PDA

View Full Version : Has anyone got a letter back about sporting-mag Conversions?


Leadthrower
02-28-2006, 10:36 AM
I was just wondering if anyone got a confirmation letter saying if it was legal to pin the mag of a California-legal receiver with the use of a tool? I heard rumors that the California DOJ was saying it was illegal to do so. If this is the case I'll just use my rifles with the pre-ban mags I have...Any help with this matter would be appreciated.

thank you,
Leadthrower

PanzerAce
02-28-2006, 10:43 AM
I dont think any one has gotten a letter, and I wouldnt expect one for a long time. but if you read the laws and their previous opinions, you will see that it is perfectly legal. I think if pressed, they will say that they mean it was illegal for a FFL to sell a receiver like that, not illegal for a person to own as such.

grammaton76
02-28-2006, 10:49 AM
I was just wondering if anyone got a confirmation letter saying if it was legal to pin the mag of a California-legal receiver with the use of a tool? I heard rumors that the California DOJ was saying it was illegal to do so. If this is the case I'll just use my rifles with the pre-ban mags I have...Any help with this matter would be appreciated.


If you mean using pre-ban, registered rifles with the pre-ban mags, knock yourself out.

If you mean using a 30rd mag on an off-list lower, DON'T DO IT! Unless you have one of those SRB's or other replacement for the pistol grip, there is absolutely no way to NOT be constructing an assault weapon if a >10 round mag is installed on an off-list lower.

Pre-ban or post-ban mags don't make ANY difference with regards to off-list lowers. The flip into "assault weapon" category happens if you either have a detachable magazine OR a >10 round fixed magazine. Considering you're talking about pre-ban mags, I'll assume you mean 30rd mags, which you can't use if you have a pistol grip, flash hider, or collapsible stock. If your rifle has any of the three, don't use the 30rd mag on it.

As for the fixed mag kits, it's been said that DOJ is looking for folks with them to arrest them and make a test case. I personally am not going to the range with my pinned mag rifles, although I fully believe them to be in legal compliance. I'm presently using my V-22 AR and my SU-16CA, and looking forward to an SRB-equipped AR with detachable mags. If I didn't have an SU-16 to use with my pre-ban mags, I would probably take the pinned mag rifles anyway due to living in SD.

Remember, the DOJ is going to look for a favorable LOCATION for prosecution, as they want a 'guilty' on the first trial to help push legislation, regardless of where the appeals go. So guys in LA, SF, etc had better watch out, and guys in SD like myself (quite a lot gun-friendlier than SF or LA) are probably not as appetizing as targets.

antarius
02-28-2006, 10:51 AM
As posted above, you do not need a "letter" to authorize the Sporting Conversions kit.

Frankly, people need to quit going to the DOJ to get "letters" to "feel good" about their CA-Legal rifles, and need to start reading and following the Penal Code. If you're in line with the Penal Code, you're in compliance with the law.

The DOJ may not give you a letter, but that's because their intent is to -- as stated by them -- ban these weapons. Doesn't mean you can't purchase them.

Per the Penal Code:
PC 12276.1:
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (Evil features)

Per the Definition of Terms Used #978.20(a) (Detachable Magazine)
The definition was again revised to read "detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor the 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."

So there you have it. Your magazine would require a tool, and therefor, would be legal. Just realize, the instant you take the magazine out with all the "other features" (Stock, flash suppressor, etc) on it, it becomes illegal (in theory). Because at that point, you have a magazine that can be removed without a tool (and held in place without one, I.E., your hand).

I know, it's strange... but follow the law, the penal code, and quit relying on the DOJ to hold your hand. But also note, as above, the DOJ is looking to make an "example" out of somebody, so beware...

grammaton76
02-28-2006, 10:59 AM
I know, it's strange... but follow the law, the penal code, and quit relying on the DOJ to hold your hand. But also note, as above, the DOJ is looking to make an "example" out of somebody, so beware...

Yep. Basically, if I were retired, I'd be more than happy to let them try and use me for a test case. I fully believe in the legality of the Sporting Conversions kit, however I can't exactly afford to lose a career in the process of being the test case for it.

