PDA

View Full Version : CA Legal Mag Release Q


mtnguy
02-28-2007, 12:00 PM
Hey, are the CA legal requirements for fixed mag releases posted on the web ? I talked to field rep at the CA DOJ, he opined that a detachable mag release would require a "linear weld" to disable it, not merely a modified release. It seems there is much ambiguity and misinformation on the part of the DOJ. I would like to read the statutes myself. TIA

hoffmang
02-28-2007, 12:04 PM
The actual definition of "detachable magazine" is here: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf

The Penal Code Section that "detachable magazine" is referred from is 12276.1:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12275-12278.html

The major issue that the CA DOJ doesn't want you to know about is why the definition in the CCR exists and that is because of the "SKS issue:"


Comment

A1.12 - The SKS rifle with a detachable magazine cannot be changed without using a bullet tip as a tool, thus the regulations conflict with the specific listing of SKS rifles with detachable magazines in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. DOJ has no authority to contradict existing law.

DOJ Response

The Department disagrees with the comment because any magazine that requires the use of a bullet or any other tool for its removal is a fixed magazine, not a detachable magazine. The SKS with a true detachable magazine does not require a bullet or any other tool to remove and is a controlled assault weapon under Penal Code section 12276. Identifying a bullet as a tool allows for the proper categorization of an SKS with a fixed magazine. Therefore, the SKS referred to in the comment has a fixed, not detachable magazine.

From http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf

The law does not support the interpretation you were given.

-Gene

tenpercentfirearms
02-28-2007, 12:05 PM
Here is the definition of a detachable magazine as it currently stands.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23.pdf

They put in a request to "clarify" the regulations, but it has not been approved by the Office of Administrative Law yet. So the current definition stands.

bwiese
02-28-2007, 12:07 PM
It's funny that many DOJ employees never read the actual law.

(I wouldn't be surprised if a "talking points" guide about contentious issues is given them).

Of course this comes from an organization who's "Assault Weapons Identification Guide" (which some of us call the 'DOJ coloring book') is quite outdated.

Perhaps that DOJ employee needs a 'linear weld' on his mouth.

mtnguy
02-28-2007, 1:12 PM
Thanks Guys, on a totally unrelated subject, I wonder how many assault weapons were registered during the grace period in CA ? I'd bet it isn't very many.

PanzerAce
02-28-2007, 1:28 PM
I think it is estimated that only about 10-20% of the firearms covered by the law were registered.

mtnguy
02-28-2007, 1:40 PM
Maybe the DOJ will allow registration again

guimus
02-28-2007, 1:45 PM
Maybe the DOJ will allow registration again

uh, don't hold your breath!

mltrading
02-28-2007, 1:56 PM
Maybe the DOJ will allow registration again

No, DOJ won't.

SemiAutoSam
02-28-2007, 2:00 PM
I just spoke to the man that owns Atlantic firearms To let his know his website had been hacked (see thread and link below)


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=50564

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/programming/listview.asp?CatId=3
in MD and he told me of a AWB that Maryland is trying to push through that would include registration of so called Assault Weapons.

and Brady was at the hearing or what ever it was within the last few days and Used Zumbo as a anti tool saying look even your own famous hunter says AW's aren't needed and serve no purpose.

He said the state of Maryland wants to grandfather SO called AW's with this new law so it will be easier to collect them later down the road.

This is one of the main reasons I would not want a DOJ registration period.

thmpr
02-28-2007, 2:15 PM
Dont' want to register it as well.:mad:

mxpatriot51
02-28-2007, 2:38 PM
So what's the deal with the legality of the "bullet button" mag locks? I heard something about Prince50 recommending you fill the button with glue to prevent it from being used, is this true?

Even though the letter of the law says a bullet is a tool, the bullet button quite honestly scares me. With how quick you can change a magazine with it, I'd be worried one of the 58 district DA's would try to get you on it. The DOJ has no real authority, they'd only be an expert advisor if you were to be tried in court.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great idea and I personally feel it is well within the law; but a liberal judge may not feel the same way. And in the end that judge determines whether or not you have committed a crime.

