PDA

View Full Version : Has CA DOJ ever offered an opinion as to what "permanent" is?


vincewarde
10-05-2011, 4:23 PM
I'm just curious, has CA DOJ ever offered examples of what they would consider a permanent method of reducing a mags capacity to 10 rounds? I know that most of us are using rivets, and that seems reasonable - but I guess someone could say that it isn't permanent because you can drill out the rivet(s). The only thing that might be more permanent would be some kind of epoxy that would result in the destruction of the magazine to take it apart.

What do all of you think?

Purple K
10-05-2011, 4:53 PM
Nope, they never have.

Swatter911
10-05-2011, 4:54 PM
And I don't think we should ask for one, we might not like the answer.

mdimeo
10-05-2011, 4:58 PM
They haven't and probably won't.

Back before OLLs and bullet buttons were invented and detachable magazines were clarified, there was a company that sold fixed-mag ARs in california. The DOJ made them epoxy the magazine into the well before approving for sale.

We now know that wasn't necessary, but I guess it could give you an idea what the DOJ likes to see for "permanent".

vincewarde
10-05-2011, 6:13 PM
They haven't and probably won't.

Back before OLLs and bullet buttons were invented and detachable magazines were clarified, there was a company that sold fixed-mag ARs in california. The DOJ made them epoxy the magazine into the well before approving for sale.

We now know that wasn't necessary, but I guess it could give you an idea what the DOJ likes to see for "permanent".

Yep, mine was one of those. Since then it has become a Bullet Button rifle and now featureless.

That's what kind of bothers me - if they wanted to DOJ could charge someone over this. They probably would not win, but it would be a mess for whoever was the test case.

taperxz
10-05-2011, 6:16 PM
My "guess" would be that permanent would be something that required a tool to make the physical change with.

vintagearms
10-05-2011, 6:20 PM
The ATF has stated what "permanent" is. I would suggest using that. Defensible position I would imagine since CA DOJ has not issued a ruling. That is epoxy and rivot.

6172crew
10-05-2011, 8:01 PM
The Walther P22 had to rigged per the DOJ because of the many pistols sold here with threaded barrels.

The first OLLs were rigged with a blind pin and a bunch of silicone.

These were sold with the approval of the DOJ before the OLL days and can give you an idea of what the DOJ might aprrove of.

yellowfin
10-05-2011, 8:17 PM
Permanent is defined as the status of the DOJ's incompetence.

cdtx2001
10-05-2011, 8:45 PM
And I don't think we should ask for one, we might not like the answer.

^^^^ THIS!!!!!


Don't ask, don't tell along with STFU are the best options right now.

hoffmang
10-06-2011, 12:22 AM
DOJ tried to offer a definition of permanent but failed. Their attempt matters for some things but not others. Which "permanent" were you thinking about?

-Gene

notme92069
10-06-2011, 7:29 AM
How about permanently modified mags to 10 rounds?

GrizzlyGuy
10-06-2011, 10:05 AM
How about permanently modified mags to 10 rounds?

See this Q&A in the FAQ: Can I use large-capacity magazine parts to build magazines that hold ten rounds or less? (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_use_large-capacity_magazine_parts_to_build_magazines_that_ho ld_ten_rounds_or_less.3F)

Yes, It is legal to use the parts from a large-capacity magazine to manufacture a magazine that holds ten rounds or less. This modification must be permanent to be legal. A rivet or epoxy is generally considered permanent in the eyes of the law.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 11:36 AM
DOJ over the years has never really formally said, in a regulated-to-completion fashion, what 'permanence' truly was.

They've tried to do various things, and have approved firearms/devices that embodied their sense of 'permanence' at time of approval.

Individual 'recipes' below may be applicable in one area but not another, esp due to technical limitations of the scheme.



Earlier in the decade, the Walther P22 fiasco resulted in DOJ having to approve a handgun twice:
the initial approval, and then after catching their own mistake (approving an 'assault weapon' for
retail sale), using legal threats to S&W to recall the guns, and telling these P22 buyers they had
to send their P22s back to S&W/ Walther factory for a fixup to stay out of prohibited 12276.1PC
status (threaded barrel on semiauto pistol).

The approved fixup involved an epoxied barrel nut to cover the barrel threading.

While this was likely sufficient for this application, generalizing to other applications of varying
calibers or energies may not be helpful. Barrel heat soak & shock from firing may render this
adhesive (in particular) and/or this method (use of adhesive instead of weld, solder, etc.)
insufficient for larger, more powerful caliber handguns.
.
DOJ approved the Vulcan 10rd fixed magazine off-list AR lower.

This lower had the 10rd mag epoxied (? some other adhesive?) in, and there was a small pin
that I recall ran longitudinally from the rear magwell wall into the mag.

This design specifically FAILED at a Cow Palace (San Francisco) gunshow booth in SF back around
2006. That receiver was on display (with features, and perhaps assembled into a rifle) and a booth
visitor "gorilla'd" the "fixed" magazine out of the receiver.

