PDA

View Full Version : magazine laws and what is legally defined as "altered" ***LONG OPINE***


dieselpower
04-20-2011, 10:44 PM
PC 12020(c)(25) and PC 12276.1(d)(2) Both give exemptions to "altered" magazines.

So for either of these laws to come into play the magazine MUST be altered from one thing to another. The key is in the word "altered", then that is further defined as it must be "permanent". We do not even need to go into "permanent". The fact I buy complete magazines means they are NOT altered from anything. They are all 10 round magazines.

A Short body 10 round capacity magazines, can be altered to hold either more or less than 10. In no way can either of these laws be applied to a Short body magazine because it was never altered after it was purchased. This is your normal everyday common 10 rd magazine.

The same is true for a Medium body 10 round capacity magazine and a Long body 10 round capacity magazine. Both of these can be altered to hold more or less than 10 rounds, but as purchased, they are 10 round magazines, the exception laws do not apply to them.

The reason I am going down this road is to attempt to get the community to stop referring to magazines as to what their body could possibly hold if altered, (as in 10/20 and 10/30). This is akin to admitting right off the bat, that its an altered magazine. You are making it easier to then bring in the second part "permanently". You are agreeing right from the word GO, it was a large capacity magazine that was altered. Since you are agreeing to this the regulation and exemptions on altered magazines must be followed.

If I take a 30 rd large capacity magazine and limit its capacity to 10, then I can call that a 10/30. I am admitting both laws on altered magazines apply to my magazine. (12020 and 12276.1). If I walk into a store and buy a Long Body 10 rd magazine, its 100% the same as buying a short body 10 round magazine. In this case neither law applies. Nothing has been altered to my knowledge. It was bought new in this condition.

Whats the big deal?
There are two solid benefits to this...

1) In PC 12020, buying is not illegal. So even if at some point after the sale my Long body 10 rd magazines is declared a large capacity magazine by LEO or a DA...so what. Its then a legally acquired large capacity magazine. If a DA wants to tell me its still a large capacity magazine, fine. At that point I could, in fact, (since it was determined to be a large capacity magazine), remove the limiting device. I still can not be charged. Buying is not illegal and 12020(c)(25) is for altered magazines. Not my magazine... it was bought as a 10 round magazine...

2) In PC 12276.1 (a)(2), the key is "capacity", on top of "Fixed" as it relates to how many rounds it holds. It must be 10 or less. The 10 round long body magazine meets that requirement. You can not bring PC 12276.1(d)(2) into the picture unless the magazine was "altered". This again is no different than using a 10 round short body magazine. The person who builds or refers to their magazine as a 10/30 is already agreeing that its an altered magazine and subject to "permanency" in the definition as determined by law. The critical thing here is...a large capacity magazine is NOT a feature of an Assault Weapon in PC 12276.1(2). The capacity simply MUST be 10 or less. PC 12276.1 (d)(2) CLEARLY states "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds" Permanency and altered do not come into play with a, store bought, Long Body 10 round magazine. I can take ANY 10 round magazine and ALTER it to accept 11 rounds. That is not what the law allows. If that were the case, NO 10rd magazine in CA is legal.

Once again, a LEO or DA can determine my Long Body 10 round magazine is a LARGE capacity magazine if they want. I still did NOT create an Assault Weapon because "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds,...... but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. My LONG Body was NEVER altered..its simply a 10 rd magazine I bought at the store..the same as my Glock 9mm 10 rd magazine what uses the same body as a 15 round Glock 9mm magazine. Its NOT a 10/15...its a 10 rd magazine.

I do not refer to my 10 rd Glock magazines as 10/15s. They are 10 rd magazines. No one should be referring to a 10 rd capacity magazines as an altered 30 round magazine, unless you in fact altered it. AND if you did alter it, you are subject to the laws governing altered magazines.

I would hope the vendors and retailers see wisdom in this protective measure and change signage, & receipt nomenclature to replace the terms, 10 rd, 10/20 and 10/30 with... 10 rd Short body, 10 rd Medium body & 10 rd Long body.

It just protects the consumer from unnecessary regulation.

Do you agree?

bden
04-20-2011, 10:54 PM
:shrug: but :popcorn:

If a DA wants to tell me its still a large capacity magazine, fine. At that point I could, in fact, (since it was determined to be a large capacity magazine), remove the limiting device. I still can not be charged. Buying is not illegal and 12020(c)(25) is for altered magazines.

Fair enough, but whoever sold you the magazine is now on the hook for selling an illegal mag no?

2) In PC 12276.1 (a)(2), the key is "capacity", on top of "Fixed" as it relates to how many rounds it holds. It must be 10 or less. The 10 round long body magazine meets that requirement. You can not bring PC 12276.1(d)(2) into the picture unless the magazine was "altered".

Okay, but does anybody manufacture an unaltered 30 round "long"?

Do you agree?

I'm not sure yet...I like where you're going, but am curious to see what others say in order to understand all the ramifications better.

Luieburger
04-20-2011, 11:02 PM
So someone who constructs a 10 round magazine didn't alter anything, they built a 10 round magazine from parts? Sounds good to me :D Can any of the legal eagles tear this theory down? Seems fairly solid to me.

Cokebottle
04-20-2011, 11:05 PM
Interesting.

And even in the event of one purchasing parts kits, blocking them to 10rds, and assembling them, they are still not "altered".

They were purchased as parts, the part(s) was/were altered, and the 10rd magazine was then assembled from these parts.


Interesting angle.

Luieburger
04-20-2011, 11:08 PM
...the part(s) was/were altered...

That depends on how you go about building your 10 round magazine. Some people just add additional parts to the magazine use additional parts when constructing their 10 round magazine and don't alter any parts at all.

dieselpower
04-20-2011, 11:17 PM
:shrug: but :popcorn:

ok, lets start small...

Do you think I can take a common everyday 10 rd magazine, cut the spring and make it hold 11 rounds, AND still allow it to work in the firearm?

Yes or No.

If you said, "Yes, of course this is possible", then why is this common 10 rd magazine NOT subject to large capacity law or the Fixed magazine 10 or less law? They can clearly hold more than 10 rounds.

Simple... they are manufactured as 10 round magazines. They are NOT large capacity magazines that are altered. That is why they are not subject to the "altered" regulations.

So why admit your magazines are subject to these regulations when NO store bought magazine has to?

Calling a 10 rd magazine a 10/11 is like asking for trouble. Is the floor plate sealed?

So why call your store bought Long Body 10 rd magazine a 10/30... you are asking for trouble.

bden
04-20-2011, 11:18 PM
I think I'm missing something here so far, but I like where this is going.

(answers in bold)
ok, lets start small...

Do you think I can take a common everyday 10 rd magazine, cut the spring and make it hold 11 rounds, AND still allow it to work in the firearm?

Yes or No.

If you said, "Yes, of course this is possible", then why is this common 10 rd magazine NOT subject to large capacity law or the Fixed magazine 10 or less law? They can clearly hold more than 10 rounds.

Certainly, but only when altered to accept more than 10 rounds which is illegal...

Simple... they are manufactured as 10 round magazines. They are NOT large capacity magazines that are altered. That is why they are not subject to the "altered" regulations.

So why admit your magazines are subject to these regulations when NO store bought magazine has to?

Oh, okay, but so what? (said kindly and inquisitively, not like a jerk :))

Calling a 10 rd magazine a 10/11 is like asking for trouble. Is the floor plate sealed?

Here's where it get's real fuzzy. Why is this asking for trouble? Because it has the ability to accept? I wouldn't think that would be the case because that "ability to accept >10" would require alteration

So why call your store bought Long Body 10 rd magazine a 10/30... you are asking for trouble.

Couldn't I call it a Fruit Loop if I wanted to so long as it doesn't hold 11+?

dieselpower
04-20-2011, 11:20 PM
Is a retailer selling Large capacity magazines when they sell me a 10 round magazine, since I can cut the spring and make it hold 11?

Nope.

no one sells 10 rd SHORT body mags with sealed floor plates.

Munk
04-20-2011, 11:34 PM
The more I read, the less I understand.

Is this a gripe about nomenclature?

or is this an attempt at showing a method the mag ban can be ignored?

Removing a block would require you to take the mag apart. It's then parts. If you rebuilt it with a different capacity, it can change status, and if it does, it's considered manufacturing. Standard definition of manufacturing is to take one thing, and turn it into another. If it changes from non-large-capacity mag, to Large-Capacity mag, you've just MFGed a large capacity mag. If it went from large-cap to large-cap, then it's just repair or reassembly or modification. If it went from large-cap to non-large, then... why would you neuter something you presumably already owned?

Is a retailer selling Large capacity magazines when they sell me a 10 round magazine, since I can cut the spring and make it hold 11?

Nope.
But you would be manufacturing one if you did, and that's a no-no.
no one sells 10 rd SHORT body mags with sealed floor plates.

dieselpower
04-20-2011, 11:37 PM
Fair enough, but whoever sold you the magazine is now on the hook for selling an illegal mag no?

No they sold a 10 rd magazine.

Keep in mind ALL magazines can be altered. I can cut ANY spring.

The LEO / DA is faced with a magazine that only holds 10.

Even if a DA / LEO declares my Long Body 10 rd magazine a Large Capacity magazine, they must first prove a magazine that holds only 10 rounds is a large capacity magazine. The only way to do that is with 12020(c)(25)...which can't be used unless its an ALTERED magazine, ALTERED improperly.

So they must first prove the magazine in question was first sold as a complete working 30 rd magazine. Then altered to hold 10 or less.

Do magazines have track-able serial numbers? Does a magazine cease being a magazine if its disassembled and all its parts are mixed in a big box with other parts?

I would agree a DA could have ground, if a retailer or the guy who sold them, buys complete 30 rd magazines, and then limits them to 10 rds, and sells them in the original package which states its a 30 rd magazine. Other than that...no way to prove it.

dieselpower
04-20-2011, 11:40 PM
The more I read, the less I understand.

Is this a gripe about nomenclature?

or is this an attempt at showing a method the mag ban can be ignored?

Removing a block would require you to take the mag apart. It's then parts. If you rebuilt it with a different capacity, it can change status, and if it does, it's considered manufacturing. Standard definition of manufacturing is to take one thing, and turn it into another. If it changes from non-large-capacity mag, to Large-Capacity mag, you've just MFGed a large capacity mag. If it went from large-cap to large-cap, then it's just repair or reassembly or modification. If it went from large-cap to non-large, then... why would you neuter something you presumably already owned?

forget removing parts. We are just dealing with what we call our magazines here. We are just stopping unnecessary regulation from being applied to us.

You are not rebuilding ANYTHING. You are assembling a magazine at the most. The best case is you only BUY complete working magazines.

a 10 rd magazine is a 10 rd magazine is a 10 rd magazine... the size or shape of the body means nothing. The only thing you need to know is it holds 10rds out of the box or bag you bought it in...its a new magazine.

dantodd
04-20-2011, 11:59 PM
I think you are barking up an empty tree. As you said, it is not illegal to possess a large capacity magazine so all you really need to worry about (assuming you are smart enough to keep your mouth shut) is the fixed magazine capacity limit. This doesn't have the same wording as the large capacity magazine law in re: permanence. 10/20 and 10/30 are merely cosmetic descriptors and in no way asserts or admits to any past capacity of the magazine in question.

It's like taking a 60 passenger school bus and converting it into a camper. "60 passenger" merely gives people an idea of the size of the bus to distinguish it from the "short bus" which is also a familiar descriptor of bus sizing.

My FS92 for example has a 10 rd. magazine. The non-neutered version holds 13 (or is it 15) rounds. the only difference in the magazine body is that mine has crimps in the side to limit "double stacking." Both mags fit completely in the mag-well and no one would call my mag a 10/13 or 10/15. Because they look cosmetically the same.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 12:00 AM
I think I'm missing something here so far, but I like where this is going.

Originally Posted by dieselpower
ok, lets start small...

Do you think I can take a common everyday 10 rd magazine, cut the spring and make it hold 11 rounds, AND still allow it to work in the firearm?

Yes or No.

If you said, "Yes, of course this is possible", then why is this common 10 rd magazine NOT subject to large capacity law or the Fixed magazine 10 or less law? They can clearly hold more than 10 rounds.

Certainly, but only when altered to accept more than 10 rounds which is illegal...

Simple... they are manufactured as 10 round magazines. They are NOT large capacity magazines that are altered. That is why they are not subject to the "altered" regulations.

So why admit your magazines are subject to these regulations when NO store bought magazine has to?

Oh, okay, but so what? (said kindly and inquisitively, not like a jerk )

Calling a 10 rd magazine a 10/11 is like asking for trouble. Is the floor plate sealed?

Here's where it get's real fuzzy. Why is this asking for trouble? Because it has the ability to accept? I wouldn't think that would be the case because that "ability to accept >10" would require alteration

So why call your store bought Long Body 10 rd magazine a 10/30... you are asking for trouble.

Couldn't I call it a Fruit Loop if I wanted to so long as it doesn't hold 11+?

(answers in bold)

because once a LEO or DA can no longer call "altering" into play, you can not be charged with a crime. Buying is NOT illegal, ownship is not illegal, manufacturing a 10 rd magazine is not illegal. The only way they can charge you with 12020 is by calling the manufacturing improper under the exclusion of altering.... you didn't alter anything. Capacity to accept is defined as accommodating more than 10...which your manufactured 10 rd magazine CAN NOT DO. the only thing you could have done wrong is NOT permanently altered...once again, you didn't alter.

Now if you bought a 10/30...you call it a 10/30.. you are ADMITTING its altered, you are admitting it was a 30 rd magazine and is now subject to 12020(c)(25).

now in use in a rifle....

a 10/30 must comply with 12276.1(d)(2), "....feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. "

a 10 rd magazine only needs to comply with, "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds"...

so even if a 10 rd magazine can have its spring cut to allow it to hold 11 rounds...that doesn't matter. All that matters is how many rounds fit in it.

If you stop calling your store bought 10 rd LONG body magazines 10/30s, you are not subject to the altering language. They are NOT an altered magazine...they are simply 10 rd magazines with a longer body.

The added benefit is any length magazine CAN BE used in a fixed magazine build...why? because as long as the capacity is 10 or less its legal as per the first part of 12276.1(d)(2).... as long it was NOT an altered magazine. If its an altered magazine, you must comply with the second language in 12276.1(d)(2).

If this was not true, a standard run of the mill, colt, bushmaster, LMT, Promag, Armalite, RRA, BCM 10rd short body magazine would be a large capacity magazine.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 12:16 AM
I think you are barking up an empty tree. As you said, it is not illegal to possess a large capacity magazine so all you really need to worry about (assuming you are smart enough to keep your mouth shut) is the fixed magazine capacity limit. This doesn't have the same wording as the large capacity magazine law in re: permanence. 10/20 and 10/30 are merely cosmetic descriptors and in no way asserts or admits to any past capacity of the magazine in question.

It's like taking a 60 passenger school bus and converting it into a camper. "60 passenger" merely gives people an idea of the size of the bus to distinguish it from the "short bus" which is also a familiar descriptor of bus sizing.

My FS92 for example has a 10 rd. magazine. The non-neutered version holds 13 (or is it 15) rounds. the only difference in the magazine body is that mine has crimps in the side to limit "double stacking." Both mags fit completely in the mag-well and no one would call my mag a 10/13 or 10/15. Because they look cosmetically the same.

No thats the problem. The terms 10/20 and 10/30 denote a large capacity magazine that was altered.

You are taking a 60 passenger bus and converting it. You are subject to any LAW about converting a bus to a camper, or whatever. When I build a camper or whatever I am not subject to those laws...I am not converting anything. Even if the end item looks the same.

Its the difference between a felony and a walk. Sealing the floor plate on a magazine is NOT legal. Any LEO or DA can still modify it back to a large capacity magazine and charge you with its manufacture. NOWHERE in the law does it say sealing the floorplate makes it legal. In fact they have said the opposite. Who's sealant is legal and who's sealand is not? Does the rivet need to be made of____? Does the weld need to be ______? The only way to NOT play this game with the DA is to avoid this law.

To avoid this law do not admit your magazine is altered to begin with. they are in fact NOT altered.

I am just asking that the community stop referring to and selling 10/XX magazines. Its just safer, it gives you more legal room and forces a DA / LEO to meet a required burden.

Call them 10 rd short, medium or long body magazines.

Luieburger
04-21-2011, 12:24 AM
No thats the problem. The terms 10/20 and 10/30 denote a large capacity magazine that was altered.

10/20 and 10/30 are terms that get thrown around and have no real legal standing. I do agree, however, that it is probably smart to pick your words wisely and just call your magazines "10 round magazines." If anybody asks any questions beyond that, just choose to remain silent and do not consent to any searches. Opening and inspecting a magazine to see how it functions is most definitely a search.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 9:58 AM
10/20 and 10/30 are terms that get thrown around and have no real legal standing. I do agree, however, that it is probably smart to pick your words wisely and just call your magazines "10 round magazines." If anybody asks any questions beyond that, just choose to remain silent and do not consent to any searches. Opening and inspecting a magazine to see how it functions is most definitely a search.

