PDA

View Full Version : Blocked 30 round mag body and 10 round mag spring


vta
12-16-2011, 10:43 PM
Has anyone tried this yet? I am planning on either cutting my mag spring or buying springs for 10 round cproducts mags to assemble 10/30 mags with a 30 gi mag bodies and polymer blocks between the shorter spring and floor plate.

Once the spring is cut, it would not function without the block inserted which should practically be considered a 'permenant' conversion.

It still can be used as a 30 round mag when I move to a free state by simply replacing the cut springs with new springs and removing the blocks.

Does anyone see problems with this? I am speaking specifically about the construction method of the 10/30 mags that can still be disassembled for cleaning and repairing. Not worried about constructive possession issues at this moment since I don't plan on having extra full size springs laying around.

roushstage2
12-17-2011, 12:58 AM
That's not permanent. You could have an uncut [i.e.- normal] spring, open the mag, and replace the spring. You now have a hi-cap mag in about 30 seconds. It's not an issue of not having the uncut springs around; it's that the modification isn't permanent: the idea of permanent being that you cannot undo the modification without destroying the mag.

vta
12-17-2011, 1:17 AM
That's not permanent. You could have an uncut [i.e.- normal] spring, open the mag, and replace the spring. You now have a hi-cap mag in about 30 seconds. It's not an issue of not having the uncut springs around; it's that the modification isn't permanent: the idea of permanent being that you cannot undo the modification without destroying the mag.

I beg to differ with that opinion. Having to replace a part to return the mag to a 30 rounder means that it can not be made into a 10+ round mag in the existing state (without introducing replacement parts). It is effectively destroyed even though the necessity for destruction is not anywhere defined in permenance. What you are describing is no different than saying that I can take a riveted mag, cut it open, and replace the previously riveted body with a new, unriveted body to make a 30 rounder from a 10 rounder.

If replacing parts on a magazine takes away the idea of permenance on a modded 10/30 mag, there probably isn't a single technique out there that I couldnt return back to a full cap mag with 1 or 2 new parts.

roushstage2
12-17-2011, 11:19 AM
I didn't make the law, so beg to differ all you like. :) Most people go with the "destruction of the mag" as a guideline to be extra safe (this is California after all). Rivets do suffice I suppose, done properly.

Take your own example though. Having to cut open a riveted mag and replace the body...you destroyed the old mag. You had to cut the old body away, thus destroying the mag and making it parts.

zfields
12-17-2011, 11:21 AM
Doesnt sound permanent to me.

vta
12-17-2011, 2:01 PM
I didn't make the law, so beg to differ all you like. :) Most people go with the "destruction of the mag" as a guideline to be extra safe (this is California after all). Rivets do suffice I suppose, done properly.

Take your own example though. Having to cut open a riveted mag and replace the body...you destroyed the old mag. You had to cut the old body away, thus destroying the mag and making it parts.

That is one example and another would be simply replacing an epoxied follower and spring (another commonly accepted method of 'permenant' conversion) on a pmag. Instant 10+ round mag. There is no definition of what "destruction" of the mag means. Cutting of the spring in your definition could also be described as "destruction".

If you think it is not permenant, please quote the specific part of the law that supports your argument. Unless it is just your personal opinion then I will just take it as that.

vta
12-17-2011, 2:13 PM
Here is one scenario that might fall into question that I was thinking about. If one simply removes the block and reassemble the mag using the cut springs, the mag will not be able to feed as the follower won't reach the feed lips. However, I could theoretically keep loading rounds down the mag until the spring does build tension for the top rounds to feed. The question is then even if there are more than 10 rounds in the mag, only a few rounds from the top will feed until the spring loses tension (theoretically less than 10). Yet the mag contains 10+ rounds even with most of them unusable. That might be the gray area I would be worried about. I am not concerned about the aforementioned descriptions of permenance at all at this time point unless some stronger arguments are made with references to the specific text in the law.

LTP90
12-17-2011, 2:15 PM
From the Penal code

(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.
(d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from
the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this
section.

So that is what is says, then you have to look at case law. What is DOJ's definition of permanent?

m03
12-17-2011, 2:20 PM
Doesnt sound permanent to me.

How does one justify the many factory 10rd. pistol magazines in Cali that, with a single part swap, become 12+ round magazines?

Last I check, Glock, S&W, etc. aren't epoxying or riveting their magazines.

zfields
12-17-2011, 2:24 PM
How does one justify the many factory 10rd. pistol magazines in Cali that, with a single part swap, become 12+ round magazines?

Last I check, Glock, S&W, etc. aren't epoxying or riveting their magazines.

All the factory 10 round mags I have owned were internally blocked, so just swapping springs/followers wouldnt change the capacity.

vta
12-17-2011, 2:28 PM
From the Penal code

(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.
(d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from
the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this
section.