The FFL understandably panicked and had to hide the receiver/ disassemble the rifle. Iggy Chinn of
DOJ was walking around the show and was 3 or 4 booths away; Iggy did not particularly like this FFL
and had harrassed him, and continuation of that resulted in later interaction - which was defended
aggressively and in the FFL's favor.
.
The DOJ (thru Iggy) recommended the DSA "Cali-FAL" SA58 rifle to be sold in CA have the mag body
welded to the receiver. However, it was not a requirement - the expressed worry in their memos was
that 'people could convert these', rather than 'this is legal vs not legal as the gun stands'.

[Iggy was partial to FAL clones.]
.
DOJ (Iggy) approved, for regular sale in CA, Evan's Gunsmithing (/GBSales) modified Colt & Bushmaster
rifles having welded-up magwells.

This was in spite of at least some of these rifles being banned-by-name via either the Roberti-Roos or
the Kasler lists.

When the DOJ found out about this problem, there was a 1/2-day 'fix the screwup' meeting in late Nov.
2006. The end result was (approximate strokes; don't have all the details) that Evan's got a quick mfg
FFL and was able to recall & re-brand these guns as "Evan's-Bushmaster", "Evans-Colt", etc.

This also brought into play Iggy's acknowledgment that a Colt "Match Target" rifle was really a Colt MT6400
or MT6700, etc. This forms a useful defense in such situations [even though with this, possession of these
listed Colt guns should NOT at all be regarded as recommended conduct].
.
The DOJ was trying to kill OLLs in 2006 - first by talking about 'listing', then trying to create a "Category 4"
of registered AWs.

Finally, concurrent with AB2728 drama, Allison (the DOJ Deputy AG for Firearms) began driving a regulatory
redefinition of 'detachable magazine'. This definition included concepts of 'permanence of attachment' that
were in no way supported by the original statute, prior DOJ approvals of other guns, etc. and in fact was an
underground regulation.
.

"the magazine is fixed to the receiver by a continuous ribbon of welding around
the perimeter of the magazine well, or by multiple ribbons of welding that are
each at least one-half inch in length;
.
"the magazine is fixed to the receiver with a rivet (or other irreversible locking
device) that is driven through the magazine well and fixed in place with epoxy"
.

This re-regulation never completed. Aside from OAL problems of 'underground regulation', political winds had
shifted and the Firearms Division was downsized to a Bureau. Other staff changes also occurred in that time
period, and the status quo settled into the current situation.
.
DOJ Firearms has Rostered (and thus 'approved for sale') a variety of pistols having large magwells, and
which are sold in free states with over-10-round magazines. Note that CA Roster approvals are based on
the "gun as a system" - which means including the 10 round magazine. Some of these magazines for such
guns are restricted to 10 rounds via 'pinching" the magazine profile at certain points, and/or stamping features
into mag tube surface that protrude into the mag such that follower travel is restricted to 10 round capacity.

Cali-Shooter
10-06-2011, 11:43 AM
Evan's Gunsmithing... there's a reason why I never go back there like I used to when I first got into firearms. They don't exactly emit "friend of the 2A" from their business, more like "dancing with the devil" and flirting with the blood-sucking succubus vampire b**ch.

chead
10-06-2011, 12:39 PM
Personally I feel that just throwing a block under the follower would be enough considering barrel-length additions need nothing more than a set screw. I appreciate that most people want to play it safe and rivet or epoxy, though. Especially local dealers, so I can't fault them for not wanting to confront the DOJ on the issue.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 1:03 PM
Personally I feel that just throwing a block under the follower would be .

Mag blocking permanence drama may be separable from permanence drama that was proposed for mag attachement to avoid AW status.

If you're blocking a mag to 10 rounds, it still behooves you to epoxy and/or rivet a block in place to minimize drama.

chead
10-06-2011, 1:11 PM
Mag blocking permanence drama may be separable from permanence drama that was proposed for mag attachement to avoid AW status.

If you're blocking a mag to 10 rounds, it still behooves you to epoxy and/or rivet a block in place to minimize drama.

Yeah, I'm definitely not offering legal advice! Just reflecting on the weirdness of CA's opinion on "permanent". All my mags are pinned/epoxied :)

bohoki
10-06-2011, 5:28 PM
See this Q&A in the FAQ: Can I use large-capacity magazine parts to build magazines that hold ten rounds or less? (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_use_large-capacity_magazine_parts_to_build_magazines_that_ho ld_ten_rounds_or_less.3F)

this is still questionable as the law is written it is talking about lowering the capacity of a large capacity magazine

a rebuild kit is not a"large capacity magazine" it is a pile of parts to be used as replacement repair parts for a pre existing magazine or build it as a 10 rounder

of course i am not a lawyer but i can read and comprehend words