PDA

View Full Version : Converting High Capacity AR Mags into 10 Round


Death Valley Dog
07-18-2011, 2:12 PM
I'm getting conflicting information about the legallity of converting high capacity (i.e. 30 round) AR15 mags into 10 round mags in California.

One source claims a person must be licensed to do this, and it must be a PERMANENT modification.

However, I was just able to buy a 30 round AR15 mag at my local gun shop here in California, (it came dissassembled), and was told I could simply jam a piece of wood or something into it that would prevent more than 10 rounds from being inserted, and that it would be legal.

Anybody have any thoughts/information about this?

Bhobbs
07-18-2011, 2:15 PM
There are plenty of threads about doing this but there isn't really a consensus as to what is permanent enough. You can do the mods yourself but I prefer to buy them already modified and keep the receipt.

Death Valley Dog
07-18-2011, 2:20 PM
But is there consensus about the law itself stating that the modification MUST be permanent?

dantodd
07-18-2011, 2:29 PM
However, I was just able to buy a 30 round AR15 mag at my local gun shop here in California, (it came dissassembled), and was told I could simply jam a piece of wood or something into it that would prevent more than 10 rounds from being inserted, and that it would be legal.

Anybody have any thoughts/information about this?

There is no case law on exactly what is and isn't legal. This means it is up to the local cops and DAs to decide if you have an illegal "large-capacity" magazine or a magazine that only holds 10 rds. If they decide it is a "large-capacity" magazine then you will get your day in court to prove that it isn't.

mdimeo
07-18-2011, 2:32 PM
But is there consensus about the law itself stating that the modification MUST be permanent?

The word permanent is written into the penal code.

There is no definition of what permanent means, but I doubt you'd get away with taking off the floorplate and stuffing in a block of wood.

There is no license required to make a permanent modification.

Quiet
07-18-2011, 2:40 PM
But is there consensus about the law itself stating that the modification MUST be permanent?

The letter of the law says permanent. [PC 12020(c)(25)(A)]

What permanent is, depends on the LEO/DA examining it.
If they don't think it's "permanent", they can...
... confiscate the magazines, arrest you, take you to jail, then you and your lawyer goto court to explain why it's permanent.

A capacity limiter/mag block that is rivited and epoxied in place, seems to satisfy almost all LEOs that the magazine has been permanately altered.


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

rodeoflyer
07-18-2011, 2:52 PM
I'm getting conflicting information about the legallity of converting high capacity (i.e. 30 round) AR15 mags into 10 round mags in California.

One source claims a person must be licensed to do this, and it must be a PERMANENT modification.

However, I was just able to buy a 30 round AR15 mag at my local gun shop here in California, (it came dissassembled), and was told I could simply jam a piece of wood or something into it that would prevent more than 10 rounds from being inserted, and that it would be legal.

Anybody have any thoughts/information about this?

Let's get one thing clear first and foremost - You did NOT buy a 30 round mag at your local gun shop. You bought a magazine REPAIR KIT.

Bhobbs
07-18-2011, 2:59 PM
But is there consensus about the law itself stating that the modification MUST be permanent?


Yes, the law says permanent but not what permanent means.

IMO using a mag block SHOULD be permanent because the mag cannot hold more than 10 rounds without being disassembled but I am not a lawyer so don't take that as legal advice.

Death Valley Dog
07-18-2011, 6:40 PM
Let's get one thing clear first and foremost - You did NOT buy a 30 round mag at your local gun shop. You bought a magazine REPAIR KIT.

So what you are saying is I bought a magazine repair kit that included ALL the parts of the magazine. Correct?

Librarian
07-18-2011, 7:26 PM
So what you are saying is I bought a magazine repair kit that included ALL the parts of the magazine. Correct?

Yes. You can't predict what might break/wear out/get lost. So long as you do not assemble it into a complete mag in CA, it's just parts.

Uxi
07-18-2011, 7:33 PM
Yes, the law says permanent but not what permanent means.

IMO using a mag block SHOULD be permanent because the mag cannot hold more than 10 rounds without being disassembled but I am not a lawyer so don't take that as legal advice.

I'd like to think that, too. But probably not willing to be a test case without epoxy holding it on there.

InGrAM
07-18-2011, 8:42 PM
Buy some magazine blocks. (plastic blocks) there is a few websites that sell them. Drill a hole in the bottom of them, then in the base plate of your magazine. Then put a rivet through both of them. That will get the job done. You will also need to shorten the springs most likely.

