interpertation of attachable magazines

[Sal]

more or less just a "hey why not" thought, what makes a magazine attached to a gun?

couldnt one theoretically just hold a magazine into a gun with no magazine catch, and thusly not have a magazine attached, making it not able to be detachable?

just being bored and was thinking about this, as long as the gun has no way of holding the mag onto itself it cant be attached. kinda pointless but possibly valid?

[wooger]

There are others here far more up to speed than I but I think the problem would be that if it does not require a "tool" to detach it is considered detachable.

[azndmd]

I agree ... the magazine is being held with your hand? then it does not require some type of tool to remove, and I think that violates the law.

[tenpercentfirearms]

If it does not require the use of a tool nor disassembly of the action to remove, it is a detachable magazine and you go to prison.

[artherd]

"readily removable" is the acid test. Held-in by hand only would certinly be readily removable.

[royta]

If it does not require the use of a tool nor disassembly of the action to remove, it is a detachable magazine and you go to prison.

Luckily prison is not the only option, thanks to AB2728.

[Jicko]

Luckily prison is not the only option, thanks to AB2728.

With such a clear case of "illegal AW".... I don't think the DA would just let you go with an "infraction", take your gun and your $300.

You WILL be going to prison, felony!

[ghostrider4evr]

You'll become someones playtoy in prison with that configuration.

[ARRRR-15]

I don't think it would work anyways. Try this. Build a gripless rifle and take out the mag catch. Now try to hold the mag in there while firing and see if it will cycle correctly.

[royta]

With such a clear case of "illegal AW".... I don't think the DA would just let you go with an "infraction", take your gun and your $300.

You WILL be going to prison, felony!

If that's the case, than what's the purpose of that section of AB2728? Either a weapon is an AW or it is not an AW. There is no in between, period.

I'm not saying build AW's and not worry simply because you have the chance of only getting an infraction. I was simply stating that a felony was no longer the only option.

[Jicko]

If that's the case, than what's the purpose of that section of AB2728? Either a weapon is an AW or it is not an AW. There is no in between, period.

I'm not saying build AW's and not worry simply because you have the chance of only getting an infraction. I was simply stating that a felony was no longer the only option.

Have you been following the couple of the recent incidents?

DA may or may not want to agree certain configurations (OLL w/ non-permanent fixed magazine, CA DOJ has NOT provided a *clear* guidiance, CA DOJ even *wanted* to declare it "illegal", but the current law kinda say that it is "legal") is "legal", but proving it to be "illegal" may take quite some effort.... so, the easy way out is to lure the owner into accepting the AB2728 "infraction" and not going thru with a court trial.

If it is a *clear* case of illegally configured AW, I think they will go all out. (Altho if you had been a *good* citizen, they may give you a slack...... yet... why should they?)

[hoffmang]

Jicko,

Your interpretation doesn't quite fit the facts.

We know of no attempted prosecution of an OLL configured with no evil features (Monsterman, U-15, SRB.) A prosecution over this kind of weapon is pretty hard. Harrot makes it clear that the receiver isn't banned. The best a DA could try is to say that the MM is a pistol grip (Graps that like a pistol and we'll talk) or that the U-15 is a thumb hole stock (where exactly is the hole?)

We know of only one prosecution that occured after the passage of 2728 of someone with a pinned magazine. In the two I know of before 2728, one was dropped in San Jose and the other is ongoing and is the only dangerous one (this is down south.) The recent El Dorado case has some other circumstances to it and the 2728 civil injunction (not infraction - that's the wrong term) was a good enough out come knowing some of the undisclosable facts of that incident.

If you're gun is legally configured you can win. Certain pinned mag builds may take a little more time and the right attorney and some cash, but with the right attorney it should be less than the value of the rifle.

-Gene

[babydoll]

Not to be stupid or anything...buthow does the 2007 Dangerous Weapons Control Law play into all of this?
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php
Specifically
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

[TheMan]

Not to be stupid or anything...buthow does the 2007 Dangerous Weapons Control Law play into all of this?
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php
Specifically
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:


This is what the thread is all about. The original poster is questioning how they could define the magazine as detachable, if it is never attached with a latch or other device. It's a reasonable question, but I do believe somewhere it was given as a DOJ opinion that if you could hold the magazine in place with your hand and use it, then that could be considered detachable. I don't know where that opinion is to be found though.