True they have no legal standing. The problem starts when someone asks you what the 20 means, whats the 30 mean. It means CAPACITY.

It also deals with regulation. Without calling the "altering" language into the picture the only measure of a magazines capacity is what it can accommodate.

No matter how easy or hard it is to manipulate, alter, modify, change, whatever, if an 11th round doesn't fit in, its a 10 rd magazine.

The term open the door and allows questions.

You can make a 11 round magazine out of an AR15 10 rd magazine, the ones with the short body. Push the floor plate open (it can be done with finger pressure), slide the spring out 2 -3 coils, push the floorplate back in. Yes the floor plate will not lock in, but it will stay in place. It will now hold 11 rounds. This is now manufacturing a large capacity magazine.

Why do you not get worried that some one will say its not legal? I just showed you how easy it is to make one into a large capacity magazine. Isn't that all that is needed to make a Fixed magazine rifle an AW? No tools required, simply manipulating the spring gains you more capacity...why isn't this illegal?

I will tell you why. Because 10 round magazines are 10 round magazines. They are only subject to what they can accommodate as intended. The permanently alter clause in PC 12276.1(d)(2) doesn't apply to them. It only applies to large capacity magazines that have been altered to only hold 10 or less.

By using 10/20 and 10/30 you are signifying that you are using a magazine body with a higher capacity, therefore you are subject to those regulations.

I am not saying to stop sealing the bottoms for an added measure of security. I am simply saying we need to stop referring to them in a way that allows the use of unknowns. This stops the magazines capacity from having to meet a standard....["permanently altered" to be specific]

If at any time in the future , someone would attempt to use the "altered" language in PC against long body magazines, they would FIRST need to meet a standard. That standard is met by the implied term 10/30, 10/20.

In my opinion its stupid to use 10/20s and 10/30s because the risk is not worth it. Many people steer others away from using them...WHY? What do we fear? What is the problem with them? Once you remove that language from regulating your magazine, the problem goes away.

ap3572001
04-21-2011, 10:56 AM
How about magazines and firearms that were invented only few years ago? Interesting......

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 11:34 AM
How about magazines and firearms that were invented only few years ago? Interesting......

It doesn't matter when a firearm or magazine was invented. Thats the benefit of this proper terminology. Thats a good point though. Some firearm manufacture may NOT offer their firearm with a 10 round magazine. That still doesn't meet a burden of an altered large capacity magazine. Unless of course you agree by using it in the name of the item...10/15 magazine.


I own a Stag-15 Assault Weapon, I keep its Bullet Button tight at all times and only use 10 rd Clips. Its the best featureless rifle I own, with a Pistol grip and Flash Hider.

This post would spawn 100 post correcting its authors use of terminology. There would be no real benefit other than proper use of terms.

What I am asking is we, as a community, start correcting our terms for magazine that has an end result not just for "proper use of terms", but the added benefit to place the burden of proof back where it belongs... the State Authorities.

If we all did this, it would take less than a month for all members and users to start using the term and then understand the difference between a 10/30 and a Long body. Once we make that distinction in our everyday life, it becomes a reality in the market place.

That reality is already in place..."Why is the floor plate of a ten round magazine NOT sealed?" "Why are 10/30s sealed?" I can alter both if I choose, and I don't need tools to do it to the ten round short body.

ap3572001
04-21-2011, 11:44 AM
It doesn't matter when a firearm or magazine was invented. Thats the benefit of this proper terminology. Thats a good point though. Some firearm manufacture may NOT offer their firearm with a 10 round magazine. That still doesn't meet a burden of an altered large capacity magazine. Unless of course you agree by using it in the name of the item...10/15 magazine.


I own a Stag-15 Assault Weapon, I keep its Bullet Button tight at all times and only use 10 rd Clips. Its the best featureless rifle I own, with a Pistol grip and Flash Hider.

This post would spawn 100 post correcting its authors use of terminology. There would be no real benefit other than proper use of terms.

What I am asking is we, as a community, start correcting our terms for magazine that has an end result not just for "proper use of terms", but the added benefit to place the burden of proof back where it belongs... the State Authorities.

If we all did this, it would take less than a month for all members and users to start using the term and then understand the difference between a 10/30 and a Long body. Once we make that distinction in our everyday life, it becomes a reality in the market place.

That reality is already in place..."Why is the floor plate of a ten round magazine NOT sealed?" "Why are 10/30s sealed?" I can alter both if I choose, and I don't need tools to do it to the ten round short body.
Here is a simple example . You have a Beretta storm 9mm with bunch of BERETTA high caps. NOW WHAT? You had them before 2000??? The gun or the mags were not even made till AFTER 2000. RIGHT? But possesion is legal? Or is it legal if You owned it before 2000?

zhyla
04-21-2011, 1:49 PM
1) In PC 12020, buying is not illegal. So even if at some point after the sale my Long body 10 rd magazines is declared a large capacity magazine by LEO or a DA...so what. Its then a legally acquired large capacity magazine. If a DA wants to tell me its still a large capacity magazine, fine. At that point I could, in fact, (since it was determined to be a large capacity magazine), remove the limiting device. I still can not be charged. Buying is not illegal and 12020(c)(25) is for altered magazines. Not my magazine... it was bought as a 10 round magazine...


A LEO or DA declaring a "long body" 10 round magazine to be "large-capacity" has no weight of law. I don't really see the point of this example. At the end of the day you bought a 10-round magazine and then manufactured from it a magazine which holds more than 10 rounds. And 12020(a)(2) says you're going to jail for a year. Playing a shell game with terms is not going to get around this.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 1:51 PM
Here is a simple example . You have a Beretta storm 9mm with bunch of BERETTA high caps. NOW WHAT? You had them before 2000??? The gun or the mags were not even made till AFTER 2000. RIGHT? But possession is legal? Or is it legal if You owned it before 2000?

I am not talking about owning large capacity magazines.

I make the Diesel .45 semi-automatic 1911 type clone. First sold in 2011. It uses a double-stack .45 magazine that holds 15 rounds. A store in Northern California buys my magazine parts and assembles 10 rd magazines from those parts. Those magazines ARE NOT 10/15s.

They use all the same parts, the capacity is limited via an added part. Those 10 round capacity magazines are not covered by, or subject to "permanently altered" language in any law on magazines. They are simply 10 round magazines.

If you buy one of my Diesel .45 double-stack 15 round magazines in Texas, in order to bring it into CA, it must comply with "permanently altered" language in magazine law. It will be refereed to as a 10/15 magazine.

If we stop referring to store bought or kit assembled magazines as 10/XX and "altered capacity" magazines, the rules governing those magazines stops.

The same as it does right now with SHORT BODY 10 round magazines, which ARE NOT subject to "permanently altered" language in magazine law.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 1:58 PM
A LEO or DA declaring a "long body" 10 round magazine to be "large-capacity" has no weight of law. I don't really see the point of this example. At the end of the day you bought a 10-round magazine and then manufactured from it a magazine which holds more than 10 rounds. And 12020(a)(2) says you're going to jail for a year. Playing a shell game with terms is not going to get around this.

I can load 11 rounds into any 10 round AR15 magazine you set in front of me. It will feed ammo into the firearm. I will use no tools, or maybe a plastic pen cap to slide the floor plate...but really its not needed. This type of SHORT body 10 rd magazine is sold in EVERY gun store in CA who sells magazines.

Why am I not going to jail for owning this magazine or using it in a fixed magazine firearm? Why are they not being arrested for selling large cap magazines...

answer this please.

ap3572001
04-21-2011, 2:07 PM
As I said, the regulations are not clear...... my question was about guns and high capacity magazines made after 2000

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 2:15 PM
As I said, the regulations are not clear...... my original question was about guns and high capacity magazines made after 2000

The age of the magazine is not relevant in PC. The law is simply in effect after 1/1/2000. A magazine made from parts manufactured yesterday is just as legal as one manufactured in 1960. Both can hold 30 rds or 10 rds.

The defined large capacity magazine is a whole different creature in law.

What I am saying is, why allow regulation to be applied to an item it is not meant to be applied to? By using a term and describing an item as one that is subject to regulation, you are assisting the State meet a burden of proof.

This has ZERO to do with large capacity magazines or what date it was made...

CHS
04-21-2011, 2:16 PM
If we stop referring to store bought or kit assembled magazines as 10/XX and "altered capacity" magazines, the rules governing those magazines stops.


This is a word game, and nothing more. And you're going to be on the losing side.

Store-bought 10/30 magazines ARE altered capacity magazines.

Stores don't buy 10rd PMAG's from Magpul. They buy 30rd PMAG's from magpul and then they, TADA! MODIFY them to hold 10rd's. To comply with the law as written, they then do something to permanently seal up the magazine so that they do not violate the law by selling large capacity magazines to non-exempt persons.

When you buy your "long body" 10rd magazine that resembles a Magpul PMAG, it's a 30rd Magpul PMAG that has been altered/modified to hold only 10rds. If this alteration is not permanent, then the magazine is still a large-capacity magazine by law.

If you are a consumer, and you buy a Magpul PMAG "rebuild kit", that's still a 30rd magazine. It's in parts, and therefore legal to import into CA, but at the end of the day it's still a bag of parts that makes up a 30rd magazine. If you put that magazine together in such a way that it is NOT permanently altered to hold 10rd's or less, you have committed a felony manufacturing a large-capacity magazine.


The same as it does right now with SHORT BODY 10 round magazines, which ARE NOT subject to "permanently altered" language in magazine law.

That's because those magazines were designed and manufactured from the start to hold only 10rd's and to function best at a 10rd capacity. No word games are used here. While it may be possible to modify those magazines to hold more, they are still factory 10rd magazines. They use a shorter body that's designed to be shorter so that it can only hold the optimum number of rounds, which is 10 (or less).

A 30rd Magpul PMAG with a block in it is not optimally designed from the factory to hold 10rd's. It's designed from the factory to hold THIRTY rounds of ammunition.




This word game that you're so fascinated with playing is going to cause people to needlessly commit felonies.

ap3572001
04-21-2011, 2:26 PM
I see that I might be talking about a different topic. It. Says that you can have but not buy,sell,trade,give etc. What if you have magazines for thegun the was not even made till a couple of years ago? Legal to own and use?

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 2:40 PM
This is a word game, and nothing more. And you're going to be on the losing side.

Store-bought 10/30 magazines ARE altered capacity magazines.

Stores don't buy 10rd PMAG's from Magpul. They buy 30rd PMAG's from magpul and then they, TADA! MODIFY them to hold 10rd's. To comply with the law as written, they then do something to permanently seal up the magazine so that they do not violate the law by selling large capacity magazines to non-exempt persons.

When you buy your "long body" 10rd magazine that resembles a Magpul PMAG, it's a 30rd Magpul PMAG that has been altered/modified to hold only 10rds. If this alteration is not permanent, then the magazine is still a large-capacity magazine by law.

If you are a consumer, and you buy a Magpul PMAG "rebuild kit", that's still a 30rd magazine. It's in parts, and therefore legal to import into CA, but at the end of the day it's still a bag of parts that makes up a 30rd magazine. If you put that magazine together in such a way that it is NOT permanently altered to hold 10rd's or less, you have committed a felony manufacturing a large-capacity magazine.



That's because those magazines were designed and manufactured from the start to hold only 10rd's and to function best at a 10rd capacity. No word games are used here. While it may be possible to modify those magazines to hold more, they are still factory 10rd magazines. They use a shorter body that's designed to be shorter so that it can only hold the optimum number of rounds, which is 10 (or less).

A 30rd Magpul PMAG with a block in it is not optimally designed from the factory to hold 10rd's. It's designed from the factory to hold THIRTY rounds of ammunition.




This word game that you're so fascinated with playing is going to cause people to needlessly commit felonies.

The word game is called the "law".

I agree, if you take a 30 round capacity magazine and modify it to have a capacity of 10, you are subject to regulations dealing with what you did. The WORD GAME as you call it matters.

If I buy parts and assemble a magazine, I am NOT subject to laws dealing with permanently altering a large capacity magazine.

Parts are parts and not subject to laws unless some one can play WORD GAMES and show I was attempting to manufacture large capacity magazines in violation of a WORD GAME call a law.

If this WORD GAME were true ... ALL 10 rd magazines, no matter what size body, would be large capacity magazines for the fact all of them can be modified in some way to hold more than 10 rounds...

this word game is the law. We are not playing WORD GAMES when we build featureless rifles. We are not playing WORD GAMES when we install bullet buttons. We are not playing word games when we tell an Officer, "I just bought a 100 round drum from a drug dealer on the corner... Its called EVIDENCE! Its called the law.

Just because you do not understand the WORD GAME, doesn't mean it holds no value and can get people arrested.

It is in how you WORD things that matters in the law. This is LEO training 101...and I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT BDSMCHS. You have had training on the proper wording of statements. The WORD GAME matters.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 2:59 PM
I see that I might be talking about a different topic. It. Says that you can have but not buy,sell,trade,give etc. What if you have magazines for thegun the was not even made till a couple of years ago? Legal to own and use?

buying is not prohibited unless someone can show you are attempting to bypass regulation.

People here are presently attempting to figure a way to "buy" large capacity magazines. There is an entire thread on the efforts of the CalGuns Foundation members attempting to figure out a way to do this....and thats not a word game bdsmchs...its all legal.

I am not attempting to do anything with a large capacity magazine. I am showing that in the market place right now there is a standard. You are helping the State meet a burden of proof by referring to your store bought, or part assembled magazines as any thing other than 10 rd magazines.

The term 10/20 and 10/30 denotes and describes large capacity magazines that were altered to a capacity of 10. Inside the law those magazines must comply with regulations dealing with that fact.

If the magazine or its parts were not a complete working large capacity magazine, do not refer to them as such.

use the terms, short, medium and long, to describe the body type.

ap3572001
04-21-2011, 3:11 PM
Ok. I will try this again........ A person with a sig p226 or a browning high power could of had pre ban magazines for them before 2000. Ok. A person with 9mm XDM could not have 18 rd. Magazines for it before 2000.because there were not made yet. But having and using them is still legal?

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 3:13 PM
Quote: From dieselpower
The same as it does right now with SHORT BODY 10 round magazines, which ARE NOT subject to "permanently altered" language in magazine law.

quote from bdsmvhs
That's because those magazines were designed and manufactured from the start to hold only 10rd's and to function best at a 10rd capacity. No word games are used here. While it may be possible to modify those magazines to hold more, they are still factory 10rd magazines. They use a shorter body that's designed to be shorter so that it can only hold the optimum number of rounds, which is 10 (or less).


100% correct and when I manufacture a 10 round long body magazine it is..." designed and manufactured from the start to hold only 10rd's and to function best at a 10rd capacity. No word games are used here. While it may be possible to modify those magazines to hold more, they are still factory 10rd magazines." They use a LONGER body that's designed to be LONGER so that it can be grasped easier, store easier, pulled from the firearm easier, used as a rest (mono-pod) easier.

wow where did those words come from....

The longer body is no indication or representation of capacity.

Luieburger
04-21-2011, 3:13 PM
If you put that magazine together in such a way that it is NOT permanently altered to hold 10rd's or less, you have committed a felony manufacturing a large-capacity magazine.

Stores don't buy 10rd PMAG's from Magpul. They buy 30rd PMAG's from magpul and then they, TADA! MODIFY them to hold 10rd's.

The word "modify" isn't anywhere in the legal text, so lets stick with the words "permanently altered" and "manufactured."

When is a magazine manufactured? Is it manufactured when the parts are molded out of metal or plastic? Is it manufactured when all of it's parts are assembled into a working magazine? Is it manufactured at both times? If someone creates magazine parts but never assembles them is the magazine manufactured by the first person who puts them together? You place a lot of emphasis on the intended design of the magazines when they are manufactured by a company.

...those magazines were designed and manufactured from the start to hold only 10rd's and to function best at a 10rd capacity.

Does that mean that if somebody went home and designed and forged the parts for their own long-body magazine and used a block to limit it to 10 rounds, it would be legal because they manufactured it and never altered anything? Sure the parts can be manufactured or altered (whatever word you want to use) to hold 30 rounds later by excluding the block from the design, but at the time of original manufacture it was designed and manufactured to hold only 10 rounds. Are they prohibited from using a spring or a baseplate or even the magazine body that has already been created by another manufacturer? What percentage of the parts need to be originally manufactured with the intent of holding only 10 rounds? The conditions for manufacturing a magazine haven't been established, but I assume any time you put the parts together you are manufacturing a magazine.

Of course... the legal text doesn't say anything regarding the original design or at what point the magazines are manufactured or by who they are manufactured. It says that you can't manufacture a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

Now what is a magazine that is altered? When is it altered? What type of alterations are permanent, and which types are not? Is epoxy permanent? Are metal rivets permanent? Is the alteration permanent if the magazine continues to function as a feeding device in its current state without falling apart? None of that has been established either.

I am not a lawyer (IANAL).

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 3:21 PM
Ok. I will try this again........ A person with a sig p226 or a browning high power could of had pre ban magazines for them before 2000. Ok. A person with 9mm XDM could not have 18 rd. Magazines for it before 2000.because there were not made yet. But having and using them is still legal?

well yes, I have a buddy who has a XM with large capacity magazines...he also has a ID which allows him to own those. There are exceptions to every rule and its in the WORD GAME where you get those exceptions.

