PDA

View Full Version : Please clarify .22 capacity question-


Caribouriver
12-27-2010, 1:55 PM
Are .22 caliber rim fire rifles and pistols exempt from California's 10 rd max capacity rule? I think I have seen posts here that talk about 20 rd and 30 rd magazines. They certainly exist but are they CA legal? Sorry if this has been asked before.

rromeo
12-27-2010, 1:59 PM
22s are not exempt from the 10 round limit. 22s with a tubular magazine are. Your Marlin 60, or Winchester 72, or whatever other rifle can have the 14 or 18 rounds.
It is not illegal to have 30 round 22 magazines, but if you didn't own them prior to January of 2000, you may have broken a law.

CSDGuy
12-27-2010, 2:35 PM
I own a 17 shot .22LR rifle. It has a tubular magazine... not a violation of law. The tubular .22LR magazines are specifically exempted from the capacity portion of AW law.

Caribouriver
12-27-2010, 2:45 PM
Thank you gentlemen. I have an old Marlin 39A Golden Mountie with a tubular magazine and was wondering if I had to "plug" it

E Pluribus Unum
12-27-2010, 2:46 PM
22s are not exempt from the 10 round limit. 22s with a tubular magazine are. Your Marlin 60, or Winchester 72, or whatever other rifle can have the 14 or 18 rounds.
It is not illegal to have 30 round 22 magazines, but if you didn't own them prior to January of 2000, you may have broken a law.

That's funny.

A Richmond, Va resident is advising a California resident of the legalities in California... :)

Izzy43
12-27-2010, 6:05 PM
How many times has this been asked and I have been a member on this site for less than a year? The search function must be BROKE. Sorry to rant about it and I rarely, rarely rant but jeez!:taz::taz::taz:

Seesm
12-27-2010, 6:09 PM
Romeo just moved there and he is fairly well versed in California gunlaw and is a smart guy...

BHP FAN
12-27-2010, 10:42 PM
good information is never a bad thing.

Quiet
12-28-2010, 6:15 AM
The tubular .22LR magazines are specifically exempted from the capacity portion of AW law.


Actually...
Rimfire calibers are not specifically exempt from the large capacity magazine laws and are only exempt from the assault weapons laws pertaining to rifles (semi-auto rimfire handguns need to comply with the assault weapons laws).

In regards to magazine capacity, what is exempt are:
1) Magazines that have been permanently modified to 10 rounds. [PC 12020(c)(25)(A)]
2) .22 caliber (rimfire & centerfire) tubular magazine fixed to the firearm. [PC 12020(c)(25)(B)]
3) (Any rimfire & centerfire caliber) tubular magazine fixed to lever-action firearms. [PC 12020(c)(25)(C)]




Penal Code 12020
(c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

Southpaw45
12-29-2010, 9:46 PM
Romeo just moved there and he is fairly well versed in California gunlaw and is a smart guy...

A lucky California Escapee? :seeya:

goofcat
01-27-2011, 8:20 AM
I was looking at some of my old gun stuff and found two 30 round Ramline mags for my AR7. I've had them since 1980. Are they illegal? If so what should I do with them?

Sorry for such a newbie question.

dfletcher
01-27-2011, 9:08 AM
I own a 17 shot .22LR rifle. It has a tubular magazine... not a violation of law. The tubular .22LR magazines are specifically exempted from the capacity portion of AW law.

I'm assuming 17 M2 and 17 HMR tube magazines are also exempt, correct?

Quiet
01-27-2011, 2:45 PM
I'm assuming 17 M2 and 17 HMR tube magazines are also exempt, correct?

If they are attached to a lever-action firearm, then they are exempt from the large capacity magazine laws.

If they are not attached to a lever-action firearm, then they must comply with the large capacity magazine laws.

Quiet
01-27-2011, 2:45 PM
I was looking at some of my old gun stuff and found two 30 round Ramline mags for my AR7. I've had them since 1980. Are they illegal? If so what should I do with them?

Sorry for such a newbie question.

You owned them before 01-01-2000, so they are legal.

lewisracing
01-27-2011, 4:57 PM
I found my Umarex 20 rounders in a gutter outside of my house. They were just laying there. Amazing huh?

NorCalDustin
01-27-2011, 8:31 PM
That's funny.