[tgriffin]

babydoll you have ALOT of reading to catch up on. I would suggest that you read the OLL FAQ's page.

[Blackwater OPS]

The best a DA could try is to say that the MM is a pistol grip (Graps that like a pistol and we'll talk)

Someone posted a picture a while back doing just that...

[hoffmang]

Maybe on the old, and that picture made it clear that a heavy trigger wasn't pullable. The new MM is even longer from what I understand. Either way, its not a pistol style grasp to not curl your index finger.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

It's pretty clear cut in the law.

A magazine is not attachable, detachable, or fixed in it's individual state. It is just an Ammunition Feeding Device.

The function of any particular firearm is what determines what is or is not a detachable magazine.

If any particular rifle requires disassembly of the action or the use tool of some sort to remove the magazine, it is not a detachable magazine.

If any other particular rifle does not require disassembly of the action or does not require the use of a tool to remove, it is a detachable magazine.

Actually quite simple. ;)

[hoffmang]

Can anyone get a normal rear take down pin out without the use of a tool?

I certainly can't.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

Yeah, some rifles are easier than others. My S&W M&P-15T I can take the original pin and push it in or out without a tool. I can do the same with my last LMT build... (or any LMT complete build I've seen)

[C.G.]

Can anyone get a normal rear take down pin out without the use of a tool?

I certainly can't.

-Gene

I can on couple of them.

[hoffmang]

The interesting thing is that to the extent you could get a rear take down pin out of an AR, I bet you fingers of steal guys can get the magazine off an SKS with what is generally considered not a detachable magazine.

I think the common sense concept of those things that most people require tools to do is going to be a key factor here - should it ever get to that...

-Gene

[artherd]

Gene, don't forget ...nor dissassembly of the action...

[Crazed_SS]

Can anyone get a normal rear take down pin out without the use of a tool?

I certainly can't.

-Gene

In the Marines, no one needed a tool to manipulate the rear take down pin on the M-16. Everyone just pushed it in with their thumb. That was the only way we were taught. I guess it was a little easier on those since they had been used so much that they had "loosened" up :)

I've never tried it on a brand new M-16 or AR-15.

[AxonGap]

Sorry for this long winded response but I just wanted to see what everyones thoughts are regarding this. (I know some of the questions are reduntant or previously asked)

Both A. and B. below are copied verbatim from there corresponding texts. Please read both carefully. This is neither for nor against the use of a bullet tip button or other fixed mag device for that matter as a legal option so please don't flame me.
----------------------------
A.
The term “assault weapon” also means any firearm that falls under one of the following definitions pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable
magazine and any one of the following:”

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

-----------------------------
B.
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(a) “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
-----------------------------

1) Is an open mag-well OLL at the receiver level (bare w/o components) legal to import, purchase, and own in Ca? Y/N
2) Is an unaltered/unmodified Bushmaster 10 rd magazine “by itself” considered attachable/detachable regardless of the accommodating firearms configuration? Y/N
3) Does an OLL receiver when completely built up w/ a bullet tip button as the magazine retaining mechanism have a “capacity” to accept said magazine when magazine is introduced into the open mag-well? Y/N
4) Will said Bullet tip device be “engaged” thus affixing said Bushmaster magazine upon insertion ino open mag-well? Y/N
5) Is an OLL rifle configured w/ a pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hider, forward pistol grip, and a bullet tip button without a magazine installed into the mag-well (open mag well) considered an assault weapon? Y/N
6) If YES, What above criteria is being used?
7) If NO, What above criteria is being used?
8) When a magazine is NOT installed in an OLL with a bullet tip button (i.e. open magwell), can it still accommodate a readily available unmodified AR/M16 magazine (5, 10, 20, 30 rounds, or larger)? Y/N
9) Is the definition referring to “detachable magazine” (see B. above) specifically in reference to the rifle (rifle action/components), the magazines physical design, or both?
10) Is the "use of a tool" in direct reference to the magazines design or the rifle/rifle actions design?
11) Does "disassembly of firearm" mean we can use a "detachable magazine" on rifles such as a Ca Bushmaster or FAB10 (w/ modified bolt catch of course) since it can't be "removed readily" without having to break open the action to access it?