Why are you focused on owning large capacity magazines? This thread has nothing to do with Large capacity magazines. How about you go and ask in the fishing and hiking threads why can't you own large capacity magazines manufactured after 1/1/2000...

ap3572001
04-21-2011, 3:27 PM
I carry the same ID :) Just want to understand the law better.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 3:41 PM
The word "modify" isn't anywhere in the legal text, so lets stick with the words "permanently altered" and "manufactured."

When is a magazine manufactured? Is it manufactured when the parts are molded out of metal or plastic? Is it manufactured when all of it's parts are assembled into a working magazine? Is it manufactured at both times? If someone creates magazine parts but never assembles them is the magazine manufactured by the first person who puts them together? You place a lot of emphasis on the intended design of the magazines when they are manufactured by a company.



Does that mean that if somebody went home and designed and forged the parts for their own long-body magazine and used a block to limit it to 10 rounds, it would be legal because they manufactured it and never altered anything? Sure the parts can be manufactured or altered (whatever word you want to use) to hold 30 rounds later by excluding the block from the design, but at the time of original manufacture it was designed and manufactured to hold only 10 rounds. Are they prohibited from using a spring or a baseplate or even the magazine body that has already been created by another manufacturer? What percentage of the parts need to be originally manufactured with the intent of holding only 10 rounds? The conditions for manufacturing a magazine haven't been established, but I assume any time you put the parts together you are manufacturing a magazine.

Of course... the legal text doesn't say anything regarding the original design or at what point the magazines are manufactured or by who they are manufactured. It says that you can't manufacture a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

Now what constitutes a magazine that is altered? When is it altered? What type of alterations are permanent, and which types are not? Is epoxy permanent? Are metal rivets permanent? Is the alteration permanent if the magazine continues to function as a feeding device in its current state without falling apart? None of that has been established either.

I am not a lawyer (IANAL).

and it is in how you describe what you did, where laws and regulation apply.

Capacity to accept is defined as, "shall mean capable of accommodating". No reference is made to permanency until you are talking about "feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate."

Go here (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/19d0d54c-005f-4554-bd96-b8a9332f5dc4/1/hilite/) and read the comments made by DoJ on this. Start at page 23 and then skip to the next set of comments on it page 29 of the B section. They are very clear on the word game.

It is VERY clear, permanently alters is a change from X to Y. If you start at Y, there is no regulation.

a magazine manufactured as a 10 rd magazine is NOT an altered one.

ap3572001
04-21-2011, 3:57 PM
I know. I understand that if a gun maker makes a ten round magazine that will take 11 or 12 rounds. They still made stem round magazine. I think I just started a new topic. Sorry :)

Luieburger
04-21-2011, 4:40 PM
Go here (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/19d0d54c-005f-4554-bd96-b8a9332f5dc4/1/hilite/) and read the comments made by DoJ on this. Start at page 23 and then skip to the next set of comments on it page 29 of the B section. They are very clear on the word game.


Am I not reading the right section? It looks like the DOJ removed the definition and said that it was "sufficiently understood by reasonable people."

Of course, if you never alter a magazine and simply manufacture it to only hold 10 rounds, we don't even worry about the definition. We just don't know whether or not we are altering or manufacturing a 10 round magazine when we build one from parts (possibly parts coming from multiple sources).

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 4:47 PM
Am I not reading the right section? It looks like the DOJ removed the definition and said that it was "sufficiently understood by reasonable people."

Of course, if you never alter a magazine and simply manufacture it to only hold 10 rounds, we don't even worry about the definition. We just don't know whether or not we are altering or manufacturing a 10 round magazine when we build one from parts (possibly parts coming from multiple sources).

Thats the point, we do know...because permanently ALTERED is "sufficiently understood by reasonable people".

You can not reasonably think I am altering anything, UNLESS I first indicate, by terminology or statement, I have done so.... 10/30 magazine...whats that 30 part mean again?

We, with our terminology, are causing our own regulation. We are agreeing that a manufactured item is what it can be and not what it is. We do not do this for a short body magazine, so why are we doing it to ourselves with a medium and long body magazine?

SVT-40
04-21-2011, 5:16 PM
What company manufactures magazine bodies which could hold over ten rounds which are specifically identical to their same magazine which is limited to only ten rounds? None which I have seen.

Even if they did, the body was still manufactured with the intent for it to be a +ten round mag. It was only modified permanently to hold only 10 or less rounds due to recent laws which prohibit sales of +ten round mags.

All +10 round AR type mag bodies were manufactured with the intent for them to be +ten round mags. Having anyone later alter them to a ten or less configuration make no difference, as they were made as +10 round mag bodies in the first place.

CHS
04-21-2011, 5:46 PM
I agree, if you take a 30 round capacity magazine and modify it to have a capacity of 10, you are subject to regulations dealing with what you did. The WORD GAME as you call it matters.

If I buy parts and assemble a magazine, I am NOT subject to laws dealing with permanently altering a large capacity magazine.


What you're failing to realize and/or accept is that you're NOT starting with parts. You're starting with magazines.

I don't know of ANY companies currently that sell only PARTS to magazines. C Products used to, but they no longer exist and the company that took over only sells complete magazines.

You don't call up Magpul and say you'd like:

50 Magazine bodies
50 springs
50 followers
50 locking plates
and 50 baseplates


You call up Magpul and say you'd like "50 30rd PMAG's".

Even if Magpul sold a body only, they would call it the body for a 30rd magazine.

If you order a parts kit from say, 44mag.com for a Magpul "long body" PMAG, you will have a receipt for a 30rd PMAG and a "rebuild kit" charge. 44mag.com doesn't sell magazine parts. They sell large-capacity magazines that they will then disassemble into parts which you can lawfully import into CA. But those are still originally large-capacity magazines. When you assemble those parts with a block, you are ALTERING a large-capacity magazine. Unless it's permanent, you are guilty of manufacturing a large-capacity magazine.

Even if you could show that you some-how obtained the parts individually from the factory line from a company like NHMTG or D&H, all it would do is take one call from the DA asking them "So what do you call the body? Is it a 'long' magazine body that can be used to make a number of different sized magazines?" They'll tell him "No, that's a USGI 30rd magazine body". Legal to import? Yes. But it's still a part for a large-capacity magazine and they will then use those words to convict you of felony manufacturing of a large-capacity magazine.

The only "long body" 10rd magazines I've ever seen that were truly factory 10rd'ers, are most double-stack pistol magazines since a true 10rd magazine would be too short to fit inside the grips. And in almost every single case I've seen, the bodies are PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT from the bodies for their large-capacity magazines of the same physical size.

Even the manufacturers that have the money to burn on in-house council don't take the chance of just sticking a plastic block in their magazines to be compliant with the law.

Don't you think if Mec-Gar could make this argument to their in-house council, they would stop making two completely different Sig P226 magazines, and instead would make the exact same two magazines, but in one just put a $.01 piece of limiting plastic?

But they can't make that argument. So instead of spending the money on their council, they spend the money on tooling to make two completely different magazine bodies. One designed and intended to take 10rd's (but could possibly be altered by the user to hold more) and one clearly designed and intended to hold 15rd's.

Quiet
04-21-2011, 5:58 PM
I agree with what bdsmchs said in both his posts.

There's a reason why factory made 10 round magazines are physical different than their large capacity magazine counterparts.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 6:09 PM
What company manufactures magazine bodies which could hold over ten rounds which are specifically identical to their same magazine which is limited to only ten rounds? None which I have seen.

Even if they did, the body was still manufactured with the intent for it to be a +ten round mag. It was only modified permanently to hold only 10 or less rounds due to recent laws which prohibit sales of +ten round mags.

All +10 round AR type mag bodies were manufactured with the intent for them to be +ten round mags. Having anyone later alter them to a ten or less configuration make no difference, as they were made as +10 round mag bodies in the first place.

This gets the debate moving.

Even if the part is intended in other ways, the final product is not designed to be the same. The magazine either has more or less components when manufactured. I disagree that the body is indented to be ONLY used in 10+ magazines. If you can not show they are ONLY for large capacity magazines, then they are NOT altered.

The fact there is a market for 10 rd magazines with long bodies, means the bodies themselves are not specifically intened for large capacity magazines.

I would suggest the intent of the part while it is being made, is not a determining factor. How it is used in the final product is.

The most important aspect is, what is the final item...is the item then being altered after that.

Shotgun Man
04-21-2011, 6:55 PM
If you order a parts kit from say, 44mag.com for a Magpul "long body" PMAG, you will have a receipt for a 30rd PMAG and a "rebuild kit" charge. 44mag.com doesn't sell magazine parts. They sell large-capacity magazines that they will then disassemble into parts which you can lawfully import into CA. But those are still originally large-capacity magazines. When you assemble those parts with a block, you are ALTERING a large-capacity magazine. Unless it's permanent, you are guilty of manufacturing a large-capacity magazine.


I disagree and join with dieselpower. No one is altering a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine was not imported. If it was, that would be illegal. If you block it, you are assembling a 10-round magazine from parts. It doesn't matter what PMAG calls it. It is still parts.

I don't even like using the word manufacture as that too is giving into the statute and conceding guilt. I don't think assembling means manufacturing, but that's another topic.

Scott Connors
04-21-2011, 7:20 PM
Very intriguing thread. Its almost talmudic discussion is just one more reflection of how totally ganz aufgef@#*t California's hi-cap mag laws are. In any event, I shall no longer refer to 10/30 magazines.

I hope the Right People find something of value in this.

CHS
04-21-2011, 7:55 PM
I disagree and join with dieselpower. No one is altering a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine was not imported. If it was, that would be illegal. If you block it, you are assembling a 10-round magazine from parts. It doesn't matter what PMAG calls it. It is still parts.

I don't even like using the word manufacture as that too is giving into the statute and conceding guilt. I don't think assembling means manufacturing, but that's another topic.

I can see the DA now, when your butt has been hauled into court.

In one hand he has a 30rd PMAG. In the other he has your "long body 10rd mag". He's going to attempt to show the jury that you manufactured a large-capacity magazine due to the fact that you failed to permanently modify a large-capacity magazine into holding 10rd's or less. He's first going to show the jury the large-capacity PMAG. He's going to take it apart and put it back together, showing them how it works. Maybe he'll even put 30rd's of ammo in it, showing how it functions. He will then be able to provably show to the jury that both magazines were manufactured as large-capacity magazines originally. That just takes a single letter from Magpul. He may even tell them that you lawfully imported all of the parts for a large-capacity magazine, as parts, so that importation is not at play here. Then he's going to show them your magazine. He's going to talk about "permanently altered", and what it means. Then he's going to slip off the baseplate, remove your block, and put the baseplate back on. all by hand, mind you. Then he's going to put 30 rounds of ammunition into the magazine. Then he's going to pass around your magazine and block and the original magazine and ask the jury if you failed to "permanently alter" the large-capacity magazine when blocking it to 10rd's.

Good luck with winning that one.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 9:58 PM
I can see the DA now, when your butt has been hauled into court.

In one hand he has a 30rd PMAG. In the other he has your "long body 10rd mag". He's going to attempt to show the jury that you manufactured a large-capacity magazine due to the fact that you failed to permanently modify a large-capacity magazine into holding 10rd's or less. He's first going to show the jury the large-capacity PMAG. He's going to take it apart and put it back together, showing them how it works. Maybe he'll even put 30rd's of ammo in it, showing how it functions. He will then be able to provably show to the jury that both magazines were manufactured as large-capacity magazines originally. That just takes a single letter from Magpul. He may even tell them that you lawfully imported all of the parts for a large-capacity magazine, as parts, so that importation is not at play here. Then he's going to show them your magazine. He's going to talk about "permanently altered", and what it means. Then he's going to slip off the baseplate, remove your block, and put the baseplate back on. all by hand, mind you. Then he's going to put 30 rounds of ammunition into the magazine. Then he's going to pass around your magazine and block and the original magazine and ask the jury if you failed to "permanently alter" the large-capacity magazine when blocking it to 10rd's.

Good luck with winning that one.

well for one, the DA must define permanently altered without relying on what the DoJ said it meant... which the DOJ said, ...it believes the phrase “permanently altered” conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people.

so how can I be responsible to permanently alter and item that was NOT a large capacity magazine, since the mere fact that selling manufacturing or importing a large capacity magazine is ILLEGAL.

bdsmchs,
are you telling me I must first import or buy a large capacity magazine, then I am allowed to permanently alter it in order to comply with the law...please explain?

The law is VERY clear, the language is VERY clear. Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

you MUST first have a feeding device, then if you permanently alter it, it then is NOT one that has the capacity to accommodate 10 or more rounds.

So in order for this to hold true, I MUST have a feeding device. A pile of parts is NOT a feeding device.

This is why I am asking everyone to stop referring to what a magazine COULD be. You are admitting or allowing that logic when its not correct.

If you assemble a group of parts and want to describe the body type or style use;
Short
Medium
Long
You have assembled a magazine from parts. Any change after that is altering a feeding device.

You SHOULD use
10/20
10/30
10/15
10/XX
only when you have altered a feeding device to comply with CA regulations.

CHS
04-21-2011, 10:45 PM
well for one, the DA must define permanently altered without relying on what the DoJ said it meant... which the DOJ said, ...it believes the phrase “permanently altered” conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people.


When the DA shows the Jury that definition then asks "Is this permanent?" and pulls a limiting block out by hand, how do you think the Jury will decide?

When the DA shows the Jury that definition then asks "Is this permanent?" and uses a drill press and a hammer to pull the limiting block out, how do you think the Jury will decide?


The law is VERY clear, the language is VERY clear. Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

you MUST first have a feeding device, then if you permanently alter it, it then is NOT one that has the capacity to accommodate 10 or more rounds.


I already addressed this. There is a difference between a literal pile of factory parts, and a disassembled magazine. I've already stated that no manufacturers that I or anyone else in this thread can so far come up with will actually deliver factory parts from BEFORE the assembly line. Magpul does not make and sell magazine parts. They make and sell magazines. 44mag.com does not sell magazine parts kits to California, they sell disassembled magazines to California, an important distinction. These are large-capacity magazines that started life as large-capacity magazines and that you have purchased AS large-capacity magazines, only the seller has disassembled them for you in order to enter California lawfully. When you take that disassembled magazine and put it back together, you are manufacturing a large-capacity magazine. If you put it together with a limiting block in such a way that the magazine is not now PERMANENTLY ALTERED (sufficiently understood by reasonable people), then the magazine IS STILL a large-capacity magazine and you are STILL guilty of felony manufacturing a large-capacity magazine.

"permanently altered" is sufficiently understood by most all reasonable people to mean that it would require some serious amount of effort and/or tooling to undo and "manufacturing" is going to be sufficiently understood by most all reasonable people to mean that you're probably going to go to jail if you take your own advice and just assemble disassembled magazines with nothing more than a limiting block.






This is very similar to what Bill Wiese has talked about in regards to "broken" AW's. You can't just pull the bolt out of an AR15 with pistol grip and regular magazine release and say "see, it's not semi-automatic so it doesn't need a bullet button". You'll be going to jail. This is the same kind of word game that you're advocating here.

dieselpower
04-21-2011, 11:33 PM
When the DA shows the Jury that definition then asks "Is this permanent?" and pulls a limiting block out by hand, how do you think the Jury will decide?

When the DA shows the Jury that definition then asks "Is this permanent?" and uses a drill press and a hammer to pull the limiting block out, how do you think the Jury will decide?

I already addressed this. There is a difference between a literal pile of factory parts, and a disassembled magazine. I've already stated that no manufacturers that I or anyone else in this thread can so far come up with will actually deliver factory parts from BEFORE the assembly line. Magpul does not make and sell magazine parts. They make and sell magazines. 44mag.com does not sell magazine parts kits to California, they sell disassembled magazines to California, an important distinction. These are large-capacity magazines that started life as large-capacity magazines and that you have purchased AS large-capacity magazines, only the seller has disassembled them for you in order to enter California lawfully. When you take that disassembled magazine and put it back together, you are manufacturing a large-capacity magazine. If you put it together with a limiting block in such a way that the magazine is not now PERMANENTLY ALTERED (sufficiently understood by reasonable people), then the magazine IS STILL a large-capacity magazine and you are STILL guilty of felony manufacturing a large-capacity magazine.

"permanently altered" is sufficiently understood by most all reasonable people to mean that it would require some serious amount of effort and/or tooling to undo and "manufacturing" is going to be sufficiently understood by most all reasonable people to mean that you're probably going to go to jail if you take your own advice and just assemble disassembled magazines with nothing more than a limiting block.

This is very similar to what Bill Wiese has talked about in regards to "broken" AW's. You can't just pull the bolt out of an AR15 with pistol grip and regular magazine release and say "see, it's not semi-automatic so it doesn't need a bullet button". You'll be going to jail. This is the same kind of word game that you're advocating here.

I can NOT be held responsible for what was once before I came into the picture.

1) My lawyer will then explain once a magazine is disassembled it stops being a magazine.

2) My lawyer will show when the law was written, the DOJ gave over 30 comments stating ANY reversal is illegal..finger power or chainsaw is the same in the eyes of the law.

