PDA

View Full Version : Legality of mag fix kits


ElRay
09-02-2006, 12:37 PM
The legality of off-list lowers seems pretty well established given the letters on file from the DOJ, but I haven't seen any direct confirmation regarding the legality of the mag fixing kits being sold that rely on some form of modified release button (all of which are readily de-activatable with an allen wrench). Other than interpretation of or speculation on DOJ language or intent has there been any direct confirmation or precedent that these devices meet the fixed magazine requirement to allow features such as a pistol grip? I imagine anyone trying to get a confirmation these days would not find the DOJ inclined to provide such, but maybe there is something from earlier?

I've followed the OLL thing for quite a while and searched all over (this forum, calgunlaws.com, ar15.com, etc) and not found anything from the DOJ that says these are OK.

ER

blkA4alb
09-02-2006, 12:54 PM
Thats because you will never find a letter approving these. The law says that it is not a detachable magazine if it requires a tool to remove. Guess what, these require a tool, they are legal.

SemiAutoSam
09-02-2006, 1:06 PM
Here is / are a pic of my lock installed on a customers lower

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/SASML.jpg

Below is the lock in its retail packaging showing the tool (Allen Wrench) required to install and or remove.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/MAGLOCKBAGGED.jpg

Below is the text and link to the doj webpage that shows the law as currently written.

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/sb23.htm

978.20 Definitions

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

adamsreeftank
09-02-2006, 1:09 PM
Even though the DOJ has said they think pinned magazine ARs were always illegal, they also feel the need to change the rules to make them illegal, which says volumes.

xenophobe
09-02-2006, 1:11 PM
The cheif criminologist at county crime lab has inspected these, and they are legal in Santa Clara County, even though the anti-DA might still try to prosecute.

SemiAutoSam
09-02-2006, 1:12 PM
Keep in mind that a Memo does not constitute law.

PIRATE14
09-02-2006, 1:16 PM
There isn't a need for DOJ approval plus what mechanism is there in place for them to do so.....none.

These meet the letter of the law and intent.

Now they are trying to change that but it hasn't been done yet.

6172crew
09-02-2006, 1:19 PM
Even though the DOJ has said they think pinned magazine ARs were always illegal, they also feel the need to change the rules to make them illegal, which says volumes.'

About the only thing they seem to have a yes or no answer for.:D

The NRA(Ed W.) told me he would send in a mag catch and a letter if we sent a sample to him. Im not sure if anyone ever took Ed up on hs offer or not.

If they so no then Im sure they would have to explain why to a judge.:cool:

ElRay
09-02-2006, 2:10 PM
There isn't a need for DOJ approval plus what mechanism is there in place for them to do so.....none.

These meet the letter of the law and intent.

Now they are trying to change that but it hasn't been done yet.

I'm not trying to piss on anyone's parade but the fact is the DOJ has previously held the "fixed magazine" requirement to a pretty high standard, requiring welding or copious epoxy. I find it hard to believe that a "fix" which is totally removable in seconds with a tool someone could easily keep on a keychain meets the same standards or intent as something like welding or epoxy.

Wishful thinking and willful ignorance (the fact that no one has appears to actually have approached the DOJ with one of these is notable) will not do you any good in court. Is there even any remotely relevant precedent (besides the welded or epoxied AR lowers) regarding the conversion of removable to fixed magazines? How much effort, for example, is required to convert an SKS from the fixed internal mag to a removable mag?

ER

blacklisted
09-02-2006, 2:14 PM
I'm not trying to piss on anyone's parade but the fact is the DOJ has previously held the "fixed magazine" requirement to a pretty high standard, requiring welding or copious epoxy. I find it hard to believe that a "fix" which is totally removable in seconds with a tool someone could easily keep on a keychain meets the same standards or intent as something like welding or epoxy.