It's all good!:D

[grammaton76]

Can anyone get a normal rear take down pin out without the use of a tool?

I certainly can't.

Easily. You start it by pushing the part that sticks out (usually with your thumb), which will push the larger head out a ways on the other side. Once that's been done, it's easy to grasp the protruding part with your fingers and pull it all the way out.

[hoffmang]

1) Is an open mag-well OLL at the receiver level (bare w/o components) legal to import, purchase, and own in Ca? Y/N
Yes

2) Is an unaltered/unmodified Bushmaster 10 rd magazine “by itself” considered attachable/detachable regardless of the accommodating firearms configuration? Y/N
A 10 round Bushmaster magazine is neither an attachable or detachable magazine. It is just a magazine.

3) Does an OLL receiver when completely built up w/ a bullet tip button as the magazine retaining mechanism have a “capacity” to accept said magazine when magazine is introduced into the open mag-well? Y/N
No. The definition of "detachable magazine" is defined in terms of its ability to be removed from the particular firearm.

4) Will said Bullet tip device be “engaged” thus affixing said Bushmaster magazine upon insertion ino open mag-well? Y/N
Yes.

5) Is an OLL rifle configured w/ a pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hider, forward pistol grip, and a bullet tip button without a magazine installed into the mag-well (open mag well) considered an assault weapon? Y/N
No.

6) If YES, What above criteria is being used?
7) If NO, What above criteria is being used?
That particular rifle does not have the capacity to accept a magazine that when attached would meet the definition of "detachable magazine."


8) When a magazine is NOT installed in an OLL with a bullet tip button (i.e. open magwell), can it still accommodate a readily available unmodified AR/M16 magazine (5, 10, 20, 30 rounds, or larger)? Y/N
Any magazine could be placed in an open magwell OLL w/ bullet tip button. It is illegal to attach a magazine of larger than 10 rounds.


9) Is the definition referring to “detachable magazine” (see B. above) specifically in reference to the rifle (rifle action/components), the magazines physical design, or both?
It is a definition of a particular rifle - not a general class of rifles - but the one particular one that is or is not SB-23 compliant.


10) Is the "use of a tool" in direct reference to the magazines design or the rifle/rifle actions design?
It is in reference to the way in which magazine is or is not readily detachable from a particular firearm.


11) Does "disassembly of firearm" mean we can use a "detachable magazine" on rifles such as a Ca Bushmaster or FAB10 (w/ modified bolt catch of course) since it can't be "removed readily" without having to break open the action to access it?
Generally yes, but "disassembly of the action" hasn't been well defined.

It's all good!:D

Answers in bold above.

-Gene

[artherd]

Can anyone get a normal rear take down pin out without the use of a tool?

I certainly can't.

-Gene
I can, but it is irrelivant; I have most certinly disassembled the action in so doing.

Best!
Ben.
Edit: did I just answer this twice? I'm gonna go ride my bike.

[AxonGap]

Answers in bold above.

-Gene

Thanks for the Cliff Notes Hoffmang! The bottom line answer is (as it always has been)....

Use At Your Own Risk!

:)

[AxonGap]

5) Is an OLL rifle configured w/ a pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hider, forward pistol grip, and a bullet tip button without a magazine installed into the mag-well (open mag well) considered an assault weapon? Y/N
No.

Answers in bold above.

-Gene

How so? Would'nt it at that point be able to accept a magazine, regardless of whether the catch mechanism is operated by a tool to disengage it? i.e. even if there is no feeding device available and the OLL is ready and capable of receiving a feeding device, does'nt the fact that the catch can still "engage" a magazine raise a red flag?

:confused:

[royta]

How so? Would'nt it at that point be able to accept a magazine, regardless of whether the catch mechanism is operated by a tool to disengage it? i.e. even if there is no feeding device available and the OLL is ready and capable of receiving a feeding device, does'nt the fact that the catch can still "engage" a magazine raise a red flag?