Maybe there should be a "Test Case Day" at a range in a gun-friendly county, complete with a friendly letter to the DOJ. "Hey, we hear you want to pull some crap on us, here's a buncha retired or otherwise ok-with-spending-the-time-on-it volunteers showing up to a shooting range in a county we WELCOME you to try and prosecute us in. Take us in if you want, we'll be at X range on Y date with our fixed-mag rifles. On the other hand, you're also welcome to come shooting with us too, if you've embraced sanity instead."

antarius
02-28-2006, 11:08 AM
I hear you there. I can't sacrifice my career by being prosecuted by the DOJ either, which is why my CA-AR is going to be 100% legal 100% of the time, from the day I get the lower to the day I shoot it at the range.

I'm just going to have to be "choosy" of where I shoot it, to ensure that they don't flip out when they see the Sporting Conversions mag-kit on it.

My point was just to try to make people start researching the law for themselves, and following it to a T. Following the law is going to be your best protection, even better than a letter from the DOJ. That's all my intent was behind the post.

xenophobe
02-28-2006, 11:37 AM
I want a DOJ letter for our fixed conversion.

Sorry, the text of the law does not concur with what both Vulcan and DSArms had to do to get the approval of DOJ.

Vulcan: 10 round magazine epoxied into magwell, blind pinned.
DSArms: Magazine welded to ejector block.

DSArms originally had a magazine that was fixed into place with a set screw, one that could not be removed without a tool, and they were threatened with a Cease & Desist letter from the Attorney General. They complied. Owners of the Vulcan-15 and DSArms are not being targeted by the DOJ.

So, regardless of how the law reads, I would warn anyone using any of the unapproved methods of fixing a magazine. It is fully legal according to the text of the law, but does not comply with DOJ interpretation. It may cost one unlucky individual tens of thousands of dollars to prove DOJ wrong in court. I certainly don't want to be that one guy.

ohsmily
02-28-2006, 11:39 AM
Considering you're talking about pre-ban mags, I'll assume you mean 30rd mags, which you can't use if you have a pistol grip, flash hider, or collapsible stock. If your rifle has any of the three, don't use the 30rd mag on it.


This is not quite accurate...you can't use ANY capacity magazine if it is detachable and you have any of those features you listed.

If you are fixing a mag, it must be 10 or less rounds.

If you are running a detachable mag setup, then as long as you don't have evil features, you can use ANY capacity magazine (yes, even a Beta C drum mag).

Leadthrower
02-28-2006, 12:20 PM
I hear you there. I can't sacrifice my career by being prosecuted by the DOJ either, which is why my CA-AR is going to be 100% legal 100% of the time, from the day I get the lower to the day I shoot it at the range.

I'm just going to have to be "choosy" of where I shoot it, to ensure that they don't flip out when they see the Sporting Conversions mag-kit on it.

My point was just to try to make people start researching the law for themselves, and following it to a T. Following the law is going to be your best protection, even better than a letter from the DOJ. That's all my intent was behind the post.

I did indeed research the law especially since some of us here actually enforce it. I fully understand and comprehend what I read, but I was looking for confirmation by a letter from the DOJ. And I also intend to stay well within the letter of the law.

6172crew
02-28-2006, 12:29 PM
The NRA has agreed to have a Lawyer send off a request for legal sake to the DOJ.

All we have to do is take pics of how the system works and point out the law wish we want the doj to clearify, they wil ldraft up the letter and reply.

If you need me to send off the pics, and anything else I will do it.

grammaton76
02-28-2006, 1:48 PM
This is not quite accurate...you can't use ANY capacity magazine if it is detachable and you have any of those features you listed.

If you are fixing a mag, it must be 10 or less rounds.

If you are running a detachable mag setup, then as long as you don't have evil features, you can use ANY capacity magazine (yes, even a Beta C drum mag).

That's what I was saying: if you have any of the three, don't use the pre-ban mag at all. If you don't have any of the three, the pre-ban mag can be used whether it's detachable or not.

It would be legal (but silly) to have a rifle without any evil features, with a pre-ban full-cap mag pinned into it.

I was assuming from the previous post that it was clear not to run detachable 10rd mags in an evil-featured rifle either, but I guess extra clarification never hurts.

thmpr
02-28-2006, 2:15 PM
The NRA has agreed to have a Lawyer send off a request for legal sake to the DOJ.

