Chicago), MD, MA, NJ, NY and OH (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus & Toledo). For more detailed information from NRA-ILA Office of Legislative Counsel 1-6-10, click here. Also refer to the ATF 2005 Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (pub. 5300.4).

http://xrailbyrci.mivamerchant.net

The "compact" versions I've seen for the Remington and the Benelli hold 14+1 and 13+1 cartridges, respectively.

You might be right about "Detachable Magazines". However, all we need is a small crack in the shotgun portion of the law.

Also, do we really care if any manufacturers won't sell into this state? If it's legal, people will find a way, just as we've done with OLLs.

Thanks.

kap
02-02-2010, 2:54 PM
That looks like a lot of weight to be hanging off the front end of a shotgun making it pretty unwieldy and slower to get on target.

dantodd
02-02-2010, 3:00 PM
There is no exception in the Large Capacity Magazine law for shotguns.

Quiet
02-02-2010, 5:50 PM
There is no exception in the Large Capacity Magazine law for shotguns.

There is an exemption for lever-action shotguns [PC 12020(c)(25)(C)].



Penal Code 12020
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.
(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.

Jamez
02-02-2010, 6:21 PM
Honestly....even if it WAS legal.....$650?!?!?! yikes.

bigcalidave
02-02-2010, 8:29 PM
it's WAY too much weight off the end. I'd own one, just because, if I lived in another state. No, for now it is not legal here.

obeygiant
02-02-2010, 8:51 PM
Penal Code 12020
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.
(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.

now all we need is a way to convert the pump action to lever action and then we would be ok. :43:

ETA:
Or own one of these:

John Browning 1887 Lever Action Shotgun (http://www.iacshotguns.com/87w.html)
Winchester Model 1887/1901 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_M1887)
Norinco 87W 12G (http://www.impactguns.com/store/SS-11662.html)

agentzundrcovr
02-03-2010, 9:55 AM
Honestly....even if it WAS legal.....$650?!?!?! yikes.

Seriously though! For that price, I think I'll practice loading faster from my sidesaddle, and spend the money on ammo. . . . another handgun . . . . or maybe a COUPLE shotguns!

WeThePeople
02-03-2010, 10:10 AM
it's WAY too much weight off the end. I'd own one, just because, if I lived in another state. No, for now it is not legal here.

Did anyone look at the loading video? http://xrailbyrci.mivamerchant.net/instructional.php#vid_loading

Each tube holds 2 rounds. Therefore, there are 8 (main tube) + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 rounds in each magazine. If the total round count in the Xrail is 8, then is that okay?

I'm ignoring the weight and price issues for now.

dantodd
02-03-2010, 1:35 PM
Did anyone look at the loading video? http://xrailbyrci.mivamerchant.net/instructional.php#vid_loading

Each tube holds 2 rounds. Therefore, there are 8 (main tube) + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 rounds in each magazine. If the total round count in the Xrail is 8, then is that okay?

I'm ignoring the weight and price issues for now.

It attaches to the existing tubular magazine creating an "ammunition feeding device" of greater than 10 rounds.

WeThePeople
02-03-2010, 8:55 PM
It attaches to the existing tubular magazine creating an "ammunition feeding device" of greater than 10 rounds.

Why do I get the feeling that 6 months from now, someone here will parse this same information and determine that there is a loophole here?

dantodd
02-03-2010, 9:04 PM
Why do I get the feeling that 6 months from now, someone here will parse this same information and determine that there is a loophole here?

I don't know why you would think that.

WeThePeople
02-03-2010, 9:14 PM
I don't know why you would think that.

I'll assume you're kidding. You must know the history of OLL, MonsterMan grips, bullet buttons, single shot pistols, etc. Everyone said no way at first, but later on a way was found.

M. Sage
02-04-2010, 3:44 AM
That looks like a lot of weight to be hanging off the front end of a shotgun making it pretty unwieldy and slower to get on target.

