PDA

View Full Version : Permanent Mag Lancing


goodlookin1
06-18-2010, 10:05 AM
Hey guys,

Quick question on making a 10/30 magazine. California states that any magazine purchased beginning January of 2000 must be able to hold no more than 10 rounds and be permanently so. My question is this: OLL AR-15's and the like are sooo easy to convert to a detachable magazine, thus making it an "assault weapon", so if you're going out of state, you can change it really quick either by switching out the BB for a regular release or adding a screw on button or something allowing it to release with the push of a finger. Making it so easy to reconfigure it into an "assault weapon", why are magazines forced into being permanently lanced? What if we want to take those out of state and use them as 30 rounders where it is free and legal? Well now you cant. I mean, any way you look at it, if you're caught owning/using a magazine that was purchased after 1999 and holds more than 10 rounds, it's illegal, so why the charades about the permanent part? They can still bust you if it holds more than 10 rounds at any time (and illegally imported/owned)....

I would think that CA forcing a legal citizen to do something like this with personal property would be unconstitutional. Then again, I really am not surprised at all...

mtptwo
06-18-2010, 10:12 AM
Regulation of personal property is the norm. Your house needs to be within code, your car must be maintained to be driven on the roads, etc....

Barabas
06-18-2010, 10:44 AM
Taking out the mag block, rivet or "lance" is manufacturing a high-capacity magazine, which is a different issue altogether than creating an assault weapon by illegally configuring an otherwise featureless or non-detachable magazine rifle.

You have the unrealistic expectation that the laws are sensible. They aren't, which is why the flowchart (http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf)is so helpful.

goodlookin1
06-18-2010, 10:47 AM
I know they are not sensible. It's just frustrating to read it and make sense of it. Whenever I dive into the law, my mind swirls with "What were they thinking?"

Does anyone know where the Hi cap mag laws are found? I was reading up on PC Section 12020.(19-29) and didnt see where the 10 rounds issue was coming from....nor where it says it must be permanent. Anyone know where it is?

Barabas
06-18-2010, 10:54 AM
Somebody jump in here if I'm remembering incorrectly, but I believe "Permanently fixing" magazines to be ten rounds (the max allowable to be sold, transferred or manufactured for use in California, currently) was in a DOJ memo, which was more of a "we'll let you get away with this, for now" sort of reply.

I can't find the memo in my archives, so if someone has a link, I'd love to see it.

Flopper
06-18-2010, 12:09 PM
Somebody jump in here if I'm remembering incorrectly, but I believe "Permanently fixing" magazines to be ten rounds (the max allowable to be sold, transferred or manufactured for use in California, currently) was in a DOJ memo, which was more of a "we'll let you get away with this, for now" sort of reply.

I can't find the memo in my archives, so if someone has a link, I'd love to see it.

I've never heard of it, but the bigger question is "why does this matter?"

EDIT: see post #14 below for clarification of my question.

Barabas
06-18-2010, 12:11 PM
Why does what matter?

bwiese
06-18-2010, 12:50 PM
I've been a real arsehole on this subject ("permanence" of restriction to 10rds) in the past.

I'm slightly backing off now (some, but not THAT much).

"Permanence" in relation to this subject is not defined in Penal Code nor actual implemented regulation

Yes, I think your mags should be well-restricted to hold 10rds. But you don't neccesarily need to quite get to the "it takes a nuclear weapon to disassemble the mag". Rivets/epoxy or epoxied block should suffice - but don't just strip off the baseplate and throw in a wood block or sheet metal "U" block.

We do have grounds for what DOJ thinks 'permanence' is because:



In 2006 DOJ FD (before transition to BoF) attempted to define the term 'permanence'
in relation to their cancelled regulatory attempt to redefine "detachable magazine".
The intent was to go way beyond Bullet Buttons & screw-down Prince50s, etc.: they
started listing things like epoxy, rivets, etc. I don't have the details at hand anymore,
but they are fairly consonant w/what I wrote above.
.
The former DOJ FD approved the Vulcan fixed-mag AR using simple pin/epoxy mount
(which could be manhandled open "gorilla style"). This supposedly was 'permanent'
to "take it out of AR "series" consideration according to DOJ's Iggy. (The "Series"
concept had nothing to do with it due to Harrott, but this shows their concept of
"permanence" at the time.)
.
Especially important is that DOJ has approved/Rostered hundreds of handguns with
10rd mags that - with only minor tweaks (i.e., drill out or cut out a bulge, etc.) - can
have greater-than-10 capacity restored.

