PDA

View Full Version : Is the Sport Conversion Mag Kit enough?


thmpr
02-23-2006, 8:26 PM
It came to my attention from a respected member on Calguns in which the DOJ stated that the Sport Conversion Mag Kit will not meet the legal definition of a fixed mag. But based on the CA AR/AK AW FAQ, it will meet this requirement. I was planning to test my new AR.

9. How can I make a legal “off-list” / “non-Harrott” AR rifle?

Begin with a legally-acquired, off-list bare receiver, acquired through a California firearms dealer (FFL) – that is, a receiver that is not specified by both manufacturer and model in the California Code of Regulation, §979.11 and PC 12276(e).

If your dealer is ordering it for you, he should ensure it’s shipped to him without an attached pistol grip and/or without a folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock. (Remember: a bare AR or AK lower with a pistol grip and/or a folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock is an assault weapon. A receiver with open mag well but no pistol grip but having a barrel attached with a flash hider mounted is also an assault weapon.)

You should also acquire a low-capacity fixed magazine or kit. For example, the vendor at http://www.AR15Plus.COM , sells a complete fixed-mag setup for $29.95. Sporting Conversions offers a well-regarded kit as well. Any 10-round magazine will work and a legal do-it-yourself solution could also be developed. Just don’t use a spring on the magazine catch, cut a bit off the magazine catch threaded stud (as necessary), and secure the magazine catch with a castle nut instead of the traditional pushbutton. It’s important that this not work loose during operation, and that you can’t access it with your fingers or fingernails – so perhaps a bit of ThreadLok or Glyptol is helpful.

So that this is not considered a detachable magazine by DOJ Firearms Division regulations, it must require tool(s) to be used for removal/replacement, and the magazine cannot be removable/replaceable in normal course of rifle operation.

Only after a fixed low-capacity magazine is attached and screwed down should the pistol grip and/or folding or telestock be attached. Conversely, if the fixed magazine on the rifle needs to be removed for repair or cleaning, the pistol grip and/or telestock, folding stock or thumbhole stock must be removed first.

thmpr
02-23-2006, 9:08 PM
Treelogger,
Thanks for the feedback. Will send you a PM. Gluing the lower would be a last resort for me. The best way to clear this up is to send a letter to the DOJ on further clarifying the fixed mag requirement. But what the current law states, the sport conversion kit does meet it.

ligamentum flavum
02-23-2006, 9:21 PM
Who has said that and where? I have not seen any evidence of the DoJ stating that using a difficult-to-remove screw (like the Sporting Conversions kit) is not sufficient. But then, maybe I missed it. Clarification would be welcome.


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28943&page=3

Post # 92

I've been following the thread and now I am not sure if it's a good idea to shoot the newly acquired fixed-mag AR's. :confused:

grammaton76
02-23-2006, 9:34 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28943&page=3

Post # 92

I've been following the thread and now I am not sure if it's a good idea to shoot the newly acquired fixed-mag AR's. :confused:

It's more than just what's said in that post. I was specifically cautioned TODAY over the phone, that some DOJ guys have said they don't consider the Mag-Lok kit to be a fixed mag and that they're going to be looking for folks using it.

As of today, the only AR I'm taking to the range until some clarification hits, is my drop-mag 22LR. There's not ANY kind of games they can play with words to construe a 22LR as an AW, unless they were to try to say it wasn't really a 22.

Turbinator
02-23-2006, 9:40 PM
As of today, the only AR I'm taking to the range until some clarification hits, is my drop-mag 22LR. There's not ANY kind of games they can play with words to construe a 22LR as an AW, unless they were to try to say it wasn't really a 22.

Huh? So you have a standard AR lower with a .22lr upper, and you think you're going to be ok? Just looking for clarification.

Turby

blacklisted
02-23-2006, 9:41 PM
It's more than just what's said in that post. I was specifically cautioned TODAY over the phone, that some DOJ guys have said they don't consider the Mag-Lok kit to be a fixed mag and that they're going to be looking for folks using it.

As of today, the only AR I'm taking to the range until some clarification hits, is my drop-mag 22LR. There's not ANY kind of games they can play with words to construe a 22LR as an AW, unless they were to try to say it wasn't really a 22.

If this is truly the case, these agents are a bunch of a**holes.

Any "agent" that goes beyond enforcing the laws that are currently on the books is a waste of oxygen. Going out of their way to bust people for following the letter of the law is inexcusable.

tenpercentfirearms
02-23-2006, 10:02 PM
I am torn over this one. On one hand, I am concerned that someone who bought a mag kit from me gets busted. On the other hand, we know these guys are not beyond making things up to scare and intimidate law abiding citizens, especially us legal lowers owners. I can't possibly fathom how they can go against their own definition of a fixed magazine that is listed right in the regs. I think it is another scare tactic designed to further screw everyone over and slow down lower sales.

