PDA

View Full Version : Not again, another magazine question


sammy
06-04-2011, 3:30 PM
I modified a 30 round AK magazine into a 10/30 because I wanted evil features but since have decided to go the featurless route. Is it OK to bring the mag back to it's orignal capacity. I did JB weld and rivet it but with a little work can get it back to the way it was. The rivet hole is the only give away that it was modified. Thanks, Sammy

asme
06-04-2011, 3:43 PM
Edit: oops

Bhobbs
06-04-2011, 3:49 PM
Was the 30 rounder owned in California before 2000?

Ford8N
06-04-2011, 3:51 PM
Read this and commit to memory

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-large-cap-magazines-2005-11-10.pdf

sammy
06-04-2011, 3:51 PM
Was the 30 rounder owned in California before 2000?

Yes it was. I believe the poster above is correct which is why I asked. After a quick search I found nothing. For a cheap magazine I am not willing to risk any trouble but just wanted to make sure. More or less looking for something to do this rainy June day.

EBR Works
06-04-2011, 3:54 PM
Every time you ruin a pre-2000 mag, a kitten dies. :(

But seriously, if you owned it before 2000, you can do with it whatever you wish. Go ahead and restore it to it's former capacity, but only use it in a featureless rifle.

PsychGuy274
06-04-2011, 6:07 PM
As long as you owned it prior to the ban you can restore it.

TripleT
06-04-2011, 6:36 PM
Or you could rebuild it using all new parts, just as long as you don't end up with more large cap mags than you started with. :)

Fate
06-04-2011, 7:27 PM
Yes it can be returned to it's former glory since you owned it prior to 2000.

taperxz
06-04-2011, 7:35 PM
I would rebuild it with a new body so the rivet hole were no longer there.

bwiese
06-04-2011, 8:26 PM
Nobody's gonna know, but....

(let's assume legit hicap mag owned/possessed/acquired in CA pre-2000)....

.... if that mag were converted to a 10rder and was capable of
conversion back, that sure as hell wasn't a 'permanent' conversion;

.... meaning the original conversion to 10 wasn't really up to snuff.


But why anyone mangles a valuable hicap to save $10 on buying a 10 rounder I simply dunno.

taperxz
06-04-2011, 8:35 PM
Nobody's gonna know, but....

(let's assume legit hicap mag owned/possessed/acquired in CA pre-2000)....

.... if that mag were converted to a 10rder and was capable of
conversion back, that sure as hell wasn't a 'permanent' conversion;

.... meaning the original conversion to 10 wasn't really up to snuff.


But why anyone mangles a valuable hicap to save $10 on buying a 10 rounder I simply dunno.

Dremmel tools can do amazing things;)

EBR Works
06-04-2011, 8:44 PM
Nobody's gonna know, but....

(let's assume legit hicap mag owned/possessed/acquired in CA pre-2000)....

.... if that mag were converted to a 10rder and was capable of
conversion back, that sure as hell wasn't a 'permanent' conversion;

.... meaning the original conversion to 10 wasn't really up to snuff.


But why anyone mangles a valuable hicap to save $10 on buying a 10 rounder I simply dunno.

I was under the impression that a legally owned pre-2000 hi cap mag converted to 10 rounds did not need to be permanent, whereas a mag built from a hi cap parts kit acquired post 2000 would need to be a permanent conversion to 10 rds or less.

socal2310
06-04-2011, 9:12 PM
I was under the impression that a legally owned pre-2000 hi cap mag converted to 10 rounds did not need to be permanent, whereas a mag built from a hi cap parts kit acquired post 2000 would need to be a permanent conversion to 10 rds or less.

That's how it would seem to me. The high capacity magazine ban and AWB are separate legislation. The AWB only states that it's illegal to have a fixed magazine that holds > 10 rds; it says nothing about whether that magazine could be modified to hold more rounds. That which is not forbidden is permitted, right?

bwiese
06-05-2011, 12:57 AM
I was under the impression that a legally owned pre-2000 hi cap mag converted to 10 rounds did not need to be permanent, whereas a mag built from a hi cap parts kit acquired post 2000 would need to be a permanent conversion to 10 rds or less.

Well, for mag purposes it doesn't (at least for legit pre-2000) but then that capacity restriction is irrelevant - I don't see anyone reducing capacity except to use it in a BB maglock'd build.

But I don't think you really wanna use that "readily recoverable capacity" mag in a maglocked semiauto centerfire rifle, given there isn't a whole lot of comfort level in this statutory definitions of AW and a key phrase contained within that definition:
PC 12276.1(a)(2): "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with
the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds."

PC 12276.1(d)(3): " '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."

Fate
06-05-2011, 11:09 AM
(let's assume legit hicap mag owned/possessed/acquired in CA pre-2000)....

.... if that mag were converted to a 10rder and was capable of
conversion back, that sure as hell wasn't a 'permanent' conversion;

.... meaning the original conversion to 10 wasn't really up to snuff.
Not really. Even epoxied floorplates/bodies can be Dremeled out. As long as you've got a workable part (follower/spring) to base a rebuild off of, it works. If the "not up to snuff" argument would still apply, then NONE of the 10/30s sold commercially would be "up to snuff." That's not true (even though you've publicly railed against them from the start. ;) )


But why anyone mangles a valuable hicap to save $10 on buying a 10 rounder I simply dunno. That's irrelevant. I don't know why anyone would Bubba a milsurp rifle and tacticool a Mosin Nagant. But that doesn't mean it's illegal or wrong. If modifying your property (within the law) is legal, then it's legal.

As for PC 12276.1(d)(3): " '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." I've argued that the "shall not be construed to include" section is not all encompassing. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=139687