PDA

View Full Version : Fixed mag question


m24armorer
04-14-2006, 10:47 PM
You know I read the law as they wrote it. I just came up with a kit that requires a (quote) tool to remove the magazine. Gee, thats nothing new except for the fact that it uses a 5.56 round to push in a mag latch that is not finger friendly.

All in all you just stick a .223 round (bullet point) into the the catch, the mag just pops out like normal and you insert your fresh 10 round magazine. Gee, the law states a bullet is a tool so I am sure that following the exact letter of the law as it is written means it is OK, sure it is. Iggy Who?

blkA4alb
04-14-2006, 11:11 PM
You know I read the law as they wrote it. I just came up with a kit that requires a (quote) tool to remove the magazine. Gee, thats nothing new except for the fact that it uses a 5.56 round to push in a mag latch that is not finger friendly.

All in all you just stick a .223 round (bullet point) into the the catch, the mag just pops out like normal and you insert your fresh 10 round magazine. Gee, the law states a bullet is a tool so I am sure that following the exact letter of the law as it is written means it is OK, sure it is. Iggy Who?
to my knowledge, no. the law reads that it requires tools and time. using a bullet as a tool is not recommended, and may not even be allowed. im sure someone else knows the exact answer, you may want to delete this fairly soon...and sorry to burst your bubble, but thats not a new idea either.

slick_711
04-14-2006, 11:12 PM
Could it be released by a gloved finger? Sounds like you have something *technically* within the law, but I doubt DOJ would see it that way. :(

blacklisted
04-14-2006, 11:14 PM
Maybe you read the law regarding fixed mags, but you didn't read the relevant assault weapon laws. As soon as you drop the mag, your gun is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and if you have a pistol grip and/or flash supressor, you've created an assault weapon.

If you want to have a detachable mag, you can't have a pistol grip!

BTW, the law doesn't say tool + time, that's just Bill's "extra bit". Having it take time is just a good idea.

"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."

So, DONT DO THIS. IT IS NOT LEGAL!

m24armorer
04-14-2006, 11:26 PM
Gee, I am really the FNG here and I do not know alot about guns but I can read plain english as written in law. The key word is detachable and how it is used.

blacklisted
04-14-2006, 11:31 PM
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:

▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action

▪ a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;

▪ a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;

▪ a forward pistol grip.


When you take the magazine out, the gun is "capable of accepting detachable magazines".

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.

This applies to the "ammunition feeding device" when it is attached to the firearm (it is non-detachable), but when you remove it, the gun is still capable of accepting a detachable magazine.

blacklisted
04-14-2006, 11:34 PM
Believe me, if it was legal people would be doing it. Many people have brought it up before, only to have their hopes and dreams crushed.

If you have to take the fixed mag out for any reason, other evil features have to be removed (even if it's just the lower half).

m24armorer
04-14-2006, 11:34 PM
Read your own quote " tool not being required". A bullet is a tool and was written into law.

blacklisted
04-14-2006, 11:36 PM
Read your own quote " tool not being required". A bullet is a tool and was written into law.

It does not matter. The moment you use the dool to remove the magazine, the gun is capable of accepting a detachable magazine. What's so hard to understand?

The definition of "detachable magazine" applies to how the magazine is removed, not how you can insert new ones.

If the receiver has an open magwell at any time with a pistol grip installed, it's an assault weapon.

m24armorer
04-14-2006, 11:42 PM
WE are still back to the detach mag thing, READ the law. Detach without a tool is evil. The law allows the use of a tool for a mag change as long as it is a 10 rnd mag. SB23 features define the detach mag. You have to use a TOOL to remove the mag not install it. If it requires a tool to change mags it is not considered a detach mag.

My opinion

blacklisted
04-14-2006, 11:43 PM
WE are still back to the detach mag thing, READ the law. Detach without a tool is evil. The law allows the use of a tool for a mag change as long as it is a 10 rnd mag. SB23 features define the detach mag. You have to use a TOOL to remove the mag not install it. If it requires a tool to change mags it is not considered a detach mag.

