PDA

View Full Version : DoJ Magblock Mistake?


blacklisted
02-19-2006, 1:37 PM
In the for sale thread here
(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28927) which is about the Robinson Arms M96, grammaton76 noticed a strange "problem" in an official letter from the DoJ which was sent to attorney Chuck Michel from Tim Rieger.

Not to hijack the thread, but check out the PDF at the bottom of that page. There's a DOJ letter on there, in which the DOJ states it is illegal to possess a magazine adapter that permits the use of another type of mag in a weapon. In essence, they're saying the drop-in magblocks that permit the use of 9mm and 45acp mags in an AR are illegal!

Is this a known stance from the DOJ? Does anyone have a conflicting statement from them about magblocks?

Here is the response in question:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/wtf.jpg
http://www.robarm.com/m96_california_recon_carbine.htm

Isn't this quite a big mistake to make in writing?

ETA: I meant to post this in Gun rights, political, and legal. If someone is around to move it, please do so.

bwiese
02-19-2006, 2:12 PM
Yup. I see no illegality in this, either. I am a cautious as*hole and I have no problem with having a mag conversion block on any rifle (AW or off-list legal rifle).

Tim batted a foul on this one, and he's usually pretty good.

Fortunately with the various advice about mag rebuilding, etc. from DOJ we're OK.

And I even believe CA has approved a fixed-mag Bushmaster 9mm carbine (?? IIRC w/10rd fixed mag. That has a 9mm mag block in a 223 lower.

fun2none
02-19-2006, 2:16 PM
Isn't this quite a big mistake to make in writing?


I would say they made a mistake. However, if the DOJ equated the provided definition of a magazine adapter to an ammunition feeding device that can be removed from a the firearm without the use of tool, then I could see how they might say no. Also, at some point Robinson was supposed to provide a belt-feed adapter for the M96. Maybe the DOJ got confused. I know I am :confused:

blacklisted
02-19-2006, 2:45 PM
Oh I know they are legal, I just thought it was odd that they would make such a big mistake in writing. People here have said not to trust what they say over the phone and to get it in writing...this just shows that this is not a perfect source either (if anyone here hasn't realized that by now).

monkey
02-19-2006, 4:26 PM
Maybe not. Back in the day of the AWB and hi-cap ban, ATF held the similar position that changing the mag adapter tower on a Beta C-Mag (changing the AR tower to a Steyr AUG tower) was illegal as it was building a new hi-cap magazine.

While I do not agree, I see the position that a magazine adapter, in certain circumstances, can create a new hi-cap mag. If a part is introduced that changes one magazine into another, there is an arguable position that this is a new magazine.

blacklisted
02-19-2006, 5:49 PM
Maybe not. Back in the day of the AWB and hi-cap ban, ATF held the similar position that changing the mag adapter tower on a Beta C-Mag (changing the AR tower to a Steyr AUG tower) was illegal as it was building a new hi-cap magazine.

While I do not agree, I see the position that a magazine adapter, in certain circumstances, can create a new hi-cap mag. If a part is introduced that changes one magazine into another, there is an arguable position that this is a new magazine.

Maybe, but isn't the mag adapter often considered part of the receiver (allows it to accept unmodified magazines of a different type).

grammaton76
02-19-2006, 6:52 PM
Maybe, but isn't the mag adapter often considered part of the receiver (allows it to accept unmodified magazines of a different type).

Yeah, that's what I would think myself too - I can see calling it illegal if the conversion part affixes TO THE MAG, but mag blocks really ought to be viewed as a receiver part.

BTW, glad folks picked up on that post, it had me wondering today if I'd be able to build that 9mm AR or not!

By the way, range report on the V-22 upper is forthcoming; it performed flawlessly with bulk-box Federal copper-wash and with 22 Thunderbolt. Not a single feed issue!

artherd
02-19-2006, 11:53 PM
DOJ can be and frankly often is WRONG.

See their opinion on SKS Sporters (later forced a reversal by the courts)

And see their opinion that they may create a 4th class of AWs (soon to be reversed by the courts :)

Getting DOJ opions is good CYA, but it does NOT guarentee immunity! Far from it infact. At best it shows that almost abnormal due dilligance and extra effort expended to attempt to remain in compliance with the law, and that's IT. Debolishes Mens Rea, but there are plenty of simple posession firearms crimes.

Seek the advice of an attorney, at least if they're wrong they have Legal Malpractice Insurance :P

blacklisted
02-19-2006, 11:58 PM
DOJ can be and frankly often is WRONG.

See their opinion on SKS Sporters (later forced a reversal by the courts)

And see their opinion that they may create a 4th class of AWs (soon to be reversed by the courts :)

Getting DOJ opions is good CYA, but it does NOT guarentee immunity! Far from it infact. At best it shows that almost abnormal due dilligance and extra effort expended to attempt to remain in compliance with the law, and that's IT. Debolishes Mens Rea, but there are plenty of simple posession firearms crimes.

Seek the advice of an attorney, at least if they're wrong they have Legal Malpractice Insurance :P

I just wish they would work a little faster so we can figure out if they intend to follow the path they mentioned in their memo!

Hopefully it wont have to be reversed in court.

CalExile
02-20-2006, 4:06 AM
Yup. I see no illegality in this, either. I am a cautious as*hole and I have no problem with having a mag conversion block on any rifle (AW or off-list legal rifle).

Tim batted a foul on this one, and he's usually pretty good.

Fortunately with the various advice about mag rebuilding, etc. from DOJ we're OK.

And I even believe CA has approved a fixed-mag Bushmaster 9mm carbine (?? IIRC w/10rd fixed mag. That has a 9mm mag block in a 223 lower.

Maybe you can help me with a question. I am in VA, moving to CA. Does a mag with a capacity over 10rds have to be cut down and rebuilt to be CA legal or can you install a permanent device limit the mag to 10rds, while keeping the original length?