PDA

View Full Version : Another idea for the detachable magazine/pistol grip issue


tman
06-29-2006, 1:17 AM
It seems like the only choice for us is to choose one or the other... Gripless, or fixed magazine.


However, the rifle is CA legal as long as you need a "tool" to remove the magazine, correct?

Why not fix the mag in such a way that you can use a tool to quickly and easily detach the magazine? Maybe pin it in such a way that all it takes is the twist of some sort of tool, sort of like a "key" to unpin the mag - rather than to use a bolt or something that takes time to unscrew.

This way, the "key" can be taken to the range with you. Use the "tool" to detach the magazine, reload, re-attach, shoot, repeat.

This way it would be legal to keep the pistol grip as well.


Would there be any problems with this?

Guns R Tools
06-29-2006, 1:41 AM
The moment you remove the mag and the pistol grip is still attached to the gun it is a AW. Even if it is a brief time. It's still felony.

Unless you can figure out a way to remove the pistol grip first with the key of sort then remove the magazine then it should be ok. Of course magazine goes back first then pistol grip on assembly.

This might work as long as there are no other AW feathers like flash hider, folding stock, etc...

blkA4alb
06-29-2006, 1:55 AM
The reason it would be illegal is the fact that as soon as you remove the mag with you "tool" you have an open magwell with a pistol grip=AW.

williamkwong
06-29-2006, 2:14 AM
However, the rifle is CA legal as long as you need a "tool" to remove the magazine, correct?

Not correct. :)

Like everyone said...once the magwell is open the rifle is now able to accept a detachable magazine without the use of a tool. So even for that 5 seconds....youre a felon. Wonderful isnt it?

tman
06-29-2006, 3:22 AM
Not correct. :)

Like everyone said...once the magwell is open the rifle is now able to accept a detachable magazine without the use of a tool. So even for that 5 seconds....youre a felon. Wonderful isnt it?

Ok. What if it had these characteristics:

1. Required a tool to remove the magazine
2. Required a tool to attach the magazine

Basically, not only would the "tool" allow the magazine to be detached, but it would also allow it to be attached.

Wouldn't this be legal?

If "yes", then the next question would be how to make this work. However, there are many people who are mechanically inclined enough to figure something out. It would be far from impossible.

bwiese
06-29-2006, 3:44 AM
Ok. What if it had these characteristics:

1. Required a tool to remove the magazine
2. Required a tool to attach the magazine

Basically, not only would the "tool" allow the magazine to be detached, but it would also allow it to be attached.


Geezus... we've been over this time and time again. This comes up, apparently, every 3 weeks.

THERE IS SIMPLY **NO** RATIONAL REASON FOR A FIXED-MAG AR TO HAVE AN EASILY DETACHED/REATTACHED MAGAZINE.

The MOMENT you remove a magazine from a rifle w/pistol grip and/or telestock you are an insta-felon. Why can't you recognize this? Didn't you read the FAQ? I think it covered seqeunces of assembly and disassembly in a reasonably clear fashion.

Even if you don't actively use this feature in CA, it doesn't pass the 'smell test'. Magazine removal doesn't need to be easy, since it's not supposed to be changeable in normal course of operation!

It is true that you'd avoid the 978.20 definition of 'detachable magazine'. However you'd walk all over the 12276.1 definition of generic assault weapon the moment the mag is removed. You've got to obey both together and I just don't get why people continually don't understand this and keep proposing these idiotic schemes.

In order to remove/change the magazine on a rifle built from an OLL, the pistol grip, any telestock, and any upper w/flash hider would FIRST have to be removed.

If you can't take the time to remove the pistol grip or other features from the rifle before changing/repairing the magazine, and using regular tools to remove/change the mag for a repair situation only, then you are in WAY too much of a hurry to be dealing with an OLL-based rifle and you should stick to a Mini 14.

Even if travelling out of state you can still change to/from a free-state configuration in a couple of minutes.

leelaw
06-29-2006, 3:55 AM
Ahem... NO!



Paraphrased for those who need a Cliff's Notes version.

Chaingun
06-29-2006, 9:17 AM
What could be designed is a trapdoor mag holder, like the M-82 design but instead holds a 10-rd mag. The trapdoor is on a hinge and requires a tool to release the disconnect latch side. When the trapdoor swivels open it blocks the mag opening, preventing a mag insertion without the use of the trapdoor. A mag is removed from the trapdoor, another inserted, then lock the trapdoor into position.

The mag release would be removed, a new trapdoor and trapdoor latch is required.

Good luck with the design

dbol
06-29-2006, 9:52 AM
Geezus... we've been over this time and time again. This comes up, apparently, every 3 weeks.