Wishful thinking and willful ignorance (the fact that no one has appears to actually have approached the DOJ with one of these is notable) will not do you any good in court. Is there even any remotely relevant precedent (besides the welded or epoxied AR lowers) regarding the conversion of removable to fixed magazines? How much effort, for example, is required to convert an SKS from the fixed internal mag to a removable mag?

ER

See next page

Ford8N
09-02-2006, 2:16 PM
If the DOJ changes the definition http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/sb23.htm

Would that make all the pinned and fixed mag OLL illegal and subject to registration? Because alot of folks bought these types of firearms because of this "use of a tool" definition. And the fact that a senior DOJ attorney said to everyone that OLL's are legal.

SemiAutoSam
09-02-2006, 2:16 PM
Did you read the law ? Here is is again for your convenience.
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/sb23.htm


The law says nothing about locktite or epoxy but in more than one thread I have suggested that a bit of both placed in the correct location will be more toward what the DOJ has in mind that is if you feel the need to bend over to what the DOJ wishes.

What is law and the DOJ'S opinion are to totally different things.

blacklisted
09-02-2006, 2:20 PM
I was going to type up a response, but why do what has already been done? :D

This (http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Cal%20Regulations/NRACommentLtrPart1of2.pdf) (pgs 1-19) should answer all of your questions.


I'm not trying to piss on anyone's parade but the fact is the DOJ has previously held the "fixed magazine" requirement to a pretty high standard, requiring welding or copious epoxy. (this was not always the case)

I find it hard to believe that a "fix" which is totally removable in seconds with a tool someone could easily keep on a keychain meets the same standards or intent as something like welding or epoxy. (welding and epoxy are not mentioned in the regulation)


Wishful thinking and willful ignorance (the fact that no one has appears to actually have approached the DOJ with one of these is notable) will not do you any good in court. Is there even any remotely relevant precedent (besides the welded or epoxied AR lowers) regarding the conversion of removable to fixed magazines? (yes) How much effort, for example, is required to convert an SKS from the fixed internal mag to a removable mag? (very little)

Read pages 1-19 of this:

http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Cal%20Regulations/NRACommentLtrPart1of2.pdf

I wish everyone here would READ (and understand) it (also the Feb 1st memo rebuttal beginning on page 43!)

tenpercentfirearms
09-02-2006, 2:25 PM
I'm not trying to piss on anyone's parade but the fact is the DOJ has previously held the "fixed magazine" requirement to a pretty high standard, requiring welding or copious epoxy. I find it hard to believe that a "fix" which is totally removable in seconds with a tool someone could easily keep on a keychain meets the same standards or intent as something like welding or epoxy.

Wishful thinking and willful ignorance (the fact that no one has appears to actually have approached the DOJ with one of these is notable) will not do you any good in court. Is there even any remotely relevant precedent (besides the welded or epoxied AR lowers) regarding the conversion of removable to fixed magazines? How much effort, for example, is required to convert an SKS from the fixed internal mag to a removable mag?

ER
There is no standard that requires welding or copious epoxy. The SKSs fixed magazine can be removed and replaced with a detachable magazine in seconds. The things is the time it takes to replace and remove the magazine has nothing to do with the law. THe law has been stated and quoted here. Lets look at it again since people seem to want to apply their own logic and reasoning to the law instead of simply reading the law.(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.This makes no mention of epoxy or welding or time. It means exactly what it says. If your magazine requires the disassembly of the action or the use of a tool to remove, it simply is not a detachable magazine. End of story.

Now your local DA might disagree and they might try to prosecute you over it. So far we have heard of how many examples of this happening? Zero.

SemiAutoSam
09-02-2006, 2:30 PM
Wishful thinking and willful ignorance will not do you any good in court.
Why would you be in court if you have a rifle that is in compliance with the law?

Is there even any remotely relevant precedent (besides the welded or epoxied AR lowers) These lowers are still banned by law no matter what the DOJ has to say or how much they have approved of their mag wells being welded up. (that is if your speaking of the COLT and BUSHMASTER RIFLES IE EVANS RIFLES)

regarding the conversion of removable to fixed magazines? How much effort, for example, is required to convert an SKS from the fixed internal mag to a removable mag? This isnt addressed in the regulations or law.

