"capacity to accept" question

[MonsterMan]

Hello, I had a question maybe some of you can answer. There is a company that is modifying colt and bushmaster rifles by closing up the mag well and now they are doj approved ca-rifles. Well, I talked to the guy who runs it and the mags are not fixed in at all. You can remove them from the top if you move the bolt catch, (for cleaning purposes). Doesn't that fall under the catagory "capable of accepting" a detachable mag? When I talked to the doj about which technique they wanted us to use to alter the reciever so that would be legal, they recommended me this place modding the colt's and bushmasters. Assuming what I have been hearing on this forum about the federal felonly charges about modifying your reciever dosn't count here, (BATF definition of "manufacturing a firearm" is "making any substantive changes to a firearm.") wouldn't this method of having a mag detatch from the top still be illegal in there eyes? Just curious.

MonsterMan

[PanzerAce]

um.........


If the DOJ pointed you at the place selling welded mag bushy and colts, then ignore that, because those are overpriced. Also, remember that the memo has no legal force yet. (atleast, thats what I assume the position of those on CGN).

[MonsterMan]

I realize it was just a memo. I was just to point out a flaw in it and further my education on the matter.

Thanks
MonsterMan

[Unknownassailant]

Seeing how you have to remove the magazine through unconventional means, (breaking rifle open just like FAB10) I don't think thats going to raise any eyebrows if you have to remove it for cleaning. However if you cut open the sealed magwell so that you can remove the magazine the old fashioned way, you definately would be commiting a felony.

[blacklisted]

That's funny.

The GB Sales modified ones would probably have the capacity to accept under their interpretation.

I really do wonder why they reccomend that particular type and no other.

[glen avon]

perhaps instead of being literal and requiring an absolute single shot lower, DOJ was accomodating us by inferring that capacity to accept 10 or less capacity mags was "close enough."

But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. (set to background noise of hand being bitten)

This must instead be a case of Alison Merilees and the Legions of Hell (AKA DOJ) being utterly incompetent, probably due to a food coma from feasting on newborn children and kitten brains. after all, They are out to get us, and we OWN them (hard!!), and They can't be very happy about that.

[DRH]

I think Glen Avon is finally starting to get it! ;)

[blacklisted]

perhaps instead of being literal and requiring an absolute single shot lower, DOJ was accomodating us by inferring that capacity to accept 10 or less capacity mags was "close enough."

But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. (set to background noise of hand being bitten)

This must instead be a case of Alison Merilees and the Legions of Hell (AKA DOJ) being utterly incompetent, probably due to a food coma from feasting on newborn children and kitten brains. after all, They are out to get us, and we OWN them (hard!!), and They can't be very happy about that.


Or perhaps GB sales was lying or mistaken?

Can I purchase ADDITIONAL "MAGAZINES" for the California-Legalrifle?

NO. There are no magazines associated with this rifle. Instead, there is a feeding mechanism inside the magazine well, which can hold a maximum of ten rounds. You cannot buy additional feeding mechanisms, since this is covered by the 100% Lifetime Warranty. If you have any problems at all, including a weakened spring, our gunsmith with fix or replace it at no cost to you. Should this occur, your only responsibility is to get your rifle to their Orange County facility, via common carrier or by dropping it off.



Also, they could get in trouble for ruling that the capability to accept a 10 round mag is OK. That is NOT supported by law.

[blacklisted]

I think Glen Avon is finally starting to get it! ;)

Actually, I'd say that he's starting to lose it.

He's taking the words of a few people here "DOJ got owned" and "they are out to get us" and making it look like they apply to everyone here. He thinks we all have this fantasy that we somehow "owned" the Department of Justice. Perhaps he hasn't realized that it is not necessary, nor is it funny. Or maybe he doesn't care, and just likes to insult people. He brings that and a few other things up every chance he gets.

Instead, he just loves to present the DoJ as caring, nice people that are just trying to do their job. In reality, they are somewhere between that and baby eaters :D

And of course, the entire department is not homogenous in nature.

Oh well, I'm off to go own my Geology final. The babyeating tyrant of a professor has surely cooked up some difficult questions in his neverending quest to oppress me. He does teach at Berkeley after all, and is surely working with the socialsts that conspire to deprive me of my rights.

[AS45-70]

um.........


If the DOJ pointed you at the place selling welded mag bushy and colts, then ignore that, because those are overpriced. Also, remember that the memo has no legal force yet. (atleast, thats what I assume the position of those on CGN).

+1

Run, run away fast from those overpriced rifles and that store.