My opinion

Your opinion is false and could get people in trouble. Detach without a tool is not really what's evil, it's the CAPABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE. As soon as you remove the magazine, the firearm is capable of accepting a detachable magazine. The magazine itself is not modified to become "non-detachable", it is just fixed to the frame of the firearm (this makes the gun have a non-detachable "ammunition feeding device"). If you remove this, you have an open magazine well that can accept detachable magazines.

GTKrockeTT
04-14-2006, 11:44 PM
i thought we were over these mag threads...:rolleyes:

m24armorer
04-14-2006, 11:46 PM
Quote:"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."

What part of use of tool do you not understand.

blkA4alb
04-14-2006, 11:47 PM
i thought we were over these mag threads...:rolleyes:
dont we all wish, and yes i was wrong about the time part.

blacklisted
04-14-2006, 11:48 PM
Quote:"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."

What part of use of tool do you not understand.

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:

▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action

▪ a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;

▪ a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;

▪ a forward pistol grip.

What part of this don't you understand?

blacklisted
04-14-2006, 11:55 PM
You really have to look at it from the enemy's perspective. These laws were not written by firearms experts, so they often conflict. Even if you don't have a mag catch installed, they would argue that it can accept a detachable magazine (that you could hold in place with your hand).

The current design for a fixed mag is a nut that holds that magazine in place and can not be unscrewed by hand. If you were to remove the magazine from the gun (with the pistol grip still on), you would have an assault weapon.

PanzerAce
04-14-2006, 11:57 PM
ok, time to get mean:

m24, you are not doing yourself or any one else a favor by following this train of thought. I know of atleast 2 other threads that brought this up, but those people were not nearly so stubborn about this. So I looked up the definition for you:

ca·pa·bil·i·ty
n. pl. ca·pa·bil·i·ties

The quality of being capable; ability.
A talent or ability that has potential for development or use. Often used in the plural: a student of great capabilities.
The capacity to be used, treated, or developed for a specific purpose: nuclear capability.now, its the first one that interests us. notice it says that capability = ability. Once you have an open mag well that you can put a magazine it, it is ABLE to accept a magazine. If you have to insert a magazine, it is detachable:

de·tach
tr.v. de·tached, de·tach·ing, de·tach·es
To separate or unfasten; disconnect: detach a check from the checkbook; detach burs from one's coat.
Notice, specifically the first definition. Now do you see why we are telling you this is not legal?

And as a warning, dont try and get in a flame war on here, the admins tend not to like it. blacklisted is a respected member here, and to put it bluntly, you are the FNG, so I suggest you lurk for a bit longer and use the search feature.

and have a nice day :D

m24armorer
04-14-2006, 11:59 PM
Read: Tool, I think the law states a cartridge (bullet) is a tool. It has to be used to remove the magazine. Without the use of a tool it is considered a detachable mag. Keyword TOOL!

blacklisted
04-14-2006, 11:59 PM
Some previous threads that discussed this very topic:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28442&highlight=detachable+magazine+requires+tool

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=29050&highlight=detachable+magazine+requires+tool

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28304&highlight=detachable+magazine+requires+tool

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=27370&highlight=detachable+magazine+requires+tool

blacklisted
04-15-2006, 12:00 AM
Read: Tool, I think the law states a cartridge (bullet) is a tool. It has to be used to remove the magazine. Without the use of a tool it is considered a detachable mag. Keyword TOOL!

This is correct, but irrelevant. If the magazine requires a tool to remove, it is non-detachable. But then you have an open magazine well capable of accepting a detachable magazine.

You could have a box of "detachable magazines" and use them to reload the gun. The gun is accepting these "detachable magazines".

The actual definition of "detachable magazine" and "non detachable magazine" is weird, because when the magazines are not attached to the gun they are just plain old magazines. You see, I'm very tired right now and I don't know how to effectively communicate this. Tomorrow I'm going to go to orchard and buy what I need to fix my mag. :D

That's all for now. If you decide to try "your" idea, make sure you secure legal representation, because you're probably going to need it.