:confused:


Read the first post on this thread. You will find your answer.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45321

[hoffmang]

How so? Would'nt it at that point be able to accept a magazine, regardless of whether the catch mechanism is operated by a tool to disengage it? i.e. even if there is no feeding device available and the OLL is ready and capable of receiving a feeding device, does'nt the fact that the catch can still "engage" a magazine raise a red flag?

:confused:


It can accept a magazine, yes. However it can not accept a "detachable magazine" which is a defined term.

-Gene

[SemiAutoSam]

You answered your own question with the Bullet Button and use of a tool the magazine is not "Detachable" when you use a tool to release the magazine its not a detachable magazine. Yes it can accept a magazine but not a detachable magazine since the bullet button is in place.

Look here. or just read below but its a good idea to save the PDF and the link.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23.pdf


978.20 Definitions
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant
to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be
removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action
nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is
considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked
ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load
cartridges into the magazine.


How so? Wouldn't it at that point be able to accept a magazine, regardless of whether the catch mechanism is operated by a tool to disengage it? i.e. even if there is no feeding device available and the OLL is ready and capable of receiving a feeding device, doesn't the fact that the catch can still "engage" a magazine raise a red flag?

:confused:

[royta]

SAS

I thought there was a change in the numbering, and the new one was this:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf

[SemiAutoSam]

Thanks I hadn't heard about any numbering change. When did this change take effect ?

Thanks for the update.


SAS

I thought there was a change in the numbering, and the new one was this:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf

[Hopi]

I would've paid a lot of money to have seen the looks on the faces of Allison, Iggy, and crew when the first of the year hit with these interpretations!

[ghost]

my question is once the mag is released wouldnt it be a aw?then once you attached it again you would be fine.kind of a fine line there with an uninformed leo around imo.

[Hopi]

my question is once the mag is released wouldnt it be a aw?then once you attached it again you would be fine.kind of a fine line there with an uninformed leo around imo.

No. The BB alters the receiver in a way that prevents it from accepting a "detachable" magazine. If and when the BB is not installed, you have an AW if you also have evil features on the rifle or receiver. Sooooo, be careful when building rifles with evil features, making sure to install the BB before pistol grips, collapsable stocks, or uppers with flash devices.

[royta]

No. The BB alters the receiver in a way that prevents it from accepting a "detachable" magazine. If and when the BB is not installed, you have an AW if you also have evil features on the rifle or receiver. Sooooo, be careful when building rifles with evil features, making sure to install the BB before pistol grips, collapsable stocks, or uppers with flash devices.


Just in case the DOJ's satellites are turned up to 11 and can see through the roof and into your garage, or wherever else you are building up your rifle. All it takes is two minutes of AW status, and you're a gonner.


hopi420 is right though.

[xenophobe]

Thanks I hadn't heard about any numbering change. When did this change take effect ?

The whole body of California Regulation was restructured. It was filed on 6-28-2006, but didn't seem to take effect until some time late last year... perhaps 90 days after it was filed, in Sept or something (pure speculation on my part)...

It is structured a lot better now.

[hoffmang]

You know hopi - its not completely clear that a lower with an evil feature, an empty magwell, and no bullet button is an AW. A plain lower with a normal mag button and a collapsible stock needs an upper that is centerfire for it to become an AW.

That same lower with a rimfire upper on it isn't actually banned under SB-23...

However - it is safer to not leave your lowers laying around with evil features and no mag locks.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

Actually a few Cali firearms lawyers and a certain crime lab guy all agreed upon this very early last year, that if it's not a complete functional firearm, it cannot be an AW.

I'd agree it still isn't a good idea to have a lower completed in standard configuration without a 10 round mag and lock...

[Hopi]

Actually a few Cali firearms lawyers and a certain crime lab guy all agreed upon this very early last year, that if it's not a complete functional firearm, it cannot be an AW.

I'd agree it still isn't a good idea to have a lower completed in standard configuration without a 10 round mag and lock...

I don't remember reading about or seeing that referenced in any of the FAQ's or Calguns.net threads, could you please post that info or a link?