If SHTF you can drill the rivet out and bingo you have 30 round magazines as long as you have spare springs or don't cut yours.

MudCamper
07-18-2011, 10:01 PM
Here's a really simple way to make permanent 10-rounders: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=147553

P.Charm
07-19-2011, 6:08 AM
I'm not a lawyer or even claim to know the law. I can read it a hundred times and come up with a hundred loop holes. my thought is that I made the effort to make them legal.

I have mag blocks and rivets. It permanently holds 10 rounds. You can argue that if you drill out the rivet, remove the block it will have to be broken down into parts. so it will then be a parts kit. legal? I don't know.

I won't give LEO a reason to find out meaning I won't be doing anything stupid like waving it out my window as a I drive up and down the 805. Do your best to follow the law, get a good lawyer and pray the judge is in a good mood I guess.

CHS
07-19-2011, 8:02 AM
I'm getting conflicting information about the legallity of converting high capacity (i.e. 30 round) AR15 mags into 10 round mags in California.

One source claims a person must be licensed to do this, and it must be a PERMANENT modification.

However, I was just able to buy a 30 round AR15 mag at my local gun shop here in California, (it came dissassembled), and was told I could simply jam a piece of wood or something into it that would prevent more than 10 rounds from being inserted, and that it would be legal.


No, you don't have to be licensed. That's just FUD.

Yes, the PC says to no longer be considered a large-capacity magazine, the modification must be permanent.

There is no definition of permanent but DOJ opinion says that it must meet a reasonable persons definition of permanent.

I don't think any reasonable person would ever conclude that a simple block of wood jammed in there was permanent.

Manufacturing a large-capacity magazine is a felony. If you put back together the parts kit that you purchased in such a form that it's not permanently modified to hold 10 rounds, you can be charged and prosecuted for manufacturing a large-capacity magazine, which again, is a felony.

Is it worth losing your gun rights forever over a simple rivet and/or some epoxy on a $15 disposable item?

vincewarde
07-19-2011, 2:08 PM
Buy some magazine blocks. (plastic blocks) there is a few websites that sell them. Drill a hole in the bottom of them, then in the base plate of your magazine. Then put a rivet through both of them. That will get the job done. You will also need to shorten the springs most likely.

If SHTF you can drill the rivet out and bingo you have 30 round magazines as long as you have spare springs or don't cut yours.

As far as the modifications, plus one here. The closest CA DOJ has come to defining "permanent" was back in the pre-bullet button days when the wanted mags "permanently" fixed in the gun. In that case they suggested a rivet and/or epoxy. Since this is the only guidance DOJ has given, it's probably the safest thing to do.

As far as SHTF situations - unless society completely breaks down and there is no more government - it would still be illegal.

dantodd
07-19-2011, 3:25 PM
You could certainly make the argument that merely sticking a dowel in the magazine that successfully prevents inserting more than 10 rds. is a legal modification.

If the magazine is completely disassembled it ceases to be a magazine and is now strictly an amalgam of parts (I think there is a letter to that effect somewhere on the site.) If it is completely legal for me to possess all of the parts that constitute a large-capacity magazine as long as they aren't assembled then any modification that requires disassembly "should" be legal.

I highly doubt this is what would happen in the real world unless you have Gura or Kilmer at your table.

CHS
07-19-2011, 5:03 PM
If the magazine is completely disassembled it ceases to be a magazine and is now strictly an amalgam of parts (I think there is a letter to that effect somewhere on the site.) If it is completely legal for me to possess all of the parts that constitute a large-capacity magazine as long as they aren't assembled then any modification that requires disassembly "should" be legal.


It doesn't matter what the resulting pile of parts is considered.

The charge will be for manufacturing a large-capacity magazine. They will show that you manufactured it by purchasing a parts kit and installing a block. They will then show that the modification wasn't permanent. If all they have to do is use their fingers to take the floor plate off and remove the dowel, then your initial modification was not permanent and therefore you were guilty of felony manufacturing.

What they are left with, complete magazine or parts, has no bearing on what they need to prove or show in court.

Bhobbs
07-19-2011, 5:13 PM
How is that manufacturing a hi cap when it cannot hold 11+ rounds?

cmichini
07-19-2011, 5:26 PM
Yes, the law says permanent but not what permanent means.