PanzerAce
04-15-2006, 12:01 AM
Read: Tool, I think the law states a cartridge (bullet) is a tool. It has to be used to remove the magazine. Without the use of a tool it is considered a detachable mag. Keyword TOOL!

read: capability. But since it appears that you dont have any intent to understand the law, I think that further comment on this thread is wasted. Im sure that blacklisted also has more important stuff to do (such as update a certain website).

GTKrockeTT
04-15-2006, 12:04 AM
Read: Tool, I think the law states a cartridge (bullet) is a tool. It has to be used to remove the magazine. Without the use of a tool it is considered a detachable mag. Keyword TOOL!

are you for real? wow...:eek:

m24armorer
04-15-2006, 12:13 AM
Okay, I really did not want to piss anyone off here. But look at the law. Would someone define detachable as used in the CA penal code.

Does the CA penal code anywhere include the fact that a tool is required for a magazine change.

Define tool as it is defined in CA law regarding detachable magazines.

It takes a tool to remove, not install.

Now I will just shut up and leave you fine folks.

blacklisted
04-15-2006, 12:15 AM
Okay, I really did not want to piss anyone off here. But look at the law. Would someone define detachable as used in the CA penal code.

Does the CA penal code anywhere include the fact that a tool is required for a magazine change.

Define tool as it is defined in CA law regarding detachable magazines.

It takes a tool to remove, not install.

Now I will just shut up and leave you fine folks.

I don't think anyone is pissed, just frustrated that we can't explain it :(

Here's one thing to think about. Let's say you are using a 9mm upper, and you have an open magazine well with a magazine release buttong that must be pushed with a tool to remove a magazine. The 9mm magazine is much smaller, and you could just hold it in place, bypassing the magazine catch and button altogether. Your gun would be capable of accepting a detachable magazine! Something to think about.

GTKrockeTT
04-15-2006, 12:16 AM
I don't think anyone is pissed, just frustrated that we can't explain it :(

i think IT has been explained quite clearly. IT just hasn't been understood.;)

creampuff
04-15-2006, 12:17 AM
m24,
Be careful, most debates in forums like these, are more academic than practical. However, this argument can potentially result in committing a felony vs not committing a felony. The several posts above are trying to keep you from committing one.

From a practical point of view, think of the LEO at the range, who sees a person dropping mags in between reloading. Whether you are using a bullet, an allen wrench, or a pencil - your AR is detachable and not fixed.

blacklisted
04-15-2006, 12:21 AM
m24,
Be careful, most debates in forums like these, are more academic than practical. However, this argument can potentially result in committing a felony vs not committing a felony. The several posts above are trying to keep you from committing one.

From a practical point of view, think of the LEO at the range, who sees a person dropping mags in between reloading. Whether you are using a bullet, an allen wrench, or a pencil - your AR is detachable and not fixed.

Yep, you definately have to consider the cop that busts you, and the DA that has a case against you.

The reasonable person can not be expected to understand laws that those who enforce them can't even understand. But we have to work with the laws for the time being.

GTKrockeTT
04-15-2006, 12:25 AM
blacklisted, if there was ever such an award, you have my nomination for the calgunners merit of diplomacy.

NeoWeird
04-15-2006, 12:27 AM
Hopefully this will end this discussion (and possibly garner me "mucho respecto" :p)

Ok, so here is the part of the code I plan on quoting:

12021.5. (a) Every person who carries a loaded or unloaded firearm on his or her person, or in a vehicle, during the commission or attempted commission of any street gang crimes described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 186.22, shall, upon conviction of the felony or attempted felony, be punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years in the court's discretion. The court shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of sentence.
(b) Every person who carries a loaded or unloaded firearm together with a detachable shotgun magazine, a detachable pistol magazine, a detachable magazine, or a belt-feeding device on his or her person, or in a vehicle, during the commission or attempted commission of any street gang crimes described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 186.22, shall, upon conviction of the felony or attempted felony, be punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years in the court's discretion. The court shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of sentence.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Detachable magazine" means a device that is designed or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and directly into the loading mechanism of a rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.