THERE IS SIMPLY **NO** RATIONAL REASON FOR A FIXED-MAG AR TO HAVE AN EASILY DETACHED/REATTACHED MAGAZINE.

The MOMENT you remove a magazine from a rifle w/pistol grip and/or telestock you are an insta-felon. Why can't you recognize this? Didn't you read the FAQ? I think it covered seqeunces of assembly and disassembly in a reasonably clear fashion.

Even if you don't actively use this feature in CA, it doesn't pass the 'smell test'. Magazine removal doesn't need to be easy, since it's not supposed to be changeable in normal course of operation!

It is true that you'd avoid the 978.20 definition of 'detachable magazine'. However you'd walk all over the 12276.1 definition of generic assault weapon the moment the mag is removed. You've got to obey both together and I just don't get why people continually don't understand this and keep proposing these idiotic schemes.


This idea does come up over and over again, but it's only due to the definition of detachable magazine that the DOJ itself promulgated. One of the better discussions, which included a design for a 12276.1-compliant non-AW mag release is here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=34401).

To be a by-features AW under 12276.1, a rifle must have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and one or more of the other features listed in 12276.1. In 978.20, the DOJ has defined a "detachable magazine" as a magazine that may be freely detached without the use of a tool. Thus, if your rifle has an otherwise standard mag release with a recessed mag release button that can only be accessed by the use of a tool (e.g., a bullet tip or other thin piece of metal having a diameter smaller than a child's finger), it does not meet the DOJ's definition of detachable magazine. Further, such a rifle does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" per 12276.1 because each magazine that attaches to the rifle becomes "fixed" per 978.20. If a rifle does not have the "capacity to accept," it fails a threshold requirement of 12276.1 and cannot be a by-features AW.

I admit that seeing an OLL rifle with a seemingly-open mag well might arouse suspicion of other shooters/law enforcement. I don't recommend that people configure their rifles as detailed above. I only want to clarify that a rifle may be legally configured with 12276.1 features and a tool-required mag release and that such configuration is explicitly contemplated in the DOJ's own regulations.

five.five-six
06-29-2006, 11:02 AM
how about if you use a colapsable grip (http://www.zahal.org/FAB/AGF43s.htm) and flip it up every time you change a mag? ......then I would be the smartest guy in jail

tman
06-29-2006, 8:03 PM
Sorry if you thought my idea was an "idiotic scheme", but I think a few things are unlcear.

Geezus... we've been over this time and time again. This comes up, apparently, every 3 weeks.

THERE IS SIMPLY **NO** RATIONAL REASON FOR A FIXED-MAG AR TO HAVE AN EASILY DETACHED/REATTACHED MAGAZINE. First of all, maybe I didn't have an AR rifle in mind?


The MOMENT you remove a magazine from a rifle w/pistol grip and/or telestock you are an insta-felon. Why can't you recognize this? Didn't you read the FAQ? I think it covered seqeunces of assembly and disassembly in a reasonably clear fashion.

Even if you don't actively use this feature in CA, it doesn't pass the 'smell test'. Magazine removal doesn't need to be easy, since it's not supposed to be changeable in normal course of operation!

It is true that you'd avoid the 978.20 definition of 'detachable magazine'. However you'd walk all over the 12276.1 definition of generic assault weapon the moment the mag is removed. You've got to obey both together and I just don't get why people continually don't understand this and keep proposing these idiotic schemes.

In order to remove/change the magazine on a rifle built from an OLL, the pistol grip, any telestock, and any upper w/flash hider would FIRST have to be removed.

If you can't take the time to remove the pistol grip or other features from the rifle before changing/repairing the magazine, and using regular tools to remove/change the mag for a repair situation only, then you are in WAY too much of a hurry to be dealing with an OLL-based rifle and you should stick to a Mini 14.

Even if travelling out of state you can still change to/from a free-state configuration in a couple of minutes.

I didn't lookup the codes you are referring to, and just skimmed through, but I think you missed a part of my post. The one you quoted me on:

Ok. What if it had these characteristics:

1. Required a tool to remove the magazine
2. Required a tool to attach the magazine

Basically, not only would the "tool" allow the magazine to be detached, but it would also allow it to be attached.

I do not know if you missed that part, or if it would still not matter if the tool was required when attaching as all as detaching the magazine.

five.five-six
06-29-2006, 8:20 PM
The problem is that when the mag is out the receiver will have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine” if you never removed the mag and top loaded the rifle or removed the pistol grip, flash hider, grenade launcher, bayonet lug, and collapsible stock every time you removed the mag then technically you would be ok.. But that all seems like a buncho trouble for something you would still probably go to jai for :eek:


[Edit] on seccond blush, go ahead and try it.. If it works please post back and let us know how you did it. Personally I would love one. If we do not hear back from you for 3 years + good behavior, well then we can assume it did not go as planned :eek: :confused:

tman
06-29-2006, 9:22 PM
The problem is that when the mag is out the receiver will have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine”
Even if the tool was required to put the magazine back in? That is what I am getting at.