All we have to do is take pics of how the system works and point out the law wish we want the doj to clearify, they wil ldraft up the letter and reply.

If you need me to send off the pics, and anything else I will do it.


The message I received from DOJ today was that DOJ specifically wants a SCK to be sent in for analysis which will either be approved or disapproved. Like what Xeno stated:

want a DOJ letter for our fixed conversion.

Sorry, the text of the law does not concur with what both Vulcan and DSArms had to do to get the approval of DOJ.

Vulcan: 10 round magazine epoxied into magwell, blind pinned.
DSArms: Magazine welded to ejector block.

DSArms originally had a magazine that was fixed into place with a set screw, one that could not be removed without a tool, and they were threatened with a Cease & Desist letter from the Attorney General. They complied. Owners of the Vulcan-15 and DSArms are not being targeted by the DOJ.

So, regardless of how the law reads, I would warn anyone using any of the unapproved methods of fixing a magazine. It is fully legal according to the text of the law, but does not comply with DOJ interpretation. It may cost one unlucky individual tens of thousands of dollars to prove DOJ wrong in court. I certainly don't want to be that one guy.




I agree that we should wait until we have a firm feedback from the DOJ based on the NRA's letter.

Kevlarman
02-28-2006, 4:42 PM
We should probably include a tube of Loctite 242 with the SCK, just to make sure eh? ;)

MsJamie
02-28-2006, 10:47 PM
Sorry, the text of the law does not concur with what both Vulcan and DSArms had to do to get the approval of DOJ.

Manufacturers are generally held to a higher standard than individuals, as they have to put a bit of "idiot resistance" into their products.

Since the nut on the mag release follows the letter of the law, it is sufficient for us to do on our own personal rifles, as we are quite aware of what can happen if we remove it and install the "proper" mag catch release. But if a rifle is sold that easy to modify, a rather high percentage of owners would make that modification without realizing they are breaking the law.

The manufacturers have to make the idiots work a bit...

xenophobe
03-01-2006, 1:25 AM
I do agree with you, but to this day, there is not a single approved method for an individual to convert a detachable magazine to a fixed one other than the product those two companies offer. As a retailer, I'm not going to sell a fixed magazine conversion kit with the implication that DOJ won't have a problem with it, and until something is approved or there is case precedent, I'll continue to assume that they will.

CalExile
03-01-2006, 4:29 AM
As posted above, you do not need a "letter" to authorize the Sporting Conversions kit.

Frankly, people need to quit going to the DOJ to get "letters" to "feel good" about their CA-Legal rifles, and need to start reading and following the Penal Code. If you're in line with the Penal Code, you're in compliance with the law.

The DOJ may not give you a letter, but that's because their intent is to -- as stated by them -- ban these weapons. Doesn't mean you can't purchase them.

Per the Penal Code:
PC 12276.1:
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (Evil features)

Per the Definition of Terms Used #978.20(a) (Detachable Magazine)
The definition was again revised to read "detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor the 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."

So there you have it. Your magazine would require a tool, and therefor, would be legal. Just realize, the instant you take the magazine out with all the "other features" (Stock, flash suppressor, etc) on it, it becomes illegal (in theory). Because at that point, you have a magazine that can be removed without a tool (and held in place without one, I.E., your hand).

I know, it's strange... but follow the law, the penal code, and quit relying on the DOJ to hold your hand. But also note, as above, the DOJ is looking to make an "example" out of somebody, so beware...

No they don't need to quit writing letters to DOJ. I don't usually write contrary posts on these types of boards, but I feel strongly about this. ATF/Cal DOJ enforce ambiguous laws, because anti-gun lawmakers write crappy legislation. Full blown, clear cut gun bans don't fly outside areas of Cal and a few commie east coast states so they have to write whatever incremental doodie they think they can get passed. They are always looking towards the "next" law they can get passed, further tightening gun restrictions. Average Joe, trying to stay legal and have fun while shooting or protect his family, NEEDS to feel free to get written clarification if he has a question about poorly written regulations. I have read the Cal code, and it is a bunch of ambiguous dog squeeze. Telling someone they should just read the code and comply is easier said than done. For example, what is their definition of "permanent" with regards to mag modification? A DOJ clarification response letter might be the only thing that keeps you from becoming someone's girlfriend when the Man chooses to re-interpret the rules.