Remember that a handgun is Rostered/ approved by DOJ for sale as an operational
whole, and thus includes the magazine: such magazines (and their equivalents or
replacements) are approved for general sale/use in Calif. There simply can't be any
differential standards on permanence or ability to restore capacity for some types of
mags but not others.



With recent DOJ BoF staff rejiggering and upper-level BoF management changes, there is vastly reduced concern over "inappropriate overagressiveness" in relation to such gunlaw matters. This BoF appears to now be largely depoliticized. The Bureau's goal appears to be back to running DROSes and keeping guns from felons, etc. In this situation a clear best effort is sufficient: a reasonable effort at permanence to get to 10rds should be sufficient.

The above statment of DOJ reduction of 'overzealous overaggressiveness' should still carry a "Don't be friggin' stupid!" warning:
make good efforts at this, check your work. Or buy 10(/30) mags from reputable vendors: there's a big help if the mag is actually sold as a 10rounder and you buy in good faith. From a solely practical standpoint, drama will only be at the local LE level (i.e., traffic stop/crime lab) - and if the mag holds only 10 in the caliber for which it's designed, it'll be OK. If you've done your work CGF can help you if anything happens, which at this point is pretty remote. Again, don't be stupid.

goodlookin1
06-18-2010, 12:50 PM
I've never heard of it, but the bigger question is "why does this matter?"

I've heard it said many a time that any unassembled high capacity magazines brought into CA must be permanently assembled with a 10 round lance/block so as to not be in violation of importation of a high capacity magazine.

But I cannot find the Penal Code Section that talks about the requirement for permanently blocking off a high cap mag via rivet, epoxy, welding, etc. I'd like to know because I dont want to have to permanently block it off if I dont have to. If, indeed, the PC states that you must do this, then I do not want to be in violation of that and will be forced to glue it up. But if it is not in there, then it would enable me to disassemble and reassemble to high capacity when going out of state.

That's why it matters :rolleyes:

goodlookin1
06-18-2010, 12:58 PM
In this situation a clear best effort is sufficient: a reasonable effort at permanence to get to 10rds should be sufficient.[/indent]

Thank you for your insight, Bill.

Crazy glue it is :D

bwiese
06-18-2010, 1:09 PM
Goodlookin1,

1.) Epoxy, JBWeld, etc. may be better than Krazy glue. Others can speak up on this better.
Clean/sand surfaces to avoid oil/lube interfering with adhesive bond.

Also, don't glue to painted surface; the bond is then only as strong as the paint holds to the
surface [as opposed to the high degree of adherence btwn the glue and the paint; it doesn't
matter if the adhesive 'holds a ton' if the paint it's glued to peels off with 5lbs force!!!]

2.) Your questions about the differences - i.e, yeah we have maglocks like Bullet Buttons that
aren't 'permanent' but the mag capacity restriction is permanent - are based on sound logic.

Unfortunately don't expect logic in gun laws - or we wouldn't suffer these idiocies anyway.

But in partial answer to your question, the hicap mag laws and the AW laws are separate bodies
of law - different timing, writers, etc. So there's little concept off consistency; these laws were
passed for 'feel good' reasons and had nothing to do with stopping crime.

Exile Machine
06-18-2010, 1:39 PM
...OLL AR-15's and the like are sooo easy to convert to a detachable magazine, thus making it an "assault weapon"

Converting an OLL AR-15 to detachable magazine does not make it an assault weapon. If the prohibited features (CA PC 12276.1(a)(1)(A-F)) are removed, detachable magazine centerfire rifles are legal in CA.


if you're caught owning/using a magazine that was purchased after 1999 and holds more than 10 rounds, it's illegal, [...] they can still bust you if it holds more than 10 rounds at any time (and illegally imported/owned)....

The police can bust you for anything they like of course but possession, ownership, and use of Large Capacity Magazines is not illegal in CA. Read CA PC 12020(a)(2) (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php) to see which activities are actually illegal.