[Edit] on seccond blush, go ahead and try it.. If it works please post back and let us know how you did it. Personally I would love one. If we do not hear back from you for 3 years + good behavior, well then we can assume it did not go as planned :eek: :confused:
Yes, I understand that this would be pushing the limits of the stupid law. However, isn't this whole OLL thing is pushing the limits as it is?

Anyways, that is beside the point. Please refer to the first question in this reply.

xenophobe
06-29-2006, 9:38 PM
wow... You even got Technical Ted in an uproar...

All of this would have been avoided if you would just use the search function.

You haven't brought up a single point or question that hasn't been regurgitated, asked, answered, debated, etc.. here over and over and over again.

adamsreeftank
06-29-2006, 11:50 PM
This idea does come up over and over again, but it's only due to the definition of detachable magazine that the DOJ itself promulgated. One of the better discussions, which included a design for a 12276.1-compliant non-AW mag release is here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=34401).


Thanks for the link to my thread. I wasn't sure anyone still remembered it. I'm still planning on building a sample of my second design, the Permanent Bullet-Tip Mag Release (page 2 of the above thread) and submitting it to the DOJ. I'm just waiting for a new mill and lathe I have on order.

five.five-six
06-29-2006, 11:52 PM
Thanks for the link to my thread. I wasn't sure anyone still remembered it. I'm still planning on building a sample of my second design, the Permanent Bullet-Tip Mag Release (page 2 of the above thread) and submitting it to the DOJ. I'm just waiting for a new mill and lathe I have on order.


perhaps the two of you could exchange cell numbers.. you know stay in touch

bwiese
06-30-2006, 1:20 AM
I am at a loss for words.

You are following the details of one regulatory definition while exposing yourself to assault weapon creation if/when the mag is changed.

THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO EASILY CHANGE MAGS. IF THE MAG IS OUT OF THE AR, IT'S ILLEGAL (unless gripless legal configuration, but then you don't need a mag lock). SO THERE IS NO REASON TO EVEN GET NEAR THIS OR DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING THIS.

IF THE MAG IS OUT OF THE OFF-LIST-LOWER-based RIFLE AND IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP, TELESTOCK AND/OR FLASH HIDER IT'S MULTIPLE FELONIES.

tman
06-30-2006, 9:42 AM
So if the magazine is out of the rifle, but it needs a tool to be put back in, it is illegal?

bwiese
06-30-2006, 10:31 AM
So if the magazine is out of the rifle, but it needs a tool to be put back in, it is illegal?

Duh, YES. What have we been trying to tell y'all for the last 5+ months?

People keep worrying about whether the mag is legal. The mag itself is always legal; it's how the type of mag triggers the AW definition.

That ain't the real or larger issue; you gotta worry about THE WHOLE RIFLE, dammit.

I've gone over and over this in the FAQ. This is why I wrote out the elaborate proper sequences for taking apart/servicing and reassembling an off-list rifle.

IF YOU'RE GONNA BE MOVING/CHANGING MAGS AT ALL (other than complete strip down disassembly of rifle with pistol grip, upper and telestock coming off first, and being reaffixed last on reassembly) you need to go to a legal grip-free configuration.

We've already just had one winning bright boy in San Jose lose his off-list Lauer lower a couple of days ago at a local FFL when he was trading it in on a Sig pistol. It appears it may have had an open magwell and somehow the DOJ was called. It ended up 'surrendered' as contraband and the guy is lucky he did not have multiple felony charges filed or referral to local DA. Clean living must pay. DON'T BE LIKE THIS GUY.

ANY UNREGISTERED AR-TYPE RIFLE (OR LOWER RECEIVER) WITH PISTOL GRIP, TELESTOCK, ETC. AND AN OPEN MAGWELL IS** AN ILLEGAL ASSAULT WEAPON SINCE IT'S DESCRIBED BY A PC 12276.1 GENERIC DEFINITION.

THE MOMENT THE MAG IS OUT IT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON (legal grip-free configurations excepted).


** There also may possibly be (in theory) a defense that only a complete rifle is banned and that a named Roberti-Roos lower, regardless of configuration, is just parts unless/until it's a complete rifle. For all practical purposes you should immediately discount this as it may or may not be determined so after a lengthy court fight and multiple levels of appeal. This is merely an argument and I really hesitate even to mention it as someone here invariably will get the wrong friggin' idea. This concept may not apply to unlisted receivers.

dbol
06-30-2006, 10:33 AM
I am at a loss for words.