-aK-
03-01-2006, 6:10 AM
The message I received from DOJ today was that DOJ specifically wants a SCK to be sent in for analysis which will either be approved or disapproved. Like what Xeno stated:

want a DOJ letter for our fixed conversion.

Sorry, the text of the law does not concur with what both Vulcan and DSArms had to do to get the approval of DOJ.

Vulcan: 10 round magazine epoxied into magwell, blind pinned.
DSArms: Magazine welded to ejector block.

DSArms originally had a magazine that was fixed into place with a set screw, one that could not be removed without a tool, and they were threatened with a Cease & Desist letter from the Attorney General. They complied. Owners of the Vulcan-15 and DSArms are not being targeted by the DOJ.

So, regardless of how the law reads, I would warn anyone using any of the unapproved methods of fixing a magazine. It is fully legal according to the text of the law, but does not comply with DOJ interpretation. It may cost one unlucky individual tens of thousands of dollars to prove DOJ wrong in court. I certainly don't want to be that one guy.




I agree that we should wait until we have a firm feedback from the DOJ based on the NRA's letter.

BOld added.

WTF. THE ****ING DOJ says and I quote... So, regardless of how the law reads, then goes to say It is fully legal according to the text of the law, but does not comply with DOJ interpretation.

WHERE THE **** DOES THE DOJ GET THE BALLS TO SAY THIS???........................................

This is absolutely appalling and completely unacceptable from a government agency that is supposed to be serving the people not oppressing the people. :mad:

Thmpr, would you please email me a copy of this DOJ letter? I will PM you my email address.

6172crew
03-01-2006, 6:38 AM
The law makers have given the DOJ the ability to give opnions and we are looking for a letter so ethier 1. we can start bolting together our fixed mag ARs or 2. sue the DOJ into admitting the nut/bolt convertions follows the letter of the law.

We need to get a convertion kit to the NRA with pics, etc. I wouldnt put one together until I had the letter, but thats just me.

BOld added.

WTF. THE ****ING DOJ says and I quote... then goes to say

WHERE THE **** DOES THE DOJ GET THE BALLS TO SAY THIS???........................................

This is absolutely appalling and completely unacceptable from a government agency that is supposed to be serving the people not oppressing the people. :mad:

Thmpr, would you please email me a copy of this DOJ letter? I will PM you my email address.

-aK-
03-01-2006, 6:48 AM
Crew,

While I agree that a letter from them would set minds at ease and confirm what the law says it outrages me that the DOJ can say things like

So, regardless of how the law reads,
and
It is fully legal according to the text of the law, but does not comply with DOJ interpretation.

The DOJ does not get to interperate the law. The law is either Apples or Oranges. Not in between. Not one or the other depending on who the Attorney General is. It is legal text that must be clear and concise and be understandable to the common police officer and CA citizen. Hence the Harrot decision.

It does not and can not say whatever the DOJ feels like interpreting it as such on any given day.

But then wtf it doesn't even comply with the original Bill of Rights so I guess this is all just wishfull thinking.

-aK-
03-01-2006, 6:49 AM
WAIT...

let me quote that one more time for emphasis.

It is fully legal according to the text of the law, but does not comply with DOJ interpretation.

-aK-
03-01-2006, 6:50 AM
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Ok, I think I'm done ranting.

Leadthrower
03-01-2006, 7:56 AM
Ever heard the phrase "Absolute power, Absolutly corrupts.."? I can't remember who said it but it's so very true, and it seems the DOJ is demanding compliance but giving no reference as to what is firmly deemed "legal" in their interpetations of Caliifornia Firearm Laws I had better calm down before I also go on a rant....

Leadthrower

6172crew
03-01-2006, 8:00 AM
Crew,


The DOJ does not get to interperate the law. The law is either Apples or Oranges. Not in between.
It does not and can not say whatever the DOJ feels like interpreting it as such on any given day.

But then wtf it doesn't even comply with the original Bill of Rights so I guess this is all just wishfull thinking.

Sorry to stir you back up but the doj does interperate the law and give guidence to DAs, they have the ability to give opinion and that is why we need them to put it on paper, then if we believe they are wrong we have a judge look at it.:)

-aK-
03-01-2006, 8:02 AM
Don't worry it ain't your fault. :)

On that, we are in comlete agreement.