Note that this is NOT the portion of the law that deals with Assault Weapons, however it precedes it and since "Detachable Magazine" is not redefined we can assume that the definition still applies.

The key part to take note is this:
(1) "Detachable magazine" means a device that is designed or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and directly into the loading mechanism of a rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.

Last time I checked, a spring loaded AR magazine release was designed that a magazine could be pushed in without depressing it. Yes, it may require you to use a tool to remove the magazine, but once the magazine well is open all you have to do is shove another up in it and you will have attached the magazine to the rifle and then your goose is cooked.

Like said, it's not a good idea. Now if you were to redesign the magrelease that it would require you to use a tool to also attach it, then you may have something. Keep in mind though, that as pointed out, if it can be held up the firearm and feed ammunition as is described in the definition of (c) then it is a detachable magazine. What you would need to do is create a lock that would dissable the ability of the mag to be pushed up all the way, that requires a tool to disable, and also a tool to remove it. Once you have something like that, THEN you can think about it. Even then it is questionable at best though, and should be avoided at all costs.

Thank you and you're welcome.

m24armorer
04-15-2006, 12:36 AM
Yup, if I was dumb enough to have a rifle that all I had to do was hold the mag in without a catch I guess that would qualify as to not using a tool to remove it. So I would be in violation. The whole question is in the way the law is written regarding detachable and it says the use of a tool to change magazines is the issue.

blacklisted
04-15-2006, 12:38 AM
Yup, if I was dumb enough to have a rifle that all I had to do was hold the mag in without a catch I guess that would qualify as to not using a tool to remove it. So I would be in violation. The whole question is in the way the law is written regarding detachable and it says the use of a tool to change magazines is the issue.

Hopefully they will hurry up and list (and not stick with the Feb. 1st memo) so that we can stop worrying about things like this.

NeoWeird
04-15-2006, 12:38 AM
The whole question is in the way the law is written regarding detachable and it says the use of a tool to change magazines is the issue.

You do understand though that it is MORE than just needing a tool to REMOVE it, right?

m24armorer
04-15-2006, 12:41 AM
Book em Dano!

m24armorer
04-15-2006, 12:53 AM
I so trust him and I know he is always right.....

dbol
04-15-2006, 12:54 AM
It's worth noting in this discussion that the position taken by blacklisted, et al is, IMO, a conservative interpretation of the law, crafted to avoid controversy with law enforcement.
A reasonable mind could certainly conceive of a more liberal interpretation that would encompass our new friend's idea (although this idea isn't new). I believe that a rifle constructed so that each time and mag was inserted it would lock into place and could only be removed with the use of a tool would comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law.

That being said, I think anyone not using the break open method to reload (i.e. not using the more conservative mag lock techniques) would be subjected to greater scrutiny by law enforcement and therefore would run a greater risk of being brought up on AW charges.

In short - I think that what m24armorer is proposing could reasonably be interpreted as complying with the law, but I'm not going to be the first one out there doing it.

m24armorer
04-15-2006, 1:00 AM
It's good to see someone paying attention.

PanzerAce
04-15-2006, 1:09 AM
first off, sorry for being confrontational.

second, while it may be perfectly ok to take the more liberal view of the law, then I would suggest you hire a lawyer FIRST.

megavolt121
04-15-2006, 1:38 PM
M24

If you are so sure that your idea would work, why don't you write the DOJ and ask for approval?

In the accounting world, we practice conservatisim. If I screw up, I might cost you some $, possibly a job. If you screw up in this case, you can cost your freedom and ability to own guns in the future.

I agree with you on the definition of "tool', but your biggest problem is the part of the law that states something along the lines of capability to accept a detachable mag.

bwiese
04-15-2006, 2:34 PM
I'm getting tired of hearing all these bright boys thinking they've got a way of skirting around something. We've pushed the limits all we can - they're just LOOKING for someone to bust.

