PDA

View Full Version : Mini-14: Ruger factory 20 rounder in CA always illegal?


Benellishooter
05-05-2006, 10:38 AM
I have a buddy that has a factory 20 round magazine for his Ruger Mini-14. It has engraved on the side "Restricted for Law Enforcement/Government Use 091494".

He said he bought it at a gunshow years ago. I told him he may want to think about getting rid of it because there is no possible way for him to have ever aquired it legally.

Here is my logic. It is stamped as being manufactured during the federal AWB ban. Therefore, he could not have ever purchased it legally before the federal ban expired. And, after the federal ban expired, he could not have purchased it legally due to the CA magazine ban.

Therefore, if he is found with it, it can be assumed that he committed a crime.

Right?

Major Miner II
05-05-2006, 10:43 AM
I have a buddy that has a factory 20 round magazine for his Ruger Mini-14. It has engraved on the side "Restricted for Law Enforcement/Government Use 091494".

He said he bought it at a gunshow years ago. I told him he may want to think about getting rid of it because there is no possible way for him to have ever aquired it legally.

Here is my logic. It is stamped as being manufactured during the federal AWB ban. Therefore, he could not have ever purchased it legally before the federal ban expired. And, after the federal ban expired, he could not have purchased it legally due to the CA magazine ban.

Therefore, if he is found with it, it can be assumed that he committed a crime.

Right?
All of mine say LE only.

I had a friend send me the bodies to repair mine.

blacklisted
05-05-2006, 10:48 AM
I believe Ruger never sold magazines > 10rd except to LE. They are legal though.

glen avon
05-05-2006, 10:54 AM
Apparently ruger mistakenly sold some 30-rd mags to the public, and did sell 20-rd mags to the public. but there is a matter of how one would have acquired in CA, before 2000, a magazine that was not available (legally) to citizens before 2001.

if ruger never sold replacement parts, the general issue is you either have stolen parts or a mag imported after the ban. or a mag body legally acquired after the 2001 ban expired and sent to CA after the 2000 mag ban. but that's a slender reed, to me, and I would not care to lean on it, and I would never recommend it.

Benellishooter
05-05-2006, 10:55 AM
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that law enforcement could say that it was never possible for him to buy them. Therefore, they are illegal.

Wouldn't he be just asking for trouble if he is stoped by a sheriff while out hunting?

glen avon
05-05-2006, 10:59 AM
yes, very much so. I am not Perry Mason and have *no desire at all* to walk about in public as a living test for internet legal theories based upon technicalities burdens of proof and the like, so I would never walk around or even possess a ruger mag marked "LEO" here in our fair state. others may disagree and they are of course welcome to do so, and I won't argue with their decision to do so. but my advice is not to.

gose
05-05-2006, 11:02 AM
Apparently ruger mistakenly sold some 30-rd mags to the public, and did sell 20-rd mags to the public. but there is a matter of how one would have acquired in CA, before 2000, a magazine that was not available (legally) to citizens before 2001.

if ruger never sold replacement parts, the general issue is you either have stolen parts or a mag imported after the ban. or a mag body legally acquired after the 2001 ban expired and sent to CA after the 2000 mag ban. but that's a slender reed, to me.

Yeah, if he had 20 rounders before the 2000 ban, it would be perfectly legal to replace his broken bodies with ones marked "LE Only -94". Even if Ruger didnt sell spare parts he could have bought the mag body from someone who bought a complete mag and sold it off as parts. The possibility that it is legal does exists and since that pretty much would be the only way to replace a broken mag body in CA, I don't see how it would be that far fetched.