All I know is that I'm tired of being oppressed. Once upon a time I thought I lived in a free country.

EBWhite
03-01-2006, 9:44 AM
Lead-, that quote came from the book, animal farm, animal something, from what i remember from high school english...

xenophobe
03-01-2006, 9:49 AM
The DOJ does not get to interperate the law. The law is either Apples or Oranges. Not in between. Not one or the other depending on who the Attorney General is. It is legal text that must be clear and concise and be understandable to the common police officer and CA citizen. Hence the Harrot decision.

It does not and can not say whatever the DOJ feels like interpreting it as such on any given day.

But then wtf it doesn't even comply with the original Bill of Rights so I guess this is all just wishfull thinking.

YES, they DO. And if you would even bother read what they've ever posted, if that's not too much to ask of you, that EACH of the DAs can interpret the law differently.

That's the whole point about the 58 DAs interpreting it differently.

EDIT: Let me make this more simple for you:

(taken from 'is this unlisted receiver legal' letters per DOJ Letters. (http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Articles/letters060220.PDF))


Also, a local prosecutor in one of California's 58 Counties could decide to prosecute you for possession of an assault weapon, regardless of our opinion about the legality of a firearm.

Oh, and in case you haven't actually READ the California Constitution, there is no Right to Keep and Bear Arms section.

xenophobe
03-01-2006, 9:58 AM
Let me emphasize this for your benefit. :p


Also, a local prosecutor in one of California's 58 Counties could decide to prosecute you for possession of an assault weapon, regardless of our opinion about the legality of a firearm.

If it helps, avoid all the squiggly stuff that is not in bold...

podobo
03-01-2006, 10:44 AM
Sorry if this is a n00b question but lets say a local prosecutor in one of California's 58 Counties did decide to prosecute. Assuming that we have not done/added anything/parts to the receiver or actually built it exactly like the approved fixed vulcan's and have not taken it anywhere outside of our home, how do the prosecutors know/pick the test case? Is the DOJ allowed to give them the list of who has purshased these receivers? I have read that the DOJ has collected said info from some FFL's. I thought the purpose of the series list by make and model was specifically made to be very clear what was legal, that the layman and the courts were unable/or shouldn't have to determine this. Or am I really missing something. Seems to me to be in the DOJ's best interest to be very clear on their position. If there is a single prosocution wouldn't they have to go after all who purchased one of these and the FFL's who sold them?:confused:

Sorry if this is to n00b of a question.... If so please delete.

-aK-
03-01-2006, 11:07 AM
Let me emphasize this for your benefit. :p


Also, a local prosecutor in one of California's 58 Counties could decide to prosecute you for possession of an assault weapon, regardless of our opinion about the legality of a firearm.

If it helps, avoid all the squiggly stuff that is not in bold...

No need to be rude.

I'm away of what you are saying. And I have read the memos. And I have read the CA penal code. In fact I have a link to it in my favorites.

Of course a DA could prosecute you. They can charge you and prosecute you for anything.

But they shouldn't be able to if the law states something.. in this case the magazine is considered detached unless you need a tool to remove it. (it also states that a bullet is considered a tool)

Which brings me back to the Harrot decision. It said that there can't be amigueity in the law. It violates due process.

and that brings me back to the reason why we have the Supreme court and appellate courts. So that unconstitutional prosecutions can be appealed.

So that if some liberal DA gets a wild hair up his butt and decides to make an example out of you you hav the right to have a higher court hear the case and rule on the law and/or the constitutionality of it all.

It is fully legal according to the text of the law, but does not comply with DOJ interpretation.

I won't be an *** about it like you were but does this not rub you raw?

That the DOJ is saying we don't interpret it that way even though it is "fully legal according to the text of the law"....

Is there supposed to be some higher power than "the text of the law" ???!!!???

I agree it is a shaky situation right now to use the SC kits. But it shouldn't be.
I agree that I don't want to be the test case. I agree it could very well be detrimental to the overall cause if some idiot gets prosecuted for it.

But I stand by the fact that the "text of the law" states it is legal and there for there should be no two ways about it.

xenophobe
03-01-2006, 11:40 AM
You quoted what I said in THREE different posts. ...one just for emphasis. You harshly disagree and procede to rant how I'm wrong, but then you change your position a few posts later. And what did you just call me? Umm... Care to contradict yourself some more? Yes, I will call you or anyone else on that.