[leelaw]

"Capacity to accept"

So is this a 30rd capacity to accept, or just a <10rd capacity to accept? :p

[Pthfndr]

Perhaps he hasn't realized that it is not necessary, nor is it funny.

I thought it was hilarious. But then, some people here have called me an elitist who doesn't want anyone else to own an AR :rolleyes:

[6172crew]

When the FAB10 came out I bought one and it came with a letter that said it was legal and something along the lines of: Thanks for adding that rivet in the front of the magwell, we dont want guys taking the magazine out from the top and if the bolt came loose then the owner might be breaking the law or some crap like that.

This isnt any different in that the DOJ doesnt do its job and instead make up the rules as they go along. Why does the FAB10 need a rivet and the bassmaster or whatever he calls it doesnt? Why do some need glue and some dont? Why does the 2 CA legal lowers sold by BM and Vulcan have the same model as the CA ones and the DOJ doesnt seem to mind that both are legal to buy but one can be made into a AW and one cant.


There are a few clowns working under lightbeer who hate guns and those are the guys not doing something about the fact that the laws are just about unenforceable because of the mis- information put out to the public by the people who work in that office. Lightbeers in charge alright, fear and intimidation is the name of his game.

Oh, but if you want to smoke loads of dope and have it sold next door to you then thats ok.:rolleyes:

[gh429]

Hello, I had a question maybe some of you can answer. There is a company that is modifying colt and bushmaster rifles by closing up the mag well and now they are doj approved ca-rifles. Well, I talked to the guy who runs it and the mags are not fixed in at all. You can remove them from the top if you move the bolt catch, (for cleaning purposes). Doesn't that fall under the catagory "capable of accepting" a detachable mag? When I talked to the doj about which technique they wanted us to use to alter the reciever so that would be legal, they recommended me this place modding the colt's and bushmasters. Assuming what I have been hearing on this forum about the federal felonly charges about modifying your reciever dosn't count here, (BATF definition of "manufacturing a firearm" is "making any substantive changes to a firearm.") wouldn't this method of having a mag detatch from the top still be illegal in there eyes? Just curious.

MonsterMan

No, the DOJ specifically approved the Bushy Carbon-15 which is essentially an epoxied baseplate. While the magazine WILL remove from the top, there is NO capacity to accept a detachable magazine because the bottom of the mag-well is sealed shut...

[adamsreeftank]

If the DOJ tells you that the CAlifornicated Bushmasters and Colts are legal, get it in writing. The assault weapons law specifically names these rifles as being illegal AWs, and there are no provisions for the removal of features (in this case the detachable mag) to make it legal. If these were unlisted lowers that were modified or built with closed magwells, that would be one thing, but these are NAMED assault weapons which, by law, can not be converted to a legal rifle regardless of configuration. If this were not the case, it would be legal to buy a stripped Colt or Bushmaster lower, which it is not (except for a couple of unlisted exceptions which are not the ones being used by this company).

[PIRATE14]

If the DOJ tells you that the CAlifornicated Bushmasters and Colts are legal, get it in writing. The assault weapons law specifically names these rifles as being illegal AWs, and there are no provisions for the removal of features (in this case the detachable mag) to make it legal. If these were unlisted lowers that were modified or built with closed magwells, that would be one thing, but these are NAMED assault weapons which, by law, can not be converted to a legal rifle regardless of configuration. If this were not the case, it would be legal to buy a stripped Colt or Bushmaster lower, which it is not (except for a couple of unlisted exceptions which are not the ones being used by this company).

Everyone always manages to overlook this aspect.............:eek:

[blacklisted]

I thought it was hilarious. But then, some people here have called me an elitist who doesn't want anyone else to own an AR :rolleyes:

I used to think it was funny, but now it's just old.

The reason I say it's not necessary is because if it worked, he would have convinced people long ago.

[xenophobe]

Everyone always manages to overlook this aspect.............:eek:

Actually, I've mentioned it several times over the last several months. :p

[gh429]

If the DOJ tells you that the CAlifornicated Bushmasters and Colts are legal, get it in writing. The assault weapons law specifically names these rifles as being illegal AWs, and there are no provisions for the removal of features (in this case the detachable mag) to make it legal. If these were unlisted lowers that were modified or built with closed magwells, that would be one thing, but these are NAMED assault weapons which, by law, can not be converted to a legal rifle regardless of configuration. If this were not the case, it would be legal to buy a stripped Colt or Bushmaster lower, which it is not (except for a couple of unlisted exceptions which are not the ones being used by this company).