This. Legal or not, is all that weight something you're really willing to put up with?

B Strong
02-04-2010, 5:18 AM
Is this legal? Not a magazine? Not a revolving cylinder?

http://xrailbyrci.mivamerchant.net/


Shotguns
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or
vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

It's a no-go, high capacity magazine.

It also looks like an answer to a question un-asked.

Practice reloading the standard capacity tube.

PEBKAC
02-04-2010, 9:10 AM
Maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but would two 10/30 mags welded together (but still able to individually feed and attach to a rifle) be considered a hi-cap as it is able to hold 20 rounds all told? Given the reasonably permanent of welding, I'd posit that perhaps it could be considered one device as the magazines are not removable from each other thus perhaps providing traction for this argument...? However, if it isn't things might get interesting...

Now obviously if it is not considered a hicap, then the Xrail might have an issue being called a hicap as well, and only one tube is feeding at a time (one tube <= 8 rounds).

The problem as I see it, is that it would seem the tubes cycle automatically when firing (though not when loading) meaning the former example of 10/30 mags welded together might not quite be equivalent enough to fly for the xrail...

Now if the tubes had to be manually cycled, we might have a leg to stand on. ;)

...

Just throwing BS at the wall and seeing if any of it sticks...nothing to see here. :D

WeThePeople
02-04-2010, 9:14 AM
This. Legal or not, is all that weight something you're really willing to put up with?

Good question. A couple of pounds up front is not the worst thing in the world. Most AR-10 type rifles weigh more than that. Many people take a 7 lb AR-15 and hang 2-4 pounds (optics, light, extra mag, etc.) on it.

Yes, I've practiced loading std shotguns. Having 14 to 24 rounds available in a shotgun is faster than reloading when zombies attack. :TFH:

ke6guj
02-04-2010, 10:50 AM
Maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but would two 10/30 mags welded together (but still able to individually feed and attach to a rifle) be considered a hi-cap as it is able to hold 20 rounds all told? Given the reasonably permanent of welding, I'd posit that perhaps it could be considered one device as the magazines are not removable from each other thus perhaps providing traction for this argument...? However, if it isn't things might get interesting...

Now obviously if it is not considered a hicap, then the Xrail might have an issue being called a hicap as well, and only one tube is feeding at a time (one tube <= 8 rounds).

The problem as I see it, is that it would seem the tubes cycle automatically when firing (though not when loading) meaning the former example of 10/30 mags welded together might not quite be equivalent enough to fly for the xrail...

Now if the tubes had to be manually cycled, we might have a leg to stand on. ;)

...

Just throwing BS at the wall and seeing if any of it sticks...nothing to see here. :Dthats how I see it. If the tubes were manually cycled, it would be as if you had multiple tubular magazines mounted on a common axis.

Similar to how, IIRC, during the federal AW ban, there was type of gatling gun drum that had multiple 10-round "magazines" and the user would rotate the drum expose each magazine one at time as needed. It was called a Broadwell drum, and is was considered legal since each magazine only held ten rounds, but that was federal law, not CA law.

dantodd
02-04-2010, 12:11 PM
thats how I see it. If the tubes were manually cycled, it would be as if you had multiple tubular magazines mounted on a common axis.

Similar to how, IIRC, during the federal AW ban, there was type of gatling gun drum that had multiple 10-round "magazines" and the user would rotate the drum expose each magazine one at time as needed. It was called a Broadwell drum, and is was considered legal since each magazine only held ten rounds, but that was federal law, not CA law.

I fear that if the magazines are permanently attached to one another it would open the door for prosecution. As long as the magazines (or cylinders in this case) are a single piece of equipment it is probably a single "ammunition feeding device" per PC.

ke6guj
02-04-2010, 12:26 PM
all I can use for "precidence" is the Broadwell drum (with 10-round capacity in each "magazine") that I seem to recall was legal to make during the Fed ban.