SemiAutoSam
02-28-2007, 2:45 PM
Actually its suppost to be a jury.

But the judges these days feel they can instruct the jury to do just about as he says.

but this just isnt so.

www.FIJA.org

Prc329
02-28-2007, 2:45 PM
The main problem with the DOJ is the DOJ. The SKS issue pretty much opened up the door for the bullet-button to be legal. When they stated that an SKS that needs a bullet tip to release the magazine was not detachable that opened up the door. They also defined a bullet tip as a tool as posted earlier in this post.

Even if they did get you the judge has to follow the law, most likely the DA will probably not want to waist the time and try and plead you out and just take your rifle.

Well, that is my opinion at least. I am not a DA or lawyer or law student, just an enthusiast that wants to stay legal and enjoy his chosen hobby.

grammaton76
02-28-2007, 2:48 PM
So what's the deal with the legality of the "bullet button" mag locks? I heard something about Prince50 recommending you fill the button with glue to prevent it from being used, is this true?

That was for an optional, additional level of security on the original Prince50 lock, not the bullet button.

mxpatriot51
02-28-2007, 2:49 PM
That was for an optional, additional level of security on the original Prince50 lock, not the bullet button.

Oh, really? If I had the screw tightened down on a Prince50 lock, would I be in the legal zone?

guimus
02-28-2007, 2:53 PM
In my opinion, the bullet-button is the most clearly legal configuration of an AR type rifle.

It is expressly endorsed by the DOJ in the code cited above. The DOJ is on record (long-established record at that) saying that a bullet is a tool, and that any magazine requiring any tool to release is a fixed magazine.

No other AR-type rifle configurations (other than the sealed magazine well abominations and Evans' LISTED AR garbage) have such a strong endorsement by the doj. MonsterMan grips, U-15's, etc. aren't AGAINST the letter of the law, but that's as far as we can get with those.

(I will say that I own rifles with U-15 stock, MonsterMan grip, and Bullet Buttons, and I feel that all configurations are perfectly legal)

mxpatriot51
02-28-2007, 2:58 PM
In my opinion, the bullet-button is the most clearly legal configuration of an AR type rifle.

It is expressly endorsed by the DOJ in the code cited above. The DOJ is on record (long-established record at that) saying that a bullet is a tool, and that any magazine requiring any tool to release is a fixed magazine.

No other AR-type rifle configurations (other than the sealed magazine well abominations and Evans' LISTED AR garbage) have such a strong endorsement by the doj. MonsterMan grips, U-15's, etc. aren't AGAINST the letter of the law, but that's as far as we can get with those.

(I will say that I own rifles with U-15 stock, MonsterMan grip, and Bullet Buttons, and I feel that all configurations are perfectly legal)

The main reason I won't put a bullet button on it is that this will be a gripless build 90% of the time. With the original Prince50 kit, I can undo the magazine lock and use it like a regular button.

If I was going to build another OLL as a fixed magazine grip, I'd use the bullet button.

Prc329
02-28-2007, 3:01 PM
Isn't the monsterman going a long with the 1 minute fix? I am not sure if it was the DOJ that said it but I remember reading that hacking off the pistol grip was a legal way to keep the rifle when the ban first went into law. Since you do not have a pistol grip as a pistol grip is defined then isn't that very well legal under the letter of the law.

I gotta find the link to the 1 minute fix and post it or maybe use the search function I think it is posted hear.

tenpercentfirearms
02-28-2007, 3:05 PM
In my opinion, the bullet-button is the most clearly legal configuration of an AR type rifle.

It is expressly endorsed by the DOJ in the code cited above. The DOJ is on record (long-established record at that) saying that a bullet is a tool, and that any magazine requiring any tool to release is a fixed magazine.

No other AR-type rifle configurations (other than the sealed magazine well abominations and Evans' LISTED AR garbage) have such a strong endorsement by the doj. MonsterMan grips, U-15's, etc. aren't AGAINST the letter of the law, but that's as far as we can get with those.