PIRATE14
09-02-2006, 3:45 PM
I'm not trying to piss on anyone's parade but the fact is the DOJ has previously held the "fixed magazine" requirement to a pretty high standard, requiring welding or copious epoxy. I find it hard to believe that a "fix" which is totally removable in seconds with a tool someone could easily keep on a keychain meets the same standards or intent as something like welding or epoxy.

Wishful thinking and willful ignorance (the fact that no one has appears to actually have approached the DOJ with one of these is notable) will not do you any good in court. Is there even any remotely relevant precedent (besides the welded or epoxied AR lowers) regarding the conversion of removable to fixed magazines? How much effort, for example, is required to convert an SKS from the fixed internal mag to a removable mag?

ER

Well some of these have been submitted and there is no response......excpet the usual.....one of those 58 DA could blah...blah blah..

Since you have very little posts welcome and read the laws.

SKS could be converted in a few minutes.

Mr. Ed
09-02-2006, 5:42 PM
DOJ Plant?????

-hanko
09-02-2006, 7:14 PM
I haven't seen any direct confirmation regarding the legality of the mag fixing kits being sold that rely on some form of modified release button (all of which are readily de-activatable with an allen wrench).

I've followed the OLL thing for quite a while and searched all over (this forum, calgunlaws.com, ar15.com, etc) and not found anything from the DOJ that says these are OK.

ER
Succinctly... Allen wrench = tool. If a tool is required to remove the magazine, current LAW considers it a fixed magazine.

In this country, the law prohibits certain activities. If the activity (a magazine that requires a tool to remove) is not prohibited, it's allowed by inference.

Read the law. It's all on the doj website.

-hanko

ElRay
09-02-2006, 7:37 PM
DOJ Plant?????

Actually I'm a special agent sent by Kofi Annan to help disarm the American public to facilitate assimilation into the UN World Government. That tinfoil hat must be warm these days.

At any rate I've read the laws and the documents on calgunlaws, and I agree that to the letter of the law the mag locks looks good. But this board is full of examples (real or exaggerated) of the DOJ applying their own interpretation of the laws. I would not feel comfortable buying an OLL if I hadn't seen the DOJ memos explicitely saying they were legal to own. The memo is not legal precedent but it would be a very nice thing to have in case someone in the legal chain of command (beat cop to DA) was not up on the situation.

There is obviously a sizable grey area between the letter of the law, the popular interpretation, and enforcement. Clearly this is an issue in flux that the DOJ cares about and is not happy about, and it's just a matter of how confident you are that you're in the right and whether you're willing to deal with it if an LEO has a different opinion. I'd love to have a CA-legal AR, but I have no desire to put my personal property or freedom on the line to do such. Your opinion, of course, may be different.

ER

PIRATE14
09-02-2006, 8:00 PM
Well the DOJ FD isn't happy about much things these days except that bill that just passed, why I don't know, yet.

If your not comfortable buying a OLL, don't......I tell this to people all the time. If you don't want to stay up on the current laws....don't get into the OLL.

Everyone has to choose their battles somewhere.

There are a lot of people who have and there are some good things coming about because of it.

You can buy a OLL and just let it be, they don't go bad and they make a nice paper weight. If you buy one we won't tell your buddies at the UN:D :D

PIRATE14
09-02-2006, 8:31 PM
Hector
I want one encapsulated in glass can ya do that ? maybe a 80% so I don't have to go through the bother of DROS for something that never will be used as a firearm.

Cool idea huh I would put a mag into it and one of my locks maybe a gold plated MAG-LOCK.

I kinda like the rcvr under glass w/ the label, break open in a emergency......of course you'd need a few extra parts to go along with it.:D

ElRay
09-02-2006, 8:32 PM
You can buy a OLL and just let it be, they don't go bad and they make a nice paper weight. If you buy one we won't tell your buddies at the UN:D :D

I'll have to stash it under the seat of the black helecopter I fly around in.