If they want to say that if the tubes are permanently attached, then it is one magazine, does that mean that if someone glued/taped/clamped (with a wrench) together multiple AR magazines, then it is a large capacity magazine?

If being permanently attached is an issue, then what if it is made with each tube being removable from the assembly? Would it need to be removable by hand, or would a tool be allowed? Disregard detachable-mag'ed semi-auto shotguns for a moment, the legality of the magazine, as being or not being, a large-capacity magazine, would have to be determined first.

pnkssbtz
02-04-2010, 1:06 PM
It attaches to the existing tubular magazine creating an "ammunition feeding device" of greater than 10 rounds.

But 6 of those rounds are not in a position to be readily fired. I can't see a distinction between having the 6 extra rounds in a side saddle attached to a firearm or the XRAIL, except convenience.

The fact still remains that those extra 6 shells cannot be fired unless the attachment is manipulated. And when it is manipulated and the extra rounds are now able to be fired, only 10 rounds total ever is in a position to be readily fired.

dantodd
02-04-2010, 1:36 PM
all I can use for "precidence" is the Broadwell drum (with 10-round capacity in each "magazine") that I seem to recall was legal to make during the Fed ban.

If they want to say that if the tubes are permanently attached, then it is one magazine, does that mean that if someone glued/taped/clamped (with a wrench) together multiple AR magazines, then it is a large capacity magazine?

I don't know anything about the Broadwell drum, nor the specific wording of the federal ban.

I think that it would be illegal if the magazines were permanently attached to one another.

If being permanently attached is an issue, then what if it is made with each tube being removable from the assembly? Would it need to be removable by hand, or would a tool be allowed? Disregard detachable-mag'ed semi-auto shotguns for a moment, the legality of the magazine, as being or not being, a large-capacity magazine, would have to be determined first.

This is a somewhat interesting question. I believe the compact model holds 2 rounds in each of 4 tubes right giving a total of 8 in the xrail plus 5 in the tube. That would make the actual device NOT a large-capacity magazine. But by attaching it to the tube as an extension it would become a large-capacity magazine, so that model would be legal to purchase and attach to a tube with a capacity of 2 or fewer. However; I believe attaching it to a longer tube would constitute manufacturing.

So, now comes the interesting part. Attaching the device in such a way that makes it function as an "ammunition feeding device" with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds is clearly a violation. What if each tube were individually attached, one at a time to the feed tube? The weapon would at no time be able to hold more than 10 rds. in the feeding device. I think this is where you have to draw the line. You could possibly extend the line out to "the tubes are a single piece but must be manipulated by hand to change tubes" but I think this would fail.

Why? because having the tubes all attached permanently would make them a single "ammunition feeding device." To allow a single device that needs to be manipulated requires a later decision of just how much manipulation is required. Physically removing the old tube and inserting the new one? Simply rotating the tube? Attaching an arm to the shotgun's pump so you can manipulate the pump and rotate the tube simultaneously?

dantodd
02-04-2010, 1:37 PM
But 6 of those rounds are not in a position to be readily fired. I can't see a distinction between having the 6 extra rounds in a side saddle attached to a firearm or the XRAIL, except convenience.


Isn't convenience the only difference between 3 10 rd. magazines and 1 30 rounder?

pnkssbtz
02-04-2010, 2:49 PM
Isn't convenience the only difference between 3 10 rd. magazines and 1 30 rounder?
To some degree, yes.

In a situation where your life depends on ready access to those other 20 rounds... no it's not a convenience.

If you are playing at the range... yes it's a convenience.

dantodd
02-04-2010, 3:58 PM
To some degree, yes.

In a situation where your life depends on ready access to those other 20 rounds... no it's not a convenience.

If you are playing at the range... yes it's a convenience.

Doesn't the same argument apply to the XRail then?

JaMail
04-11-2013, 10:31 AM
100% understand this is a necro thread.

however with the advancements in the legal theory based around the release of the kel tec KSG would the xRail pass muster in california today?