PDA

View Full Version : Magazine capacity question


O.S.O.K.
01-27-2011, 4:32 PM
If I weld 2 10 round magazines end to would that be considered a 20 round fixed magazine?

Librarian
01-27-2011, 4:36 PM
Base to base, maintaining 2 springs and 2 followers? That way does not sound like manufacturing a large-capacity mag.

I don't personally see it as more useful than 2 separate mags, but doesn't strike me as illegal to do.

dantodd
01-27-2011, 4:48 PM
Actually, it might be illegal.you have made a single ammunition feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds. Very entirely to get prosecuted but not clearly legal.

Bhobbs
01-27-2011, 4:50 PM
Actually, it might be illegal.you have made a single ammunition feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds. Very entirely to get prosecuted but not clearly legal.

How would it be a single feeding device if it has to be removed, shifted in some way and replace in the firearm?

dantodd
01-27-2011, 5:03 PM
How would it be a single feeding device if it has to be removed, shifted in some way and replace in the firearm?

I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting that it is 2 devices? Can they, non-destructively be separated without tools? Or are you suggesting that they are 5 devices because you have one body, 2 springs, and 2 followers?

The act of removing and re-inserting the magazine doesn't make it 2 or more devices.

If you took a 100 rd. drum and loaded a dummy round after every 10 rds. that couldn't be ejected and you had to drop the mag to remove the dummy and then re-insert, would that make it legal?

jrr
01-27-2011, 5:07 PM
This is basically the heart of the discussion about the Kel Tec shotgun. It has two mag tubes, each with 7rds. To use them you have to flip a selector switch. The argument for it is that it is two separate magazine tubes, not one high cap tube. Against it is fear that an overzealous prosecutor will get ahold of it and claim it is a high cap tube by virtue of being physically connected.

I tend to agree that it is not a high cap device. No more so than a mag cinch or velcro strap holding two mags together makes them one high cap mag. The physical connection is irrelevant. Take the argument to the extreme and it would make a buttstock mounted mag like the Kel Tec SU16 has, or even a mag pouch like an M1 Carine into a high capacity ammunition feeding device.

Same thing applies I think to two mags welded together. It isn't any different from a mag coupler with the screws locktite'd.

erik_26
01-27-2011, 5:17 PM
Look at the little Ruger 10/22. They have a block that attaches four 10 round magazines together in a cross configuration. You release and rotate. Perfectly legal.

I agree with Librarian, not sure how use full it would be. Plus it would be awkward to carry on your person.

dantodd
01-27-2011, 5:18 PM
Same thing applies I think to two mags welded together. It isn't any different from a mag coupler with the screws locktite'd.

Of course it is different, it is one device vs. 2 devices attached together. If you don't see that you either do not understand what a weld is or you are simply trying very hard to ignore the elephant.

the statute is pretty clear regarding "ammunition feeding device" and not "ability to continuously feed...."

Librarian
01-27-2011, 6:02 PM
Of course it is different, it is one device vs. 2 devices attached together. If you don't see that you either do not understand what a weld is or you are simply trying very hard to ignore the elephant.

the statute is pretty clear regarding "ammunition feeding device" and not "ability to continuously feed...."

I don't think it's really that elephantine, but it's just weird enough that someone in LE somewhere could get panties in a bunch about it.

As many of our posters, both in and out of CA, remind us: California law is very strange.

motorhead
01-27-2011, 10:34 PM
not. wouldn't a mag clamp be much simpler. or is this to be another strange mutant mag for a handgun?

Ordnance1
01-28-2011, 12:27 AM
I have been advised by both LE and a lawyer that it would not be illegal. Once you have to drop the mag after 10 rounds and can no longer fire because that half of the mag is empty, the 10 round rule starts over. It doesn't matter how the two mags are attached.

Carnivore
01-28-2011, 1:06 AM
If you took a 100 rd. drum and loaded a dummy round after every 10 rds. that couldn't be ejected and you had to drop the mag to remove the dummy and then re-insert, would that make it legal?

No, it isn't how many working rounds are in the magazine at any time it is how many rounds the magazine can hold and feed the weapon. If it can only feed 10 rounds then it must be reloaded then it is a 10 round mag. This end to end configuration (though very weird) can only feed 10 rounds then it has to be reloaded. No matter how you work it, it won't feed more then 10.

Carnivore
01-28-2011, 1:08 AM
I have been advised by both LE and a lawyer that it would not be illegal. Once you have to drop the mag after 10 rounds and can no longer fire because that half of the mag is empty, the 10 round rule starts over. It doesn't matter how the two mags are attached.

Fixed it for you. Remember LEO can lie or be wrong and you can still be arrested.

cmichini
01-28-2011, 8:13 AM
Fixed it for you. Remember LEO can lie or be wrong and you can still be arrested.

Plus LEOs these days seem to have about the same grasp of statutes as gun shop employees - meaning absolutely none or false at best either by sheer ignorance or malice you take your pick.

dantodd
01-28-2011, 2:46 PM
No, it isn't how many working rounds are in the magazine at any time it is how many rounds the magazine can hold and feed the weapon. If it can only feed 10 rounds then it must be reloaded then it is a 10 round mag. This end to end configuration (though very weird) can only feed 10 rounds then it has to be reloaded. No matter how you work it, it won't feed more then 10.