A Richmond, Va resident is advising a California resident of the legalities in California... :)
IIRC He recently moved there...

dfletcher
01-28-2011, 2:42 PM
If they are attached to a lever-action firearm, then they are exempt from the large capacity magazine laws.

If they are not attached to a lever-action firearm, then they must comply with the large capacity magazine laws.

I'll admit I haven't paid much attention to this, so a semi 17 M2 with a tube magazine is limited to 10 as is a bolt action 17 HMR?

sequoia_nomad
01-28-2011, 4:14 PM
If they are attached to a lever-action firearm, then they are exempt from the large capacity magazine laws.

If they are not attached to a lever-action firearm, then they must comply with the large capacity magazine laws.

False. Any non-detachable tube feed magazine with a capacity over 10 is legal, regardless of the action of the firearm. Lever action, semi auto, bolt, whatever, doesn't matter.

If you are not clear about the laws, please do not misinform others.

ke6guj
01-28-2011, 4:28 PM
False. Any non-detachable tube feed magazine with a capacity over 10 is legal, regardless of the action of the firearm. Lever action, semi auto, bolt, whatever, doesn't matter.

If you are not clear about the laws, please do not misinform others.umm, WRONG. Show us the PC with that exemption that any tube-fed 11+ round mag is legal, no matter the type. It has been posted here what the tube-fed exemptions are to the law, and they are limited.

here is the PC for you again.


12020(c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,
THis includes all tube-fed magazines.

but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm. but then they exclude tubular mags for .22-caliber firearms and also tubular mags for lever actions. There is no blanket exemption for all bolt-action, pump-action, semi-autos, etc, unless they are .22 caliber.

sequoia_nomad
01-28-2011, 6:46 PM
but then they exclude tubular mags for .22-caliber firearms and also tubular mags for lever actions. There is no blanket exemption for all bolt-action, pump-action, semi-autos, etc, unless they are .22 caliber.

Since this is the rimfire section, and the original post was:

Are .22 caliber rim fire rifles and pistols exempt from California's 10 rd max capacity rule? I think I have seen posts here that talk about 20 rd and 30 rd magazines. They certainly exist but are they CA legal? Sorry if this has been asked before.

...I assumed it would be a given to any intelligent individual that would be reading this thread that this discussion involves rimfire arms exclusively. I was quoting Quiet to answer dfletcher's question above. Perhaps you should quote him(Quiet) as well, and point out the fact that the OP and all other posters were referring to rimfire arms.

Perhaps you should go to the Curio & Relic page now and school them on OLL and handgun law.

ke6guj
01-28-2011, 6:58 PM
Since this is the rimfire section, and the original post was:



...I assumed it would be a given to any intelligent individual that would be reading this thread that this discussion involves rimfire arms exclusively. I was quoting Quiet to answer dfletcher's question above. Perhaps you should quote him(Quiet) as well, and point out the fact that the OP and all other posters were referring to rimfire arms. why would I need to Quote Quiet? His posts in this thread have been accurate.

In the post of his that you quoted, he was answering a question about .17 caliber tube-mags, which aren't .22 caliber, so 12020(c)(25)(B) does not apply to them. They can only rely on 12020(c)(25)(C) which only exempts lever-action firearms.


Here is the sequence,
I'm assuming 17 M2 and 17 HMR tube magazines are also exempt, correct?

If they are attached to a lever-action firearm, then they are exempt from the large capacity magazine laws.

If they are not attached to a lever-action firearm, then they must comply with the large capacity magazine laws.

Quiet was correct, and you were wrong. 12020(c)(25)(B) is not a "rimfire" exemption, it is a .22 caliber exemption. the fact that the thread is in the rimfire forum doesn't matter. The thread had drifted from a .22lr magazine question to that of a .17 caliber question.


Perhaps you should go to the Curio & Relic page now and school them on OLL and handgun law.:confused:

sequoia_nomad
01-28-2011, 7:18 PM
Well, if you can find a current-production tube feed .17 caliber rifle that isn't a lever action and holds more than 10 rounds in said tube, you have my apologies.

killmime1234
01-28-2011, 7:20 PM
To clarify, because I can see how it might be confusing to sift through the above posts and the bickering:

.22lr 10+ magazines (tube or otherwise) are legal to use in any .22lr rifle regardless of the action as long as the magazines were owned before 2000.