IMO using a mag block SHOULD be permanent because the mag cannot hold more than 10 rounds without being disassembled but I am not a lawyer so don't take that as legal advice.

By disassembling the mag and removing the block it is now a standard cap mag. So your described modification, to me, is temporary.

Big picture question is: do you want to have to argue the case in court with a lawyer's meter running just to toss your slab on the yardstick against the DA?

Just food for thought

Dutch3
07-19-2011, 5:40 PM
You could certainly make the argument that merely sticking a dowel in the magazine that successfully prevents inserting more than 10 rds. is a legal modification.


Why not? A dowel in a shotgun magazine satisfies DFG requirements for hunting. If DFG accepts such a modification to limit the capacity of the magazine, why shouldn't other state agencies?

glock_this
07-19-2011, 6:07 PM
Do it yourself.

Buy some pmags, buy some mag blocks (here or on the web) or make your own (I made them out of plastic hangers years ago before people started making nice retail blocks making my life easier), buy some epoxy or rivets (1 should be fine) and seal the base plate and get on with it.

OR, just buy some already done and be done with it. Like the ones by Thordo that also have a BB tool attached.

Not as complicated as people want to make it. Sorry if this was already said.

Sniper3142
07-19-2011, 6:18 PM
Why not? A dowel in a shotgun magazine satisfies DFG requirements for hunting. If DFG accepts such a modification to limit the capacity of the magazine, why shouldn't other state agencies?


Because there is no requirement clearly stated in the law that a shotgun magazine be permanantly limited (unlike a Large Capacity Magazine).

ivsamhell
07-19-2011, 6:39 PM
As far as the modifications, plus one here. The closest CA DOJ has come to defining "permanent" was back in the pre-bullet button days when the wanted mags "permanently" fixed in the gun. In that case they suggested a rivet and/or epoxy. Since this is the only guidance DOJ has given, it's probably the safest thing to do.

As far as SHTF situations - unless society completely breaks down and there is no more government - it would still be illegal.

The argument is that, disassembled its parts again=legal. It says the magazine must be permanently modified, not the parts. Parts kit legal/ manufacturing hi-cap illegal. You cannot go from 10 to 10+, without making a legal parts kit then manufacturing a high cap.
I'm not recommending anyone ride the line and be a test case, but if you can't change the capacity of an assembled mag it seems pretty permanent. I can remove epoxy and a rivet near as easy as a floor plate, one tool will do the job.

Nate74
07-19-2011, 7:01 PM
I'm fascinated by the topic of "permanent." With a drill press or Dremel, even the most "permanant" modification can be defeated, converting a magazine back into a 20/30 round magazine. It's a fun topic to kick around I suppose, but the fact that so much time is spent on it just goes to show how stupid these laws (and those who passed it) really are.

CHS
07-19-2011, 7:58 PM
How is that manufacturing a hi cap when it cannot hold 11+ rounds?

Because the law says that even if it only holds 10rd's, if it USED to be a large-capacity magazine it's STILL a large-capacity magazine UNLESS it's been PERMANENTLY altered to hold 10rd's or less.

Why not? A dowel in a shotgun magazine satisfies DFG requirements for hunting. If DFG accepts such a modification to limit the capacity of the magazine, why shouldn't other state agencies?

Because the hunting laws don't say that the magazine blockage need be permanent.

The argument is that, disassembled its parts again=legal. It says the magazine must be permanently modified, not the parts. Parts kit legal/ manufacturing hi-cap illegal. You cannot go from 10 to 10+, without making a legal parts kit then manufacturing a high cap.
I'm not recommending anyone ride the line and be a test case, but if you can't change the capacity of an assembled mag it seems pretty permanent. I can remove epoxy and a rivet near as easy as a floor plate, one tool will do the job.

Did you completely miss this point:
It doesn't matter what the resulting pile of parts is considered.

The charge will be for manufacturing a large-capacity magazine. They will show that you manufactured it by purchasing a parts kit and installing a block. They will then show that the modification wasn't permanent. If all they have to do is use their fingers to take the floor plate off and remove the dowel, then your initial modification was not permanent and therefore you were guilty of felony manufacturing.

What they are left with, complete magazine or parts, has no bearing on what they need to prove or show in court.
???

Bhobbs
07-19-2011, 8:04 PM
Because the law says that even if it only holds 10rd's, if it USED to be a large-capacity magazine it's STILL a large-capacity magazine UNLESS it's been PERMANENTLY altered to hold 10rd's or less.