So that is what is says, then you have to look at case law. What is DOJ's definition of permanent?

Not sure what they define as permenant. That seems to be the gray area most 10/30 mags are dealing with. Like the magpul round limiter floor plate they sell commercially for their 20rd mags that converts a 20 rounder to a 10 rounder, some people epoxy the floor plate just to "be safe" while others (myself included) deem that as unnecessary.

My understanding is that if you are replacing parts of a 10 round mag to make it a 30 (as the aforementioned response suggested with the new spring) , it is the act of manufacturing that mag into a 30 that is illegal, not the possession of the prior converted 10 round mag that you used for parts.

vta
12-17-2011, 2:30 PM
All the factory 10 round mags I have owned were internally blocked, so just swapping springs/followers wouldnt change the capacity.

I can swap out a xd mag body and instantly make it 10+ rounds.

vta
12-17-2011, 2:47 PM
The mag body is a part the same way that the spring, follower or base plate is a part. Nothing special about the mag body in the eyes of the law.

dieselpower
12-17-2011, 5:02 PM
I will once again take up this fight...LOL

The only magazine that needs to comply with the exclusions are those magazine that were LEGAL Large capacity magazines in Ca prior to 1/1/2000 that are altered to only hold 10 or less. This alteration must be permanent as per what a common person (jury) would think.

Another magazine that needs to comply with the exclusions on altered magazines is a magazine bought outside of CA, that is going to be transported into CA. That magazine must first be permanently altered. Permanently altered is defined as what a common person (jury) would think it is.

A pile of magazine parts needs no permanent alteration to be assembled into a 10 round magazine. Parts are parts since parts are not a magazine. A 10 rd magazine is NOT a Large Capacity magazine and therefore isnt regulated by exclusions.

So to the OP. Yes, you can add a block to the bottom of a long body and you have built a 10rd feeding device. Its not a feeding device that was altered..its just a 10 rd feeding device. It needs no permanent alteration.

This type of 10rd magazine has been in use since 1994. This has been used to make legal hunting 5 round magazines for over 30 years.

please read every word of the exclusions...not just the buzz words...

In AW law:

(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
note the words "feeding device" and "has been"

general magazine restrictions;

(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.

Once again note the words "feeding device" and "has been". There is no law stating a pile of parts is a feeding device.

If you take a magazine apart, its a pile of parts. If you must take a magazine apart to remove a limiting device, you must break the law when assembling it...manufacturing. The magazine itself (un-molested) is a legal 10 rd magazine/

vta
12-17-2011, 5:10 PM
@dieselpower. That is my initial understanding as well. Thanks for your explanation. Would you mind giving me your thoughts on post #7?

dieselpower
12-17-2011, 5:18 PM
Here is one scenario that might fall into question that I was thinking about. If one simply removes the block and reassemble the mag using the cut springs, the mag will not be able to feed as the follower won't reach the feed lips. Wrong, it is still a feeding device...turn the firearm upside down and mean-ole Mr. Gravity will feed all 11 of those rounds.... Its just not a spring powered feeding device. However, I could theoretically keep loading rounds down the mag until the spring does build tension for the top rounds to feed. The question is then even if there are more than 10 rounds in the mag, only a few rounds from the top will feed until the spring loses tension (theoretically less than 10). Yet the mag contains 10+ rounds even with most of them unusable. That might be the gray area I would be worried about. Not a gray area...dead center illegal if the FEEDING DEVICE holds more than 10, its a Large capacity Magazine. I am not concerned about the aforementioned descriptions of permenance at all at this time point unless some stronger arguments are made with references to the specific text in the law.

Always take your mind out of the box called "magazine" and think out side of the box. The restricted items are feeding devices. Belt, hopper, magazine, all restricted if they hold more than 10.

vta
12-17-2011, 5:32 PM
So would a feeding device that consists of a mag body, follower, floor plate assembled with no mag spring be illegal as well? For that matter, an upside down mag body with a follower even without a floor plate would also be an illegal feeding device. Hell, an upside down mag body alone might do the trick...

peter95
12-17-2011, 5:45 PM
Easier way is to drill a screw through it. Your idea would not be illegal, but there are easier alternatives to block your high cap to 10 rounds...

dieselpower
12-17-2011, 5:57 PM
yup.... a hopper is a feeding device. turn the rifle over and fill up the magazine body and you have a LCM, even if it jams. There is no "reliable" in front of the words "feeding device". so even if it jams its a LCM.

and try to avoid terms and phrases like "10/20" and "10/30" which imply the 10 round magazines where manufactured from large capacity magazines. ... or the phrase, "blocked a high capacity magazine...blah blah blah" which again means you didn't manufacture from parts...you have a defined LCM and altered it. It may seem petty, but its a world of legal difference.

vta
12-17-2011, 6:09 PM
Easier way is to drill a screw through it. Your idea would not be illegal, but there are easier alternatives to block your high cap to 10 rounds...