Yes, for the Bushmaster Carbon 15 it's in writing. :)

Furthermore, if you're going to get caught with an OLL and a sporting conversion for some other reason such as domestic violence, DUI, etc. (other than speeding, etc.) and the cop takes it in, you WILL get nailed for it. I've spoken with some of my criminal defense and assistant DA buddies, they all agreed that becuase it's apparently a legal gray area, it is to the DA's tactical advantage to nail you for as many charges as they can. What you plead out is up to you. So yeah. Be careful, and remember - pay to play...

[adamsreeftank]

Actually, I've mentioned it several times over the last several months. :p

I knew I had read it somewhere...;)

[xenophobe]

Yes, for the Bushmaster Carbon 15 it's in writing. :)

We're not talking about off list lowers. We're talking about listed lowers that have been permanently modified.

[the_quark]

I've spoken with some of my criminal defense and assistant DA buddies, they all agreed that becuase it's apparently a legal gray area, it is to the DA's tactical advantage to nail you for as many charges as they can. What you plead out is up to you. So yeah. Be careful, and remember - pay to play...

This is yet another reason to always remember to be excellent to your spouse.

[Mark in Eureka]

It appears to me to me you would just have to use a self locking mag lock. Once you install the mag, it will not come back out. The mag lock itself (not the receiver) would have to be destroyed to removed the magazine. Like a security seal used in banking and trucking it is a perment solution since it must be destroyed to remove the magazine. it. That makes it perment. It also should not cost all that much.

[glen avon]

The reason I say it's not necessary is because if it worked, he would have convinced people long ago.
there are still people in this board who actually think that they or others have OWNED DOJ HARD (and that's a quote) through this whole OLL matter. I think that is ludicrous, and I don't think allowing others to come to that misunderstanding is to our benefit. yours, mine, or theirs. this is the internet, where opinions are welcome.

there may yet be fence-sitters or new members who wrongly thing that DOJ is to blame and/or that they are bad actors on a whole. The sooner they are disabused of that notion, the better.

so long as others continue to promote the ridiculous idea that we have defeated DOJ or that DOJ is out to get us and screw us at every turn, I will continue in my struggle to bring some folks on this board to a better understanding.

I am sorry if you find it to be old, but this isn't about you. you may opt to ignore my posts any time you want.

I thought it was hilarious.
Thanks Bro! I try very hard to accomplish my ends through humor.

[TheMan]

so long as others continue to promote the ridiculous idea that we have defeated DOJ or that DOJ is out to get us and screw us at every turn, I will continue in my struggle to bring some folks on this board to a better understanding.


I don't know where people got that idea. Just the other day, I called the DOJ and asked about an buying one of those "unlisted AK series weapons". Not only did they say it was perfectly legal, they also gave me a rundown of where to buy from, how to assemble the kit, and then said they'd send a letter to the out of state FFL I was purchasing from to ensure him it was legal, and he was protected. When the FFL got it, he said the letter specifically recommended he sell as many as he can to CA, and that they even tossed in a piece of candy just to be nice!

Where do people get the idea that the DOJ is trying to screw us? Between the completely honest phone calls, the lack of threatening letters to various out of state manufacturers, the memos that have presented a very consistent story(I think it was just spelling errors changed between them), the way agents went to FFLs like tenpercent to help them handle paperwork, and the way they kindly stored receivers for someone temporarily, the DOJ has been NOTHING but helpful. You keep spreading the truth, Glen. Preach on, brutha!


Thanks Bro! I try very hard to accomplish my ends through humor.

Sweeeet. Let us know when you start up with the funny. :)

[gh429]

I don't know where people got that idea. Just the other day, I called the DOJ and asked about an buying one of those "unlisted AK series weapons". Not only did they say it was perfectly legal, they also gave me a rundown of where to buy from, how to assemble the kit, and then said they'd send a letter to the out of state FFL I was purchasing from to ensure him it was legal, and he was protected. When the FFL got it, he said the letter specifically recommended he sell as many as he can to CA, and that they even tossed in a piece of candy just to be nice!

Where do people get the idea that the DOJ is trying to screw us? Between the completely honest phone calls, the lack of threatening letters to various out of state manufacturers, the memos that have presented a very consistent story(I think it was just spelling errors changed between them), the way agents went to FFLs like tenpercent to help them handle paperwork, and the way they kindly stored receivers for someone temporarily, the DOJ has been NOTHING but helpful. You keep spreading the truth, Glen. Preach on, brutha!