-Mark
Exile Machine LLC

caoboy
06-18-2010, 1:47 PM
Why don't you buy hi cap rebuild kits, and just keep those for when u go out of state? Wouldn't that be easier than trying to weasel around the law? It is not a smart law, but I still wouldn't want to get into trouble over interpreting and trying to get around it.

K.I.S.S!

Flopper
06-18-2010, 1:55 PM
Why does what matter?

I'm sorry I was somewhat ambiguous and upon rereading it the tone seemed hostile, so let me clarify.

What is it about that memo that is important?

Is there some way this memo would be useful to expanding RKBA?

Also if this memo exists, what basis do they have to say that a 10 round mag has to be "10 round mag size?" As in, a 10/30 or 10/20 would somehow be forbidden because it's "too big" even though it can still only hold 10 rounds. That would seem to me to be impossible to regulate, because what determines "too big?" Five inches, 1/8 inch, what?

It just sounds like more unenforceable BoF ill logic with some bark and no bite.

goodlookin1
06-18-2010, 1:55 PM
Goodlookin1,

1.) Epoxy, JBWeld, etc. may be better than Krazy glue. Others can speak up on this better.
Clean/sand surfaces to avoid oil/lube interfering with adhesive bond.

Also, don't glue to painted surface; the bond is then only as strong as the paint holds to the
surface [as opposed to the high degree of adherence btwn the glue and the paint; it doesn't
matter if the adhesive 'holds a ton' if the paint it's glued to peels off with 5lbs force!!!]

2.) Your questions about the differences - i.e, yeah we have maglocks like Bullet Buttons that
aren't 'permanent' but the mag capacity restriction is permanent - are based on sound logic.

Unfortunately don't expect logic in gun laws - or we wouldn't suffer these idiocies anyway.

But in partial answer to your question, the hicap mag laws and the AW laws are separate bodies
of law - different timing, writers, etc. So there's little concept off consistency; these laws were
passed for 'feel good' reasons and had nothing to do with stopping crime.

Hmm....better for me, or better for California! I was just kidding about the crazy glue anyhow ;)

As to my logic, I know I was applying one section's logic to another. Still, ideally it should be the same. We have some real bozo's writing the laws here these days...most of which wont change a friggin thing. All feel good, knee-jerk reactions and even outright hostile laws.

goodlookin1
06-18-2010, 2:02 PM
Why don't you buy hi cap rebuild kits, and just keep those for when u go out of state? Wouldn't that be easier than trying to weasel around the law? It is not a smart law, but I still wouldn't want to get into trouble over interpreting and trying to get around it.

K.I.S.S!

I understand that would be easier. And that's what I would probably do. But I have a Grendel and those magazines arent as easy to come by. If I am ever lucky enough to get the opportunity to move out of this God forsaken state, however....I want to be able to convert the mags back without damaging them.

Secondly, where is the PC Section of the law that says it must be permanent? I have yet to see it in the Penal Code stating this.....maybe I just missed it? Or is it like Barabas said (it's mentioned in a Memo from the DOJ)? Memo's arent always LAW, but rather "interpretation" of the written law. This is especially important if it hasnt yet been upheld by a court precedent.

Barabas
06-18-2010, 2:03 PM
I'm sorry I was somewhat ambiguous and upon rereading it the tone seemed hostile, so let me clarify.

What is it about that memo that is important?

I'm wanting to understand if you're getting at something useful here, like another underground regulation or something similar.

No worries, that's all I was asking for, clarification.

The memo is important only to understand what limits the DOJ was placing on itself in the prosecution of "bad" permanently attached magazines. They were all queued up to start hauling people in over "permanence" of converted mags before things changed over there, or so Iggy would have had everyone believe.

Bill got closer to the issue in Post #8 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4476434&postcount=8) than I did, so I'll refer you there.

Flopper
06-18-2010, 2:04 PM
No worries, that's all I was asking for, clarification.

The memo is important only to understand what "limits" the DOJ was placing on itself in the prosecution of "bad" permanently attached magazines. They were all queued up to start hauling people in over "permanence" before things changed over there.

Bill got closer to the issue in Post #8 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4476434&postcount=8) than I did, so I'll refer you there.

Gotcha, thanks.