However, if I were any of you, I would not take my fixed lower to a public range. Most certainly if you live in a liberal county. We know the lowers by themselves are most certainly legal. Sad to say, don't risk it and chalk up another fear rumor to the DOJ's success. I give them credit, they are good at it.

SI-guru
02-23-2006, 10:16 PM
However, if I were any of you, I would not take my fixed lower to a public range. Most certainly if you live in a liberal county. Sad to say, don't risk it and chalk up another fear rumor to the DOJ's success.

:D :D :D Still trying to sell FAB10's huh ? That's what FAB10s are for, public ranges. Or at least until everything is settle and clear.

TonyM
02-23-2006, 10:43 PM
:D :D :D Still trying to sell FAB10's huh ? That's what FAB10s are for, public ranges. Or at least until everything is settle and clear.

He's buying FAB10s, not selling them.

:)

Justang
02-23-2006, 10:45 PM
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

According to the law, the sport conversion mag is enough. There is nothing they could charge you with if they found you at a public range with a fixed mag offlist lower.

I'm not a lawyer, so take my opinion for what it's worth. ;)

grammaton76
02-23-2006, 10:49 PM
Huh? So you have a standard AR lower with a .22lr upper, and you think you're going to be ok? Just looking for clarification.

That is correct. The penal code specifically states "centerfire rifle", and the 22LR upper I have fits onto there so tightly that it's impossible to remove without a hammer and some serious pounding. I would be more timid an upper which actually can be removed like a standard upper, but this one is just insanely tight-fitting. Moreover, it won't allow AR mags to lock in the magwell.

If you're wondering about the specifics, do a search for my thread titled '$260 22LR upper"

tenpercentfirearms
02-23-2006, 11:00 PM
Still trying to sell FAB10's huh?You certainly got that wrong. I have bought six FAB-10s in the last month. In fact, this bit of scare tactic hurts me because the Sporting Conversions fixed mag kits and Bushmaster Magazines are my best sellers right now.

However, that is one of the reasons I have been buying up FAB-10s, I won't have to transport them as AWs if our lowers ever get listed. It is nice to have a back up plan while all the other parts I bought sit in limbo. Plus there is no way for the DOJ to get me when I am showing off my uppers and accessories on FAB-10s in my shop.

xenophobe
02-23-2006, 11:49 PM
I tried warning everyone about this a while back and only got crapped on for it.... EDIT (and apparently still am. Love the anonymous negative rep. heh... if you're going to be insulting, at least use proper grammar! lol)

I'd definitely wait for some kind of DOJ guideline for fixing a mag before going out in public for testing. I don't want to be the DOJ posterboy, I can't afford the time or the money, and I certainly don't want to jeopardize my collection.

I don't want to see anyone else get popped for something that appears legal, and probably would be legal, but something the DOJ doesn't like and is willing to test in the courts. I'm not willing to go that far. DOJ will take it all the way just to see what pans out.

tenpercentfirearms
02-24-2006, 5:21 AM
Love the anonymous negative rep.So true! Who made up that system? Lame.

I think they are bluffing, but you won't see me testing it. I got my FAB-10 collection!

Justang
02-24-2006, 7:15 AM
They're bluffing. I'd like to see the PC code they'd charge me with. IMO if you got picked up for this, you'd win in court w/o a problem. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a DOJ agent) to know what a tool is.

I defy them to pick me up.
but probably won't risk it. lol.

xrMike
02-24-2006, 8:33 AM
I tried warning everyone about this a while back and only got crapped on for it.... I'd definitely wait for some kind of DOJ guideline for fixing a mag before going out in public for testing. I don't want to be the DOJ posterboy, I can't afford the time or the money, and I certainly don't want to jeopardize my collection.

No way I can risk being a sacrificial lamb either. Maybe if I was still young, single, idealistic, and childless. But I'm none of those anymore... :D

So, for all of us who feel similarly, it seems the only way to enjoy our new rifles is to run them the way EBWhite has suggested all along:

"Run a detachable mag, and no evil featues."

Can I get an absolute confirmation of this? (as it determines what parts I buy to build up my unlisted lower.)