3) We, the people, were told this was legal, therefore we can not be held to a different standard NOW.

4) My lawyer will read out loud the over 30 attempts to define "permanently altered" and hear the DoJ state; tools are NOT a factor, TIME is NOT a factor, force, skill, rivets, welds, sealant is NOT a factor to be considered.

5) My lawyer will submit written documents to the people, by the DoJ stating what the law on magazines in parts form is. Once again, If I am told something is LEGAL by the controlling authority, I can not be held responsible for doing what I was told to do.

Can the ATF arrest me for welding and pinning brake on a 14.5", telling me the barrel isn't legal? No. I am attempting compliance by following what they tell me is legal.

Once again,
I am asking people to not use the terms 10/15, 10/20, 10/30. 10/XX unless you are in fact limited a large capacity magazine under PC12020(c)(25) or PC12276.1(d)(2).

If you are simply assembling a kit of parts, call it what it is. A 10 round magazine. If you must refer to its style or length, use the terms Short, Medium and Long.

This change in terms will place the Burden of proof back on the State. They MUST (under the law) PROVE the magazine was a FEEDING device BEFORE alteration. By using terms referring to another capacity (20, 30, 15, 25...whatever) you are assisting them in their burden.

I don't give a rats butt if you seal it closed or not, and I don't care if you do.

and just to add one more point...

When this was submitted to the DoJ "Recommended revision: Permanently Altered means any change or modification not reversible without extensive use of tools."

They the DoJ, [the GOVERNING Agency] told us, [the people who need to follow the law]

"The Department disagrees with the comment. The statute does not allow for the alteration to be restored. Therefore, such definition would be in conflict with the statute and the Department does not have authority to conflict with the statute."

It has been told to us, Any use of tool is NOT allowed to be used to reverse the alteration. It is NOT a valid assumption in the law that tools are needed. The only factor is how many rounds does it hold...and if it WAS a large capacity magazine, it can NEVER go back to being a large capacity magazine.

Munk
04-22-2011, 9:48 AM
Can the ATF arrest me for welding and pinning brake on a 14.5", telling me the barrel isn't legal? No. I am attempting compliance by following what they tell me is legal.
Yes they can, If you leave it installed in a gun while you do it. Then you've got a problem

Once again,
I am asking people to not use the terms 10/15, 10/20, 10/30. 10/XX unless you are in fact limited a large capacity magazine under PC12020(c)(25) or PC12276.1(d)(2).

If you are simply assembling a kit of parts, call it what it is. A 10 round magazine. If you must refer to its style or length, use the terms Short, Medium and Long.

This change in terms will place the Burden of proof back on the State. They MUST (under the law) PROVE the magazine was a FEEDING device BEFORE alteration. By using terms referring to another capacity (20, 30, 15, 25...whatever) you are assisting them in their burden.
Burden is already on them to prove A)it's not a 10 rd and B)It was obtained illegally



my points in bold.

zhyla
04-22-2011, 10:05 AM
I've read your posts in this thread several times. I've got to say you're doing a terrible job explaining what you're saying is legal and what isn't. I hope you can explain it better to a jury. My best guess is you're suggesting that in some case there is a magazine that you can buy with 10-round capacity which you can then [verb] to have 11+ round capacity.

Regardless, no, nobody is going to stop referring to 10/30 magazines as such. What you call something doesn't change its legality.

Luieburger
04-22-2011, 10:43 AM
Now we're debating about whether or not a lawyer could successfully convince a jury that you are manufacturing a 10 round magazine, and not altering a high-capacity magazine. I agree that dieselpower is reading the law correctly as it is written, but bdsmchs is right when he says that the DA has a good chance of convincing the jury that you are altering a magazine without sufficient permanence. We really don't know until the jury gives its verdict, and we would prefer to not get to that point at all if we don't have to.

Here are the things that we should take away from this thread.


If you're going to posess a magazine that is made with parts that are designed for 11+ round magazines, please use epoxy, welds, rivets, or bolts to help your case in the event that you are taken to court. Those things might not be necessary, but they will defintely help you to convince a jury that you aren't breaking the law.
If you are determined to build a magazine without common methods of permanence (epoxy, rivets, etc...), keep your magazines disassembled when you store them or transport them. If you keep them as parts, you greatly reduce your chance of getting taken to court. Still... it is recommended that you do use common methods of permanence to protect yourself.
Regardless of how your magazines are constructed, the number of rounds that they hold, or their legality, you should never consent to any searches or inspections of your property. Always choose to remain silent if anybody asks any questions about your magazines. Those are your rights, so exercise them. Calguns and the rest of the gun community can't afford to protect you if you do get taken to court for your magazines. We have bigger fish to fry and more important cases to fund like Gene's upcoming action against the high-cap magazine ban itself.

goodlookin1
04-22-2011, 11:04 AM
Let me pose a question. Since we're talking about the legality of a purchase 10 round long body magazine being legal or not, here's another situation:

Is a magazine a magazine before it is built and functional?

I submit that NO, it is not yet a magazine.....but a parts kit consists of all the parts necessary to build the magazine. So with that in mind, there IS NO MAGAZINE if it has never been built before. Now, when I assemble and "build" that magazine for the first time, it is noW legally defined as a "magazine". It is unaltered. Say the first time I built this magazine, it was only capable of holding 10 rounds. Have I built a legal magazine?

I would submit that YES, I have built a legal magazine. It doesnt need to be permanent because it hasnt been altered. I havent changed/altered the magazine from a high cap to a std cap because it was first assembled and built to only accept 10 rounds. To say that I altered it because I put a block in there MUST ASSUME it had been built first into a high capacity magazine and I had to disassemble it and reassemble it with the block (altering) to limit it to 10 rounds.

The only difference from this and the first post by Dieselpower is buying an already assembled 10 round long body magazine VS assembling an unassembled magazine yourself.

What say ye gents?

The only problem I can see with this is the fact that the magazine was already assembled in the package (magpul) and the CA seller had to disassemble it before releasing it to the customer. :wacko:

IANAL!!!


EDIT: I just saw a few posts above that deal with this situation.....NV

goodlookin1
04-22-2011, 11:29 AM
It has been told to us, Any use of tool is NOT allowed to be used to reverse the alteration. It is NOT a valid assumption in the law that tools are needed. The only factor is how many rounds does it hold...and if it WAS a large capacity magazine, it can NEVER go back to being a large capacity magazine.

Couple things:

1) Any alteration of an HCM to a std 10 round mag must be permanent. But even if you epoxy the poop outta that thing, you can always break it later and buy a new body or follower or floor plate and built it again. If you do this, is it the same magazine or have you constructed a "newly assembled 10 round long body mag"? If not a new mag, then you would be in violation of having a non-permanent 10 round magazine.

2) As long as you own said HCM before the year 2000, you can bring it back and forth from 10 to 30 to 20 to whatever your little heart desires. Just making this clarification for those who own such legally owned HCM's.

hoffmang
04-22-2011, 12:23 PM
No.

If you create/modify/alter, all are other words for manufacture. You've manufactured a large capacity magazine. Otherwise you are simply importing a large-capacity magazine - also a misdo/felony.

This cuts against you in a way you don't seem to understand:

(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.
It leaves the strong implication that any feeding device that can accomodate more than 10 rounds that is not permanently altered is a large-capacity magazine that you attempted to manufacture.

You will be charged with, and easily convicted of, manufacturing a large-capacity magazine since you manufactured it when you put the parts together in such a way that you didn't take advantage of (A) above.

There are all sorts of other reasons why you can't be convicted if you handle yourself correctly, but these aren't them.

-Gene

Cokebottle
04-22-2011, 12:28 PM
Okay... that makes sense.

"Permanently altered" provides an exemption/defense.

JeepFreak
04-22-2011, 12:38 PM
Ok. I will try this again........ A person with a sig p226 or a browning high power could of had pre ban magazines for them before 2000. Ok. A person with 9mm XDM could not have 18 rd. Magazines for it before 2000.because there were not made yet. But having and using them is still legal?

Yes. There's more than one way to legally obtain high capacity magazines (even post 2k). I'm one of the very lucky few.
Billy

dieselpower
04-22-2011, 12:57 PM
No.

If you create/modify/alter, all are other words for manufacture. You've manufactured a large capacity magazine. Otherwise you are simply importing a large-capacity magazine - also a misdo/felony.

This cuts against you in a way you don't seem to understand:

It leaves the strong implication that any feeding device that can accommodate more than 10 rounds that is not permanently altered is a large-capacity magazine that you attempted to manufacture.

You will be charged with, and easily convicted of, manufacturing a large-capacity magazine since you manufactured it when you put the parts together in such a way that you didn't take advantage of (A) above.

There are all sorts of other reasons why you can't be convicted if you handle yourself correctly, but these aren't them.

-Gene

Gene,
The crime is manufacturing, NOT failure to make it hard to reverse that.
You have been fighting them for so long, you do not trust what they are telling you. I get that. Simply take them at their word on this one.

4.18
Recommended revision: "Permanently
Altered" means any change or modification
not reversible without extensive use of tools.

The Department disagrees with the comment. The statute does not allow for the alteration to be restored. Therefore, such definition would be in conflict with the statute and the Department does not have authority to conflict with the statute.


welding the bottom doesn't stop the manufacturing charge.
12020(c)(25)(A) is for a feeding device, not a pile of parts.

There is no charge, "failing to make permanent" because there is no such thing as permanent, if you are planning to reverse it. Making it harder to do (manufacturing) is not in the regulation.

Luieburger
04-22-2011, 1:00 PM
If you create/modify/alter, all are other words for manufacture. You've manufactured a large capacity magazine. Otherwise you are simply importing a large-capacity magazine - also a misdo/felony.

That settles everything right there. If altering something is the same as manufacturing, then you're altering a magazine any time you take it apart and put it back together. Even if you have a factory 10 round and you take it apart to clean it and put it back together, you are altering it.

In other words... Make sure your magazines are permanently altered to hold only 10 rounds.

hoffmang
04-22-2011, 1:03 PM
There is no charge, "failing to make permanent" because there is no such thing as permanent, if you are planning to reverse it. Making it harder to do (manufacturing) is not in the regulation.

The law specifically sets the burden. The magazine you manufactured from the pile of parts will only be considered "not a large-capacity magazine" if it is permanently altered.

-Gene

dieselpower
04-22-2011, 1:05 PM
this is off track, and partly my fault.

all I am saying is to not give ground by referring to your magazine as if it was a large capacity magazine to begin with.

all 10 rd magazines created as 10 rd magazines are not large capacity feeding devices unless a DA meets a burden of proof. By referring to your magazine as if it was a large capacity magazine at one time helps them meet that burden.

Any lawyer will tell you that.

dieselpower
04-22-2011, 1:33 PM
The law specifically sets the burden. The magazine you manufactured from the pile of parts will only be considered "not a large-capacity magazine" if it is permanently altered.

-Gene

and once again...there is no way to do that without first being told what that is.

How thick is the epoxy Gene?
How long does the weld need to be Gene?
Does the rivet need to be made out of steel or will an aluminum one work?

When a DA rips all this apart in court, is my defense, "Gene told me this was permanent" going to get me out of jail?

You are creating your own jail cell by setting regulation where none exist.

I can 100% prove in court no amount of welds or epoxy is "permanent". Therefore you are in violation of manufacturing.

What is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to prove is that I intend to remove a part. The DA must prove I have been DOING that, or I have DONE that.

I agree, epoxy leaves evidence of removal...gee thanks Gene, that epoxy you told me to install is now being used against me to prove I am reversing the alteration and I am being charged with manufacturing. Their evidence of this is the damage to the magazine (removing the epoxy) when I fixed that broken follower.

Take the AG/ DoJ at their word. Reversal is NOT LEGAL, any way that REVERSAL is accomplished is ILLEGAL. Chainsaw or finger power = SAME THING.

The illegal act is manufacturing, not making that harder or easier to reverse.

best to worst
1) Use only short body 10 rd magazines.
2) Buy your medium and long body magazines complete and working from a store.
3) If you assemble your magazines,... don't refer to them as anything but 10rd magazines.
4) If you use a method to prevent the magazine from being re-opened, any evidence of it being opened is evidence of reversal...and that has been deemed ILLEGAL by the AG and DoJ.

Munk
04-22-2011, 1:38 PM
this is off track, and partly my fault.

all I am saying is to not give ground by referring to your magazine as if it was a large capacity magazine to begin with.

all 10 rd magazines created as 10 rd magazines are not large capacity feeding devices unless a DA meets a burden of proof. By referring to your magazine as if it was a large capacity magazine at one time helps them meet that burden.

Any lawyer will tell you that.

...

HOW... I'm still not getting this nomenclature issue.

So what if it's called a 10/30? That means that it falles WITHIN the exemption as laid out for alterations. It is a 30 body that's been permanently modified to be CA Legal (I.E. 10 rounds).

As far as what constitutes permanently, I think it's akin to seeing if your newly "blocked" mag is just as difficult to turn into a hi-cap as any other 10-rd mag. If it's OK for a manufacturer to use certain methods for making a 10rounder out of a mag body that is capable of holding more, then those same methods are OK to use for the same purpose. It's akin to the way red JB-weld with a cap is allowable to make a threaded pistol barrel into a non-threaded for legal purposes.

The burden of proof is already so absurd that pulling out your new arbitrary terms is confusing the issue. They have to prove it holds more than 10 rounds of the caliber it was built for, then they have to prove you acquired it illegally. That second point is so rough that the only ones popped for it have been idiots who blathered on about the felony/misdemeanor they commited when they went out of state and brought them back, or some other such stupidity.

This is all reminiscent of the "Hi-cap vs Standard-Cap" nomenclature debates that are in constant battle, except here, there's no legal term being used to trump the issue like there is with "Large Capacity ammunition feeding device". The "10" aspect of the 10/30 naming is what tells you that you have bought a non-large-capacity magazine.

goodlookin1
04-22-2011, 2:20 PM
No.

If you create/modify/alter, all are other words for manufacture. You've manufactured a large capacity magazine. Otherwise you are simply importing a large-capacity magazine - also a misdo/felony.

It leaves the strong implication that any feeding device that can accomodate more than 10 rounds that is not permanently altered is a large-capacity magazine that you attempted to manufacture.



The law specifically sets the burden. The magazine you manufactured from the pile of parts will only be considered "not a large-capacity magazine" if it is permanently altered.

-Gene

As for the first quote, "create" and "modify/alter" are two very different terms:

To Alter:


to change: cause to change; make different; cause a transformation
to change: become different in some particular way, without permanently losing one's former characteristics or essence;


To Create:


to bring into existence
to make: make or cause to be or to become


One implies the creation of something new that previously was not. The other implies changing something that already was. Now, depending on the "altering" that you are doing, you might fall under the "manufacturing" (a HCM), which is indeed a felony. But it's not always "manufacturing to make an alteration: If you "alter" a 10 round magazine to only hold 5 rounds, you have not manufactured anything new (not a HCM). The "alteration" also assumes that the magazine was in existence in the first place, not in parts.

Also, the "strong implication" is not black and white. It seems you also recognize this fact....otherwise you would have said, "without a doubt". The way it is worded leaves room for interpretation, thus potential standing ground for anyone who is charged for said "strongly implied" violation. It specifically exempts "permanently altered" magazines holding 10 rounds or more, but is not explicit in condemning 10 round magazines not permanently altered. Again, it's implied, not explicit: = Loophole. The law tells us what we cannot do. It's generally hard to convict someone on a law that is not explicit....especially when the mag conforms to the explicit law (10 rounds or less).

Another thing: Based on the definition of "alter", it must be changed without losing the original characteristics or essence. Could it be that disassembling a magazine into parts causes it to lose its' "essence", in that it is no longer a "magazine" but rather magazine parts? Try sticking a magazine body into a gun without the rest of the parts, load it and try firing it.....to me, that "magazine" has lost its purpose and essence.

Yet another angle: Can you alter "nothing"? No way! It's like multiplying 7 x 0....what does it equal? 0! You cant alter something that does not yet exist. Therefore, if you manufacture a magazine that can hold no more than 10 rounds, no alteration needs to be taken to meet the "permanency" requirement as it was never built into something that REQUIRES alteration to conform to the 10 round law rule.


I'm not saying I'm right on any of this, nor that the courts would see it this way. Just putting it out there as "food for thought".

Cokebottle
04-22-2011, 2:39 PM
You can't apply Webster's definitions to legalese.

Luieburger
04-22-2011, 2:59 PM
You cant alter something that does not yet exist. Therefore, if you manufacture a magazine that can hold no more than 10 rounds, no alteration needs to be taken to meet the "permanency" requirement as it was never built into something that REQUIRES alteration to conform to the 10 round law rule.

As a technical writer, that's the way I read it. But from what Gene says, it seems that although "alter" and "manufacture" are not the same, they overlap enough to mean that every time you manufacture a magazine from parts, you are altering the form of the magazine. You alter a magazine when you disassemble it because you are changing its arrangement or status. You alter the magazine again when you put it back together because you are changing its state from disassembled to assembled. When a magazine is created for the first time, you manufacture the parts and alter them into a magazine when you put the parts together.