The fact is, YOUR interpretation of the law does not matter. What matters is how your particular Police or Sheriff's agency, DA as well as the CA DOJ AG's office will interpret it. How a court will rule for or against you is only secondary. The outcome of judicial ruling does not stop you from being arrested, having your firearms confiscated, hiring an attorney, fighting for months, and the financial burdens and stress dealing with the matter.

You can rant about how the law reads, how wrong I am, or how things should be. Nothing changes the fact that any law enforcement agency, local state or federal can interpret the law and even break it any way they want and you can't do a thing about it except wait for the outcome in court.

C.G.
03-01-2006, 12:19 PM
Ever heard the phrase "Absolute power, Absolutly corrupts.."? I can't remember who said it but it's so very true, and it seems the DOJ is demanding compliance but giving no reference as to what is firmly deemed "legal" in their interpetations of Caliifornia Firearm Laws I had better calm down before I also go on a rant....

Leadthrower
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002. Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely An observation that a personís sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

-aK-
03-01-2006, 12:25 PM
You quoted what I said in THREE different posts. ...one just for emphasis. You harshly disagree and procede to rant how I'm wrong, but then you change your position a few posts later. And what did you just call me? Umm... Care to contradict yourself some more? Yes, I will call you or anyone else on that.

The fact is, YOUR interpretation of the law does not matter. What matters is how your particular Police or Sheriff's agency, DA as well as the CA DOJ AG's office will interpret it. How a court will rule for or against you is only secondary. The outcome of judicial ruling does not stop you from being arrested, having your firearms confiscated, hiring an attorney, fighting for months, and the financial burdens and stress dealing with the matter.

You can rant about how the law reads, how wrong I am, or how things should be. Nothing changes the fact that any law enforcement agency, local state or federal can interpret the law and even break it any way they want and you can't do a thing about it except wait for the outcome in court.

Well first off let me apologize. I thought I was quoting a DOJ statement. I quoted it from Thumpr's post and in my first read thought it was a quote from a DOJ letter.

My mistake.

All of my following posts were with the intention that I was quoting the DOJ not you.

And up until this last post of your I didn't even realize why you were being rude..... but now I understand. You thought I was being harsh towards you.

That was not my intention.

I guess I really am the one who is an ***.

Now that I'm (hopefully) done taking my foot out of my mouth.

I still think that the DOJ is wrong for saying that the kits/allen wrench is illegal.

SOO... apparently I was in agreement with you only I had one thing in mind and you had another. I was the one in the wrong though.

Since that was your words and not the DOJ I take back the last 3 or 4 posts.

In my own defense... If you consider that I thought I was quoting the DOJ (not you) does my posts make a little more sense now? :)

-aK-
03-01-2006, 12:29 PM
The message I received from DOJ today was that DOJ specifically wants a SCK to be sent in for analysis which will either be approved or disapproved. Like what Xeno stated:

want a DOJ letter for our fixed conversion.

Sorry, the text of the law does not concur with what both Vulcan and DSArms had to do to get the approval of DOJ.

Vulcan: 10 round magazine epoxied into magwell, blind pinned.
DSArms: Magazine welded to ejector block.

DSArms originally had a magazine that was fixed into place with a set screw, one that could not be removed without a tool, and they were threatened with a Cease & Desist letter from the Attorney General. They complied. Owners of the Vulcan-15 and DSArms are not being targeted by the DOJ.

So, regardless of how the law reads, I would warn anyone using any of the unapproved methods of fixing a magazine. It is fully legal according to the text of the law, but does not comply with DOJ interpretation. It may cost one unlucky individual tens of thousands of dollars to prove DOJ wrong in court. I certainly don't want to be that one guy.




I agree that we should wait until we have a firm feedback from the DOJ based on the NRA's letter.

This was the original post I quoted.

I guess I brain farted over the part that I just now bolded out.

-aK-
03-01-2006, 12:30 PM
The message I received from DOJ today was that DOJ specifically wants a SCK to be sent in for analysis which will either be approved or disapproved. OMIT
want a DOJ letter for our fixed conversion.