This being CA, he'd probably get into trouble for it anyway...

onley11
05-05-2006, 11:17 AM
Simple possesion isn't illegal, you have to sell, expose for sale, import, or manufacture. They have to prove it. I had a couple of sdpd officers stop me in my el camino. They started to have a small fit over my glock 17 non leo marked gen 4 mags. I told them that I had had them since the ban started and in any case simple possesion was legal. The started making noises about reciepts etc and I reminded them that the law regarded tranferring, and that the burden of proof wasn't on me. When I invited them to check on the penal code,they said that they weren't gonna hassle me about the mags anyway, but maybe I shouldn't carry them in the car unless I was going to or coming from a match. I agreed that this would be a good idea, then they searched my car for a gun for 20 min. When they were feeling me out on the mag thing I DID notice they both had glock 17's.

But bottom line, know the law, don't be stupid, and I wouldn't be caught with leo mags, not because they're illegal, but because they would be a pain in the *** if you were caught with them. Maybe do like my buddy and use them as safe jewelry... or TEOTWAWKI

shopkeep
05-05-2006, 12:04 PM
Many post ban magazine bodies are date stamped and/or say "LE only/Restricted Use". I believe almost ALL Mini-14 20 round mags say "LE Only".

Markings on the tubes don't mean anything. The law allows for repair of pre-ban mags and those of us who have them keep them in top condition. There are some serious built in incentives to take good care of your property when you can never aquire similar property for the rest of your natural life :eek: !!!

You can also rest assured that most pre-ban magazines now include the magpul self leveling follower and possibly other upgrades. Some people upgraded the magazine tubes to the cool new teflon ones that are floating around out there.

stevie
05-05-2006, 12:12 PM
Always illegal, no. I have a couple 20 rounders that are not maked LEO only. I picked mine up when i purchased the rifle in the 1980's..

gh429
05-05-2006, 1:24 PM
Yeah, I have a couple of 20 and 30's that are not marked from the mid 90's...

xenophobe
05-05-2006, 3:34 PM
Apparently ruger mistakenly sold some 30-rd mags to the public, and did sell 20-rd mags to the public. but there is a matter of how one would have acquired in CA, before 2000, a magazine that was not available (legally) to citizens before 2001.

if ruger never sold replacement parts, the general issue is you either have stolen parts or a mag imported after the ban. or a mag body legally acquired after the 2001 ban expired and sent to CA after the 2000 mag ban. but that's a slender reed, to me, and I would not care to lean on it, and I would never recommend it.

The Federal AWB ended in 2004, not 2001.

akjunkie
05-05-2006, 4:28 PM
my 2 cents ... based off memory.

mini 14 was standard issue to the prison guards back in the day... until they traded it in for something better...

used mini 14's and LEO marked Ruger mags sold to general public between 1994 -2004.

i personally saw some 30rd Ruger LEO marked mags at the Great Western Gunshow @ Pomona Fairgrounds back in 97.
i didnt buy any since they were $150 Each!

so LEO marked mags were sold in Cali between 94- PRe y2k and it was totally legal.

glen avon
05-05-2006, 4:40 PM
seeing them for sale at a gun show does not make them legal!!!

LEO agencies were not allowed to sell the mags to the public. citizens were not allowed to buy or sell post-94 hicaps to other citizens. only after 2004 (thanks, xeno) when the fed AW ban expired did citizen ownership of hicap mage become legal.

rmeyer
05-05-2006, 4:53 PM
No doubt imported. With the ending of the AWban the market was flooded with LEO mags. Before the ban ended you didn't see very many now they are all over the place and cheap. I'd hate to be the guy they try to make an example of.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
05-05-2006, 11:37 PM
Yes I know it's a stupid thought, but I can't believe the question hasn't been asked yet. Yes, the burden of proof is on the part of the DA, but tell that to a jury who's been convinced of circumstantial evidence. Here's an alibi I haven't yet heard of that is full of holes: "Yes, the gun this mag is for was manufactured after 94, and i currently have a reg-cap or hi-cap mag for it which I posessed before CA's 2000 law, but after the '94 AWB. So yes I broke the law on the '94 AWB but that law isn't around any more so you can't prosecute me."

*putting asbestos suit on*