You are following the details of one regulatory definition while exposing yourself to assault weapon creation if/when the mag is changed.

The 978.20 definition of "detachable magazine" affects the interpretation of 12276.1 when 12276.1 uses that term. Regulatory definitions exist solely to clarify and limit or expand the application of statutes, within the the authority granted to the regulatory agency by the legislature.

To understand how the "detachable magazine" definition affects 12276.1, simply read the definition instead of the words "detachable magazine" when they appear in the statute. Thus, we should all be reading the beginning of 12276.1(a)(1) to say:
"A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept [an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required] and any one of the following:"

I agree that the tool-release mag concepts kicked around here have the capacity to accept a magazine; the ones conceived correctly, however, do not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and that's why they would be legal under the law as clarified by the regulations.

If anyone thinks this interpretation is incorrect, please respond and show why.

THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO EASILY CHANGE MAGS. IF THE MAG IS OUT OF THE AR, IT'S ILLEGAL (unless gripless legal configuration, but then you don't need a mag lock). SO THERE IS NO REASON TO EVEN GET NEAR THIS OR DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING THIS.

IF THE MAG IS OUT OF THE OFF-LIST-LOWER-based RIFLE AND IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP, TELESTOCK AND/OR FLASH HIDER IT'S MULTIPLE FELONIES.

bwiese, you've done and continue to do a great deal of good for CA gun owners. I know the statements you make of this sort are only attempting to protect the less-informed. In my opinion, you should, however, be careful with rants like this as they may become self-fulfilling given the huge amount of reverence and respect your comments receive.

That said, while I strongly oppose people configuring OLL rifles in anything but a mag-lock or gripless manner, I feel compelled to note that your position above is more restrictive than the letter of the law. Your position creates a bright-line test that would eliminate some legal configurations.

bwiese
06-30-2006, 10:37 AM
Thanks for the link to my thread. I wasn't sure anyone still remembered it. I'm still planning on building a sample of my second design, the Permanent Bullet-Tip Mag Release (page 2 of the above thread) and submitting it to the DOJ. I'm just waiting for a new mill and lathe I have on order.

Hahahah, that's rich.

The DOJ is already trying to change/tighten the regulations and doing everything they can to stop this, and you're gonna ask for an approval of something that allows people to easily commit felonies?? Your request will likely be on the DOJ's cafeteria bulletin board of "what planet is this guy from?"

I repeat: NO ONE NEEDS A DEVICE THAT MAKES IT EASY TO QUICKLY COMMIT FELONIES. It readily allows a mag to be removed. While one could stay legal by not using it, it JUST SMELLS BAD and could show 'intent' (though lack of constructive possession concepts might be usable as a defense).

If you can't take the 2+ minutes to remove a screwed-down/threadlocked mag attachment, you're in way too much of a hurry.

bwiese
06-30-2006, 10:40 AM
The 978.20 definition of "detachable magazine" affects the interpretation of 12276.1 when 12276.1 uses that term. Regulatory definitions exist solely to clarify and limit or expand the application of statutes, within the the authority granted to the regulatory agency by the legislature.

...... while I strongly oppose people configuring OLL rifles in anything but a mag-lock or gripless manner, I feel compelled to note that your position above is more restrictive than the letter of the law. Your position creates a bright-line test that would eliminate some legal configurations.


The ability to rapidly change a magazine creates such a bad smell that 'intent' could start playing a role.

We've fought too long/hard to get where we are now, legally "clean", to be throwing people at risk.

Yes, we've changed from a screwdriver and/or Allen wrench to a bullet tip, and that's still a tool. But the rapidity/ease is there. I feel "tools + time" is the mantra folks should be following - esp as the moment the mag well is open it's a felony.

five.five-six
06-30-2006, 10:44 AM
So if the magazine is out of the rifle, but it needs a tool to be put back in, it is illegal? unortunatly the reg does not provide for "the capacity to acccept a detachable mag azine without a tool" it is simply says "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine"

xenophobe
06-30-2006, 10:47 AM
I agree that the tool-release mag concepts kicked around here have the capacity to accept a magazine; the ones conceived correctly, however, do not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and that's why they would be legal under the law as clarified by the regulations.

If anyone thinks this interpretation is incorrect, please respond and show why.

Pushing the "capacity to accept" aside for a moment, one can also argue, the AR type magazine is a detachable magazine, even if it is in a fixed state. The magazine can be removed by tools, but used in another rifle as a readily detachable magazine without modification. Not the rifle, but the magazine itself. Take it out with a tool. It is now a standard AR-type detachable magazine and inserting it into a rifle could push the "capacity to accept" to be part of a offense that might just land you in jail.