Because the hunting laws don't say that the magazine blockage need be permanent.



Did you completely miss this point:

???


I get that it says permanent but a rivet is certainly not permanent and can be removed very easily. How much epoxy is enough to be permanent? Just a dab or do you have to pack it on the end?

I understand what you are saying and I would never just go out with a mag block in an otherwise unmodified mag because it is not worth the time, money and effort to fight what is going to be nullified anyways. All I am saying is that permanent means different things to different people.

CHS
07-19-2011, 8:08 PM
I get that it says permanent but a rivet is certainly not permanent and can be removed very easily. How much epoxy is enough to be permanent? Just a dab or do you have to pack it on the end?

I understand what you are saying and I would never just go out with a mag block in an otherwise unmodified mag because it is not worth the time, money and effort to fight what is going to be nullified anyways. All I am saying is that permanent means different things to different people.

The DOJ has opined that "permanent" should be easily understood by most reasonable people.

Basically, when you modify your magazine to hold 10 rounds or less, imagine that you are in court explaining why you think it meets the definition of permanent. If you sit there and think "yeah, I think 12 people would go for that", it's probably permanent.

I've always said, if the DA has to disprove your permanence by bringing a hammer, drill press and maybe an angle grinder into the court room, you're probably permanent.

More importantly, if you really don't think there's anything that could possibly be considered permanent, then just freaking buy 10rd short-body magazines. They're dirt cheap and stupid reliable. Yeah, they look stupid, they don't help you skirt the law (which frankly, is why I think most people want to "permanently" block their magazines with zero effort), but the last thing they're going to do is help land you in jail.

Zachs300zx
07-19-2011, 8:40 PM
The 'Final Statement of Reasons' by the CA Department of Justice concerning Permanently Altered large capacity magazines should answer your questions :rolleyes:

-The DOJ states that, “permanently altered conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people”. The DOJ acknowledges the term/definition lacks clarity yet they deny to provide further guidance...

-DOJ states that the “statute does not allow for the alteration to be restored". (with or without the use of tools it doesn't matter)

-DOJ states that “irreversible is not synonymous with the word ‘permanent”.

-DOJ states that “Physical inspection is sufficient to determine a magazine’s capacity to accept more than ten rounds.”

Read all about on your own here: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf

References:
Attachment A, Section 978.20(d) – Permanently Altered, No. A4.05, Freq.22.
Attachment A, Section 978.20(d) – Permanently Altered, No. A4.08, Freq.1.
Attachment A, Section 978.20(d) – Permanently Altered, No. A4.11, Freq.22.
Attachment A, Section 978.20(d) – Permanently Altered, No. A4.11, Freq.2.

CHS
07-19-2011, 10:06 PM
The 'Final Statement of Reasons' by the CA Department of Justice concerning Permanently Altered large capacity magazines should answer your questions :rolleyes:

-The DOJ states that, “permanently altered conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people”. The DOJ acknowledges the term/definition lacks clarity yet they deny to provide further guidance...

Read all about on your own here: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf


While that is covered in the PDF linked, none of the below is. Where are you getting the below information?

-DOJ states that the “statute does not allow for the alteration to be restored". (with or without the use of tools it doesn't matter)


How is that relavant? We already know that it's illegal to manufacture a large-capacity magazine which is exactly what "to be restored" means.


-DOJ states that “irreversible is not synonymous with the word ‘permanent”.


Right. That also doesn't give you a blanket "ok" to make your modification meet ZERO standard for permanence. They are simply acknowledging that nothing in this world meets the dictionary definition of "permanent".


-DOJ states that “Physical inspection is sufficient to determine a magazine’s capacity to accept more than ten rounds.”


Sure. But that also doesn't exclude a DA from prosecuting anyways. And if the modification is not found to be permanent, well then you have yourself an awesome little felony there.

johnny1290
07-20-2011, 12:08 AM
Meh not that you asked but I just don't see the reason in going to the hassle to cut up and d**k around with my legally owned standard capacity magazines when I can buy the 10 rds so cheap.

For me it's just so much easier than worrying about a po-lice cramming an 11th round into my home modified magazine or something.

Plus a 10 rd mag doesn't draw extra scrutiny at the range or wherever like a standard capacity does.