Yes there is but I am looking for a legal way to be the least destructive to the magazine parts and easy to disassemble for cleaning.

vta
12-17-2011, 6:10 PM
yup.... a hopper is a feeding device. turn the rifle over and fill up the magazine body and you have a LCM, even if it jams. There is no "reliable" in front of the words "feeding device". so even if it jams its a LCM.

and try to avoid terms and phrases like "10/20" and "10/30" which imply the 10 round magazines where manufactured from large capacity magazines. ... or the phrase, "blocked a high capacity magazine...blah blah blah" which again means you didn't manufacture from parts...you have a defined LCM and altered it. It may seem petty, but its a world of legal difference.

So bottom line is that there is no need to cut the springs. It makes no legal difference. Do you agree?

vta
12-17-2011, 6:13 PM
(off topic) @peter95 were you at ammobros earlier this afternoon?

dieselpower
12-17-2011, 6:22 PM
So bottom line is that there is no need to cut the springs. It makes no legal difference. Do you agree?


I'll just leave this here... its up to you and you alone if you can verbally defend yourself if an LEO has other opinions. The jury would have final say if you had to take it that far. I doubt a DA would even take it that far, At the most they will drop all charges and destroy the magazines.

kUR31CYk4dg

LTP90
12-17-2011, 8:29 PM
So according to this video throwing away the base plate makes it permanet because you no longer have the ability to make it into a 20 rounder.
so by that standard if you kept the regular base plate you would create a situation where you no longer had permanence? Sort of a "constructive non-permanence" shall you say, like you could have constructive possession.

dieselpower
12-17-2011, 9:24 PM
So according to this video throwing away the base plate makes it permanent because you no longer have the ability to make it into a 20 rounder.
so by that standard if you kept the regular base plate you would create a situation where you no longer had permanence? Sort of a "constructive non-permanence" shall you say, like you could have constructive possession.

he was just being dramatic. you could tape the old plate to the side and it would still be legal. he was just saying without the original end plate any alteration is a modification since you would need to "rig" it up somehow. As in placing the cover over the body without the plate. The spring would push the plate off, but it could be done....but again this is NOT what your built and is just like taking a short body 10 rd magazine, pulling the floor plate half way off, dropping three spring coils out the bottom, push the floor plate back in as far as it will go and guess what??? your short body 10rd magazine (sold to you as a ten round magazine) can now hold 11 or 12 rounds...and feeds just fine.

he also doesn't address the fact the law states only altered FEEDING DEVICES must be permanent in nature.

he also doesn't address that the AG Office and DoJ wrote a brief stating they agree the term Permanently Altered doesn't mean irreversible. So those people telling you PA means making it impossible to change back without destroying it are not correct.

Since the AG office and DoJ were not given authorization by SB23 to make a set of laws, rules or policies governing how to alter a magazine, no standard was made. without that standard only ONE of the two interpretations of PA is valid.
1) physically impossible to change.
2) changed forever (time).

without that standard #2 is the only true definition of PA. any modification after building a 10rd magazine that requires disassembly to reverse is manufacturing. of course a DA can argue anything and a jury can vote that the earth is flat too... so as with any thing YMMV...

roushstage2
12-17-2011, 9:47 PM
That is one example and another would be simply replacing an epoxied follower and spring (another commonly accepted method of 'permenant' conversion) on a pmag. Instant 10+ round mag. There is no definition of what "destruction" of the mag means. Cutting of the spring in your definition could also be described as "destruction".

If you think it is not permenant, please quote the specific part of the law that supports your argument. Unless it is just your personal opinion then I will just take it as that.
It is all just my opinion. I'm not offering you legal advice. :) In your original post/example though, you never mentioned epoxying your spring. You just said cut a spring. IMO (yes, still my opinion), simply putting a shortened spring into the mag isn't a permanent fix.

In the end, it is up to you to decide what you feel is permanent as you will be the one that has to explain how it is permanently altered to whoever is trying to bust you for it.

LTP90
12-17-2011, 10:26 PM
he also doesn't address that the AG Office and DoJ wrote a brief stating they agree the term Permanently Altered doesn't mean irreversible. So those people telling you PA means making it impossible to change back without destroying it are not correct.


any chance you know where to find a copy of this?
I have never had any desire to make a 10/anything because why would I take something that could hold alot of rounds and make it hold less permanently when in the future(move, SHTF, change in laws) I might want/need more rounds.

Freebird76
12-17-2011, 10:43 PM
Is there any case law that helps define permanent?