[hoffmang]

That data has never been published per se. However, its pretty clear from the language of 12276.1 (semi-automatic) and internal emails from CA DOJ that stated that they may not have had the ability to list stripped lowers because they weren't semi-automatic rifles.

-Gene

[Hopi]

So, considering CA's view on constructive possession, it would be completely legal for a person to carry a flash-suppressor-equipped upper in one hand, while carrying a fully built, open magwell receiver with collapsable stock and pistol grip in the other hand?

[SemiAutoSam]

With or without a MAG-LOCK® or PIN-MAG-LOCK® (my version of the bullet button) installed ?

I would call it constructive possession. Unless there is a Fixed mag kit installed on the lower.

So, considering CA's view on constructive possession, it would be completely legal for a person to carry a flash-suppressor-equipped upper in one hand, while carrying a fully built, open mag well receiver with collapsible stock and pistol grip in the other hand?

[Hopi]

With or without a MAG-LOCK® or PIN-MAG-LOCK® (my version of the bullet button) installed ?

I would call it constructive possession. Unless there is a Fixed mag kit installed on the lower.

Gene and Xeno are calling it legal, and IIRC Ca does not pursue constructive possession. What is the differenct between having the items together in a safe or having them in your hands together? What if you need to move them and you happen to have the both in your hands at once? Or perhaps in a box together for relocation?

[SemiAutoSam]

OK have at it. I just wouldn't risk it is all. It would be very easy for a crooked cop to assemble now wouldn't it.

Remember the guy that had a Magazine beat to a pulp by some LEO.

That was hard for them but this would be child splay.

Why do people want to push the envelope so much.

California might not pursue constructive possession but what about the LEO down at SJPD.

Gene and Xeno are calling it legal, and IIRC Ca does not pursue constructive possession. What is the difference between having the items together in a safe or having them in your hands together? What if you need to move them and you happen to have the both in your hands at once? Or perhaps in a box together for relocation?

[hoffmang]

Hopi,

Having an open magwell lower in one hand and a semiauto centerfire upper with a flash hider in the other would be legal. However, that's not the test case I want. It does provide a bit more safe harbor when you are transporting if you should care about that.

-Gene

[artherd]

So, considering CA's view on constructive possession, it would be completely legal for a person to carry a flash-suppressor-equipped upper in one hand, while carrying a fully built, open magwell receiver with collapsable stock and pistol grip in the other hand?

Of course this is not very safe, but it is legal.

We even have a DOJ letter stating specifically that constructive posession is not considered for category 3 (features) AWs.

As long as you did not do something incredibly stupid, like brag about assembling an illegal AW out of your kit of parts, then you should be fine.

Frankly for a few hours I've had such a collection of parts in exactly that configuration, as that is how the various bits came to me. Needless to say I did eventually remove the FH (as I can't use it in the gripless config of this rifle. Affixing a 10-rounder would negate the FH issue.)

Really this is no different than the DOJ approved Barrett M82-A1, which if taken down to parts could be considered a constructive Cat-3 AW (all the components are there.)

I would be a little more worried without the DOJ letter.

[weezil_boi]

Axon,

I would read into the "engage" too much. Im no lawyer, but the I read that it states the mag cant be READILY removeable without the use of a tool. So basically, if you cant remove that mag with your bare hands... if no one can, then you need some type of tool to do it. A bullet tip is a tool per this law, so you should be set. The only thing Id be concerned with is making sure that any bullet tip button that you install cannot be removed without the use of a tool (even if the parts are loosened) without the disassembly of the action, in this case, the removal of upper. Even then, the weapon has the "capacity" to realease without the use of a tool if the button is changed back. Thats the part that has me squirming. All the other evil features indicate they must be on the weapon, not that the weapon cannot have the capacity to accept them. however, the mag release refers to the capacity to release without a tool and a bullet button installed, but can be easily removed still gives the lower the capcity to release without a tool. So I am looking for a more "permanent" solution.

I was out at the range last week (Sacramento) and talked to a couple of LEOs that were shhoting some of these ARs with the bullet tip buttons. They ran throught the whole deal with me and Im very convinced that such a configuration is legal. My only concern is whether or not the "capacity to accept" means that the possible removal of the bullet button and re-install of standard mag release still renders it illegal. My solution... I am ordering a couple of Fulton lowers and I'll solder in the holes to require a nail punch. Then, the standard mag release cant be re-installed without drilling the solder out which is gunsmithing, but really no big deal.