Thanks for all the good responses. For the record I do have an OLL, from Cold War Shooters no less.

ER

PIRATE14
09-02-2006, 8:33 PM
I'll have to stash it under the seat of the black helecopter I fly around in.

Thanks for all the good responses. For the record I do have an OLL, from Cold War Shooters no less.

ER

I knew you were a fighter..........;)

Prince50
09-02-2006, 8:35 PM
Elray,

If you had in fact read all posts regarding this issue, you would have read that I did submit the Prince50 mag lock kit with samples to DOJ many many months ago. I never got a no response. Want to know why? Becasue then I could ask them what is in fact legal, and tyhey would have no answer.

They are legal to the letter of the law, and are still for sale from Hawk1, and lots of shops in the state.

As I said before I was not going to hide my lock from DOJ. They say over the phone it is not legal, then have to have a comitee meeting to change the verbage to make it not legal....HMMM????? Why do that if it is not legal?

Darin

Prince50
09-02-2006, 8:38 PM
PS hope that CWS lower came with a Prince50 kit....

Thanks,

Darin

SemiAutoSam
09-02-2006, 8:41 PM
I kinda like the rcvr under glass w/ the label, break open in a emergency......of course you'd need a few extra parts to go along with it.:D

Well sure I do and michelle said she was sending a check. Are you back from Sam Diego yet ?

adamsreeftank
09-02-2006, 8:41 PM
...

There is obviously a sizable grey area between the letter of the law, the popular interpretation, and enforcement. ...

I don't think so. The law says it is legal. The popular interpretation says it is legal. And most (if not all) of the people who have spoken to actual LEOs (not DOJ clerks and secretaries) have been told that mag locks are legal.

The only ones who may not think they are legal refuse to put their opinion in writing when asked directly. And thus their opinions are worth the same as the paper they are (not) written on.

bwiese
09-02-2006, 11:03 PM
I don't think the DOJ FD - with its current composition - will ever opine on the legality about mag fixing kits.

They prefer to leave us in in a miasma of F.U.D. In fact, given the massive paper trail a certain Deputy AG left regarding OLLs, they'll likely not commit anything much to paper again.

The only thing you can do is read and understand the laws and related regulations (and their interaction) yourself - as they currently stand, not as the DOJ proposes in the future and which would conflict with 6 years worth of prior DOJ interpretation & documentation & approval of other guns.

The DOJ, with regards to firearms matters, is so timid it won't even assert its authority as the chief legal authority/leadership in the field, and apparently wants to surrender its authority to local DAs.

xenophobe
09-03-2006, 3:27 AM
There is obviously a sizable grey area between the letter of the law, the popular interpretation, and enforcement. Clearly this is an issue in flux that the DOJ cares about and is not happy about, and it's just a matter of how confident you are that you're in the right and whether you're willing to deal with it if an LEO has a different opinion. I'd love to have a CA-legal AR, but I have no desire to put my personal property or freedom on the line to do such. Your opinion, of course, may be different.

"The Man" himself stood across the table from one of my coworkers with three fully built AR series rifles with Prince50 mag locks. He didn't bother inspecting them, didn't even comment or really even look at them. This was at the last San Jose gun show. Nobody has been 'wrapped up'. The DOJ has not stormed our shop *knock on wood*. The DOJ has not even sent us a letter regarding this matter either in opinion, voice of law or as a FFL Bulletin. The DOJ is not prosecuting people with firearms that would violate SB-23 if it were not for the mag-lock kits out there.

You may rant and banter any way you wish, but your opinion means little next to the truth of this particular situation. Please, feel free to add a few more layers of tin to your beloved hat.

JWI
09-03-2006, 12:24 PM
I've lost track of the discussion on what happened after the hearing on the amendments to the CRC. What happened to the "permanently altered" language that the DOJ wanted to add?