The way I see it, I'm good to go if my rifle has none of the following:

-- pistol grip (I'll use bu-bye's cool spring retaining doo-dad instead)
-- telescoping stock (I'll use one of those old-school solid stocks instead)
-- flash hider (this might be tougher to comply with, as most of the upper assemblies I seem to like all have barrels w/flash hiders on 'em)

Without these things, I can run a detachable 10-rnd mag, right?

tenpercentfirearms
02-24-2006, 8:39 AM
If you can have it stripped, you can run it without any evil features.

bwiese
02-24-2006, 9:11 AM
If you can have it stripped, you can run it without any evil features.

Correctamundo. A detachable mag isn't an evil feature - it's what triggers evil features not being allowed.

In fact this may be, from a political/PR standpoint, far more inflammatory than a fixed-mag situation should publicity be required - since we're dealing with $1.50 of plastic (the pistol grip - surplus price, M16A1 non-ridged) not being present.

I would also keep any such grips possessed far far away from a rifle w/open magwell - maybe even locked separately at home if not attached to other legal guns. No need to be the first one up on 'constructive possession'.

xenophobe
02-24-2006, 10:01 AM
So true! Who made up that system? Lame.


Well, I don't really care who made up the system, I think it's kind of chicken---t, but it's funny to see that a few people are getting really bent out of shape when they're told what may indeed be legal, what they think is okay, and what should be okay might not be perceived as such by the DOJ.


I think they are bluffing, but you won't see me testing it. I got my FAB-10 collection!

I don't. How much more would it cost them to run a test case just to find out? I imagine that the extra DROS fee's the've collected are wanting some place to go. Perhaps that might end up in their legal test fund. We all know they want to set precedent in court and the media so they can state something matter-of-factly instead of issuing baseless memos.



No way I can risk being a sacrificial lamb either. Maybe if I was still young, single, idealistic, and childless. But I'm none of those anymore... :D

So, for all of us who feel similarly, it seems the only way to enjoy our new rifles is to run them the way EBWhite has suggested all along:

"Run a detachable mag, and no evil featues."


I completely agree with you. I'm not 18 anymore. lol This is ineed the way to do it. Use the spring retainer that fits over the pistol grip attachment point, and with that device, you can honestly say that you never had an intent of slipping a pistol grip on there because the block would obstruct it. So you have your detachable mag rifle and you're good to go. And this is not a grey area, or pending new interpretation or anything like the fixed magazine kit legality that has yet to play out. It's pretty much known that without the pistol grip or other evil features, you're fine.

vrylak
02-24-2006, 10:04 AM
They're bluffing. I'd like to see the PC code they'd charge me with. IMO if you got picked up for this, you'd win in court w/o a problem. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a DOJ agent) to know what a tool is.

I defy them to pick me up.
but probably won't risk it. lol.


Isn't there a law that the state or department must reimburse you for all the expenses plus damages you incur, personal as well as psychological, if you are proven to be wrongfully accused. Everything we're doing here are perfectly legal, for obvious reasons, don't they know that if it comes down to court and the state has to pay in million$ then the governor will really get pissed. Here he is trying to plug and fixed Kali's billion dollar deficit, trying to raise the $$ and here's a bunch on one end who's just wasting money.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-24-2006, 10:18 AM
Isn't there a law that the state or department must reimburse you for all the expenses plus damages you incur, personal as well as psychological, if you are proven to be wrongfully accused. Everything we're doing here are perfectly legal, for obvious reasons, don't they know that if it comes down to court and the state has to pay in million$ then the governor will really get pissed. Here he is trying to plug and fixed Kali's billion dollar deficit, trying to raise the $$ and here's a bunch on one end who's just wasting money.

That is only in civil cases.

Unfortunately, the state can charge you with a criminal offense and you have no such recourse. You either take the Public Pretender or pay for your own attorney.:mad:

xenophobe
02-24-2006, 11:11 AM
Isn't there a law that the state or department must reimburse you for all the expenses plus damages you incur, personal as well as psychological, if you are proven to be wrongfully accused.

You would have to prove they singled you out of the crowd, went out of their way to harrass you, and willingly and knowingly arrested you and pressed frivolous charges against you. You would have to do this in CIVIL court, IF you could afford it after fighting an accusation in Criminal court. Either way, you're still out time, expense and have to reasonably prove that they did so maliciously. All the state would have to prove is they had reason to believe that what you were doing was not legal by their definition, even though their definition may be illegal. All it would take is a couple of memos stating to their agents is "If you see anyone with x configuration, you have the authority to arrest, confiscate and press charges", and the whole idea of 'getting them back' because they harassed you for no reason other than to harrass you would most likely be dismissed.

bwiese
02-24-2006, 11:25 AM
All the state would have to prove is they had reason to believe that what you were doing was not legal by their definition, even though their definition may be illegal.