Sorry, the text of the law does not concur with what both Vulcan and DSArms had to do to get the approval of DOJ.

Vulcan: 10 round magazine epoxied into magwell, blind pinned.
DSArms: Magazine welded to ejector block.

DSArms originally had a magazine that was fixed into place with a set screw, one that could not be removed without a tool, and they were threatened with a Cease & Desist letter from the Attorney General. They complied. Owners of the Vulcan-15 and DSArms are not being targeted by the DOJ.

So, regardless of how the law reads, I would warn anyone using any of the unapproved methods of fixing a magazine. It is fully legal according to the text of the law, but does not comply with DOJ interpretation. It may cost one unlucky individual tens of thousands of dollars to prove DOJ wrong in court. I certainly don't want to be that one guy.




I agree that we should wait until we have a firm feedback from the DOJ based on the NRA's letter.

Humor me and read it the way my retarded *** originaly read it.

xenophobe
03-01-2006, 2:03 PM
In my own defense... If you consider that I thought I was quoting the DOJ (not you) does my posts make a little more sense now? :)

lol... yes. Apology accepted. I'm sorry, I did get offended and responded as such. Please accept mine. I get all riled up sometimes and can't help it. heh

6172crew
03-01-2006, 2:40 PM
Group hug...I mean group buy.:)

-aK-
03-01-2006, 2:44 PM
Whew, I feel a little bit less of a donkey rear now. :D

Racefiend
03-01-2006, 4:43 PM
The orginal DSA mag release setup was denied by the AG office because they found the set screw could be backed out enough from mag release to make it possible to insert a pen spring in the recess and create a detachable magazine. I spoke to Iggy a few years back when I built my fal about all this kind of stuff. Now I don't know if the AG made DSA weld the mag in place (I doubt they told them anything other than approving/disapproving submitted designs) or DSA didn't want to invest any more time into sending samples and possibly getting rejected and just took the drastic approach to ensure approval. Or perhaps, as stated earlier, the DOJ may hold manufacturers to an "idiot proof" standard.

I came up with another design, which I still havent gotten around to sending to the DOJ to get a letter, which falls short of the drastic welding the mag in place option, but requires the removal of the mag catch to service/replace the magazine. In speaking with Iggy, he did not disapprove of the idea outright, however he could not approve it either without seeing it and playing with it. I also spoke to him about other possibilities.

What I learned from my conversations with him (or at least assumed) is that they're not out to terrorize the gun owners. Well, not everyone there anyways (I will not include the AG in that list LOL). He was a nice guy just trying to do his job, which is enfore existing laws. I would assume that a reasonable attempt at pinning your AR magazines would not be rejected.

As for the method outlined in previous posts of using a bolt and nut to fix the magazine, I would almost assuredly say that it would net you a big fat NO. Too many variables with that design. You'd have to come up with some kind of torque spec for the nut. The variables for that would be too many, inluding individual finger strength (Ahhnold may be able to loosen it with his bare fingers), thread pitch, whether you used a lock washer, antisieze, etc etc.

What MAY work is to use a bolt and nut, and shave the bolt to size so that it sat flush with the end of the nut. Then spot weld the nut to the bolt. If you ever need to service or replace the magazine, just grind down the welds, and reweld when finished. Just a thought for you guys.

Christian

grammaton76
03-01-2006, 4:51 PM
What MAY work is to use a bolt and nut, and shave the bolt to size so that it sat flush with the end of the nut. Then spot weld the nut to the bolt. If you ever need to service or replace the magazine, just grind down the welds, and reweld when finished. Just a thought for you guys.

Hmm, might want to ask him about the flush-mounted bolts that some of the other guys have been doing on here, then. It would remove individual finger strength from the equation, that's for sure.

xenophobe
03-01-2006, 7:18 PM
I'm pretty sure that if you use the blind pin method with a long set screw AND use something like the Sporting Conversions kit in tandem, you should be just fine.

Having two different devices to keep the mag in place would surely get you a pat on the back by the DOJ. Not that I don't find that nauseating, to say the least, but I'm pretty confident that you would not have to worry about the legality of your rifle...