Not that I've got anything to hide, but why ask for trouble.

just my 2 cents :p

Zachs300zx
07-20-2011, 12:41 AM
While that is covered in the PDF linked, none of the below is. Where are you getting the below information?

Its all in the PDF, I even listed references the the specific questions: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf

Right. That also doesn't give you a blanket "ok" to make your modification meet ZERO standard for permanence. They are simply acknowledging that nothing in this world meets the dictionary definition of "permanent".

So, let me get this straight. "Nothing in this world meets the dictionary definition of permanent", but you have to do something to make it look like you tried to reach this impossible goal? Like placing a block in the magazine and epoxying it in place, a roll pin, a rivet? Ok.. To each his own since the above PDF is the extent of what the DOJ will say on this matter. I'm not a lawyer, so use epoxy with blocks. That's what I would recommend. Better safe than sorry.


Sure. But that also doesn't exclude a DA from prosecuting anyways. And if the modification is not found to be permanent, well then you have yourself an awesome little felony there.

The DA can try to screw just about anyone on this forum if they really want to. I don't care what method of magazine conversion you have. So everyone should play their stupid little game and strive for the goal of "permanence", even though that is not synonymous with irreversible. Luckily, we're all reasonable people so we know what they mean :p

P.Charm
07-20-2011, 1:03 AM
I just take 10 round mags, cut the 30 mag to length, epoxy that to the bottom of the 10 round mag, then gun kote it so it looks like one piece. done deal, no need for mag blocks, wood, hangers or rivets. cost more but I won't have to face a judge or make my rifle look like it's missing "something"

jk, haven't done this, but it seems like it's the only way to be safe.

freonr22
07-20-2011, 1:09 AM
tag

CHS
07-20-2011, 7:27 AM
Its all in the PDF, I even listed references the the specific questions: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf


Ok, here is the entirety of the section devoted to "permanently altered".

978.20(d) - Permanently Altered
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 sufficiently understood without further definition. As such, the regulations were revised to delete this originally proposed definition and it has not been adopted by the Department.

So, where are these three statements again?
-DOJ states that the “statute does not allow for the alteration to be restored". (with or without the use of tools it doesn't matter)
-DOJ states that “irreversible is not synonymous with the word ‘permanent”.
-DOJ states that “Physical inspection is sufficient to determine a magazine’s capacity to accept more than ten rounds.”


So, let me get this straight. "Nothing in this world meets the dictionary definition of permanent", but you have to do something to make it look like you tried to reach this impossible goal? Like placing a block in the magazine and epoxying it in place, a roll pin, a rivet? Ok.. To each his own since the above PDF is the extent of what the DOJ will say on this matter. I'm not a lawyer, so use epoxy with blocks. That's what I would recommend. Better safe than sorry.

What part of “permanently altered conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people” is so hard to understand?

The BATFE says if you have a barrel less than 16", you must permanently attach a muzzle device to bring it up to 16". Now if you show that "permanence" to a machinist, they will easily be able to reverse it. Hell, I've swapped permanently pinned and welded muzzle devices on 14.5" barrels myself for customers. Do I still consider them permanent? Yes, I do. They're freaking pinned and welded. Do I consider a muzzle device that's just threaded onto a barrel permanent? Not in a million years.

So I just don't understand why people are walking the felony line over cheap, disposable items because they think the DOJ is playing a "game" with them.

stix213
07-20-2011, 8:18 AM
The DA can try to screw just about anyone on this forum if they really want to. I don't care what method of magazine conversion you have. So everyone should play their stupid little game and strive for the goal of "permanence", even though that is not synonymous with irreversible. Luckily, we're all reasonable people so we know what they mean :p

So why would you want to make the prosecuting DA's job easier? It isn't the DA's idea of "permanent" you need to worry about, its the jury's anyway. A jury will understand that your 10 round modification doesn't need to withstand a nuclear bomb to be permanent, even if that doesn't match a dictionary definition.

Zachs300zx
07-20-2011, 8:32 AM
So why would you want to make the prosecuting DA's job easier? It isn't the DA's idea of "permanent" you need to worry about, its the jury's anyway. A jury will understand that your 10 round modification doesn't need to withstand a nuclear bomb to be permanent, even if that doesn't match a dictionary definition.

I wouldn't want to make the DA's job easier. So I use epoxy on my magazines, and recommend that others do too when using our blocks. The point is to make it easy to convert to 10 rounds without using rivets or plastic coat hangers.

I'm not even trying to argue here. I don't want to argue details of the block replacing the locking plate, never removing it, etc... Epoxy the block to the spring, epoxy the floor plate closed, etc. I agree that a cheap magazine is not worth the cost of defending yourself in court. End of story.

Zachs300zx
07-20-2011, 9:05 AM
Ok, here is the entirety of the section devoted to "permanently altered".

So, where are these three statements again?
-DOJ states that the “statute does not allow for the alteration to be restored". (with or without the use of tools it doesn't matter)
-DOJ states that “irreversible is not synonymous with the word ‘permanent”.
-DOJ states that “Physical inspection is sufficient to determine a magazine’s capacity to accept more than ten rounds.”


In the DOJ response to questions on pages 23-29 here http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf Its on the DOJ's own website. What is this not a real document put out by them?


What part of “permanently altered conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people” is so hard to understand?

The BATFE says if you have a barrel less than 16", you must permanently attach a muzzle device to bring it up to 16". Now if you show that "permanence" to a machinist, they will easily be able to reverse it. Hell, I've swapped permanently pinned and welded muzzle devices on 14.5" barrels myself for customers. Do I still consider them permanent? Yes, I do. They're freaking pinned and welded. Do I consider a muzzle device that's just threaded onto a barrel permanent? Not in a million years.

So I just don't understand why people are walking the felony line over cheap, disposable items because they think the DOJ is playing a "game" with them.

So if I plastic weld the block to the magazine, spring, base plate, then it's basically the same thing. That is what we recommend. I agree it's not worth the risk.

Too bad the CA DOJ, despite being the entity responsible for enforcing California firearms laws official position is “no opinion”. The BATFE would simply answer the question if asked. This is where the true problem is! The DOJ wishes to continue this Ambiguity.

mdimeo
07-20-2011, 9:46 AM
I had an idea for a product, which anyone is free to steal if it's practical.

Could you make a magazine follower that was several inches tall, so as to fill enough of the capacity of the magazine to get it under 11 rounds?

wouldn't work for severely banana-shaped magazines, but straight ones like a typical AR mag should be fine.

Such a magazine seems likely permanent - you'd have to completely replace a major part to get it to hold more.

Dunno if it's practical.

Ordnance1
07-20-2011, 10:05 AM
I have been told by several LEO's AND a DA (friend of the family) that if it is blocked and riveted then it is permanent ie. requires tools to drill the rivet out thus "destroying" the originality of the magazine. Personally I don't trust epoxy, if you bang the mag against a table hard enough then the epoxy cracks and you can remove the floor plate. Rivets are the way to go.

ivsamhell
07-20-2011, 10:39 AM
Did you completely miss this point:

It doesn't matter what the resulting pile of parts is considered.

The charge will be for manufacturing a large-capacity magazine. They will show that you manufactured it by purchasing a parts kit and installing a block. They will then show that the modification wasn't permanent. If all they have to do is use their fingers to take the floor plate off and remove the dowel, then your initial modification was not permanent and therefore you were guilty of felony manufacturing.

What they are left with, complete magazine or parts, has no bearing on what they need to prove or show in court.

???

No, I read that opinion. But if a tool is required to remove the floor plate(plenty of magazines) and a tool is required to remove epoxy or a rivet, I can't see how one side is reasonable and the other is not. If you have to tear it down then manufacture a hicap, its reasonable to me that that is a separate crime ie, a separate case of manufacturing.
Like I said I don't recommend anyone ride the line, I know I certainly can't afford fighting the legal battle. I'm a fabricator I can't see epoxy or a rivet as "reasonably" permanent, I'm supposed to try and figure out what a pen-pusher would think is reasonably permanent? The correct tool for the job voids permanence, whether thats a punch, a bullet, a grinder, a hammer, a drill or so on makes no difference to me; a tool is a tool. Without a definition its only opinion, what makes yours valid?

like mentioned in another post and a common way to modify p-mags: is a lengthened, pinned, epoxied follower enough to comply?
in this case you need a tool to remove the stock functioning floorplate, and then you can try a lucky break or use another tool to remove the rod.
Or is it again just someones opinion that the floorplate also have some additional form of attachment?

Zachs300zx
07-20-2011, 10:39 AM
I had an idea for a product, which anyone is free to steal if it's practical.

Could you make a magazine follower that was several inches tall, so as to fill enough of the capacity of the magazine to get it under 11 rounds?

wouldn't work for severely banana-shaped magazines, but straight ones like a typical AR mag should be fine.

Such a magazine seems likely permanent - you'd have to completely replace a major part to get it to hold more.

Dunno if it's practical.

H&K already has a patent on this type of device. Found it during my patent research.

CHS
07-20-2011, 11:44 AM
like mentioned in another post and a common way to modify p-mags: is a lengthened, pinned, epoxied follower enough to comply?
in this case you need a tool to remove the stock functioning floorplate, and then you can try a lucky break or use another tool to remove the rod.


PMAG's require no tools whatsoever in order to disassemble.

ivsamhell
07-20-2011, 11:54 AM
PMAG's require no tools whatsoever in order to disassemble.

oops. I'd still prefer to use a tool. how about the rest of the question?

CHS
07-20-2011, 12:50 PM
oops. I'd still prefer to use a tool. how about the rest of the question?

I would just reiterate what I've already said:


Basically, when you modify your magazine to hold 10 rounds or less, imagine that you are in court explaining why you think it meets the definition of permanent. If you sit there and think "yeah, I think 12 people would go for that", it's probably permanent.

I've always said, if the DA has to disprove your permanence by bringing a hammer, drill press and maybe an angle grinder into the court room, you're probably permanent.

dantodd
07-20-2011, 1:55 PM
It doesn't matter what the resulting pile of parts is considered.

The charge will be for manufacturing a large-capacity magazine. They will show that you manufactured it by purchasing a parts kit and installing a block. They will then show that the modification wasn't permanent. If all they have to do is use their fingers to take the floor plate off and remove the dowel, then your initial modification was not permanent and therefore you were guilty of felony manufacturing.

What they are left with, complete magazine or parts, has no bearing on what they need to prove or show in court.

Of course it matters. You didn't mfg a large capacity magazine becuasecthe modification IS permanent. You can't turn those same parts into a large capacity magazine without turning it into a non-magazine first thus the modification is permanent for as long as the magazine is a magazine.

I did consider that if the rowel can be removed without pulling the spring and follower you might be in trouble as the magazine with just the floor plate removed may not be considered a "rebuild kit"

CHS
07-20-2011, 3:10 PM
Of course it matters. You didn't mfg a large capacity magazine because the modification IS permanent. You can't turn those same parts into a large capacity magazine without turning it into a non-magazine first thus the modification is permanent for as long as the magazine is a magazine.


Being able to freely disassemble and re-assemble the magazine in no way satisfies permanence:

“permanently altered conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people”

Think of a jury of 12 people. Now imagine the DA points out the law, and maybe even the above statement. Then he shows himself disassembling and re-assembling your magazine, going from 10rd to 10+rd's, over and over again. He'll say that by putting the magazine together in the fashion that you have conveys absolutely no sense of permanence whatsoever and he'll ask the jury to find the same.

Now, you think that your lawyer is going to be able to say "but you see, if you take it apart, it's in parts, so it's permanent!" and the jury will take that seriously?

Now imagine almost the same scenario. But you've riveted and/or epoxied the block in place. The DA has to get out a drill press in the court room and do the tool dance to free up the block. Your lawyer points out that a drill press was required.

No reasonable person on the first Jury would say "oh yeah, that was permanent, this guy is not guilty!".

But what about people on the second Jury after the drill-press demo?

The magazine doesn't become non-existent just because it's been disassembled.

dantodd
07-20-2011, 3:14 PM
The magazine doesn't become non-existent just because it's been disassembled.

Doesn't it?

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

My reading is that once you have parts instead of a magazine there needs to be intent proven.

I have no doubt that a jury would see it as you said. But an appellate court shoudn't.

ivsamhell
07-20-2011, 3:19 PM
Being able to freely disassemble and re-assemble the magazine in no way satisfies permanence:

“permanently altered conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people”

Think of a jury of 12 people. Now imagine the DA points out the law, and maybe even the above statement. Then he shows himself disassembling and re-assembling your magazine, going from 10rd to 10+rd's, over and over again. He'll say that by putting the magazine together in the fashion that you have conveys absolutely no sense of permanence whatsoever and he'll ask the jury to find the same.

Now, you think that your lawyer is going to be able to say "but you see, if you take it apart, it's in parts, so it's permanent!" and the jury will take that seriously?

Now imagine almost the same scenario. But you've riveted and/or epoxied the block in place. The DA has to get out a drill press in the court room and do the tool dance to free up the block. Your lawyer points out that a drill press was required.

No reasonable person on the first Jury would say "oh yeah, that was permanent, this guy is not guilty!".

But what about people on the second Jury after the drill-press demo?

The magazine doesn't become non-existent just because it's been disassembled.

it does, it becomes a fully compliant legal parts kit. thats how they are obtained in the first place. At no point was it manufactured to a hicap, that would be done by the prosecution.
you don't need to haul in a drill press, 30 seconds with a hand tool will do the trick if its not completely encapsulated or filled with epoxy.

CHS
07-20-2011, 3:33 PM
it does, it becomes a fully compliant legal parts kit. thats how they are obtained in the first place. At no point was it manufactured to a hicap, that would be done by the prosecution.
you don't need to haul in a drill press, 30 seconds with a hand tool will do the trick if its not completely encapsulated or filled with epoxy.

It has been manufactured as a large-capacity magazine if it was ever manufactured to hold 10 or less rounds in a manner that is not permanent.

Lets walk through the steps:
1.) You get a parts kit
2.) You put together a parts kit with a limiting block and nothing else to meet a burden of permanence
3.) You go to the range, and shoot. Cop sees your mag, gets out of it that it's not permanently modified. It goes to trial.
4.) The DA shows the court that your modification was not permanent by pulling the magazine apart easily with his hands and re-assembling it without the limiting block. No tools whatsoever required.

The actual crime was committed at step 2. The fact that the magazine was rendered into legal parts at step 4 does not erase the past crime at step 2. All the DA has to show is that your modification wasn't permanent at step 2. That will show that you manufactured a large-capacity magazine, rather than a legal 10rd magazine. Just because the magazine is disassembled at some point doesn't prove permanence. Especially when it's going to be up to 12 reasonable jurors.

Abortion might be legal, but you still can't unscrew a pregnant woman.

ivsamhell
07-20-2011, 3:54 PM
It has been manufactured as a large-capacity magazine if it was ever manufactured to hold 10 or less rounds in a manner that is not permanent.

Lets walk through the steps:
1.) You get a parts kit
2.) You put together a parts kit with a limiting block and nothing else to meet a burden of permanence
3.) You go to the range, and shoot. Cop sees your mag, gets out of it that it's not permanently modified. It goes to trial.
4.) The DA shows the court that your modification was not permanent by pulling the magazine apart easily with his hands and re-assembling it without the limiting block. No tools whatsoever required.

The actual crime was committed at step 2. The fact that the magazine was rendered into legal parts at step 4 does not erase the past crime at step 2. All the DA has to show is that your modification wasn't permanent at step 2. That will show that you manufactured a large-capacity magazine, rather than a legal 10rd magazine. Just because the magazine is disassembled at some point doesn't prove permanence. Especially when it's going to be up to 12 reasonable jurors.

Abortion might be legal, but you still can't unscrew a pregnant woman.

well, we're really just going in circles.

my opinion is that if it has to be disassembled it is permanent, thats how I would cast my vote.
your scenario to me is the same, if the prosecution backed out the button on a mag lock. "look now its detachable!".

dantodd
07-20-2011, 4:00 PM
I would argue that if you have to disassemble the magazine to the point that it ceases to be a magazine then the modification is permanent. As I said it would be problematic if the dowel can be removed without pulling the spring and follower. I would never do this just so as to avoid the drama.

It has been manufactured as a large-capacity magazine if it was ever manufactured to hold 10 or less rounds in a manner that is not permanent.

Lets walk through the steps:
1.) You get a parts kit
2.) You put together a parts kit with a limiting block and nothing else to meet a burden of permanence
3.) You go to the range, and shoot. Cop sees your mag, gets out of it that it's not permanently modified. It goes to trial.
4.) The DA shows the court that your modification was not permanent by pulling the magazine apart easily with his hands and re-assembling it without the limiting block. No tools whatsoever required.

The actual crime was committed at step 2. The fact that the magazine was rendered into legal parts at step 4 does not erase the past crime at step 2.

Abortion might be legal, but you still can't unscrew a pregnant woman.


ETA: Also, never admit to anything such as the magazine not being a legal large-capacity magazine. They not only have to prove that the magazine is a large capacity magazine but also that it was illegally acquired within the last three years. I do not believe that the AW law has the requirement for "permanent alteration" that the ban includes.