The word game cuts both ways I guess. :(

CHS
04-22-2011, 3:20 PM
The law specifically sets the burden. The magazine you manufactured from the pile of parts will only be considered "not a large-capacity magazine" if it is permanently altered.

-Gene

Finally. A voice of reason.

dieselpower
04-22-2011, 5:20 PM
Finally. A voice of reason.

I don't think that is reasonable. And again, not what my OP. I think Gene's view on the law is circular and not what the AG and DoJ said the law meant.

We were told the permanently altered language was worded for a reasonable person to understand.

Disassembly into parts, then re-assembly is reasonable. The illegal act is in what you do with the parts, not what COULD happen.

The fact remains the whole kit of parts is legal to own without physical restraints stopping me from assembling an illegal magazine.

It is unreasonable to assume a finished product must conform to an unknown standard. That is reflected in how the AG and DoJ answer questions about this subject. reversal is illegal in any form, the act of reversal is manufacturing in violation to 12020.

Cokebottle
04-22-2011, 5:23 PM
not what the AG and DoJ said the law meant.
You've mentioned this a few times in regard to permanence.

Do you have any cites to case law?

dieselpower
04-22-2011, 5:58 PM
You've mentioned this a few times in regard to permanence.

Do you have any cites to case law?

No.

Start reading at page 3, then jump to pages where DoJ answers questions and comments on page 23 of the excel sheets. They clearly state any act to reverse the altering is what permanently altered means. please. SB23 final (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf).

It was going to be defined, but it was clear the only reason people wanted a definition was to figure away to get around it. Getting around it and reversing the alteration is illegal in any form. Add to that permanently altered is NOT = to irreversible and you can only reasonably assume the language has no bearing on a physical restraint. For that to be true a standard must be met, such as 1 inch of weld, a steel pin, .....

When you explain this is terms a reasonable person understands its very clear. Disassembly = a pile of legal parts. No matter how you get to a pile of parts its the same. Its in how you assemble those parts where a violation of 12020 can occur.

I have not found a single way a DA can charge me with "failure to Permanently alter". The charge must be manufacturing or causing to be manufactured a feeding device with a capacity over 10.

It is only in circular logic that the final manufactured feeding device must meet and unknown standard that the AG and DoJ said didn't exist....thats not reasonable by any sense of the phrase.

once again...not my OP LOL

Cokebottle
04-22-2011, 7:16 PM
Getting around it and reversing the alteration is illegal in any form.
Until 12020(a)(2) is overturned, I agree.
Add to that permanently altered is NOT = to irreversible
This is where I'm confused. Your comments above seem to indicate the opposite.
For that to be true a standard must be met, such as 1 inch of weld, a steel pin, .....
========
I have not found a single way a DA can charge me with "failure to Permanently alter". The charge must be manufacturing or causing to be manufactured a feeding device with a capacity over 10.
Again, agreed.

dieselpower
04-22-2011, 7:32 PM
Until 12020(a)(2) is overturned, I agree.

Add to that permanently altered is NOT = to irreversible

This is where I'm confused. Your comments above seem to indicate the opposite.

Again, agreed.

Of course it is..thats the problem.

definitions
1) permanently altered = a physical standard possible to achieve via tool, time and skill.
2) permanently altered is a one way street, once its done its done forever.

Plz choose.

The AG & DoJ realized they did not have the authority to do #1, since its an impossible standard to achieve without also publishing a standard to measure your physical altering by. They realized they were wrong in saying it meant irreversible. It can only mean #2.

I agree the ATF defined it differently by the publishing of a standard to meet and for use in measuring your work.

A reasonable person will agree, disassembly of a magazine renders it back to parts. Its in how its assembled which will determine if it is again legal.

An unreasonable person would attempt to make up an unknown physical standard on which to make it possible to do the impossible...make something physically permanent.

It is not a physical state of being, unless you have a set standard to go by... The DoJ realized they did not have the authority to do this...therefore the language and the logic in how to read the law must not be impossible.

Using Genes logic there is no true way to achieve a legal 10/30. No matter how hard you try, I can always 1 up you and prove its not permanent. Therefore either the law is unobtainable and invalid (I wish) or the language not what you think...its a measure of time NOT state of being.

I can not explain it better. I keep using analogies and i don't understand why people find this hard to understand. My 12 year old understood it, which is why I think many can't...its too simple. We all are looking for the agent under the bush waiting to arrest us. we see conspiracies everywhere. We do not look at things as a reasonable person would because most reasonable people do not fear going to jail for a mistake...we do.

FatalKitty
04-22-2011, 7:33 PM
I will now be calling my pmag kit a "10 round long body" magazine. thanks :)

dieselpower
04-22-2011, 7:44 PM
I will now be calling my pmag kit a "10 round long body" magazine. thanks :)

a DA or LEO now has an even harder burden in any attempt to charge you with 12276.1(a)(2) or 12020(a)(2).

admit nothing unless it helps your case. :D

zhyla
04-22-2011, 8:39 PM
a DA or LEO now has an even harder burden in any attempt to charge you with 12276.1(a)(2) or 12020(a)(2).

admit nothing unless it helps your case. :D

I don't think you're going far enough. If a LEO asks you what it is, tell him it's a paperweight. If you don't admit to it being a magazine in the first place, by your logic, you're safest.

dieselpower
04-22-2011, 10:29 PM
I don't think you're going far enough. If a LEO asks you what it is, tell him it's a paperweight. If you don't admit to it being a magazine in the first place, by your logic, you're safest.

correct, and even more lawyers say to just shut up and hand them a card stating you are remaining silent...

in fact the cards are available here.

cue up the "never talk to police" youtube video...lol

Mark49
04-22-2011, 10:48 PM
Ok. I will try this again........ A person with a sig p226 or a browning high power could of had pre ban magazines for them before 2000. Ok. A person with 9mm XDM could not have 18 rd. Magazines for it before 2000.because there were not made yet. But having and using them is still legal?

so what would you say if a sharp LEO asks you about your high cap.... Nothing!!!!!

rbetts
04-22-2011, 10:58 PM
I'm ready for Diesel to be the test case for his theories. :popcorn:

As for me I'll stay RIVETED to the law!:43:

rbetts
04-22-2011, 11:06 PM
Using Genes logic there is no true way to achieve a legal 10/30. No matter how hard you try, I can always 1 up you and prove its not permanent. Therefore either the law is unobtainable and invalid (I wish) or the language not what you think...its a measure of time NOT state of being.

.


Good thing the word reasonable gets used alot when talking to the average folk in a Jury. And good thing they don't have to understand all of this.

If it smells like a fish , must be a fish.

Hey wow. . .I can take this magazine apart with just my hands and nothing else. And look now I can put 30 rounds in it. Let's convict! He's trying to pull a fast one on us!!!!!

REASONABLE folk convicting an UNREASONABLE attempt at complying with the LAW.

Mstrty
04-22-2011, 11:08 PM
Good thing the word reasonable gets used alot when talking to the average folk in a Jury. And good thing they don't have to understand all of this.

If it smells like a fish , must be a fish.

Hey wow. . .I can take this magazine apart with just my hands and nothing else. And look now I can put 30 rounds in it. Let's convict! He's trying to pull a fast one on us!!!!!

REASONABLE folk convicting an UNREASONABLE attempt at complying with the LAW.

In sensing a little sarcasm. Am I wrong?

SixPointEight
04-22-2011, 11:32 PM
This stuff makes my brain hurt. I think I'm gonna drop some epoxy on the baseplate of my Pmags. Or switch to these baseplates:
http://www.magazineblocks.com/product_image/pmag1030.JPG

At least with that they can take it apart and go "AH-HA look! this can be..urm...only constructed as a 10 round magazine?!"

CHS
04-23-2011, 1:11 AM
At least with that they can take it apart and go "AH-HA look! this can be..urm...only constructed as a 10 round magazine?!"

Or a 30rd magazine. Where do you get the idea that it can only be constructed as a 10rd magazine?

dieselpower
04-23-2011, 10:46 AM
Good thing the word reasonable gets used alot when talking to the average folk in a Jury. And good thing they don't have to understand all of this.

If it smells like a fish , must be a fish.

Hey wow. . .I can take this magazine apart with just my hands and nothing else. And look now I can put 30 rounds in it. Let's convict! He's trying to pull a fast one on us!!!!!

REASONABLE folk convicting an UNREASONABLE attempt at complying with the LAW.

Or a 30rd magazine. Where do you get the idea that it can only be constructed as a 10rd magazine?

where do you get the idea if it can be assembled into something else (like a 30rd magazine) I can be charged with intent to committed the crime of manufacturing? My intent was not to manufacture, if fact I did not manufacture a LCM.

You are basing your logic off of logic the AG and DoJ rejected. They [the AG and DoJ] were the first to use that logic and people like Gene showed them it was FALSE!. Gene is now stuck on it. You are now stuck on it. They TOLD YOU OVER 30 TIMES they AGREE its an unreasonable definition, its doesn't reflect the intent of the law and all ALTERNATIVE definitions are improper...yet here you are 10 years later stuck to the old alternative definition that the controlling authority VOIDED!!!!!

READ IT SLOWLY...

The definition of "Permanently Altered" says
virtually nothing that would be useful to
firearms owner, law enforcement or the courts.
The department must describe what is a
"permanent" alteration. For example, is
"welding" deemed to be "permanent?" The
statute does not require that "permanent" be
"irreversible". If a large capacity detachable
magazine is configured by alteration to be
identical to a lawful 10 round magazine as
newly manufactured, is that acceptable? The
definition as proposed is vague and has great
potential for unnecessary confusion, arrest
and prosecution. It requires revision. The
department must state what procedures are
"permanent" for the purposes of the new law.


The Department agrees the definition lacks clarity. The Department agrees that the word
"irreversible" is not synonymous with the work "permanent". The Department has deleted the
proposed definition because it believes the phrase “permanently altered” conveys a meaning that
is sufficiently understood by reasonable people. None of the alternative definitions considered by
the Department added clarity to the inherent meaning of the phrase.
.


Recommended revision: Permanent alteration
would require substantial reworking of the
magazine structure or replacement of altered
parts to restore the magazine to the original
capacity.

The Department disagrees with the comment. The statute does not allow for the alteration to be
restored. Therefore, such definition would be in conflict with the statute and the Department does
not have authority to conflict with the statute.


Screwing, gluing, welding and riveting are probably as
close to "Permanently Altered" as we can get.
Recommend that they be given as examples to
establish some sort of guideline under this section.

The Department disagrees with the comment. The Department has deleted the
proposed definition because it believes the phrase “permanently altered” conveys a
meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people. None of the alternative
definitions considered by the Department added clarity to the inherent meaning of the
phrase.


Why do you continue to use the ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION, when it was deleted and shown to be AGAINST the meaning.

I can only fathom two reasons for your refusal to listen to reason.
1) There is a conspiracy afoot, to get us all to NOT seal our floorplates and then they come door to door and say.."hahaha we tricked you..permanently altered DOES mean irreversible and we don't need to tell you how to obtain that...we win... you all go to jail"!

2) Gene is working on a way to use the ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION to get us all to once again have Large capacity magazines. He first needs to make sure all the LEO and Controlling DAs buy into the fact "permanently altered" = irreversible (as it was first thought, then rejected). The problem is...that was rejected and if you attempt to use the ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION that was deleted you are going to run into a problem. Your "loophole" doesn't fit the intent of the law.

hoffmang
04-23-2011, 11:33 AM
Why do you continue to use the ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION, when it was deleted and shown to be AGAINST the meaning.

I can only fathom two reasons for your refusal to listen to reason.
1) There is a conspiracy afoot, to get us all to NOT seal our floorplates and then they come door to door and say.."hahaha we tricked you..permanently altered DOES mean irreversible and we don't need to tell you how to obtain that...we win... you all go to jail"!

2) Gene is working on a way to use the ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION to get us all to once again have Large capacity magazines. He first needs to make sure all the LEO and Controlling DAs buy into the fact "permanently altered" = irreversible (as it was first thought, then rejected). The problem is...that was rejected and if you attempt to use the ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION that was deleted you are going to run into a problem. Your "loophole" doesn't fit the intent of the law.

ARGH!

The proposed definitions didn't serve to further clarify "permanently altered." That the DOJ didn't add regulations to the LAW that states "permanently altered" doesn't remove those words force from the law.

You will have manufactured a large capacity magazine if you take parts from an 11+ magazine and put them together in some way that allows more than 10 rounds to be placed in them because the manufactured item can readily altered to accept more than 10 rounds.

Tell me how your "interpretation" gives effect to the term "permanently altered?"

You can't just read it out - but boy you'd like to.

Is the reason you're spending so much time on this that you don't get the other ways you can have large capacity magazines? Is it some weird desire to circumvent 12276.1 because you want features and more than 10 rounds?

This is a fruitless direction for that.

-Gene

dieselpower
04-23-2011, 12:37 PM
ARGH!

The proposed definitions didn't serve to further clarify "permanently altered." That the DOJ didn't add regulations to the LAW that states "permanently altered" doesn't remove those words force from the law.

You will have manufactured a large capacity magazine if you take parts from an 11+ magazine and put them together in some way that allows more than 10 rounds to be placed in them because the manufactured item can readily altered to accept more than 10 rounds.

Tell me how your "interpretation" gives effect to the term "permanently altered?"

You can't just read it out - but boy you'd like to.

Is the reason you're spending so much time on this that you don't get the other ways you can have large capacity magazines? Is it some weird desire to circumvent 12276.1 because you want features and more than 10 rounds?

This is a fruitless direction for that.

-Gene

First off I didn't start this. My OP was about terminology. Secondly I have always told people both sides of this issue and let them decide. Thirdly I don't use anything but factory manufactured 10 rd magazines. If you look back on every debate on this subject I advise against any 10/20 or 10/30 because you can NOT guarantee permanently altered was completed. A smear of glue isn't permanent. Until the community, and LEO drop your logic, and read the law as intended to be read, with reason and logic, I must advise against any use of an altered magazine. My two 10/30s are dead to me. They are sitting in a bag in my garage forever if need be. edit-- and yes the floorplates are JB welded closed...its still not a measure of permanent.

They didn't need to REMOVE the words "permanently altered". I can understand it, my kids understand it, anyone with reason can understand it to mean, "what is done is done."

A brown house is illegal, a brown house that was PERMANENTLY ALTERED to be a red house is NOT a brown house. Why do you continue to say my paint must be of a kind that can not be painted over? Its an unobtainable goal. The DoJ realized they screwed up and deleted the language that would have required the person to invent a paint that stops all paint.

It is unreasonable to assume anything else is meant by "permanently altered" once you look at what the task is to meet the alternative definition of "irreversible".

A feeding device that has been permanently altered to hold 10 or less.
A feeding device that has been altered permanently to hold 10 or less.

Both of these statements are unobtainable if read incorrectly or if you define the items in a way that makes it unobtainable.

If you MUST obtain an item that is
1) an item that holds 10 or less
2) has been altered
3) forever

Reason, logic, good judgment and common sense says, the feeding device always holds 10 or less until it doesn't hold 10 or less after it is altered.

If you take it apart, you must assemble it to hold 10 or less. You can not switch back and forth. No amount of tool, time, skill can stop that. Placing epoxy on the bottom plate doesn't stop me from manufacturing a large capacity magazine. I can cut it off. There is no way you can meet permanently altered under your old and unreasonable definition of the language. Since your definition is unreasonable and unobtainable, and it was written to be reasonable and obtainable, my definition is valid.

Permanently altered means forever in time as assembled. Once you disassemble you start back over. You are manufacturing. The law is the end product must only hold 10 rds.

here we go again...but all ten round magazines can be altered to hold more...yes because you are altering them...and if you alter them...they must still hold ten or less....

but what if my limiting block breaks? Did you force it to break? If yes, you "caused to be manufactured..." If it did it on its own, of course the law allows you time to fix it. Epoxy on the bottom wouldn't stop the limiting block from breaking anyway. The red paint on my house is peeling off...paint it again.

Gene, there is NO way You can place a 10rd magazine in front of me I can not alter to hold more than 10. That voids your alternative definition of "permanently altered". I can place a 10 rd magazine in front of you that will forever be a 10 rd magazine unless you alter it thereby starting the manufacturing process all over again.

This is what permanently altered means. Its done forever unless molested.

Its the only reasonable definition that works.

hoffmang
04-23-2011, 1:35 PM
Gene, there is NO way You can place a 10rd magazine in front of me I can not alter to hold more than 10. That voids your alternative definition of "permanently altered". I can place a 10 rd magazine in front of you that will forever be a 10 rd magazine unless you alter it thereby starting the manufacturing process all over again.

This is what permanently altered means. Its done forever unless molested.

Its the only reasonable definition that works.

No set of energy and atoms can't be changed so leave the silly out of it.

If you do something to a magazine that requires tools, or a change in materials to alter the magazine to accept more than 10 rounds then it was permanently altered. If you pop a base plate off with your hands and remove the block and put it the base plate back...

The jury convicts.

-Gene

dieselpower
04-23-2011, 2:55 PM
No set of energy and atoms can't be changed so leave the silly out of it.

If you do something to a magazine that requires tools, or a change in materials to alter the magazine to accept more than 10 rounds then it was permanently altered. If you pop a base plate off with your hands and remove the block and put it the base plate back...

