PDA

View Full Version : Using non-permanently retricted 10/20 magazines in fixed mag rifle, legal?


nrakid88
02-12-2010, 11:15 PM
If I were to take my legally owned high cap mags, and then put a mag block in them, to restrict them to ten rounds, but didn't glue or rivet them into the magazines, does this count as a high cap magazine as far as my fixed magazine semi-auto rifle is concerned? Will it trigger AW status, or am I gtg?

383green
02-12-2010, 11:28 PM
If I were to take my legally owned high cap mags, and then put a mag block in them, to restrict them to ten rounds, but didn't glue or rivet them into the magazines, does this count as a high cap magazine as far as my fixed magazine semi-auto rifle is concerned? Will it trigger AW status, or am I gtg?

I believe that it would trigger AW status:

(d) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
(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.

Thus, your >10 round magazines would still be considered to be >10 round magazines unless permanently altered. A temporary alteration would not change their legal status under 12276.1 (SB23).

bwiese
02-12-2010, 11:33 PM
383green is correct. The definitions feed into each other and trigger AW status.

For the love of Gawd, man, why do you wanna fart around with your perfectly good hicaps? Use those for your featureless builds or reg'd AWs.

10rd mags and rebuild kits for "10-looks-like-30" are cheap enough, jeez. Just make sure you can't recover capacity of the 10/30s without a lot of crowbar work - i.e, such efforts effectively destroy the magazine.

AlliedArmory
02-13-2010, 3:15 AM
I believe that it would trigger AW status:



Thus, your >10 round magazines would still be considered to be >10 round magazines unless permanently altered. A temporary alteration would not change their legal status under 12276.1 (SB23).

just like he said.

do not mess up your perfectly good hi-caps.

just buy some 10/20s for a few $$s and have fun

Fate
02-13-2010, 10:05 AM
Topic discussed pretty extensively here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=139687


383green is correct. The definitions feed into each other and trigger AW status.

For the love of Gawd, man, why do you wanna fart around with your perfectly good hicaps? Use those for your featureless builds or reg'd AWs.

10rd mags and rebuild kits for "10-looks-like-30" are cheap enough, jeez. Just make sure you can't recover capacity of the 10/30s without a lot of crowbar work - i.e, such efforts effectively destroy the magazine.

Bill, your stance changed a bit. Earlier in the old thread you stated:


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.

That seems to indicate you believed it to be legal to do. Even Gene felt that a legally owned magazine could be "plugged" without permanence:

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

sfwdiy
02-13-2010, 5:46 PM
Bill, your stance changed a bit.

I don't think he's referring to the mag itself, more to the fact that a non-permanently altered hi-cap in a fixed mag build triggers AW status.

Fixed-mag rifle + more than 10 round magazine = Assault Weapon. :(

--B

Seesm
02-13-2010, 6:07 PM
YOu can not "YET" get more std cap mags so just save them.

IrishPirate
02-13-2010, 6:09 PM
there's plenty of ways to temporarily make something "permanent".....

383green
02-13-2010, 6:14 PM
To be pedantic, I'll say that the PC doesn't specifically say that non-permanently modified magazines trigger AW status; rather, it defines what "capacity to accept..." means, and then states that a permanent modification explicitly takes the magazine out of the >10 round category (as I recall, the definitions in the large capacity magazine ban are similar).

This subtle distinction may be what's causing confusion about what may or may not have been said before in older threads, since there's no explicit text about non-permanent modifications in the code. However, I believe that a non-permanent modification would be more likely than not to be considered inadequate by a prosecutor, and a defense based on the ambiguity of a non-permanent modification would be very weak in my opinion. I would not consider using a non-permanent modification in any case where the unmodified state of the magazine would violate a law.

supersonic
02-13-2010, 6:21 PM
Okay, here's the deal................wait............I promised myself I would never again participate in this type of thread again!:cool::p

Fate
02-13-2010, 7:13 PM
I don't think he's referring to the mag itself, more to the fact that a non-permanently altered hi-cap in a fixed mag build triggers AW status.

Reread the highlighted part. He's saying (in passing) that a "plugged" legally owned high capacity mag would be ok. Gene backs this.

That said, it might not be the "wisest" thing to do as you might end up having to convince a jury ;)

aplinker
02-13-2010, 7:59 PM
Reread the highlighted part. He's saying (in passing) that a "plugged" legally owned high capacity mag would be ok. Gene backs this.

That said, it might not be the "wisest" thing to do as you might end up having to convince a jury ;)

This I'd file under "might be ok, but who the **** cares?"

Spend the $15 for a 10rd mag.

There are some issues that are truly not worth pressing.

CHS
02-13-2010, 11:38 PM
What aplinker said.

Might be legal. Might not be. Who cares? Don't screw around with something that could land you in an expensive court battle that's not worth fighting in the first place.