I haven't seen anyone arguing this point, but it would most definitely need some case law to back it. No, I wouldn't volunteer to be the test subject either.

unortunatly the reg does not provide for "the capacity to acccept a detachable mag azine without a tool" it is simply says "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine"

You snuck that in while I was writing my reply. Yes, that's what I'm trying to imply with my response above.

EDIT:

That brings what could be a legal AR series rifle with a fixed detachable magazine... once that magazine is removed with tools, it now has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. Even if a tool is needed.

Comstock Lode
06-30-2006, 11:01 AM
I see the reason for a quick release/replace "non-detachable" design (using a bullet to depress the button now located inside the receiver or inside a shroud) is to enable competition in high power rifle competition, where you have to change out a magazine in short order...

bwiese
06-30-2006, 11:03 AM
I see the reason for a quick release/replace "non-detachable" design (using a bullet to depress the button now located inside the receiver or inside a shroud) is to enable competition in high power rifle competition, where you have to change out a magazine in short order...

That may be a reason, but it's a felony.

A pistol gripped AR with an open magwell during a mag change is simply illegal. There's no arguing around that.

Comstock Lode
06-30-2006, 11:11 AM
Thanks. Again, you are so resolute in your position that I must accept your judgement on this.

bwiese
06-30-2006, 11:33 AM
Thanks. Again, you are so resolute in your position that I must accept your judgement on this.

We've just had one guy get in near-trouble for an off-list lower apparently with pistol grip and telestock but no fixed mag (i.e., open magwell).

The DOJ found out (it was at a dealer) and told him it was contraband. He's lucky he didn't get a felony charge.

dbol
06-30-2006, 11:43 AM
The ability to rapidly change a magazine creates such a bad smell that 'intent' could start playing a role.

We've fought too long/hard to get where we are now, legally "clean", to be throwing people at risk.

Yes, we've changed from a screwdriver and/or Allen wrench to a bullet tip, and that's still a tool. But the rapidity/ease is there. I feel "tools + time" is the mantra folks should be following - esp as the moment the mag well is open it's a felony.

I've maintained all along that using a tool-release mag could easily upset law enforcement and easily get a person arrested, but this would be because LE generally does not have a deep understanding of the law. Thankfully, intent and speed of change aren't factors in the determination of an AW and a court couldn't consider them.

bwiese
06-30-2006, 11:51 AM
intent and speed of change aren't factors in the determination of an AW and a court couldn't consider them.

Not true. This could possibly factor in a court case. It might be resolved at a higher appeals level. I don't have all the details, but a gun lawyer I spoke to urged caution.

This is the reason why I always cautioned that there was a rational "path to legality" so that intent could not be inferred (i.e., if a receiver could only be configured one way to be useful, and that configuration was illegal, then you shouldn't have it). This is why I was first skeptical of fixed mag AKs because I wasn't sure enough that such a rifle would actually be reasonably functional.

The intent of generic AW laws - specifically regarding mags - was to stop rapidly-changed magaizines. That's why I kept saying "tools plus time". The use of a bullet tip kinda shows that this might be a field expedient and the fixed rifle could be 'misused'. I think a reasonable barrier helps show you're 'cleaner than Caesar's wife.'

Bottom line, we have enough people now that can't even follow the FAQ that we don't need to fuel the fire with some new yahoos that will feloniously drop the mags at the range because they think "it's only out 5 seconds so it's not a felony".

dbol
06-30-2006, 11:51 AM
Pushing the "capacity to accept" aside for a moment, one can also argue, the AR type magazine is a detachable magazine, even if it is in a fixed state. The magazine can be removed by tools, but used in another rifle as a readily detachable magazine without modification. Not the rifle, but the magazine itself. Take it out with a tool. It is now a standard AR-type detachable magazine and inserting it into a rifle could push the "capacity to accept" to be part of a offense that might just land you in jail.

I haven't seen anyone arguing this point, but it would most definitely need some case law to back it. No, I wouldn't volunteer to be the test subject either.

That brings what could be a legal AR series rifle with a fixed detachable magazine... once that magazine is removed with tools, it now has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. Even if a tool is needed.

The determination of what constitutes a "detachable magazine" under the 978.20 definition is immutably bound up with a given rifle that is being evaluated under 12276.1. Even though a standard mag would be detachable with respect to an AW AR-15, it would not be detachable with respect to a correctly-executed tool-release mag configured OLL rifle.

dbol
06-30-2006, 12:09 PM
Bottom line, we have enough people now that can't even follow the FAQ that we don't need to fuel the fire with some new yahoos that will feloniously drop the mags at the range because they think "it's only out 5 seconds so it's not a felony".