So in essence, you would need to remove your converted non-mag release, and then a allen screw blocking the mag (similar to how Vulcan blind pins) to remove the magazine. That's about as secure as you can make it, while still leaving room to remove or replace the magazine, if ever necessary.

artherd
03-01-2006, 9:36 PM
DOJ does not MAKE law. They also do not strictly speaking interperet law.

What DOJ does and is charged with is the application of law as it pertains to prosecution.

The Judicial system (ie the courts) MAKE and INTERPERET law. Period.

DOJ can say that my bolted mag is illegal and direct a DA to prosecute. They can also say it's illegal for me to have a black Chevy 3500HD and direct a DA to prosecute.

In both cases, the judge is going to find in my favor, period. Anyone uncomfortable with having to defend themselves in a court of law should not own a fixed mag AR, or a black 3500HD for that matter.

dbol
03-01-2006, 9:44 PM
If we're going to get all technical, the judicial system doesn't actually make law. Sure, it can seem like it they do sometimes, but making law is really within the purview of our legislative bodies.

BTW, there's no way I would own a black 3500HD - I don't want to go to jail!

donger
03-01-2006, 10:05 PM
What's all the yelling about? Interpretation of the law seems really simple in this case.

Let's see:

Hammer=Tool
Screwdriver=Tool
Wrench=Tool
Pulley=Tool
Incline=Tool
Tip of Cartridge=Tool
Makita Drill=Tool

A chimp with a stick digging for ants=Tool

Allen wrench=TOOL

xenophobe
03-01-2006, 10:56 PM
DOJ does not MAKE law. They also do not strictly speaking interperet law.

What DOJ does and is charged with is the application of law as it pertains to prosecution.

The Judicial system (ie the courts) MAKE and INTERPERET law. Period.


If the DOJ cannot interpret the law, why have they not returned the Milpitas receivers?

The fact is that DOJ interprets the law. DAs interpret the law. Police officers in many cases are required to interpret the law. They are all responsible for interpreting the law in a reasonable manner. If an errant police officer is PISSED OFF at you, surely he can arrest you with whatever violations he sees fit. It is up to the DA to determine if the police officer has arrested you in accordance to the law. At this point the DA will charge you with the violations, release you, or seek to add charges. Then you may go to court to determine if the charges placed against you are true. Interpretation may be necessary in each step of the process.

The law is determined by either ballot initiative or through the legislature. The courts may invalidate it, or provide clarification, but they cannot create new law.

tenpercentfirearms
03-01-2006, 11:03 PM
Why all this back and forth? Until someone gets a letter back about the Sporting Conversions kit, don't take one out in public. It is that simple. It doesn't matter what the DOJ does or says, you just have to ask yourself if it is worth the lawyer fees to go out and do it. It either is or it isn't. Until we get a letter or a case to watch, all this talk is senseless. Actions speak louder than words. Like many of you, it is frustrating that the DOJ has to spread rumors and lies in order to intimidate law abiding citizens instead of just telling the truth. However, that is the way the game is played.

SI-guru
03-01-2006, 11:48 PM
TPF,
Here is the question I would like to know, when you sell these kits to customers, do you tell them :
a) Don't worry, this is 100% legal to the letter of the law, just use it and enjoy it
b) I am not sure, so don't use it in a public range and if you get arrested, here's the warning I give you, don't sue me
c) No I don't think it is legal, don't use it

or ........ ?

tenpercentfirearms
03-02-2006, 5:38 AM
http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/acc.htm#sc

Go to the Sporting Conversions section and read for yourself. No one wanted to hear this rumor less than me, but I am honest with my customers. Some people would say honest to my own fault.

Omega13device
03-02-2006, 6:19 AM
The Judicial system (ie the courts) MAKE and INTERPERET law. Period.


I think you're just a bit off but someone can correct me if I'm wrong:

- The legislature makes the laws.

- The law enforcement agencies (such as the DOJ) enforce them.

- The courts interpret them and if there is a disagreement about how the law applies to a particular case, they decide.

While it's true that a DOJ opinion isn't the final word on legality, I would imagine that if the DOJ opines IN WRITING that something is legal, that would carry a lot of weight with the DA. The DA would know that you would call Bill Lockyer or Alison Merrilees as a witness and either of them would make for powerful testimony on your behalf. Somehow I don't see a jury convicting you when the DOJ testifies that what you did was legal.

Of course, going to court is an ugly, expensive experience even if you win.