Is the consensus that, if the amendment becomes effective, this is a change in the law creating a new category of AWs and a registration period is required?

grammaton76
09-03-2006, 2:33 PM
What happened to the "permanently altered" language that the DOJ wanted to add?

Is the consensus that, if the amendment becomes effective, this is a change in the law creating a new category of AWs and a registration period is required?

The DOJ's opinion is no.

Our general consensus is yes, but after a court battle.

I wouldn't be surprised if they just left it alone, rather than mess with it.

faterikcartman
09-04-2006, 1:15 AM
Elray, I think the "spirit" of the law is that the state doesn't want guns that are quickly reloadable via magazines. Requiring a tool to remove the magazine makes it impossible to reload the gun quickly. Thus, the "spirit" of the law is satisfied.

If the history of the courts in this state, others, and federal jusisdictions, is any guide, if you get the right prosecutor and the right judge, what the laws say or do not say, including the US Constitution, are irrelevant.

ElRay
09-04-2006, 7:12 PM
"The Man" himself stood across the table from one of my coworkers with three fully built AR series rifles with Prince50 mag locks.

<snipped for brevity>

You may rant and banter any way you wish, but your opinion means little next to the truth of this particular situation. Please, feel free to add a few more layers of tin to your beloved hat.

You bring up a lot of good practical points, and again I'm just trying understand the state of the issue. Sorry I missed the posting about submitting the Prince50 lock, I don't read this forum every day and it didn't come up when I was searching for info.

To come back to the most fundamental document at the heart of the issue, the CA Assault Weapon Guide (which I believe shares language with the law itself) says this about qualifications for an AW: "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: etc..." I don't see how the Prince50 removes the "capacity to accept a detatchable magazine". It temporarily disables it, but one of the selling points of it is how easy it is to revert to removable magazine function. Clearly this is splitting hairs but, well, that's what interpreting laws is all about.

I'm not trying to start a pissing match here, I just think people are being a little cavalier about the legality of their "fixed" lowers. If anyone thinks I'm beating a dead horse or just trying to stir stuff up please don't bother responding because I'm not trolling.

And for the record we at the UN wear solid gold mind control deflector beanies (how do you think we spend all those dues).

ER

MonsterMan
09-04-2006, 7:32 PM
With a fixed magazine in place in the reciever, the reciever now has no capability of accepting or accomadating a detachable magazine. I think that is the logic of the situation.

MM

bwiese
09-04-2006, 7:49 PM
To come back to the most fundamental document at the heart of the issue, the CA Assault Weapon Guide (which I believe shares language with the law itself) says this about qualifications for an AW: "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: etc..." I don't see how the Prince50 removes the "capacity to accept a detatchable magazine". It temporarily disables it, but one of the selling points of it is how easy it is to revert to removable magazine function. Clearly this is splitting hairs but, well, that's what interpreting laws is all about.

Well, it's legal because (and not limited to) these reasons, all of which (and more) were brought forth at the Aug 16 DOJ regulatory comment meeting, or in written submissions thereto:


many, many court decision reiterate that regulations must be clear - it's a fundamental due process matter. The fact that the DOJ had to 'clarify' by attempting to add a new regulatory definition - not just rephrase an existing one - means the old one was wholly inadequate for their new purpose.


Multiple documents from DOJ during the 2000 regulatory comment proces indicate that, for the last 6+ years, their concept of fixed magazine and detachable magazine agreed with ours.


There is no measure of permanence in the relevant law or the regulatory definitions. Even the proposed new definition doesn't specify a proper measurement/standard of permanence. If they want permanence they're gonna have to specify.


A gun that has such a fixed magazine installed does not have a detachable magazine, by definition (CCR 5469(a), formerly 978.20(a)) - a tool is required for removal (and reinstallation), and such magazines can't be removed, loaded or changed or reinserted during normal course of rifle operation. Such guns have no 'capacity to accept' because a fixed mag is already in place - [u]and removal would fall under the legal concept of 'construction'[/i].