The operative definition of detachable magazine, as applied to assault weapons, is in Calif Code of Regulations sec 978.20(a), and, fortunately, is one of the better-written definitions (far better than for pistol grip):

'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."

Remember that 'fixed magazine' has no definition, we are staying away from detachable magazine.

If it requires a tool or disassembly of action, it is not a detachable magazine.

Thus, screwed down fixed magazines eminently pass this test - perhaps with lockwashers and a bit of ThreadLok for security. The mag must be 10rds or less to avoid triggering the alternate 12276.1 definition of assault weapon.

But I discount any scheme that plays games with "remove" against "replace". The goal of the regulation was define mags that could be changed. You might even win the battle, but that mean's you've lost since that battle will be fought in court.

The idea is that it takes "tools plus time" to remove and/or replace - you violate that mantra at your own risk. This is the only thing that keeps the rifle from being a 12276.1-defined assault weapon, so you wanna be "cleaner than Caesar's wife" to avoid triggering this definition.

You're playing with multiple felonies if you don't get this right. I cannot understand all the junior-league gamesmanship on this mag lock thing - sounds like folks wanna be able to change mags when supposedly no one's looking.

THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON TO HAVE AN EASY TO REMOVE FIXED MAG. It just makes things look bad and may make you do a lot more explaining, and /or may make you get a lawyer when you might have not had to have done so.

If you can't afford to take that extra 30sec to remove the fixed mag when you cross over the Nevada border, you must be terminally ill with a fast-advancing disease and really pressed for time.

24thMED
04-15-2006, 2:47 PM
M24 - I think what every one here is trying to prevent is a situation like this, and if you don't think it wouldn't happen, invite Iggy down to the range when you try it.

Scene at the range:
M24 at the range with his offlist, fixed 10 rnd mamgazine AR-15 that has a pistol grip, and requires a tool to remove the magazine. After finishing sending all 10 rounds down range, you turn to Iggy and say, pretty good shooting, huh? I need to reload. Iggy says, that wasn't bad, I like your legal AR-15 with the fixed magazine. You take out your allen wrench and loosen up the nut that holds the magazine in a fixed postion and drop the magazine to the table.

Iggy says, son, I'm going to have to confiscate that weapon and take you to jail. M24 says, WTF, I had to use a tool to remove the magazine? Iggy says, yes you did, but now, with an open magwell that can accept a detachable magazine, we have moved to another area of the law that says you can't have that open magwell with that pistol grip attached to the rifle. You are in possesion of an unlawful assult weapon.

As he is being cuffed, M24 hopefully begins to understand the posts on calguns and more importantly, the law.

Is this a conservative view, IMO, no, I think this is axactly the way it would go down.

xenophobe
04-15-2006, 3:34 PM
Of course the law in it's most liberal reading implies this is alright, but a very strict reading shows that you are in violation. There is no case law that I'm aware of, so a test case would be needed to strictly define what is or is not a detachable magazine. If you lose, no scotch for you. lol

artherd
04-15-2006, 7:37 PM
CCR 978.20(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."

Guys, the determining factor is how a magazine is DE-tatched from a firearm. Not how it is A-tatched.

In this example, any magazines must be DE-tatched from the firearm via use of a tool. Time + tools is not a CA requirement, there are plenty of guns that can be completely disassembled without the use of any tools.

M24 is technically correct, but will probally have to prove it in at least a Supior and then an Appellate court when the Supior convicts him.

m24armorer
04-15-2006, 8:20 PM
When you are losing the game, change the rules. Following the letter of the law is wrong? Again read the whole text.

Henry47
04-15-2006, 8:25 PM
When you are losing the game, change the rules. Following the letter of the law is wrong? Again read the whole text.

I'm not sure why you've created this thread because although you ask for peoples opinions, you have nothing better to state than "requires a TOOL!!!" Everyone here understands what you are talking about, it seems that YOU are too stubborn to see the OTHER side of things. If you wish to drop your mag, DO IT, you've been warned. If an LEO decides to arrest you, please remember what you read here, but if he doesn't, then good job for you.