.17 only have the tube exemption, and therefore the only .17 calibre rifles that can have 10+ magazines are those fitted with tubular mags.

Mssr. Eleganté
01-28-2011, 7:40 PM
To clarify, because I can see how it might be confusing to sift through the above posts and the bickering:

.22lr 10+ magazines (tube or otherwise) are legal to use in any .22lr rifle regardless of the action as long as the magazines were owned before 2000.

.17 only have the tube exemption, and therefore the only .17 calibre rifles that can have 10+ magazines are those fitted with tubular mags.

Nope. You got it wrong. :)

The .22 caliber tube mags (rimfire or centerfire) are exempt from the magazine ban completely. You do not need to have owned them before 2000.

.17 caliber doesn't have the exemption for all tube mags like .22 caliber does. For a .17 caliber tube mag to be exempt from the magazine ban it has to be on a lever-action firearm. It is also perfectly legal to use any large capacity .17 caliber magazines that you legally own in any firearm (as long as you don't create an "assault weapon" in doing so).

ke6guj
01-28-2011, 7:42 PM
Well, if you can find a current-production tube feed .17 caliber rifle that isn't a lever action and holds more than 10 rounds in said tube, you have my apologies.

really, my apology is dependant on finding a currently-made tube-fed .17 caliber rifle that isn't exempt from the large-capacity magazine ban? So, since there may not a current production gun out there that would be an illegal sale of a large-cap mag, Quiet shouldn't have completely explained how the exemption works?

What if dfletcher was thinking about rebarreling a tube-fed .22lr semi-auto or bolt-action to shoot .17Mach2? Wouldn't it be nice that he had the correct info that there wasn't an exemption to the large-cap magazine regs for his new .17-caliber rifle?

killmime1234
01-28-2011, 8:00 PM
Nope. You got it wrong. :)

The .22 caliber tube mags (rimfire or centerfire) are exempt from the magazine ban completely. You do not need to have owned them before 2000.

.17 caliber doesn't have the exemption for all tube mags like .22 caliber does. For a .17 caliber tube mag to be exempt from the magazine ban it has to be on a lever-action firearm. It is also perfectly legal to use any large capacity .17 caliber magazines that you legally own in any firearm (as long as you don't create an "assault weapon" in doing so).

Darn. You got me there. :chris: I know my .22 pretty well and I forgot to put that the tubular exemption is 2000-ban exempt. Good catch.

As for the .17 info. I was just regurgitating what I had thought I had read above. Glad to be corrected, though.

sequoia_nomad
01-28-2011, 8:17 PM
really, my apology is dependant on finding a currently-made tube-fed .17 caliber rifle that isn't exempt from the large-capacity magazine ban? So, since there may not a current production gun out there that would be an illegal sale of a large-cap mag, Quiet shouldn't have completely explained how the exemption works?

What if dfletcher was thinking about rebarreling a tube-fed .22lr semi-auto or bolt-action to shoot .17Mach2? Wouldn't it be nice that he had the correct info that there wasn't an exemption to the large-cap magazine regs for his new .17-caliber rifle?

Ok, then find an out of production one then. You have successfully explained how California law applies to a firearm that doesn't exist. Kudos.

As for fletcher, you are simply making up a hypothetical situation. No one mentioned modifying an existing firearm except you. That's a whole 'nother can o' worms.

Mssr. Eleganté
01-28-2011, 8:31 PM
Ok, then find an out of production one then. You have successfully explained how California law applies to a firearm that doesn't exist. Kudos.

As for fletcher, you are simply making up a hypothetical situation. No one mentioned modifying an existing firearm except you. That's a whole 'nother can o' worms.

It's pretty simple really...

Dfletcher asked a question.

Quiet answered it 100% correctly.

You (rudely) accused Quiet of being incorrect even though he was 100% correct. Trying to justify your wrong answers and rude behavior by saying dfletcher should never have asked the question to begin with if pretty funny. You were wrong. You made a mistake. We all do it occasionally.

jackandblood
01-29-2011, 3:25 PM
I found my Umarex 20 rounders in a gutter outside of my house. They were just laying there. Amazing huh?

hey what? :confused: