PDA

View Full Version : Another Reason the "Hi-Cap" Mag Laws are Bogus


RRichie09
08-17-2011, 10:18 PM
So I recently purchased some 10-round magazines for my P226. It seems that Sig Sauer changed the manufacturer of their 10-round mags and thus the design changed from this Mec-Gar 10-rnd mag
http://www.ftfindustries.com/mgp22610b.JPG

to this Check-Mate 10-rnd mag
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=110733&stc=1&d=1313626226

It seems to me that the only difference now between a 10-rnd mag and a 15-rnd mag is the magazine body. A simple swap of the bodies would produce a 15-rnd mag. I haven't tried this so its just a theory.

In turn, I know this has been argued previously, but in light of this new information then the mag blocks for the AR that replace the floorplates should also not have to be epoxied or pinned, right?

For example, the magpul limiter
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2eKZv5oeTveUD6za9zLovyh792HL2p Ucwsm3eSq4KRe1Z0ME7

and the Magblock
http://www.magazineblocks.com/product_image/pmag1020install.jpg


I know the answer is probably along the lines of don't take the chance, but could this help with taking down the magazine laws in CA?

Scratch705
08-17-2011, 10:21 PM
hell just shut up about any high-cap mags if you are in possession of it, and the law = diddly squat. since the law only covers sale, import, manufacture. not use and possession.

G60
08-17-2011, 10:33 PM
I get what you're saying.

Since the tube can be replaced with a regular one easily it's not really a 'permanent' modification.

RRichie09
08-17-2011, 10:34 PM
I get what you're saying.

Since the tube can be replaced with a regular one easily it's not really a 'permanent' modification.

Yeah, or the opposite is that replacing a part of make it a 10 round mag is permanent.

Anchors
08-18-2011, 2:02 AM
It seems to me that the only difference now between a 10-rnd mag and a 15-rnd mag is the magazine body. A simple swap of the bodies would produce a 15-rnd mag.

It would also produce a felony "wobbler" crime. Is losing your gun rights for life really worth the extra five rounds even if it is VERY unlikely that you will ever be prosecuted for manufacturing a "large-capacity ammunition feeding device"?

RRichie09
08-18-2011, 5:50 AM
It would also produce a felony "wobbler" crime. Is losing your gun rights for life really worth the extra five rounds even if it is VERY unlikely that you will ever be prosecuted for manufacturing a "large-capacity ammunition feeding device"?

Thats not the point. I wouldnt do that.

G60
08-18-2011, 7:06 AM
Hmm. I think this thread discusses the question: http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=423595

From what I gather, the modification only needs to be permanent if the magazines were 'altered'. Since the check-mate magazines aren't really 'altered' since that's how they come from the factory, the parts that limit the magazine to 10 rounds don't need to be permanent.

Still the question of "what if I buy a pmag with limiter already installed by either magpul or a vendor, does that count as 'altered' since I bought it in the condition it would not accept over 10 rounds?" is open.

Wherryj
08-18-2011, 7:55 AM
Hmm. I think this thread discusses the question: http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=423595

From what I gather, the modification only needs to be permanent if the magazines were 'altered'. Since the check-mate magazines aren't really 'altered' since that's how they come from the factory, the parts that limit the magazine to 10 rounds don't need to be permanent.

Still the question of "what if I buy a pmag with limiter already installed by either magpul or a vendor, does that count as 'altered' since I bought it in the condition it would not accept over 10 rounds?" is open.

It just demonstrates the realities of life. Laws are poorly written because the GOOD lawyers go into practice while the lower tenth of the class goes into politics.

Bhobbs
08-18-2011, 8:22 AM
Hmm. I think this thread discusses the question: http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=423595

From what I gather, the modification only needs to be permanent if the magazines were 'altered'. Since the check-mate magazines aren't really 'altered' since that's how they come from the factory, the parts that limit the magazine to 10 rounds don't need to be permanent.

Still the question of "what if I buy a pmag with limiter already installed by either magpul or a vendor, does that count as 'altered' since I bought it in the condition it would not accept over 10 rounds?" is open.

I bet these mag bodies are made on the same line that produce the mag bodies for hi cap mags. They then take the bodies and assemble them with mag blocks. It is the same as buying a rebuild kit and assembling it with a mag block.

XDshooter
08-18-2011, 9:09 AM
Mag blocks for say a PMAG are legal simply because they don't modify anything.

To make an AR 10 round mag you need the following:

Body
Follower
Spring
Bottom plate retainer
Bottom plate

If you remove any one of these things, it's no longer a magazine.