My point is, as it ever was, that there are countervailing concerns of (i)preserving the well being of calgunners and (ii) ensuring that we do not easily give up rights to which we may be entitled. We just seem to differ in our judgments of the weight of each side.

dbol
06-30-2006, 12:11 PM
I see the reason for a quick release/replace "non-detachable" design (using a bullet to depress the button now located inside the receiver or inside a shroud) is to enable competition in high power rifle competition, where you have to change out a magazine in short order...
I've always understood that this was the reason for the bullet tip concept being included in the regs.

Does anyone have more info?

dbol
06-30-2006, 12:14 PM
We've just had one guy get in near-trouble for an off-list lower apparently with pistol grip and telestock but no fixed mag (i.e., open magwell).

The DOJ found out (it was at a dealer) and told him it was contraband. He's lucky he didn't get a felony charge.

Is this example really relevant (other than as a general note of caution regarding OLL matters) to this discussion? From your description it didn't seem like he was trying to use a tool-release mag.

Paradiddle
06-30-2006, 12:44 PM
I've always understood that this was the reason for the bullet tip concept being included in the regs.

Does anyone have more info?

I can't see you effectively competing in High Power if you have to fuss with a bullet tip to remove your mag. The game is too much of a minimal movement stay in your position game to be dicking around with that.

If you plan on compeiting in HP in CA you should probably get an M1A. If you go out of state - you can take your CA Legal rifle and restore it to full functionality out of state.

bwiese
06-30-2006, 12:59 PM
Is this example really relevant (other than as a general note of caution regarding OLL matters) to this discussion? From your description it didn't seem like he was trying to use a tool-release mag.

I was just trying to show the uselessness and illegality of dropping a mag, and the possibly consequences.

An open magwell = a felonious AW (except in legal grip-free configuration) so there is no reason to have a 'quicky' mag removal scheme; a screw is good enough.

dbol
06-30-2006, 1:14 PM
An open magwell = a felonious AW (except in legal grip-free configuration) so there is no reason to have a 'quicky' mag removal scheme; a screw is good enough.

You're equating an open magwell with the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine." I don't agree that the two concepts are perfectly congruent.

If the receiver has been modified with a tool-required mag release, each magazine that it accepts will lock into place and not be removable without the use of a tool. If, by using a tool, the magazine of such a rifle is removed, the mag well will indeed be open, but it will not be capable of accepting a "detachable magazine."

xenophobe
06-30-2006, 1:27 PM
The determination of what constitutes a "detachable magazine" under the 978.20 definition is immutably bound up with a given rifle that is being evaluated under 12276.1. Even though a standard mag would be detachable with respect to an AW AR-15, it would not be detachable with respect to a correctly-executed tool-release mag configured OLL rifle.

I'm very well aware of what CCR and PC state. I'm just looking at it from a different perspective. The one perspective currently written into statute and regulation is not how DOJ is currently interpreting them, and my perspective is focusing on a different aspect that could very well play into a case.

As for a "correctly-exceuted tool-release mag configuration"... once you drop that magazine and then becoming capable of accepting a detachable magazine you're committing a crime having manufactured an illegal AW.

And this semantical posturing is pointless. Submit a prototype to DOJ and see what they say. You can argue it's legal all you want, but until you get DOJ opinion, or a firearms lawyer to come to agreement with you, you're on the losing side of the argument.

bwiese
06-30-2006, 1:29 PM
You're equating an open magwell with the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine." I don't agree that the two concepts are perfectly congruent.

If the receiver has been modified with a tool-required mag release, each magazine that it accepts will lock into place and not be removable without the use of a tool. If, by using a tool, the magazine of such a rifle is removed, the mag well will indeed be open, but it will not be capable of accepting a "detachable magazine."

The fact that the rifle can accept a magazine after its magwell is opened is good enough. Even if zero mag catch hardware of any type were present, and the mag would not latch in and you'd have to hold the mag in place, the rifle could cycle and fire (at least occasionally if not 100% reliably).

An empty magwell certainly has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

The law doesn't say how well it has to work. Even if the magwell required a tool to reinsert the mag as well I wouldn't touch it. The problem is that in these special case the mag itself may not be detachable, but the rifle can still 'accept' a detachable magazine. There is no real standard for 'acceptance', and lack of operational ability may not hinder the ability to regard the rifle as 'accepting' or 'capbable of accepting'.

This is one of the areas where you can be so right you're wrong. This is so close to the edge that the law/regulation will be interpreted by a judge if it were in court and it coudl go either way.