Sweeeet. Let us know when you start up with the funny. :)

I don't think the DOJ is out to screw us (OLL owners) specifically. They are there to justify their own existence like most government agencies. The point I agree with Glen Avon is that we have been poking the 500lbs DOJ gorilla with a stick in the hopes of getting it to do a trick that we want it to do. And finally this 500lbs gorilla laid the smack down on us, and some of us get back up and say "we owned the DOJ hard." Now if we keep poking, maybe we won't be able to get up from the next smack down?

[artherd]

Magazines are neither fixed, nor detachable, untill they are inserted into and subsequently REMOVED from the firearm.

Think about it, or hire someone with a brain to think about it for you and render an opinion.

[artherd]

there are still people in this board who actually think that they or others have OWNED DOJ HARD (and that's a quote)
What if I only think we owned 'em soft?

[blacklisted]

What if I only think we owned 'em soft?

Soft ownage is likely acceptable.

[TheMan]

I don't think the DOJ is out to screw us (OLL owners) specifically. They are there to justify their own existence like most government agencies. The point I agree with Glen Avon is that we have been poking the 500lbs DOJ gorilla with a stick in the hopes of getting it to do a trick that we want it to do. And finally this 500lbs gorilla laid the smack down on us, and some of us get back up and say "we owned the DOJ hard." Now if we keep poking, maybe we won't be able to get up from the next smack down?

Sounds like you are wanting to just roll over, and let that 500lb gorilla have its way with you. News flash, the gorilla is still in its cage, and we are all still safely outside. All we've seen is a little chest beating. But if thats enough to scare you into submission, and you really want to give it up to the gorilla, go ahead. Just don't tell us about it.:)

Your viewpoint about the DOJ putting a "smack down" on "us" is even more questionable than the people who feel they put a "smack down" on the DOJ.

[glen avon]

What if I only think we owned 'em soft?

what if I'm not falling for your tricks? :D

[blacklisted]

Magazines are neither fixed, nor detachable, untill they are inserted into and subsequently REMOVED from the firearm.

Think about it, or hire someone with a brain to think about it for you and render an opinion.

How's this? Let me know if I'm on the right track. I'm pretty sure that I am.

A magazine is simply an ammunition feeding device.

It is the part of the gun that contains and feeds ammunition ,and can be internal and fixed, or removeable.

Once you put the magazine onto a gun, it is detachable (according to the law) if you can remove it readily without the use of tools or disassembly of the action.

Regardless of whether or not you can remove it without tools, the magazine is part of the gun once inserted. It is that gun's ammunition feeding device. If you remove it, the gun has no ammunition feeding device.

While seperate from the gun, a magazine is simply a replacement ammunition feeding device, not attached to a particular gun in any way. It's basically a replacement part.

The terms "detachable" or "fixed" magazine can only apply once the magazine becomes a part of the gun. How could something be detachable or fixed when there is nothing to detach it from or fix it to? :D

A few examples may be helpful:

Any non single shot firearm has a magazine. If the magazine is a permanent part of the gun (internal magazine), it is clearly non detachable according to the law (example: M1 garand). The magazine on the M1 garand is loaded by use of en-bloc clips.

Internal magazines on other rifles (such as the SKS) are loaded with clips as well. If you have a replacement internal SKS magazine sitting next to you, it is not a detachable magazine. It's just a replacement for the other one in the event that it fails.

If you have a shotgun with a magazine tube, it has an internal (non detachable) magazine. If you have a bunch of replacement magazine tubes laying around, they are obviously not detachable magazines, they are replacement ammunition feeding devices.

Perhaps Glen Avon will chime in and tell me if I'm crazy. :eek:

[adamsreeftank]

what if I'm not falling for your tricks? :D

"Don't you know your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me."

[artherd]

How's this? Let me know if I'm on the right track. I'm pretty sure that I am.

A magazine is simply an ammunition feeding device.

It is the part of the gun that contains and feeds ammunition ,and can be internal and fixed, or removeable.

Once you put the magazine onto a gun, it is detachable (according to the law) if you can remove it readily without the use of tools or disassembly of the action.

You got it.

[MonsterMan]

Don't hate me but this is what I have been pondering. Please prove me wrong.

Picture this. You're in court and the prosecution is holding up your reciever. "We all know the mag was considered NONDETATCHABLE under the law of using a tool to remove. But the real question is does this reciever have the Capacity To Accept a detachable mag." Not that is wasn't legal in the configuration it was in, just that it had the capacity to accept one. The jury will think sure it has the capacity to, because it can. You could weld, bolt, glue, but in the end it still has the capacity to accept one if we install one even till we lock it down. The reciever is capable of accepting one. All you have to do is turn a little nut and now it does, turn it back and now it doesn't. I would bet me life that you get some soccer moms up in that jury, they are going to say "if you can intall a magazine at all, it has the capability to accept one, no matter if you turn a little screw". If it couldn't ACCEPT a detachable mag, that would be the only way you could win, but you would have to prove it could not have the capability of it just by altering it a little. I know all the arguements about the whole issue, it's just that I don't think the regular person in a jury is going to buy it.

I know to us it doesn't make sense to us. But I almost guarantee that this is going to be there attack. Even if I don't shoot somebody with my "evil" rifle dosn't mean I am not CAPABLE of doing so in the Jury's eyes. And if they can keep one more gun off the streets they will.

So I think if it is grey area, they will win even if the law is on our side. I think the only way to go at this is to go gripless and have no other features on your rifle that could give them an reason to go after you. At least for now until they come out with some clear laws or regs on the matter.

Sorry if I am a doubting Thomas but I just think if you get caught with one in a bad DA area. They could really cause some problems for you. I would rather stay in the clearest part of the law and hopefully I could have some chance of staying legal. I am having my doubts though.

MonsterMan

[Jicko]

What I am about to say is probably be ONLY able to define in a court case....

For a lower receiver with a "non-finger pushable but bullet-tip pushable only" magazine release...... it DOES NOT have the "capacity to accept" a "detachable" magazine..... even tho it DOES have the capacity to accept a magazine.

Once the lower receiver "accepted" the magazine... that magazine is NOT (no longer) a "detachable" magazine (under the definition of "detachable" = "don't require a tool to remove").... hence, such a lower receiver DOES NOT have the "capacity to accept" a "detachable" magazine.... (period)

A magazine is a magazine.... the word "detachable" can only be associated with a magazine thru the "detachment process" after it had mated with a lower receiver... but in this case we are discussing now, once the magazine is mated with the receiver, and they cannot be "separated" without a tool.... I don't think one can associate the word "detachable" to that magazine.... (all of these based on the current PC's definition of "detachable" tho)

And in terms of a general jury.... if a lawyer can explain the above logics, and bring out all the laws, and definitions that are "on the books"(current PC's definition of "detachable", even tho, that definition is very confusing)..... even a regular person will have to agree that such way of configuring a lower receiver is indeed, legal.... the jury... is supposed to determine/vote based on the facts... not based on their personal understand/feeling of the matter...

It may not meet certain people's interpretation of the "spirit" of the law.... but, a written law is a written law... DOJ can change it, if they wanted to... but that doesn't mean that we are doing something illegal at this point....




Don't hate me but this is what I have been pondering. Please prove me wrong.

Picture this. You're in court and the prosecution is holding up your reciever. "We all know the mag was considered NONDETATCHABLE under the law of using a tool to remove. But the real question is does this reciever have the Capacity To Accept a detachable mag." Not that is wasn't legal in the configuration it was in, just that it had the capacity to accept one. The jury will think sure it has the capacity to, because it can. You could weld, bolt, glue, but in the end it still has the capacity to accept one if we install one even till we lock it down. The reciever is capable of accepting one. All you have to do is turn a little nut and now it does, turn it back and now it doesn't. I would bet me life that you get some soccer moms up in that jury, they are going to say "if you can intall a magazine at all, it has the capability to accept one, no matter if you turn a little screw". If it couldn't ACCEPT a detachable mag, that would be the only way you could win, but you would have to prove it could not have the capability of it just by altering it a little. I know all the arguements about the whole issue, it's just that I don't think the regular person in a jury is going to buy it.

I know to us it doesn't make sense to us. But I almost guarantee that this is going to be there attack. Even if I don't shoot somebody with my "evil" rifle dosn't mean I am not CAPABLE of doing so in the Jury's eyes. And if they can keep one more gun off the streets they will.

So I think if it is grey area, they will win even if the law is on our side. I think the only way to go at this is to go gripless and have no other features on your rifle that could give them an reason to go after you. At least for now until they come out with some clear laws or regs on the matter.

Sorry if I am a doubting Thomas but I just think if you get caught with one in a bad DA area. They could really cause some problems for you. I would rather stay in the clearest part of the law and hopefully I could have some chance of staying legal. I am having my doubts though.

MonsterMan