This thread is going to get nowhere, someone should just lock it

TheMan
04-15-2006, 8:52 PM
That scenario would not happen with my MAG-LOCK as after the mag is taken out the MAG-LOCK can be tightened back down and then a mag cant be attached

All you have to do is spin the allen wrench like 4 turns and the mag can fall free then just tighten it UP and the MAG WELL is secure

But say you just spin the wrench 4 turns so that the mag falls free,and stop there. At that point, it would be capable of accepting a detachable mag, correct? It wouldn't hold the mag in place, but if you stuck a mag in the magwell, a round could feed, and you could remove that mag without the use of a tool?

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but that seems no more or less legal than any of the other fixed mag kits, where people say the only way to remove the mag is to remove all the other features(pistol grip etc.) first.

The method m24 is describing sounds like it complies with the law. A few people here agree, but many seem to think otherwise, and are willing to argue it to death. This time last year though, almost no one thought you could get AR receivers in CA either, and people would argue that to death too.

m24, personally I agree with your interpretation. I've even come up with a few ways to do almost the same thing, myself. I'm just waiting to see how the registration plays out.

Stan_Humphries
04-15-2006, 9:19 PM
Everyone thinks that once M24's mag is dropped via use of a cartridge, that they are now in posession of an AW capable of accepting a detachable magazine. I respectfully disagree.

As I understand it, M24Armorer is talking about a design that requires the use of the cartridge to remove the magazine. Thus, by definition, his magazine is not detachable. As so many point out, the capability to accept a detachable magazine is what bars a centerfire rifle from SB23 feature restrictions.

Many seem to believe that his design, minus a magazine occupying the magwell, would create a rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine; not true.

The definition of detachable magazine relies on the method by which the a magazine can be removed, and M24Armorer is saying that his model requires a cartridge to remove the magazine. Therefore, under the aforementioned definition of detachable magazine, his rifle is incapable of accepting detachable magazines, for any "ammunition feeding device" that could be inserted into that open magwell would require a "tool" (in M24Armorer's case, a cartridge) to remove, and thusly would not be "detachable".


That said, it would be at the discretion of any law enforcement agent or officer to decide whether or not to haul you away.

Here is my advice: If you are going to risk it (I won't on a simple cost/benefit analysis), brush up on your rights as a citizen (4th, 1st and 5th especially). Learn exactly how to handle encounters with police, how to respectfully deny requests for seraches of person, property or place, and finally pre-determine what lawyer you want representing you at the arraignment.

blacklisted
04-15-2006, 9:22 PM
Here is my advice: If you are going to risk it (I won't on a simple cost/benefit analysis), brush up on your rights as a citizen (4th, 1st and 5th especially). Learn exactly how to handle encounters with police, how to respectfully deny requests for seraches of person, property or place, and finally pre-determine what lawyer you want representing you at the arraignment.

This is very important!

Stan_Humphries
04-15-2006, 9:32 PM
And concede the technical legality of such a design under the definitions

And also join in the admonishment of "It's not worth it"

blacklisted
04-15-2006, 10:07 PM
Maybe if the DoJ decides to go with the February 1st memo we can start working on ideas (people are already designing non-pistol grips). But until then, we have to be VERY careful. The reason I say this is that a certain agent was threatening to bust people for using the current fixed mag kits that comply with the letter of the law. We may have someone in trouble right now, their rifle is "under investigation".

I think it can be argued that to a reasonable person the definition of "detachable magazine" (as it applies to the removal of a magazine) would allow for something like this to work (legally). However, it would have to be fought out in court.

I have played out various scenarios in my head in the last few months, and I can see them arguing that an open magwell can accept a "detachable magazine", specifically if it's a 9mm magazine or something else (10mm?).

I don't like it when people post questionable "ideas" like this, because a lot of people are so excited they will try it without considering the possible legal ramifications. I will say that it's not legal, and what a prosecutor might argue. People that want to push the limitis here have to realize that this is a serious matter. You can go to jail and lose your rights for life. All it takes is a fudd at the range that calls the cops, a cop, a traffic stop, an overzealous DA, a bad lawyer...