The jury convicts.

-Gene

No. Your logic is unrealistic, unreasonable and bears no truth in the law. Tools, time and skill have been rejected over 30 times by the DoJ. You want something that has been explained to you as wrong by the controlling agency.

I'm done explaining it. Let the community and the individual decide.

safewaysecurity
04-23-2011, 4:23 PM
No set of energy and atoms can't be changed so leave the silly out of it.

If you do something to a magazine that requires tools, or a change in materials to alter the magazine to accept more than 10 rounds then it was permanently altered. If you pop a base plate off with your hands and remove the block and put it the base plate back...

The jury convicts.

-Gene

Well then couldn't you consider a 10 round mag that doesn't have a permanently attached baseplate "not permanent" and " "readily altered to accept more than 10 rounds"? I mean a 10 round glock magazine can have an extended baseplate added to it to accept more than 10. I would imagine such a baseplate could exist for AR15 mags ( i have not see any though ). I have also visited a few gun shops where they sell 10/30 and 10/20 pmags which do not have rivets or permanently fixed baseplates and the only thing making them hold 30 rounds are a loose plastic block inside which is not permanently attached anywhere inside the mag. If someone buys one of those magazines from them would their possession of that magazine be legal? What if they used that magazine in a bullet buttoned rifle? Has the DOJ given any clear answers on this?

dieselpower
04-23-2011, 6:26 PM
Well then couldn't you consider a 10 round mag that doesn't have a permanently attached baseplate "not permanent" and " "readily altered to accept more than 10 rounds"? I mean a 10 round glock magazine can have an extended baseplate added to it to accept more than 10. I would imagine such a baseplate could exist for AR15 mags ( i have not see any though ). I have also visited a few gun shops where they sell 10/30 and 10/20 pmags which do not have rivets or permanently fixed baseplates and the only thing making them hold 30 rounds are a loose plastic block inside which is not permanently attached anywhere inside the mag. If someone buys one of those magazines from them would their possession of that magazine be legal? What if they used that magazine in a bullet buttoned rifle? Has the DOJ given any clear answers on this?

Yes they have. (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf)

I cant explain it to Gene, so I will continue to explain to others who will listen. Gene, please direct your comments at the posters. We do not see eye to eye on this and I fear we never will.

permanently altered is NOT irreversible.
Its illegal to reverse ANY way you do it.
finger, chainsaw, bomb, tools, in seconds, in hours, no skill, advanced metallurgic machining, nuclear blast, dremel, screwdriver, drill....ANY reversal to a large capacity feeding device and its illegal. Therefore .... common sense, reasonable logic dictates. permanently altered means....once its done..its done. any disassembly = parts. any re-assembly = manufacturing. what did you manufacture?

:shrug:

If you place a weld on the bottom, it only stops someone without a rotory tool and cutting wheel. Therefore the DA can charge you will the manufacture of an AW PC12276.1(a)(2). If you cut the magazine body in half, your alteration only stops a person who doesnt have the skill to add the other half back on. The DA can still charge you with the same. Is this reasonible? Is this a law you can comply with? Can you presently order a Glock 10 round magazine and alter it to hold more than 10 rds? then why is it legal?

The reason is because the law is reasonable. [On its level, I agree its infrigement.] A magazine is what it is created as. If you are manufacturing a magazine inorder to try and gain more than 10 rds, you are violating PC12020(a)(2). If you use that in a Fixed magazine firearm, you are violating PC12280, via PC12276.1(d)(2) and 12276.1(a)(2) & (5).

If you manufacture a magazine to hold 10 rds or less, its not a LCM as defined in PC12020(a)(2) via PC12020(c)(25). You can also use that magazine in a firearm and not trigger AW status.

If you alter a feeding device to only accomodate 10 rds or less, that is permanent.

My OP was simple... If you do alter a feeding device to hold 10 or less...do not refer to it as any thing other than a 10rd magazine.

If you only buy 10 rd magazines you have an added benefit. If they are later deemed to be LCM, you are safe. You didnt manufacture anything. Buying is not prohibited.

SixPointEight
04-23-2011, 6:58 PM
Or a 30rd magazine. Where do you get the idea that it can only be constructed as a 10rd magazine?

The block I pictured is attached to the lock plate for the dust cover/base plate. Without the block you can't assemble a complete magazine. If you throw out the block, you throw out the locking plate, so it's not a complete magazine.

safewaysecurity
04-23-2011, 7:27 PM
Yes they have. (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf)

I cant explain it to Gene, so I will continue to explain to others who will listen. Gene, please direct your comments at the posters. We do not see eye to eye on this and I fear we never will.

permanently altered is NOT irreversible.
Its illegal to reverse ANY way you do it.
finger, chainsaw, bomb, tools, in seconds, in hours, no skill, advanced metallurgic machining, nuclear blast, dremel, screwdriver, drill....ANY reversal to a large capacity feeding device and its illegal. Therefore .... common sense, reasonable logic dictates. permanently altered means....once its done..its done. any disassembly = parts. any re-assembly = manufacturing. what did you manufacture?



I'm not sure I understand the point you are getting at... from what I've understood from the DOJ is that permanent means requiring the use of a tool. But what confuses is me is that as soon as you remove the baseplate your magazine immediately becomes a "parts kit" and ceases to be a magazine of any capacity and has no ability to accept any ammunition. So I would think that as soon as you put the magazine together it is only able to accept however many rounds you block it as and cannot be considered temporary because as soon as you remove the baseplate it becomes parts... ugh so confusing... sucks when you can't get clear answers on what is legal.

dieselpower
04-23-2011, 8:06 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point you are getting at... from what I've understood from the DOJ is that permanent means requiring the use of a tool. But what confuses is me is that as soon as you remove the baseplate your magazine immediately becomes a "parts kit" and ceases to be a magazine of any capacity and has no ability to accept any ammunition. So I would think that as soon as you put the magazine together it is only able to accept however many rounds you block it as and cannot be considered temporary because as soon as you remove the baseplate it becomes parts... ugh so confusing... sucks when you can't get clear answers on what is legal.

The DoJ has never said a tool = permanent. Gene says that. The DoJ says, any way you reverse the alteration, even with tools, you are guilty of manufacturing a large capacity feeding device.

I agree with you. Its very reasonable to think once the magazine is disassembled, its back to a legal pile of parts...even if it can be assembled as a large capacity feeding device. The act of assembly is manufacturing and is illegal if the magazine has the capacity of 11 or more.

SixPointEight
04-23-2011, 8:20 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point you are getting at... from what I've understood from the DOJ is that permanent means requiring the use of a tool. But what confuses is me is that as soon as you remove the baseplate your magazine immediately becomes a "parts kit" and ceases to be a magazine of any capacity and has no ability to accept any ammunition. So I would think that as soon as you put the magazine together it is only able to accept however many rounds you block it as and cannot be considered temporary because as soon as you remove the baseplate it becomes parts... ugh so confusing... sucks when you can't get clear answers on what is legal.

I've been saying this for almost a year now...I've never seen one of the legal-eagles respond to it. I think in all I've gotten one response, which was, "epoxy it just to be safe."

I don't see why a competent lawyer couldn't argue that exact point. Once it's apart, it's not a magazine anymore, it's just magazine parts. Though I would think, "once a high-cap, always a high-cap" may apply. So you can't buy a high-cap, make it into parts, then just drop a block in. I would argue this more in depth, but I think it's time to go out and do some easter's eve drinking.

safewaysecurity
04-23-2011, 8:50 PM
The DoJ has never said a tool = permanent. Gene says that. The DoJ says, any way you reverse the alteration, even with tools, you are guilty of manufacturing a large capacity feeding device.

I agree with you. Its very reasonable to think once the magazine is disassembled, its back to a legal pile of parts...even if it can be assembled as a large capacity feeding device. The act of assembly is manufacturing and is illegal if the magazine has the capacity of 11 or more.

So you believe that a 10/30 body with a plastic block limiting the magazine to 10 rounds without fixing the baseplate is legal, correct? Because that's how I interpret the law. But I would like clarification from the DOJ because that link you sent me is SOOOOOOO long I can't find anything.

bubbapug1
04-23-2011, 11:13 PM
Its one thing to speak of bulls and another to be in the ring with one.

When your busted and facing hard time and a large fine, along with a free date with bubba in your cell and the vasoline hasn't been sent by your buds just yet, you may just think about the fancy twisted semantics of language you weave versus the intellectual capacity of your peers in the jurry box plus the political aspirations of the DA, and decide next time you'l play it more conservative.

Or than again, maybe principals and grammer are more important than money and time to you.

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 12:01 AM
So you believe that a 10/30 body with a plastic block limiting the magazine to 10 rounds without fixing the baseplate is legal, correct? Because that's how I interpret the law. But I would like clarification from the DOJ because that link you sent me is SOOOOOOO long I can't find anything.

I believe there is more logic and reason to say disassembly = a pile of legal parts. The AG & DoJ says ANY reversal is illegal, even reversal when you use tools. Gene says as long as you need to use tools to reverse it, then the assembly into an 10 rd magazine was proper. I am sorry its too long for you to read.

Its one thing to speak of bulls and another to be in the ring with one.

When your busted and facing hard time and a large fine, along with a free date with bubba in your cell and the vasoline hasn't been sent by your buds just yet, you may just think about the fancy twisted semantics of language you weave versus the intellectual capacity of your peers in the jurry box plus the political aspirations of the DA, and decide next time you'l play it more conservative.

Or than again, maybe principals and grammer are more important than money and time to you.

I think Gene doesn't have to worry about all that. I am sure he will appreciate your warning him about his "fancy twisted semantics of language"...LOL

I know you are not talking to me, since I am quoting 100% what the DoJ and AG said. This isn't me "playing word games". Its simple 5th grade "how to read English". I am sure the jury will be made up of people who can follow simple 1+1=2 logic. The only time I am going to have a problem explaining the simple reasonable English sentence is to people who are looking to make it more complicated then it is...180 degrees from the way the AG & DoJ said to read it.

Happy Easter.

G1500
04-24-2011, 12:53 AM
Or a 30rd magazine. Where do you get the idea that it can only be constructed as a 10rd magazine?

Same way as a rivet on the magazine body and floorplate can be riveted out and can create a 30 round mag.

safewaysecurity
04-24-2011, 1:00 AM
I believe there is more logic and reason to say disassembly = a pile of legal parts. The AG & DoJ says ANY reversal is illegal, even reversal when you use tools. Gene says as long as you need to use tools to reverse it, then the assembly into an 10 rd magazine was proper. I am sorry its too long for you to read.


I just don't understand what you are saying... what do you mean by "reversal" reversal of what? I don't know what your getting at or what your point is. I literally have no idea where you stand. At one moment I think you believe that simply a block limiting the follower to only accept 10 rounds is ok and the next moment I get the impression that you believe all magazines are illegal...

G1500
04-24-2011, 1:12 AM
I just don't understand what you are saying... what do you mean by "reversal" reversal of what? I don't know what your getting at or what your point is. I literally have no idea where you stand. At one moment I think you believe that simply a block limiting the follower to only accept 10 rounds is ok and the next moment I get the impression that you believe all magazines are illegal...

He is saying once you convert a 30 round parts kit into a 10 round magazine, you cannot legally go back to a 30 round magazine, based on it being a "Permanent" modification.

Or at least that is how I understand him.

bubbapug1
04-24-2011, 1:16 AM
I think Gene doesn't have to worry about all that. I am sure he will appreciate your warning him about his "fancy twisted semantics of language"...LOL

I know you are not talking to me, since I am quoting 100% what the DoJ and AG said. This isn't me "playing word games". Its simple 5th grade "how to read English". I am sure the jury will be made up of people who can follow simple 1+1=2 logic. The only time I am going to have a problem explaining the simple reasonable English sentence is to people who are looking to make it more complicated then it is...180 degrees from the way the AG & DoJ said to read it.

Happy Easter.

I am talking to you, not Gene.

If you think jurors are not influenced by looks, innuendo, and charisma maybe you missed the OJ trial.

Best to stay in the lines unless you want to be a test case..

safewaysecurity
04-24-2011, 1:18 AM
He is saying once you convert a 30 round parts kit into a 10 round magazine, you cannot legally go back to a 30 round magazine, based on it being a "Permanent" modification.

Or at least that is how I understand him.

And gene IS saying that? I think it's kind of a given that you can make a 10 rounder and then create a 30 rounder....lol. I don't think Gene is saying you can make a 30 rounder because you made a 10 rounder. Diesel is just not ding the best job at communicating effectively.

G1500
04-24-2011, 1:56 AM
Gene is saying to be permanent you must epoxy or rivet.

No, Gene was not saying that. I was not quoting gene in any way. You are right, though, diesel is hard for me to understand sometimes, but basically, from my understanding, he (diesel) is saying that you do not need to epoxy or rivet or roll pin the baseplate.

Gene and others are saying that if you do not rivet or epoxy, it is not permanent, and that you can still make an un-epoxied magazine into a LCM. Diesel likes to argue the other side of the argument and say that if you do rivet or epoxy a magazine it is not permanent, because there is still a way for him to reverse the modification and create a LCM. He has also said that even in the case of a 10 round body magazine, he can modify it to there it will except >10 rounds, and therefore based on Gene's argument, even a legal 10 round body magazine would be illegal.

My opinion, and what I do, is that if the magazine holds no more than 10 rounds it is legal. If at any point in time, modify it to hold more than 10 rounds, you are manufacturing a LCM and breaking the law.

I don't know if I am helping anyone understand this better, or not. I don't know where I fount it, but, I think this video does a decent job of explaining some of what we are talking about here. Pay attention at 1:40.

kUR31CYk4dg

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 10:44 AM
1) Ok the OP (Original Post) was about not referring to your home made or store bought 10/20s and 10/30s as such. When you use the /20 and the /30 you are agreeing that it was at one time a large capacity magazine.

2) Then people started in on the floorplate issue, since there two other threads in the Rifles Forums on this issue I was debating.

3) Gene has stated the following;
A) 10/20s and 10/30 are stupid. The risk is there for someone to question your Fixed magazine firearm actually having the capacity to hold more than 10.
B) Factory 10 rd magazines are cheap and do not have that problem.
C) The "Permanently Altered" language can be twisted to mean any magazine you make needs to be physically permanent or its still has the capacity to hold more than 10. Using epoxy to lock the base plate COULD stop charges, since tools would be required to remove the epoxy. This is the same as the ATF regulation on less than 16" barrels. The CA DoJ attempted this logic when advising how a Fixed magazine rifle COULD be made.

4) I say;
A) I do not use any magazine I did not buy from a manufacture.
B) I Have manufactured two 10/30s with JB weld on the floorplates. These were legally owned 30 rd magazine. I no longer use them in my fixed magazine rifle because... There is no guarantee an LEO or DA will agree with Gene. Why do I think that? Because the DoJ stated any, ANY, ANY reversal (changing the 10/30 back to a 30 rd magazine) is illegal. So if Gene is right, (permanently altered = physically irreversible), then epoxy or JB weld fails at that. Any one could simply cut the epoxy off. If you don't or can't understand that...then you do not understand what Gene is saying.
C) I actually think the AG & DoJ took Gene's logic out of the law. They realized there is no way to make a 10/30 permanently altered, when you say permanently altered = physically irreversible. They knew they did not have the authority to say that, because when SB23 was passed by the Voters, the alteration of a 30 rd magazine was APPROVED to be legal. By the AG & DoJ making that an unobtainable goal they were going against the intent of SB23. So they took that language OUT of the law. They than (over 30 times) told people not to worry about the irreversible language. "permanently altered" in the law was NOT the same as irreversible and it was what a common reasonable person would think. That means the "permanently altered" phrase means after you are done, its a 10 rd magazine forever. No matter how easy or how hard to change back. Changing back is covered under the law...its called manufacturing a large capacity magazine.

SOOOOOOO all I am saying is this..... Gene is wrong. The sentence, "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. means this....
Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds shall mean ability, at the time of inspection, to load more that 10 rounds into the magazine without alteration of the magazine, But shall not be construed to include a feeding device that once held more than 10, but has been limited to now hold only 10.

As long as the DA can not prove you are altering the same magazine between a 10 rd magazine and a 30 rd magazine you are not violating the law.

the proof I am right...
1) The law was meant to be obtainable by the person who owns the magazine, They are allowed to alter a magazine to a less than 11 magazine.
2) using Gene's logic there is NO WAY to comply with the law.... all magazines no matter how much epoxy can be altered back.
3) The AG and DoJ agreed with Gene and removed the irreversible language (why he doesn't trust them is his business.. but the problem is its "his Troy to be burned" and now we have to deal with it.)
4) There is no language about tools, so tools don't matter.
5) There is a record of the AG and DoJ stating tools are not a means to comply.

So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Gene has convinced some LEO that the AG and DoJ meant tools need to be used to take a magazine apart for it to be a legally altered magazine. So if you encounter one of these LEO and you do NOT have epoxy on your floorplate he may arrest you. Even if this is false, (and it is false in my opinion), that doesn't stop the arrest.