The DOJ definition in CCR section 978.20 is not illegal. In fact, it is clear and readable and readily understandable. It was formulated in a legal fashion, and has been promulgated and on the books, unchanged, for around 6 years.

This offers, in fact, a clear delineation between what is, and is not, a detachable magazine. When it takes a tool to remove and replace it, it's not detachable - especially if the tool is a tool in the common sense of the word, something like a screwdriver, nutdriver or Allen wrench.

There can be no reason to believe any crime was committed, especially as the DOJ Firearms Division agents involved are supposed to be 'experts' and have more knowledge of this law than regular cops.

More Pomona gunshow HK grip nonsense...

xenophobe
02-24-2006, 11:47 AM
Bill, I meant that their applied definition, not the one coded into law. Look at what both DSA and Vulcan had to go through to get DOJ approval for fixed magazine firearms. Their requirements go well beyond what is stated in law.

If DSArms and Vulcan reflect the interpretation that DOJ wishes to choose, this DOJ definition is indeed illegal.

slo5oh
02-24-2006, 11:50 AM
If that's the wording "it takes a tool to remove and replace it", what's to stop us from using a key type lock to "eject" the mag? Picture it: Sit on your bench at the range, insert a full mag, shoot until your out, reach over for your allen key, screw driver, or whatever you make the "tool", insert said tool, turn tool, and the empty mag drops out, so you can slide in a new one.
So instead of being a push button mag relese it's a key turn mag release?

**edit**
not that I'm going to be the frist to try this :)

tenpercentfirearms
02-24-2006, 11:59 AM
So instead of being a push button mag relese it's a key turn mag release?I wouldn't touch this with your ten foot pole. Stick to the fixed magazine and leave it fixed. Prison is not worth risking this thing. Buy a M1A or a SU16 if you want a detachable magazine so bad.

I don't think the DOJ has the time or wants to spend the effort right now to take this thing on when they know they are going to lose. All they have to do is make you think they will and that is just as good as actually doing it, but with less time and money spent. These are clever guys, they know what they are doing.

So they have started the rumor, now people will leave their rifles unbuilt or decide all of this simply isn't worth it. Less lowers in the state to have to track down. The DOJ starts the rumor that Wilson lowers are assault weapons, so no one bring them in. They say they won't let you build it up once you register, lower sales slow down. Call up Fulton Armory and give them the 58 DAs line, Fulton cancels 200 lowers.

I give the DOJ credit, they are doing a great job of intimidating and scaring the populace. I don't take it personal, that is their job. However, I am tired of these games and at this point would like to just see the list come out so we can start moving on with our lives.

mblat
02-24-2006, 12:08 PM
I give the DOJ credit, they are doing a great job of intimidating and scaring the populace. I don't take it personal, that is their job.

Really? And I though their job is STRICTLY enforce existing laws, not to scare people.... :rolleyes:

tenpercentfirearms
02-24-2006, 12:11 PM
No we live in California MBlat. Just like the Soviets. The KGB's job was to do what was good for the benefit of the people and the CA DOJ is doing the same thing. I don't think I need to give you any lecture about that though. ;)

mblat
02-24-2006, 12:32 PM
No we live in California MBlat. Just like the Soviets. The KGB's job was to do what was good for the benefit of the people and the CA DOJ is doing the same thing. I don't think I need to give you any lecture about that though. ;)


Honestly, I wouldn't be comparing DOJ to KGB.... KGB would be breaking our doors and balls by now.....

But I hear you..... good of the people, eh?

ldivinag
02-24-2006, 12:34 PM
i'm still wondering how the DOJ okay'ed barrett's swing magazine dooheekee for the M82A1...

thmpr
02-24-2006, 1:55 PM
Been calling the DOJ since this morning with no reponse except from their answering machine. They must be working double time to get the list out today..:p Oh well, will keep on trying...

jp.cherokee
02-24-2006, 2:02 PM
That is correct. The penal code specifically states "centerfire rifle", and the 22LR upper I have fits onto there so tightly that it's impossible to remove without a hammer and some serious pounding. I would be more timid an upper which actually can be removed like a standard upper, but this one is just insanely tight-fitting. Moreover, it won't allow AR mags to lock in the magwell.

If you're wondering about the specifics, do a search for my thread titled '$260 22LR upper"

Here is a 22LR conversion from Bushmaster. http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/accessories/jac-008.asp
Does anybody know how it works? What do you have to do to your upper? And as stated, it would be legal since it is a "rimfire"???