Everyone talks about having a "test case", but you have to consider that the person that gets charged may not be the best representative for our cause. He may also have an incompentent attorney. Whatever can go wrong will go wrong. I also feel that it is premature to even consider this, because we should only be concerned with this AFTER the list is updated and we have to register.

Ask yourself, is it worth the possible legal problems to save you some time reloading at the range?

Stan_Humphries
04-15-2006, 10:37 PM
So basically Blacklisted is frustrated by people asking questions of legality that would require judicial action to truly answer... But that doesn't stop him from putting forth his point of view as establsihed fact (just see his posts on this thread).

I am glad that he has finally followed the path of reasoning and deviated from that of reaction. For future reference, I would discourage those who utilize faulty reasoning to draw conclusions from offering their opinion as fact...


The ultimate legal responsibility rests upon the individual. Do your best to gain a strong understanding of the law, and choose for yourself how to proceed. Just keep in mind that when you are standing before a judge, saying "The guys on Calguns.net said..." isn't going to absolve you of the charges.

blacklisted
04-15-2006, 10:41 PM
So basically Blacklisted is frustrated by people asking questions of legality that would require judicial action to truly answer... But that doesn't stop him from putting forth his point of view as establsihed fact (just see his posts on this thread).

Yes. :eek:

It's my interpretation. The usual disclaimer applies...

WokMaster1
04-15-2006, 11:48 PM
Gentlemen, I nominate m24 as a test case. Anyone care to second the motion?

:D

Stan_Humphries
04-16-2006, 7:09 AM
Is Semi-Auto Sam is implying...

that he has sought DOJ approval for the product he is selling (the magazine lock) and been threatened with prosecution?

dbol
04-16-2006, 9:37 AM
I don't like it when people post questionable "ideas" like this, because a lot of people are so excited they will try it without considering the possible legal ramifications. I will say that it's not legal, and what a prosecutor might argue. People that want to push the limitis here have to realize that this is a serious matter. You can go to jail and lose your rights for life. All it takes is a fudd at the range that calls the cops, a cop, a traffic stop, an overzealous DA, a bad lawyer...

If I remember correctly, this whole off list lower situation was brought to the forefront by a couple courageous forum members here who were willing to test out, what at the time was, a similarly "questionable idea" (i.e. conforming to the letter of the law, but not yet widely embraced).

It's fine to take a conservative approach, but it should be noted as such. The current off list AR movement is about taking full advantage of what is allowed under the law (nb., people purchasing RRA lowers in CA); the non-novel idea put forth by m24armorer in this thread is merely an extension of the same.

There's no need to egg people on to aggressively test the limits of the law, but by the same token, there's no need for arbitrary paternalism.

blacklisted
04-16-2006, 11:58 AM
If I remember correctly, this whole off list lower situation was brought to the forefront by a couple courageous forum members here who were willing to test out, what at the time was, a similarly "questionable idea" (i.e. conforming to the letter of the law, but not yet widely embraced).

It's fine to take a conservative approach, but it should be noted as such. The current off list AR movement is about taking full advantage of what is allowed under the law (nb., people purchasing RRA lowers in CA); the non-novel idea put forth by m24armorer in this thread is merely an extension of the same.

There's no need to egg people on to aggressively test the limits of the law, but by the same token, there's no need for arbitrary paternalism.

That's correct, but nobody went with the lowers until we had letters from the DoJ (even with Harrott being clear). Obviously you don't need a letter in order to know something is legal, but it helps to know that you wont be going to jail.

But like I said, all of this may not be necessary. But if they stick with the February first memo...

blacklisted
04-16-2006, 11:59 AM
Is Semi-Auto Sam is implying...

that he has sought DOJ approval for the product he is selling (the magazine lock) and been threatened with prosecution?

They've been threatening people with prosecution (not usually from them, but from the mysterious "58 DAs") for perfecly legal acts all along. This includes out of state dealers and manufacturers.