(I will say that I own rifles with U-15 stock, MonsterMan grip, and Bullet Buttons, and I feel that all configurations are perfectly legal)

Be wary of opinions on the Internet.

First, the DOJ is currently claiming that the current CCR needs clarification on what a fixed magazine is. They are claiming that CCR 978.20(a) is not complete. So that makes all of these fixed magazine builds questionable in their eyes.

What is absolutely clear is if you do not have any evil features on your rifle, then it doesn't matter whether you have a fixed or detachable magazine (assuming you have a magazine with 10 or less rounds). So the MonsterMan is quite clearly the best legal choice out there. Nothing about the MonsterMan makes it even remotely close to meeting the defintion of a pistol grip.

The U15 comes close to the MonsterMan, but there is some argument whether there is indeed a hole in the U15 or not. We all think it is pretty clear there is no hole, but there is some slight speculation based on nothing.

The fixed magazines are the most likely to be argued in court since the DOJ is erroneously claiming their current regulations need clarification. Just because the Bullet Button requires the use of a tool to release and a bullet is considered a tool doesn't mean anything if the DOJ successfully pushes through the regulation change and CCR 978 is "clarified". Suddenly the Bullet Button would come into question where as the MonsterMan and U15 would stay perfectly legal.

You really need to read these laws and understand them for yourself. The law does not define a "fixed magazine" as guimas claims above. The law defines what a detachable magazine is. The Bullet Button does not make a detachable magazine according to the law because it requires the use of a tool to remove. That is exactly how it is worded. To say the bullet button is a "fixed magazine" is not correct because there is no definition of a "fixed magazine". The Bullet Button simply make the magazine not detachable.

Is this semantics? Yes, but understanding these semantics is key to understanding this situation.

mxpatriot51
02-28-2007, 3:10 PM
Be wary of opinions on the Internet.

First, the DOJ is currently claiming that the current CCR needs clarification on what a fixed magazine is. They are claiming that CCR 978.20(a) is not complete. So that makes all of these fixed magazine builds questionable in their eyes.

What is absolutely clear is if you do not have any evil features on your rifle, then it doesn't matter whether you have a fixed or detachable magazine (assuming you have a magazine with 10 or less rounds). So the MonsterMan is quite clearly the best legal choice out there. Nothing about the MonsterMan makes it even remotely close to meeting the defintion of a pistol grip.

The U15 comes close to the MonsterMan, but there is some argument whether there is indeed a hole in the U15 or not. We all think it is pretty clear there is no hole, but there is some slight speculation based on nothing.

The fixed magazines are the most likely to be argued in court since the DOJ is erroneously claiming their current regulations need clarification. Just because the Bullet Button requires the use of a tool to release and a bullet is considered a tool doesn't mean anything if the DOJ successfully pushes through the regulation change and CCR 978 is "clarified". Suddenly the Bullet Button would come into question where as the MonsterMan and U15 would stay perfectly legal.

You really need to read these laws and understand them for yourself. The law does not define a "fixed magazine" as guimas claims above. The law defines what a detachable magazine is. The Bullet Button does not make a detachable magazine according to the law because it requires the use of a tool to remove. That is exactly how it is worded. To say the bullet button is a "fixed magazine" is not correct because there is no definition of a "fixed magazine". The Bullet Button simply make the magazine not detachable.

Is this semantics? Yes, but understanding these semantics is key to understanding this situation.

Well said. My OLL (which I order on Monday at Ten Percent) will be a gripless build. I have a welded up receiver that is used for a pistol grip build.

hoffmang
02-28-2007, 3:41 PM
10,

To expand on what you are saying though - the "Proposed Rulemaking" adds strong evidence that the bullet button is currently legal. That the "Proposed Rulemaking" has not been submitted to the OAL shows that it likely conflicts with existing law and CCR.

If you use the bullet button, don't attach a magazine larger than 10 rounds and for simplicity (though not legal compliance) keep a magazine in the well at all times that you aren't changing magazines and you will be as safe as any OLL build.

-Gene