We have multiple acknowledgements, on paper, and in speeches in front of dozens of folks at public meeting from DOJ Firearms Div. Asst. Director/ Deputy AG Tim Rieger, that constructive possession concepts (see above) do not apply to generic assault weapons.


The DOJ has essentially voided their current position (a new insistence on permanence by saying this is a clarification of existing standards instead of new law) ) by having issued written formal approval of the Barrett M82CA, a rifle that has a swing-down 10rd magazine that is held in place with two screws.


Any such insistence upon their current stance, and adoption of the new regulatory definition, would trigger AW status not only of fixed-mag OLL builds, but of many other legally-owned, legally-acquired rifles like certain SKSes. This would have to open up a registration period for these guns as there are no grounds for other action.



The best way to understand even more deeply what's discussed above is to look at the NRA's submission to the DOJ's Aug 16 comment meeting - it's *huge*. It can be seen at http://www.calgunlaws.com

SemiAutoSam
09-04-2006, 8:00 PM
Elray, I think the "spirit" of the law is that the state doesn't want guns that are quickly re-loadable via magazines.

If this was the case then why didn't they include the ruger mini 14 and or mini 30 and the Springfield M1A and other variants of the same designed rifle?

ElRay
09-04-2006, 8:24 PM
Well, it's legal because (and not limited to) these reasons, all of which (and more) were brought forth at the Aug 16 DOJ regulatory comment meeting, or in written submissions thereto:

<snip>

The best way to understand even more deeply what's discussed above is to look at the NRA's submission to the DOJ's Aug 16 comment meeting - it's *huge*. It can be seen at http://www.calgunlaws.com

Thanks, those are some great specifics and references and I know you've put a lot of time into this. I made it through most of the NRA doc previously but not all of it in detail, I think it's time for another look. This will also give me something to do besides staring at my lower deciding if I should build it or not.

ER

bwiese
09-04-2006, 8:31 PM
Thanks, those are some great specifics and references and I know you've put a lot of time into this. I made it through most of the NRA doc previously but not all of it in detail, I think it's time for another look. This will also give me something to do besides staring at my lower deciding if I should build it or not.

ElRay,

The NRA lawyers' papers went on in excruciating legal detail, and included DOJ source documents. I think what I wrote above was a reasonable partial plain-language summary.

If the DOJ wants to make it harder for you to use fixed mags, by all means go with a detachable mag....

.... go use a detachable mag and use a standard A2 stock, no flash hider and then use a MonsterMan grip. This grip in no way can be considered a pistol grip as it uses a regular rifle-style hold and cannot be considered to be described by the DOJ regulatory definition of pistol grip. Benchrest-type guys are using these just fine.

rorschach
09-04-2006, 10:11 PM
I'm not trying to start a pissing match here, I just think people are being a little cavalier about the legality of their "fixed" lowers. If anyone thinks I'm beating a dead horse or just trying to stir stuff up please don't bother responding because I'm not trolling.
ER

If the idea of a locked 10 rounder is to edgy for you, maybe you should go gripless. No pistol grip or flash hider, and an open magwell. No fussing over what constitutes "permanent" and "capacity to accept" etc.

SRB and muzzle brake, and you're set.

hoffmang
09-04-2006, 10:25 PM
Also note that it is likely that we'll be able to press DOJ for a compliance letter after the new year through various channels. Buy your OLL. If you aren't comfortable with the mag locks (I have three built with them) then by all means hold off on building or go gripless as Bill describes.

-Gene

JWI
09-17-2006, 9:39 AM
Can someone repost the link to the NRA document? I tried to follow the link above, but it didn't work. Thanks.

6172crew
09-17-2006, 10:00 AM
Works for me.http://www.calgunlaws.com/:cool:

JWI
09-17-2006, 11:02 PM
It worked this time.

Gotta say, that's a great piece of legal writing.

So what happens next? Does the OAL make a decision whether to adopt the regulation? Then, I assume, a court fight.