The single magazine mfg'd by welding 2 bodies together could be filled with 20 rds. This means that the device holds 20 rds. It is no different than a large drum that forces you to remove and re-insert after every 10 rds.

jtmkinsd
01-28-2011, 3:41 PM
The single magazine mfg'd by welding 2 bodies together could be filled with 20 rds. This means that the device holds 20 rds. It is no different than a large drum that forces you to remove and re-insert after every 10 rds.

You're reaching quite far here...this is no different than taping/attaching 3 mags side to side. They are simply 10 round mags attached to each other, it doesn't make it one 20 round feeding device.

Chris M
01-28-2011, 4:00 PM
You're reaching quite far here...this is no different than taping/attaching 3 mags side to side. They are simply 10 round mags attached to each other, it doesn't make it one 20 round feeding device.

Just looking at the facts, and disregarding configuration:

Welding 2 mags together you have essentially manufactured one mag. That one mag holds 20 rounds. I wouldn't chance it.

It would be much safer to have a device that holds 2 mags together that doesn't require tools to insert/remove the mags from.

jtmkinsd
01-28-2011, 4:07 PM
Just looking at the facts, and disregarding configuration:

Welding 2 mags together you have essentially manufactured one mag. That one mag holds 20 rounds. I wouldn't chance it.

It would be much safer to have a device that holds 2 mags together that doesn't require tools to insert/remove the mags from.

It's a little far fetched to consider it one mag...and the "fear-factor" of what it "could be" considered is far from the legal definition. CA causes so much uncertainty with the complexity of the laws that pieces of different laws are constantly, and erroneously applied to laws and definitions to which they have nothing to do with. WHY would it be "much safer to have a device that holds 2 mags together that doesn't require tools to insert/remove the mags from"? What part of law or definition are you saying applies here?

dantodd
01-28-2011, 4:08 PM
You're reaching quite far here...this is no different than taping/attaching 3 mags side to side. They are simply 10 round mags attached to each other, it doesn't make it one 20 round feeding device.

So, in your model if instead of 2 magazines I took 2 80% AR lowers and then either welded them or taped them together and finished them I'd have 2 firearms in either condition. I would argue that you'd have a single firearm in the welded configuration and 2 firearms in the taped configuration.

jtmkinsd
01-28-2011, 4:15 PM
So, in your model if instead of 2 magazines I took 2 80% AR lowers and then either welded them or taped them together and finished them I'd have 2 firearms in either condition. I would argue that you'd have a single firearm in the welded configuration and 2 firearms in the taped configuration.

Ummm...huh? I'm a little puzzled at the analogy. But the point remains, I think your inserting the fear of "possibilities" where none actually exists.

dantodd
01-28-2011, 4:21 PM
Ummm...huh? I'm a little puzzled at the analogy. But the point remains, I think your inserting the fear of "possibilities" where none actually exists.

it's pretty straight forward. If you built a magazine by welding 2 bodies together as described you claim it would remain 2 magazines. If you took 2 80% complete AR lowers and welded them together then finished them so they would work and you could mount 2 uppers etc. would you consider this one gun or 2 guns should you decide to volreg them?

Chris M
01-28-2011, 4:21 PM
It's a little far fetched to consider it one mag...and the "fear-factor" of what it "could be" considered is far from the legal definition. CA causes so much uncertainty with the complexity of the laws that pieces of different laws are constantly, and erroneously applied to laws and definitions to which they have nothing to do with. WHY would it be "much safer to have a device that holds 2 mags together that doesn't require tools to insert/remove the mags from"? What part of law or definition are you saying applies here?

Looks pretty straight forward to me:

12020 (a)(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes
to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or
offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-
capacity magazine.

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 itcannot 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.


It fits the definition. No where does it have an exemption for what was described. If the mags are welded, they are essentially ONE device that now holds 20 rounds. Please show me where the law exempts certain configurations of mags.

If there is a device that holds 2 mags together, those mags are NOT one mag. They are still 2 mags. The key here is the welding or otherwise permanent fixture, making it one mag.

jtmkinsd
01-28-2011, 4:31 PM
All I'm asking is what legal language you are using to define "one" as opposed to two magazines attached. I already know the answer...it comes from other applications in the law, but that doesn't mean it applies in this instance...to suggest otherwise is simply erroneous.

jtmkinsd
01-28-2011, 4:35 PM
it's pretty straight forward. If you built a magazine by welding 2 bodies together as described you claim it would remain 2 magazines. If you took 2 80% complete AR lowers and welded them together then finished them so they would work and you could mount 2 uppers etc. would you consider this one gun or 2 guns should you decide to volreg them?

2 receivers welded together = 2 firearms welded together, does not = 1 firearm

Anchors
01-28-2011, 6:39 PM
The law should read "can continuously feed more than 10 rounds without reloading"

Sounds like the current law is unconstitutionally vague

Haha.