With a fixed mag installed you can certainly say it's not capable of accepting a detachable magazine because a fixed mag is already there (and a 'construction' being required to remove it and sub in a detachable mag and relevant mag catch hardware, with DOJ Deputy AG/Asst Dir letters saying constructive possession concepts do not apply). Firearms lawyers I've talked to - esp w/prior DOJ approval letters for such guns - tell me not to sweat a fixed mag configuration as of now.

NoTime2Shoot
06-30-2006, 1:34 PM
Looking at the bill that is floating, this may all be moot.

dbol
06-30-2006, 1:40 PM
And this semantical posturing is pointless. Submit a prototype to DOJ and see what they say. You can argue it's legal all you want, but until you get DOJ opinion, or a firearms lawyer to come to agreement with you, you're on the losing side of the argument.

I don't think this is pointless, it fleshes out perspective for everyone on the current state of the law. I only post to make sure a more expansive view of what is/may be legal isn't forgotten.

For what its worth, I am a practicing attorney in CA, dealing with the interpretation of statute and regulation on a daily basis. I've taken the time to review and reflect on the applicable law and I'm comfortable with my position.

Comstock Lode
06-30-2006, 1:48 PM
a great exchange of ideas... Based on the above I would at least conclude that there is some legal exposure when no mag is in place, even if the receiver design is such that when the mag is shoved into functioning position it is non-detachable...

dbol
06-30-2006, 1:58 PM
The fact that the rifle can accept a magazine after its magwell is opened is good enough. Even if zero mag catch hardware of any type were present, and the mag would not latch in and you'd have to hold the mag in place, the rifle could cycle and fire (at least occasionally if not 100% reliably).

An empty magwell certainly has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

The law doesn't say how well it has to work. Even if the magwell required a tool to reinsert the mag as well I wouldn't touch it. The problem is that in these special case the mag itself may not be detachable, but the rifle can still 'accept' a detachable magazine. There is no real standard for 'acceptance', and lack of operational ability may not hinder the ability to regard the rifle as 'accepting' or 'capbable of accepting'.

This is one of the areas where you can be so right you're wrong. This is so close to the edge that the law/regulation will be interpreted by a judge if it were in court and it coudl go either way.

With a fixed mag installed you can certainly say it's not capable of accepting a detachable magazine because a fixed mag is already there (and a 'construction' being required to remove it and sub in a detachable mag and relevant mag catch hardware, with DOJ Deputy AG/Asst Dir letters saying constructive possession concepts do not apply). Firearms lawyers I've talked to - esp w/prior DOJ approval letters for such guns - tell me not to sweat a fixed mag configuration as of now.

This is the best argument against the legality of tool-required mag releases I could think of as well (i.e. that once the mag is removed you could insert a smaller mag, perhaps a handgun mag, into the open mag well and then be able to freely remove it). The reason I ultimately find the argument unconvincing is the lack of functionality, although I agree with you that the issue is not resolved with certainty.

Taking the same concept further, would it not be possible to insert a .22 handgun magazine into the open ejection port of a fixed-mag OLL rifle? Would that also constitute a "capacity to accept a detachable magazine"?

grammaton76
06-30-2006, 2:18 PM
Taking the same concept further, would it not be possible to insert a .22 handgun magazine into the open ejection port of a fixed-mag OLL rifle? Would that also constitute a "capacity to accept a detachable magazine"?

Make it a .25 or some other small centerfire caliber. The 22LR is rimfire, and if you're shooting rimfire, features don't matter.

davedog665
10-08-2007, 11:37 PM
I just read this thread from last year and its funny what changes bb are very popular now and people talk alot about legality of changing mags using it.

ar15barrels
10-08-2007, 11:44 PM
Geezus... we've been over this time and time again. This comes up, apparently, every 3 weeks.

THERE IS SIMPLY **NO** RATIONAL REASON FOR A FIXED-MAG AR TO HAVE AN EASILY DETACHED/REATTACHED MAGAZINE.


In order to remove/change the magazine on a rifle built from an OLL, the pistol grip, any telestock, and any upper w/flash hider would FIRST have to be removed.

If you can't take the time to remove the pistol grip or other features from the rifle before changing/repairing the magazine, and using regular tools to remove/change the mag for a repair situation only, then you are in WAY too much of a hurry to be dealing with an OLL-based rifle and you should stick to a Mini 14.

How times have changed... :)

Bill used to recommend the mini14. :rofl2:

thefinger
10-09-2007, 10:12 AM
this thread is HILARIOUS.

tgriffin
10-09-2007, 10:27 AM
talk about necropost. Yes my how times have changed.

AJAX22
10-09-2007, 10:50 AM
We've come a long ways guys.... we might just win this thing ;)

pepsi2451
10-09-2007, 12:16 PM
LOL I vaguely remember this thread. We have definitely came a long way.

zeekster
10-09-2007, 10:20 PM
am I the only one using a bullet button these days? since I have an open magwell between reloading I must be a felon?

I thought the law read "easily detachable magazine" and not easily attachable magazine

davedog665
10-09-2007, 10:30 PM
am I the only one using a bullet button these days? since I have an open magwell between reloading I must be a felon?

I thought the law read "easily detachable magazine" and not easily attachable magazine

yup i was researching the legality of the old prince 50 and the bb as far as reloading and found this thread.

aplinker
10-10-2007, 12:17 AM
THERE IS SIMPLY **NO** RATIONAL REASON FOR A FIXED-MAG AR TO HAVE AN EASILY DETACHED/REATTACHED MAGAZINE.


My favorite quote.

My Bullet Button still loves you, Bill, even if you denied him every 3 weeks for years.

artherd
10-10-2007, 3:03 AM
we grew balls.

tenpercentfirearms
10-10-2007, 5:51 AM
Whatever, I still think you are all going to jail. Not me, I have a registered .50 BMG FAB-10 so I can manufacture and possess AWs now. :p

Nefarious
10-10-2007, 7:47 AM
I just read this thread from last year and its funny what changes bb are very popular now and people talk alot about legality of changing mags using it.

WTF!!!! :mad::mad::mad:
I was not even looking at the original posts dates and had wondered WTF was going on!!!

SHEEESH!!! :D

supersonic
10-10-2007, 8:18 AM
This thread is a TESTAMENT to human progress & "where there is a will, there is a way." It's amazing how minds can change & rationality can seep in over a relatively short time within our community. I know I have changed the way I approach these issues in just the few short months I have been a part of this forum thanks to the great people/wealth of ever-changing educational information on CalGuns. Yes, like everywhere else in life, there are a few rotten apples here. That's just common sense. However, these "road apples" usually wise up sooner or later (I did, I'd like to think!!:p), or they simply fall by the wayside & disappear. But there are, for the most part, some of the most intelligent; ingenious; generous minds lurking throughout these halls. If the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FIREARMS DIVISION had employees that had 1/4 the common sense/foresight/I.Q.'s of the majority of the CalGuns community, we would be a part of our neighboring free-states like we used to be for , what, a CENTURY or two? The politically-motivated individuals (which ARE the REAL root of all evil) would have zero leverage in a place dominated by the good, law-abiding people I just described above.
Rant Terminated. Peace, guys.
SS:43:

Mute
10-10-2007, 9:56 AM
C'mon guys, this thread is more than a year old. Things do change for the better here in Kalifornia (even if only in small increments) thanks to some very dedicated people.

BaronW
10-10-2007, 10:27 AM
Yeesh, this scared me. I was wondering what the point of a bullet button was if you couldn't reload without taking off the upper. Good to see it was just thread necromancy.

slick_711
10-10-2007, 11:47 AM
lol @ those first few posts chastising Tman over the legality of the concept. Bill especially. :p Glad to see things change & adapt.

Grouch
10-10-2007, 12:36 PM
well that was stupid.

McMadCow
10-10-2007, 12:48 PM
I love how widespread BB use has become in just a short amount of time. At both Jackson Arms and Chabot the guys there know about the BB and are totally cool with it. Heck, during ceasefires at Chabot the RSOs tell everyone with BBs to drop their mags THUS MAKING THEM FELONS WITH OMG OPEN MAGWELLS!!! :D

XDshooter
10-10-2007, 4:49 PM
Whatever, I still think you are all going to jail. Not me, I have a registered .50 BMG FAB-10 so I can manufacture and possess AWs now. :p


Gawd you're lucky. Make sure to keep that FAB-10 safe. You don't want to lose your golden ticket. :D :p

RANGER295
10-10-2007, 9:55 PM
WTF!!!! :mad::mad::mad:
I was not even looking at the original posts dates and had wondered WTF was going on!!!

SHEEESH!!! :D

LOL… same here.

Stuka
10-10-2007, 10:16 PM
Geeze, this thread confused the hell out of me. I had all these thoughts of "wtf just happened?! What did I miss?!". Glad it turned out to be some thread raised from the dead. Which should have a notice added to the first post that this is purely for comical relief :P

dawson8r
10-11-2007, 7:58 PM
My arse puckered a bit too since I just DROSed a CA-94 yesterday!

Richie Rich
10-11-2007, 8:40 PM
We should revisit this thread again next year.

swhatb
10-11-2007, 9:01 PM
we should move this the achieve threads and close this sucker down! started reading the thread and thought WTF.... what did i just miss :eek: need to look at the dates of posting now Sheez :sleeping: