PDA

View Full Version : SKS magazine/ no constuctive possession


onley11
06-26-2006, 12:10 PM
Ok, so it is super duper illegal to have a detachable sks mag, and even one of those duckbill mags is too dangerous to put on a gun.

Question is, if someone were to have a duckbill 30 round mag that they somehow obtained legally, and owned a sks, that had the original non detachable mag firmly inserted, is that an issue?

I think not, and this is hypothetical, but just wondering...;)

ETA:I really do not have a duckbill mag, but this question popped into my head.

PIRATE14
06-26-2006, 12:17 PM
No contructive possession when it comes to CA AW laws.......

Don't get mixed up other parts that feds might take an interest too.....different laws.

bwiese
06-26-2006, 12:45 PM
Be careful about this w/regards to constructive possession since SKSes w/detachable mags are a bit different than Cat III 'by feature' guns... IIRC, the Reynolds and Dingman cases come into play:

This is also why, even though supposedly 'constructive possession does not apply' to by-features AWs, you don't wanna 'smell bad' by having parts conveniently close together (i.e., pistol grip too close to gripless FAL).

Possessing an SKS duckbill mag kept separate from the fixed SKS is OK but (esp while disassembled for cleaning, and if the SKS duckbill mag inserts/is retained the same way as a stock SKS mag) keep em away from each other for the "smell test":

The DOJ Firearms Div Deputy AG/Asst Dir Tim Rieger wrote, in response to a question by Chuck Michel:



The law states in 12276(a)(11) an SKS with detachable magazine is an assault weapon. We
believe an SKS rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine is an assault weapon
within the meaning of 12276(a)(11). However, during the preliminary hearing in the case
People (County of Monterey) vs. Reynolds, the trial court held that 12276(a)(11) is
violated with the detachable magazine in the same gun case, but not installed, with the
original fixed 10 round magazine removed, an interesting interpretation. Also, as you recall,
this was the subject of the Dingman litigation.

PIRATE14
06-26-2006, 1:12 PM
Listen to Bill.......

No confessions though.......:D

onley11
06-26-2006, 9:50 PM
As the great philosopher B. Simpson once extolled,

"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove anything!"

I don't break firearms laws, but having a duckie for a bad day could be handy...
Far, far away from any sks, fully assembled or not.

Meh, if I need a 30 rounder that's what a mini 14 or non-pg ar is for.

I kinda think even my bushmaster tlc is ok for tin foil hat scenerios. It refuses to jam, and to borrow from fab 10, "if you can't do it with 10, 30 won't help anyway. Revolver shooter logic.

Thanks for the responses guys, that's what I figured, but I do know more now than I did. From what I hear, the duckbills don't feed all that hot anyway. Although with some fitting...:rolleyes:

lpspinner
06-27-2006, 12:22 AM
Ok.... exactly how does a duckbill mag comes into play here.....

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
........
(11) SKS with detachable magazine.


12281. (a) Any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, operated a retail or other commercial firm, company, or corporation, and manufactured, distributed, transported, imported, possessed, possessed for sale, offered for sale, or transferred, for commercial purpose, an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997, shall be immune from criminal prosecution under Section 12280. The immunity provided in this subdivision shall apply retroactively to any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is or was charged by complaint or indictment with a violation of Section 12280 for conduct related to an SKS rifle, whether or not the case of that person, firm, company, or corporation is final.

(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 12276, an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer, or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997.


I don't see how duckbill magazines fall under the SKS with detachable magazine rule when section (i) defines it.

onley11
06-27-2006, 12:36 AM
Yeah, that's the law and the particular model.
I think it's too close to the same thing to risk.
I wonder what legal concepts Bill knows that I don't.
(and again, I don't have any intention of breaking the law)

bwiese
06-27-2006, 12:50 AM
(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 12276, an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer, or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997.

I don't see how duckbill magazines fall under the SKS with detachable magazine rule when section (i) defines it.

Ah, because section (i), as you listed, defines just one aspect of it. It was prefixed with "Notwithstanding...." which essentially means, in this context, "in addition to 12276(a)(11)" or "besides what's in 12276(a)(11)..."

That (i) definition was patched into the AW law in the late 90s, as part of the SKS cleanup/buyback. In the original Roberti-Roos AWCA '89 law, "SKS with detachable magazine" was banned in 12276(a)(11). Doesn't matter what style, type or format of detachable mag is involved, or what kinda SKS it is. This is one case where a Roberti-Roos 'named' gun is really 'named' by a feature. This is why relaxed constructive possession concepts for this gun kinda fail here, unlike for "Cat III" guns.

The (i) definition mentioned above is kinda rendundant and just broadens things a bit; it is not exclusive, nor does it reshape the orig. Roberti-Roos banned 'SKS with detachble magazine'.

As it stands and as I mentioned above, there's already precedent in Reynolds (unless it's been overturned but I doubt this) that an SKS with open magwell and a separate detachable mag in same gun case was a no-no.

It's all in the wording, gentlemen...

onley11
06-27-2006, 12:56 AM
Bill, thanks for being on our side, if you crossed over...
I don't even wanna think about it.:confused:
Good thing you're not a real lawyer, you don't have to take the hypocritical oath.:) You still get to keep your morals.

bwiese
06-27-2006, 1:22 AM
Bill, thanks for being on our side, if you crossed over...
I don't even wanna think about it.:confused:
Good thing you're not a real lawyer, you don't have to take the hypocritical oath.:) You still get to keep your morals.

Thanks for the kind words. No, I won't turn into a Robert Ricker!

Though I've received my share of brickbats from folks who don't understand why I do want the AG/DOJ to update the Kasler list ;)

Also, don't knock all lawyers. There are some good ones, here on the board and working for us.

And, um, small point: it's the Hippocratic oath, and that's for doctors ("First, do no harm...", etc.)

onley11
06-27-2006, 11:35 AM
I know about the hippocratic oath, I just thought for lawers the hippocritical oath might be more appropriate.:p You know, word play and all.:rolleyes:

OK, there are good, ethical lawers out there, who choose integrity over making a buck, I was generalizing for comic effect, but I still think the lawers around here are the exception to the rule. Our own little silver lining.:rolleyes:
Kind of like the leo's you meet at the range, they are shooters or they woulnd't be there. They aren't the kind that go to the police range for the first time in six months(or a year) to qualify so they can go out on patrol tommorrow.
But I digress.
Thanks for the kind words. No, I won't turn into a Robert Ricker!

Though I've received my share of brickbats from folks who don't understand why I do want the AG/DOJ to update the Kasler list ;)

Also, don't knock all lawyers. There are some good ones, here on the board and working for us.

And, um, small point: it's the Hippocratic oath, and that's for doctors ("First, do no harm...", etc.)