The worst part is if for some reason you do get arrested and you are using a 10/30 in your AR15 with Bullet Button, and there IS EPOXY on your floor plate...that STILL doesn't guarantee a DA will not go after you for violating that law...using Gene's logic NO 10/30 is legal, even with epoxy...he is the only person saying thats legal and he has no authority to make a law saying that... the funny thing is Gene even says he is not giving legal advise because he knows he doesn't have the authority to tell you epoxy = legal.

Gene's war with Troy is our problem now, we have no assurance of a non-conviction because he refusing to simply agree with the AG & DoJ. If Gene would drop this one topic and simply agree with the AG & DoJ we could be safe in all 10/20s and 10/30s we make. WHY? Because thats the kind of pull CalGuns Foundation has. LEO and DAs will adopt the reasonable logic. Once they do that then the only way you can be charged with violation of 12276.1(a)(2) is when the magazine loads more than 10.

rbetts
04-24-2011, 11:02 AM
I don't know if I am helping anyone understand this better, or not. I don't know where I fount it, but, I think this video does a decent job of explaining some of what we are talking about here. Pay attention at 1:40.

kUR31CYk4dg

WRONG!!!!! You can still use the magazine without the spring holder at the base of the floor plate. This video is correct UNTIL 1:40 and then is invalid. I can build a 20 rounder from this by simply putting the floor plate back on after removing the mag block. Even after I have thrown away the spring lock in the floor plate. The floor plate needs to be riveted or glued to be permanent. END of story. . . . .except for the wordsmith. . . . .Diesel?

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 11:06 AM
WRONG!!!!! You can still use the magazine without the spring holder at the base of the floor plate. This video is correct UNTIL 1:40 and then is invalid. I can build a 20 rounder from this by simply putting the floor plate back on after removing the mag block. Even after I have thrown away the spring lock in the floor plate. The floor plate needs to be riveted or glued to be permanent. END of story. . . . .except for the wordsmith. . . . .Diesel?

And you are wrong LOL:D

If I was allowed to assemble improperly, then I take any 10 rd magazine and drop 2 or 3 of the spring coils out of the bottom and duct tape the bottom...BAM a 11 or 12 round magazine!!!!!

The Magpul limiter has a detent notch that is made to fit inside the floorplat as its lock. By leaving that out you are modifing the design to something it was NOT to be.

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 11:09 AM
and further more [happy easter everyone] and epoxy is not legal if you read the law as permanently altered is a physical stop to reversing the 10/30 back to a 30. I can cut the epoxy off... so you have failed if your intent was to make it permanent by that logic. NO ONE has ever said tools = legal, other than a guy who has no authority to say that.

rbetts
04-24-2011, 11:11 AM
So we finally have the true agenda of this post. You have a beef with Gene.

Frankly, I'll side and die by his words and feel much more comfortable at night. And Since the LEO's have all agreed that the 10/30 and 10/20 with a rivet or glue is good to go, and have published training memos to that effect, I think that we are safe and a REASONABLE AND PRUDENT person can sleep well at night with his blocked AND LOCKED mags.


Deisel, Why the attempt at casting aspersions at Gene? I don't get it?

rbetts
04-24-2011, 11:16 AM
If I was allowed to assemble improperly, then I take any 10 rd magazine and drop 2 or 3 of the spring coils out of the bottom and duct tape the bottom...BAM a 11 or 12 round magazine!!!!!

The Magpul limiter has a detent notch that is made to fit inside the floorplat as its lock. By leaving that out you are modifing the design to something it was NOT to be.

HUH??? Looks like a high cap, holds more than 10 rounds, IS a high cap.

You don't need the spring locking plate to make the mag work. Try it sometime deisel...it works. The video is a fail as it relates to the law! When are you heading down to the DOJ with your AR and Magazine experiment? I'll enjoy the theatrics on your part as they calmly arrest, cuff and take you to see bubba. DOH!!!

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 11:17 AM
LOL..I love my daughter...a fashion model with a high school education...

This is what she just said...

She is the DA, she is filing charges against you because she agrees with Gene. The "permanently altered" language in the law means physically incapable to ever hold more than 10. She is going to take your epoxy off in front of the Jury and then make the 10/30 into a 30 round magazine. This proves you were in possession of an AW in violation to 12276.1(a)(2)....just as Gene said.

Whats going to be your defense...??? LOL :)

Your lawyer is going to be calling me for a defense.

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 11:18 AM
I have no beef with Gene accept on this issue. I am simply pointing out a failure in his logic. Dont make this something it is not.


This OP had freaking ZERO to do with this whole issue until OTHER people brought it in.

Both Gene and I agree 10/20s and 10/30s are freaking stupid..DONT USE THEM AT ALL.

I just believe his type of logic has caused that problem, not the AG or DoJ.

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 11:20 AM
HUH??? Looks like a high cap, holds more than 10 rounds, IS a high cap.

You don't need the spring locking plate to make the mag work.

BS you are modifying the intended design into something it was NOT meant to do.

thats like telling me a LEO can simply unscrew my BB in front of a Jury and prove I have a detachable magazine...stop reaching for BS to prove your point.

rbetts
04-24-2011, 11:27 AM
NO BS here, just common sense and no agenda but the truth.

SO your AR only is a top loader?? Because it is not permanently altered to be a non detachable magazine? .. . . . . . .(Waiting for the next diatribe)

Bring it on your verboseness:rofl2:

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 11:37 AM
NO BS here, just common sense and no agenda but the truth.

SO your AR only is a top loader?? Because it is not permanently altered to be a non detachable magazine? .. . . . . . .(Waiting for the next diatribe)

Bring it on your verboseness:rofl2:

My AR has a BB and a factory made 10rd magazine.

My opinion is a magazine is what it is.

I have this opinion based on what I was told by the AG and the DoJ when the law was written. They told me I was CORRECT in everything I am saying.

I have provided the community with my WRITTEN proof stored on the AG's own website. Please go to the AG's official California website and search for "SB23 Final". The document proves I am right.

The only reason I can not be safe in this is because others have convinced LEO that this is NOT true.

You are unwilling to read. You are unwilling to use logic. You are unwilling to use good judgment. You are unwilling to be reasonable. I can't help you.

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 11:53 AM
As originally noticed to the public, the statutory term “permanently altered” was defined to mean “any irreversible change or alteration.” However, after consideration of public comment received during the initial comment period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000), the Department determined that the proposed definition failed to provide any additional clarity to the statutory term “permanently altered.” Furthermore, the Department found that none of the comments considered provided additional clarity while maintaining the legislative intent. The term “permanently altered” as used in the statute appears to be sufficientlunderstood without further definition. As such, the regulations were revised to delete this originally proposed definition and it has not been adopted by the Department.

If anyone is telling you your magazine must be made in a way that “any irreversible change or alteration" renders it invalid...they are making that up.

The AG & DoJ said, "As such, the regulations were revised to delete this originally proposed definition and it has not been adopted by the Department".

G1500
04-24-2011, 12:53 PM
WRONG!!!!! You can still use the magazine without the spring holder at the base of the floor plate. This video is correct UNTIL 1:40 and then is invalid. I can build a 20 rounder from this by simply putting the floor plate back on after removing the mag block. Even after I have thrown away the spring lock in the floor plate. The floor plate needs to be riveted or glued to be permanent. END of story. . . . .except for the wordsmith. . . . .Diesel?

You can throw away the floorplate, and locking plate, and use duct tape to hold the spring in. No baseplate or locking plate needed.

I can build a 30/30 round magazine from your epoxied or riveted magazine in just a few minutes. So, if I can do that, you created a LCM by not making it permanent, right?

CHS
04-24-2011, 1:18 PM
The block I pictured is attached to the lock plate for the dust cover/base plate. Without the block you can't assemble a complete magazine. If you throw out the block, you throw out the locking plate, so it's not a complete magazine.

Clearly you have no idea how a PMAG works.

Hint: It will function and accept 30rd's just fine without the locking plate.

cruising7388
04-24-2011, 2:04 PM
[QUOTE=dieselpower;6247087 How about you go and ask in the fishing and hiking threads why can't you own large capacity magazines manufactured after 1/1/2000...[/QUOTE]

As long as he isn't there, and he is here, and you are clearly knowledgable in this area, why don't you answer the question he asked which is whether he could be in any legal jeopardy possessing a magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds that could only have been manufactured after 1/1/2000?

SixPointEight
04-24-2011, 4:08 PM
Clearly you have no idea how a PMAG works.

Hint: It will function and accept 30rd's just fine without the locking plate.

Clearly I do, but it's still not a complete magazine. I could find a way to fire a cartridge out of an AR upper without a lower. Does that make that upper a firearm?

I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I tend to agree with diesel here. If you took the mag apart, it does become parts. Then if they assemble it into a 30 to prove you did something wrong...they committed the crime of manufacturing a HCM.

Your AR would function without a mag release. Your mags would then go in and out without the use of a tool. Clearly you have an assault weapon. Unless...you don't ever, and don't intend to, use it in that way. Is this not the same logic you're using?

mmbasser
04-24-2011, 4:24 PM
I think it would be hilarious if a prosecutor in a trial took my 10 round mag with a "long body" apart to prove his point, then assembled it without the block! That guy just committed a felony! Baliff, whack his pee pee! LOL

Luieburger
04-24-2011, 4:41 PM
WRONG!!!!! You can still use the magazine without the spring holder at the base of the floor plate. This video is correct UNTIL 1:40 and then is invalid. I can build a 20 rounder from this by simply putting the floor plate back on after removing the mag block. Even after I have thrown away the spring lock in the floor plate. The floor plate needs to be riveted or glued to be permanent. END of story. . . . .except for the wordsmith. . . . .Diesel?

For the record, you would need to disassemble the mag into parts before you could remove the block and replace the floorplate. In other words... just because you can make a 10 rounder into a 30 rounder doesn't nullify the legality of the 10 rounder.

Of course, Gene already said that altering, modifying, building, and manufacturing are all essentially the same thing as far as this law is concerned. The law isn't written to read that way, but I think Gene knows how this law will be interpreted.

I think the video is 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that you'll be able to avoid getting convicted. Like I said before... it will depend on the Jury, the DA, the officer who you encounter, and most importantly it will depend on your ability to keep your mouth shut and exercise your rights.

shooterdude
04-24-2011, 5:00 PM
Gene is saying to be permanent you must epoxy or rivet.

No, Gene was not saying that. I was not quoting gene in any way. You are right, though, diesel is hard for me to understand sometimes, but basically, from my understanding, he (diesel) is saying that you do not need to epoxy or rivet or roll pin the baseplate.

Gene and others are saying that if you do not rivet or epoxy, it is not permanent, and that you can still make an un-epoxied magazine into a LCM. Diesel likes to argue the other side of the argument and say that if you do rivet or epoxy a magazine it is not permanent, because there is still a way for him to reverse the modification and create a LCM. He has also said that even in the case of a 10 round body magazine, he can modify it to there it will except >10 rounds, and therefore based on Gene's argument, even a legal 10 round body magazine would be illegal.

My opinion, and what I do, is that if the magazine holds no more than 10 rounds it is legal. If at any point in time, modify it to hold more than 10 rounds, you are manufacturing a LCM and breaking the law.

I don't know if I am helping anyone understand this better, or not. I don't know where I fount it, but, I think this video does a decent job of explaining some of what we are talking about here. Pay attention at 1:40.

kUR31CYk4dg



Perhaps my next video should document how the ambiguous laws in CA have convinced a bunch of adults that they need to argue over tape, glue and the meaning of the word permanent.

Reminds me of kindergarten except we had construction paper too. ;-)

The real discussion should be how to have the law clarified or repealed. Same goes for the whole OLL issue. An AR-15 is an AR-15 no matter who made the lower.

CHS
04-24-2011, 5:35 PM
I think it would be hilarious if a prosecutor in a trial took my 10 round mag with a "long body" apart to prove his point, then assembled it without the block! That guy just committed a felony! Baliff, whack his pee pee! LOL

Except he wouldn't have committed a felony. Doing so as a demonstration in a court of law is pretty much exempt from the law.

Why do you think DA's are allowed to bring in siezed drugs and machineguns into court? Aren't they committing felony possession? Of course not. This is something that is in the scope of THEIR JOB. It's not a felony.

If the DA wants to take apart your mag and show the jury how easy it is to undo your "permanence", he will do so with the full backing of the law.

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 5:47 PM
Agree. A DA can manufacture a LCM in court. He must also prove the defendant did that as well.

safewaysecurity
04-24-2011, 5:50 PM
Diesel you are still confusing me.... you say you have 2 10/30 magazines but you do not use them in BB rifles... so are you admitting that you illegally manufactured 30 round magazines by your logic because you say it would be illegal to use them in that configuration in a BB rifle. Honestly I think that the law is vague enough it all depends on how much of an A-hole the DA is. I think even if you had a magazine that was designed as a 10 rounder and the mag body was made to only accommodate 10 rounds the DA could just be a gun hater and would claim that simply removing the baseplate and adding an extension is possible and thus the magazine has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds...

I personally think though that as long as more than 10 rounds can't fit in your mag then you are fine. Because as soon as your remove the baseplate and the spring you just have parts and if you do decide to put it together again without a block THAT'S when you have MANUFACTURED a high cap mag. Because if the argument is that because you have a mag that can be taken apart and can be re-assembled into a high cap mag well then by that logic all parts kits are illegal because they can potentially be assembled into mags which have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. Can someone just email the DOJ and get a real response?

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 6:21 PM
Diesel you are still confusing me.... you say you have 2 10/30 magazines but you do not use them in BB rifles... so are you admitting that you illegally manufactured 30 round magazines by your logic because you say it would be illegal to use them in that configuration in a BB rifle. Honestly I think that the law is vague enough it all depends on how much of an A-hole the DA is. I think even if you had a magazine that was designed as a 10 rounder and the mag body was made to only accommodate 10 rounds the DA could just be a gun hater and would claim that simply removing the baseplate and adding an extension is possible and thus the magazine has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds...

I personally think though that as long as more than 10 rounds can't fit in your mag then you are fine. Because as soon as your remove the baseplate and the spring you just have parts and if you do decide to put it together again without a block THAT'S when you have MANUFACTURED a high cap mag. Because if the argument is that because you have a mag that can be taken apart and can be re-assembled into a high cap mag well then by that logic all parts kits are illegal because they can potentially be assembled into mags which have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. Can someone just email the DOJ and get a real response?

You dont need to e-mail the DoJ...they already said what they said. This was already explained. It would prove nothing either way. You either believe what they say or not.
. You are correct about the law, just not why I DO NOT USE THEM.

I owned LCM before 1/1/2000. They are legal. I converted 2 of 11 into 10/30s. So now I am admitting to the whole world I only own 9 LCM. Even if some LEO or DA uses the irreversible logic and says the 2 that are 10/30s are STILL LCM, I am ok...cuz owning them is 100% legal. All they are saying is I failed to make them less than 11 round magazine. I would freaking LOVE a DA to tell me that and place it in writting..WHY??? Because I could then remove the epoxy and have 2 more 30rd magazines. Until that day, I can not.

What I also can not do in use the 10/30s in a FIXED magazine rifle. WHY? Because the same magazine law as 12020 is in 12276.1. Using the irreversible logic you guys love so much, if there is ANY WAY to reverse the 10/30 to a 30 again..its wasn't done correctly...so the Fixed magazine rifle holds more than 10.

Until LEO stop using the permanently altered = irreversible logic I will not use any 10/XX magazines. I will ONLY use factory manufactured 10 rd magazine I buy at a store.

I didnt read your whole post, I am talking on the phone...LOL I editted my rude comments.

safewaysecurity
04-24-2011, 7:07 PM
You dont need to e-mail the DoJ...they already said what they said. This was already explained. It would prove nothing either way. You either believe what they say or not.
. You are correct about the law, just not why I DO NOT USE THEM.

I owned LCM before 1/1/2000. They are legal. I converted 2 of 11 into 10/30s. So now I am admitting to the whole world I only own 9 LCM. Even if some LEO or DA uses the irreversible logic and says the 2 that are 10/30s are STILL LCM, I am ok...cuz owning them is 100% legal. All they are saying is I failed to make them less than 11 round magazine. I would freaking LOVE a DA to tell me that and place it in writting..WHY??? Because I could then remove the epoxy and have 2 more 30rd magazines. Until that day, I can not.

What I also can not do in use the 10/30s in a FIXED magazine rifle. WHY? Because the same magazine law as 12020 is in 12276.1. Using the irreversible logic you guys love so much, if there is ANY WAY to reverse the 10/30 to a 30 again..its wasn't done correctly...so the Fixed magazine rifle holds more than 10.

Until LEO stop using the permanently altered = irreversible logic I will not use any 10/XX magazines. I will ONLY use factory manufactured 10 rd magazine I buy at a store.

I didnt read your whole post, I am talking on the phone...LOL I editted my rude comments.

Well I guess we have to agree to disagree because the way I read the law it's perfectly legal to have a plastic block to limit the mag to 10 rounds without any glue epoxy or riveting.

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 7:18 PM
Well I guess we have to agree to disagree because the way I read the law it's perfectly legal to have a plastic block to limit the mag to 10 rounds without any glue epoxy or riveting.

and I agree.... but LEO who listen to other people say its NOT legal and they are the ones who you will have to answer to.