It's not like you just put in a rod to limit the travel. The mag block is an integral part of the magazine.

bohoki
08-18-2011, 9:50 AM
i too am confused with the permanantly modified

since reading the law it seems to apply to conversion of large capacity magazines

and since the repair kits are not large capacity feed devices

if they are "manufactured" into a low capacity magazine from the then it seems like the permanance provision does not apply

RRichie09
08-18-2011, 10:14 AM
The point of this thread wasn't to get around epoxying or pinning a ar mag with a block in it. I would just for redundancy if I were to make 10/30 or 10/20 mags. I was thinking along the lines of, doesn't this make the mag law vague? Can't it be attacked through this line of thought?

I know having the mag capacity law defeated won't affect rifles like the AR or AK but it would help out non pistol grip rifles and pistol owners.

Anchors
08-18-2011, 2:34 PM
The point of this thread wasn't to get around epoxying or pinning a ar mag with a block in it. I would just for redundancy if I were to make 10/30 or 10/20 mags. I was thinking along the lines of, doesn't this make the mag law vague? Can't it be attacked through this line of thought?

I know having the mag capacity law defeated won't affect rifles like the AR or AK but it would help out non pistol grip rifles and pistol owners.

Ah I see what you're saying.
The mag law is not vague in my opinion, but it is wrong.

ap3572001
08-18-2011, 3:01 PM
I started topics on high cap mags before............ I gave up on it.

pc_load_letter
08-18-2011, 9:04 PM
Yeah, its tough around here sometimes.

I mentioned handgun mags and their "permanence" once before in relation to epoxying ar mags....my post was deleted because I said that epoxy was in no way a permanent fix.

I started topics on high cap mags before............ I gave up on it.

CSACANNONEER
08-18-2011, 9:09 PM
So you "discovered" what? Many 10 round magazines have always been made this way. I really don't see your point? I think you need to go back and review the laws and your logic. It just does not compute.

You have 10 round magazines that can be dissassembled and some of the parts could be used to illegally manufacture a +10 round mag. So? I don't see how that changes the fact that if you are manufacturing a 10 round or less mag from a +10 round mag, you need to permantently alter it. You could, in fact, leave the floor plate alone and allow it to be removed if, the mag body is permantently altered so that it won't take more than ten rounds. Hell, I've always made my 10/20s and 10/30s that way. There has never been a requirement to epoxy floor plates to mag bodies. It has just been the easy way to make it permanent if one is using a mag block.

RRichie09
08-19-2011, 10:26 AM
Its a question of what is permanent and what is not. Whether the ar mag needs to be epoxyed if using the mag blocks that replace the floorplate. There was a discussion on this a few months ago and I became aware of a large firearms company producing 10 rnd mags by just replacing one part.

I think you missed my point.

G60
08-19-2011, 10:54 AM
The point of this thread wasn't to get around epoxying or pinning a ar mag with a block in it. I would just for redundancy if I were to make 10/30 or 10/20 mags. I was thinking along the lines of, doesn't this make the mag law vague? Can't it be attacked through this line of thought?

I know having the mag capacity law defeated won't affect rifles like the AR or AK but it would help out non pistol grip rifles and pistol owners.

Oh. I thought you were trying to find a way so that we wouldn't have to ruin standard mags to make them 10 round california compliant.

It would be nice to be able to disassemble them for cleaning, going out of state, or other reasons.

socalocalypse
08-19-2011, 11:38 AM
My standard cap mags stay in the closet in a box.

Its $10 or so for a 10 rd mag that has 3 us parts. I know it won't attract attention anywhere, helps 922r compliance, and I know its legal.

I don't get paying $5 for a plug then epoxying it on a standard cap, or putting in a rod or whatever. That messes up a good mag, attracts attention, no 922r compliance parts, and as a bonus it may or may not be considered legal.

No thanks. The downside is almost unlimited and for what, to save 5 bucks? Look cool? Not worth it to me.

CSACANNONEER
08-19-2011, 11:41 AM
It is perfectly legal to use all the internal parts out of a large capacity magazine and install them in a 10 round or less mag body without it being permanent. Many 10 round mags have been manufactured this way for years. However, if you are trying to convert a +10 round mag rebuild kit into a new 10 round or less mag, the mods must be permanent. There has never been any published definition or "permanent" and epoxying the floor plate has never been a requirement, just an easy way to achieve "permanence". So, I still am not getting where you are trying to go with this??????