Id love to hear everyone else's thoughts on it.

[royta]

I believe the November 2007 proposed modification to the regulations is trying to change the definition and the whole "capacity to accept" mumbo jumbo. This tells me that if DOJ could bust you for "capacity to accept", then they wouldn't need to bother with the modifying the regulations. They have shown their cards with the propsal to modify, and the cards don't add up.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awnotice1106.php?PHPSESSID=f8b345cd5645227e6fe70d0 c24eb7411

Remember, an AR-15 lower has the "capacity" to become a fully automatic machine gun. It doesn't mean that it's a machine gun though.

[SemiAutoSam]

Nov 1 06

I believe the November 2007 proposed modification to the regulations is trying to change the definition and the whole "capacity to accept" mumbo jumbo. This tells me that if DOJ could bust you for "capacity to accept", then they wouldn't need to bother with the modifying the regulations. They have shown their cards with the propsal to modify, and the cards don't add up.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awnotice1106.php?PHPSESSID=f8b345cd5645227e6fe70d0 c24eb7411

Remember, an AR-15 lower has the "capacity" to become a fully automatic machine gun. It doesn't mean that it's a machine gun though.

[royta]

Nov 1 06

What are you talking about? Don't you know that November 2007 has already taken place?


Oopsie :(

[SemiAutoSam]

NOPE I suppose you and the rest of this board are on separate space-time continuums.

How is the weather in Nov 07 or are you much further ahead that that.

Since your in or past Nov 07 who won the Presidential Race?

What are you talking about? Don't you know that November 2007 has already taken place?


Oopsie :(

[royta]

NOPE I suppose you and the rest of this board are on separate space-time continuums.

How is the weather in Nov 07 or are you much further ahead that that.

Since your in or past Nov 07 who won the Presidential Race?

A staunch pro-gun, pro-life conservative. :D His major platform was that states will be required to be shall issue CCW. The borders are sealed tight. Life is good.

[SemiAutoSam]

Pro Gun I would agree with but would prefer Pro Choice IMHO pro life is stone age mentality. how can you be for freedom in one area of life and not in another.

You must be smoking something real powerful.


A staunch pro-gun, pro-life conservative. :D His major platform was that states will be required to be shall issue CCW. The borders are sealed tight. Life is good.

[TheMan]

Pro Gun I would agree with but would prefer Pro Choice IMHO pro life is stone age mentality. how can you be for freedom in one area of life and not in another.

This discussion should be had in the off topic lounge. This forum is for discussing the Right to Bear Arms, not the Right to Bear Children.

[hoffmang]

Don't try to read "capacity to accept" way past what it means. The only context it has here is does the rifle have an ability to take a magazine that, once attached, is readily removable without a tool.

To remove a bullet button and install a normal mag catch requires a tool. Its decently clear with Prince-50's bullet button and its going to be darn clear with my Range Safe Mag Lock.

CA DOJ's attempt to expand the definition of "capacity to accept" shows that it doesn't mean what they are trying to change it to mean. And that reg isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

-Gene

[xenophobe]

There were reasons why the 'not a complete rifle not an AW' opinions were never published openly. Primarily so people don't get in trouble for confusing the DOJ or their local LE and start a case that would take a long time to sort out... it's much better that we go in incremental steps than for everyone to jump to this conclusion. Also, having a lower in a standard configuration that would make it illegal if any centerfire upper were attached has no legitimate purpose with AW laws the way they currently are.


Don't try to read "capacity to accept" way past what it means. The only context it has here is does the rifle have an ability to take a magazine that, once attached, is readily removable without a tool.

To remove a bullet button and install a normal mag catch requires a tool. Its decently clear with Prince-50's bullet button and its going to be darn clear with my Range Safe Mag Lock.

CA DOJ's attempt to expand the definition of "capacity to accept" shows that it doesn't mean what they are trying to change it to mean. And that reg isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

-Gene

+1 to all of that!