Do yourself a favor and be able to explain the irreversible is not what permanently altered means argument to them. Copy the SB23 Final document.

Show them the DoJ agreed and the language was changed to reflect that. The rule of law is irreversible is not against the law to be able to do...it is to actually do it.

Happy Easter
Dieselpower

shooterdude
04-24-2011, 7:20 PM
You dont need to e-mail the DoJ...they already said what they said. This was already explained. It would prove nothing either way. You either believe what they say or not.
. You are correct about the law, just not why I DO NOT USE THEM.

I owned LCM before 1/1/2000. They are legal. I converted 2 of 11 into 10/30s. So now I am admitting to the whole world I only own 9 LCM. Even if some LEO or DA uses the irreversible logic and says the 2 that are 10/30s are STILL LCM, I am ok...cuz owning them is 100% legal. All they are saying is I failed to make them less than 11 round magazine. I would freaking LOVE a DA to tell me that and place it in writting..WHY??? Because I could then remove the epoxy and have 2 more 30rd magazines. Until that day, I can not.

What I also can not do in use the 10/30s in a FIXED magazine rifle. WHY? Because the same magazine law as 12020 is in 12276.1. Using the irreversible logic you guys love so much, if there is ANY WAY to reverse the 10/30 to a 30 again..its wasn't done correctly...so the Fixed magazine rifle holds more than 10.

Until LEO stop using the permanently altered = irreversible logic I will not use any 10/XX magazines. I will ONLY use factory manufactured 10 rd magazine I buy at a store.

I didnt read your whole post, I am talking on the phone...LOL I editted my rude comments.

You constantly contradict yourself. In another post on this same topic you talked about how the law doesn't require you to make it harder to turn a 10 that was modified from something larger back into an LCM. Your logic being that if the magazine in its present state can only hold 10 then it is indeed permanently modified and taking it apart and put it together in another format is manufacturing not altering.

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 7:33 PM
You constantly contradict yourself. In another post on this same topic you talked about how the law doesn't require you to make it harder to turn a 10 that was modified from something larger back into an LCM. Your logic being that if the magazine in its present state can only hold 10 then it is indeed permanently modified and taking it apart and put it together in another format is manufacturing not altering.

yes I did believe that at one time. I believed, "once a LCM always a LCM. An Officer once told me I could consider my LCM broken when it was limited to 10 rds or less..you are allowed to repair broken magazines. So he told me I could repair the 10/30 to a 30rd again.... I dont believe that anymore. He still does.

I changed my mind when I read the whole SB23 Final and put it on my own type of chart. When you filter what the DoJ said, its clear once an LCM always an LCM is not true. Neither is a permanently altered magazine is one that can never be made into a LCM again via tools.

The problem is getting people to read the document and then understand it as a whole.

Its like the whole UOC thing. Its 100% legal yet some LEO stop and hassle people for doing it because they are operating under a different set of laws then ones on the books.

safewaysecurity
04-24-2011, 8:05 PM
and I agree.... but LEO who listen to other people say its NOT legal and they are the ones who you will have to answer to.

Do yourself a favor and be able to explain the irreversible is not what permanently altered means argument to them. Copy the SB23 Final document.

Show them the DoJ agreed and the language was changed to reflect that. The rule of law is irreversible is not against the law to be able to do...it is to actually do it.

Happy Easter
Dieselpower

My god... you are the most confusing person ever.... so are you saying you agree with my interpretation of the law but the only reason you advise against it is because of LEOs which mights interpret the law incorrectly? Couldn't that be an argument to avoid pretty much anything?

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 8:19 PM
My god... you are the most confusing person ever.... so are you saying you agree with my interpretation of the law but the only reason you advise against it is because of LEOs which mights interpret the law incorrectly? Couldn't that be an argument to avoid pretty much anything?

LOL...Dude.

stop and listen.

This OP was to ask for people to not call their 10/30s... "10/30"

We then got into this whole epoxy thing.

Some people say epoxy is 100% legal and the ONLY legal way to build a 10/30
Some people say epoxy is not legal, but helps, so its best to use it.
Some people say NO epoxy is needed.

What I say;
1) No Epoxy is needed.
2) MANY LEO think, epoxy IS NEEDED, you need to decide yourself what to do.
3) SOME LEO think "permanently altered" means if there is ANY FREAKING WAY to change the 10/30 into a 30rd again, then its illegal. So again, you need to decide for yourself what to do.
4) Since the LEO in #2 & #3 above are possible to run into, I don't use ANY 10/30s FOR ME! I see no reason to gamble running into the wrong LEO. Its freaking stupid to risk an arrest and a nightmare over a 10/30. Even if you get off afterward.

You know what...Gene says the same as me in #2, #3 and #4.

safewaysecurity
04-24-2011, 8:32 PM
LOL...Dude.

stop and listen.

This OP was to ask for people to not call their 10/30s... "10/30"

We then got into this whole epoxy thing.

Some people say epoxy is 100% legal and the ONLY legal way to build a 10/30
Some people say epoxy is not legal, but helps, so its best to use it.
Some people say NO epoxy is needed.

What I say;
1) No Epoxy is needed.
2) MANY LEO think, epoxy IS NEEDED, you need to decide yourself what to do.
3) SOME LEO think "permanently altered" means if there is ANY FREAKING WAY to change the 10/30 into a 30rd again, then its illegal. So again, you need to decide for yourself what to do.
4) Since the LEO in #2 & #3 above are possible to run into, I don't use ANY 10/30s FOR ME! I see no reason to gamble running into the wrong LEO. Its freaking stupid to risk an arrest and a nightmare over a 10/30. Even if you get off afterward.

You know what...Gene says the same as me in #2, #3 and #4.

Ok thank you. I understand now. But you were making alot of weird contradictory statements before and it was confusing as all hell. Glad we got that straight lol.

dieselpower
04-24-2011, 9:18 PM
Ok thank you. I understand now. But you were making alot of weird contradictory statements before and it was confusing as all hell. Glad we got that straight lol.

the contradictions are in the law and how its read. thats why people get confused.

When I say "red", most people have a idea what that is. Its tangible in our minds. I say "dog" again people have the same idea what that is. Its tangible as a physical object.

The law is not worded that way. Many of the words have multiple definitions and the play off each other.

When I tell you its not reversible, am I telling you that its physically impossible, or that doing that is illegal? This is why people get confused with the explanation of why epoxy is not needed.

The AG & DoJ say "permanently altered" is not the same as "irreversible", and that means you can reverse it. They also say reversal is not legal. WHAT?! Sure you can reverse it...you are just breaking the law when you do. :)

The physical process of reversal is there if you choose,... just as robbing the corner 7-11 is within your physical reach. What stops you are ethics and morals.

That is all the AG & DoJ said about "permanently altered" It isn't the same as irreversible and reversal is not a legal option. The same as assembling that kit into a LCM.

safewaysecurity
04-25-2011, 12:00 AM
The AG & DoJ say "permanently altered" is not the same as "irreversible", and that means you can reverse it. They also say reversal is not legal. WHAT?!

Why did you put the "WHAT?!" in there. I don't see that statement as contradictory by them. They are simply stating because you can take a 10 round magazine and convert it into a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds does not mean the 10 round magazine was not permanent. But that converting it to a magazine which holds more than 10 rounds is indeed illegal.

dieselpower
04-25-2011, 4:30 AM
Why did you put the "WHAT?!" in there. I don't see that statement as contradictory by them. They are simply stating because you can take a 10 round magazine and convert it into a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds does not mean the 10 round magazine was not permanent. But that converting it to a magazine which holds more than 10 rounds is indeed illegal.

You understand that...other people do not. Other people read permanently altered to mean, a magazine that can not ever be made to hold more than 10.

"Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

The DoJ has said reversal was not an option and people again say that shows that permanently altered means if it can go back to holding 10, then it still can accommodate more than 10.

The people also read where the DoJ said permanently altered is not the same as irreversible. They think this contradicts itself or the DoJ was trying to be tricky. They were not. It simply means they agree with us when we say its physically impossible to make something permanent.

There are people right now...even a Mod, who say we are wrong. They say we are playing word games and don't understand the law. We are contradicting ourselves in what PA means, the AG DoJ is trying to trap us and we are going to get people arrested for it.

yeah I understand you don't know why I put the "WHAT?!" in there... but when I explain this thats exactly what others say to themselves "W.T.H. is this idiot Dieselpower talking about."

goodlookin1
04-25-2011, 8:54 AM
Let's face it: We can argue the meaning of the "letter of the law" till our ears bleed....but it's a fruitless effort because it doesnt matter. If charged, the jury decides your fate.

I asked my wife last night, who knows nothing of guns, gun laws, etc, if she considered herself a "reasonable person". She said, "I would think so, yes". I said, "Ok, say you were on a jury to convict a person of being guilty of creating a large capacity magazine. In order to comply with the law, the magazine must hold 10 rounds or less and be permanently altered so it cannot hold more than 10 rounds. The person charged with the crime made the magazine so that it held no more than 10 rounds and glued and riveted the bottom so that it could not be pulled apart unless you break it in doing so or it takes a long time and the right tools to do it. Would you find him guilty of not making the magazine permanently able to hold only 10 rounds or less?"

She first answered, "Why does it have to be permanent? That's stupid. As long as it only holds 10 rounds, what difference does it make?" - (Man, I love her :) )

Then she said, "No, if he did all that so that he couldnt open it back up easily enough, I would not convict him of being guilty".

I replied, "Ok, same situation, but instead of gluing and riveting it, he put in a screw in the bottom so that he could not open it with his hands, but had to use a screw driver to do so. Is he guilty?".

She said, "Well, even though it's stupid, that would be much tougher to say it was permanent".

In her mind, it wasn't really permanent because you could easily undo it. This is how "permanently altered" is viewed to a typical, "reasonable", person.


I am saying all of this NOT to state what the law is, what it's intentions are or what IS OR IS NOT legal. I am giving this strictly from a standpoint of how a "reasonable person" would view this situation. And THIS is the reality. As stupid as it is, the prosecution is going to whittle this down to whether or not the magazine was "permanently altered" so that it can permanently accept 10 or fewer rounds. The "reasonable" people on the jury will decide whether the magazine was "permanently altered" based on their "reasonable" definition of how permanent, "permanent", is.

It really is sad that this is what America is coming to: Taking away your gun rights and ruining the rest of your life because you are missing some stupid glue. Next time you come across a CA legislator, shake their hand and KICK them in the balls for being so stupid.

Just kidding.



But seriously....

dieselpower
04-25-2011, 10:12 AM
Let's face it: We can argue the meaning of the "letter of the law" till our ears bleed....but it's a fruitless effort because it doesn't matter. If charged, the jury decides your fate.

I asked my wife last night, who knows nothing of guns, gun laws, etc, if she considered herself a "reasonable person". She said, "I would think so, yes". I said, "Ok, say you were on a jury to convict a person of being guilty of creating a large capacity magazine. In order to comply with the law, the magazine must hold 10 rounds or less and be permanently altered so it cannot hold more than 10 rounds. The person charged with the crime made the magazine so that it held no more than 10 rounds and glued and riveted the bottom so that it could not be pulled apart unless you break it in doing so or it takes a long time and the right tools to do it. Would you find him guilty of not making the magazine permanently able to hold only 10 rounds or less?"

She first answered, "Why does it have to be permanent? That's stupid. As long as it only holds 10 rounds, what difference does it make?" - (Man, I love her :) )

Then she said, "No, if he did all that so that he couldn't open it back up easily enough, I would not convict him of being guilty".

I replied, "Ok, same situation, but instead of gluing and riveting it, he put in a screw in the bottom so that he could not open it with his hands, but had to use a screw driver to do so. Is he guilty?".

She said, "Well, even though it's stupid, that would be much tougher to say it was permanent".

In her mind, it wasn't really permanent because you could easily undo it. This is how "permanently altered" is viewed to a typical, "reasonable", person.


I am saying all of this NOT to state what the law is, what it's intentions are or what IS OR IS NOT legal. I am giving this strictly from a standpoint of how a "reasonable person" would view this situation. And THIS is the reality. As stupid as it is, the prosecution is going to whittle this down to whether or not the magazine was "permanently altered" so that it can permanently accept 10 or fewer rounds. The "reasonable" people on the jury will decide whether the magazine was "permanently altered" based on their "reasonable" definition of how permanent, "permanent", is.

It really is sad that this is what America is coming to: Taking away your gun rights and ruining the rest of your life because you are missing some stupid glue. Next time you come across a CA legislator, shake their hand and KICK them in the balls for being so stupid.

Just kidding.



But seriously....

and thats why I do not use 10/20s or 10/30s...LOL A jury can be lead by the nose to any conclusion. Both sides get to talk. I have been a juror several times and each time the things you hear in a jury room would break a lawyers heart.

A 5th grade school teacher, "Just forget the evidence & jury instructions, lets vote will all know he's guilty." After being in the room 2 minutes.

A long haul trucker, "we gonna let that f-ing N-er get away with this?"

The Foreman, "The jury instructions don't really matter, we can do what we want, its called Jury nullification."

goodlookin1
05-11-2011, 7:36 AM
Ok, so I spent a lot of time writing up a thread yesterday only to have it deleted shortly thereafter, so I'll ask in an existing thread instead and keep the question much shorter.

What is the reason people dont permanently affix the base plate to the magazine block via epoxy?

My thinking is that this would conform to the law as written: No matter what you do (assemble, disassemble, etc), it could never hold more than 10 rounds assuming the block is the right size. The law doesnt state that the mag can never be opened or un-assembled.....only that it must be permanently altered so that it holds no more than 10 rounds. In order to have the magazine hold more than 10 rounds, one would have to buy a new base plate, rendering the magazine a "different" magazine than the original.

What's the reason people dont do this? Does it state anywhere in the law that "new parts = new alteration", which would mean that your original alteration was not permanent? I would think "new alteration = new magazine". I just bought a bunch of new rebuilt kits and need to put them together, and if possible, i'd like to be able to open them up for cleaning when needed. I was thinking the permanently attached base plate to block method would work....at least it would show some amount of "due diligence" attempt at making it permanent. After all, as Dieselpower has said many times, there is no such thing as "permanent".....with time and tools, you can undo anything. So how is this different?

I've seen other "how to" sticky guides that show the use of a rod permanently attached to the follower to "block" the magazine to only hold 10 rounds, and there didnt seem to be too much gruff about it. Is this method much different than what I am proposing?

Thanks.

jet3030
09-23-2011, 4:18 PM
I created an account after reading this thread. Two months ago I bought my first gun, an AR15. Soon after that I purchased two Pmag30's that are riveted at ten rounds. I think everyone that has commented has some very good points to argue. It sounds like I can still get busted for my mags. How can I order these things from a California online retailer and then go to jail for it? That would REALLY suck. Just one question, If I use the spring from the ten rd mag in conjunction with a block/ rivet, would it help my argument in court or with leo's? If you don't have a 30 rd spring, it doesn't matter if you remove the block or drill the rivet, it won't be able to feed the rounds without the bigger spring.

MasterYong
09-23-2011, 4:26 PM
I created an account after reading this thread. Two months ago I bought my first gun, an AR15. Soon after that I purchased two Pmag30's that are riveted at ten rounds. I think everyone that has commented has some very good points to argue. It sounds like I can still get busted for my mags. How can I order these things from a California online retailer and then go to jail for it? That would REALLY suck. Just one question, If I use the spring from the ten rd mag in conjunction with a block/ rivet, would it help my argument in court or with leo's? If you don't have a 30 rd spring, it doesn't matter if you remove the block or drill the rivet, it won't be able to feed the rounds without the bigger spring.

If you're new here I'll help ya out with this: this thread is so far into the convoluted "what if" fairyland that it's baffling. I don't mean offense to anyone, it's a great intellectual discussion, but that's about all it is.

Permanently modified 10/30 mags are legal to own, buy, use, sell, manufacture, etc. You can use them in featureless OR maglocked rifles guns.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Still, I would not let this thread worry you.

DEAD_EYE
11-19-2011, 10:06 PM
If you're new here I'll help ya out with this: this thread is so far into the convoluted "what if" fairyland that it's baffling. I don't mean offense to anyone, it's a great intellectual discussion, but that's about all it is.

Permanently modified 10/30 mags are legal to own, buy, use, sell, manufacture, etc. You can use them in featureless OR maglocked rifles guns.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Still, I would not let this thread worry you.


Yeah I just got my AR and I have a few magazines (pmags) that I got that were already riveted closed as 10/20s as other people call them. I bought more pmag parts online and built 10 round magazines. These mags I built can only hold 10 rounds and they have no glue or rivets. The 10 round mags i built seem the same size as a 20 round mag, but they are 10 round mags i built LOL.

My question is how can any one see my 10 round mags as any thing else, especially if Im an outstanding citizen currently in the military with no prior record...If a cop takes my 10 round mags and takes them apart he just made a pile of parts, if he puts them back together he made a 10 round mag lol.

if you take 2, 10 round mags, 2 pieces of duct tape, 5 minutes, and remove the base plates you can make a 20 round mag, that makes you a criminal.Who is to tell what the original intent of the parts were LOL