For that matter, is there a list of any kind that shows any citizen ever having been successfully prosecuted in California for having a magazine that was not sufficiently permanently modified to accept no more than 10 rounds?

vta
12-18-2011, 11:38 AM
any chance you know where to find a copy of this?
I have never had any desire to make a 10/anything because why would I take something that could hold alot of rounds and make it hold less permanently when in the future(move, SHTF, change in laws) I might want/need more rounds.

Id like to see a copy as well. Permenant but reversible is exactly the point behind making these mags.

By cutting the springs, I feel comfortable in making an argument that I have made a "Permenant" alteration that would not allow more than 10 rounds. Reversibility would now only be achieved if a new, replacement part is introduced which is not part of the existing 10 round feeding device.

Cokebottle
12-18-2011, 12:08 PM
So that is what is says, then you have to look at case law. What is DOJ's definition of permanent?
No case law, thus no definition of permanence.

Cokebottle
12-18-2011, 12:09 PM
All the factory 10 round mags I have owned were internally blocked, so just swapping springs/followers wouldnt change the capacity.
He's talking about, for example, the ability of the Glock 26 9mm 10rd subcompact magazine to accept the 2rd extension floorplate, which converts it to a 12rd magazine.

Bhobbs
12-18-2011, 12:15 PM
That's not permanent. You could have an uncut [i.e.- normal] spring, open the mag, and replace the spring. You now have a hi-cap mag in about 30 seconds. It's not an issue of not having the uncut springs around; it's that the modification isn't permanent: the idea of permanent being that you cannot undo the modification without destroying the mag.

By pulling it apart you now have a rebuild kit. Replacing the cut spring and removing the block would be manufacturing a hi cap.

The way he described it, you cannot feed more than 10 rounds unless you take it apart and rebuild it. Seems permanent to me.

Saying that, who knows what "permanent" really is. They probably left if like that do nail someone who tried to understand the law.

Bhobbs
12-18-2011, 12:16 PM
I didn't make the law, so beg to differ all you like. :) Most people go with the "destruction of the mag" as a guideline to be extra safe (this is California after all). Rivets do suffice I suppose, done properly.

Take your own example though. Having to cut open a riveted mag and replace the body...you destroyed the old mag. You had to cut the old body away, thus destroying the mag and making it parts.

You suppose? Rivets aren't permanent. You can easily remove them.

dieselpower
12-18-2011, 12:40 PM
any chance you know where to find a copy of this?
I have never had any desire to make a 10/anything because why would I take something that could hold alot of rounds and make it hold less permanently when in the future(move, SHTF, change in laws) I might want/need more rounds.

Is there any case law that helps define permanent?

For that matter, is there a list of any kind that shows any citizen ever having been successfully prosecuted in California for having a magazine that was not sufficiently permanently modified to accept no more than 10 rounds?

Id like to see a copy as well. Permenant but reversible is exactly the point behind making these mags.

By cutting the springs, I feel comfortable in making an argument that I have made a "Permanent" alteration that would not allow more than 10 rounds. Reversibility would now only be achieved if a new, replacement part is introduced which is not part of the existing 10 round feeding device.

No case law, thus no definition of permanence.

Yes, please read their statements several times, sit back and read it again. copy paste it to a text file and break it up into small chunks. Its clear when you read it they are saying several things
1) They agree PA isn't the same as irreversible. they agree nothing is physically PA
2) They were not given authority to make a standard like the one the BATFE uses for determining if a barrel is 16"....ie permanently attaching a muzzle device to reach 16".
3) Tools, time and material needed means nothing in the eyes of the law. A jackhammer needed to turn an altered magazine back to a LCM is the same as finger power to turn it back to an LCM. So epoxy or no epoxy is the SAME THING. The illegal act is manufacturing..not being able to manufacture. That doesn't mean a DA can not go after you if they think they can prove you are using parts to make LCMs. If they can prove you are doing it, then they don't need a video of you doing it or an exhibit to show a jury. Intent to manufacture is just as bad as a video and exhibit.

First their statement of reason.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/c1bd3e31-46e0-475d-947b-98374b057d8a/1/hilite/ This link leads directly to the AG office's on-line database. Its a PDF file of their reasons for wording the law as they did.

Here is the part you need to read closely.
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.

Next read all their statements made to the public after comments sent in on the proposed wording of the law. Its at the end of that PDF. You can see they agree PA isn't a physical state of being, its a function of time.

By the wording of the law, this only applies to Feeding Devices that are altered.

They (the DoJ) came back and tried to go against this in an attempt to close the loophole they created by defining epoxy, ribbons of welds and rivets as examples something permanent. In that document they also list DISASSEMBLY as a test to show something was permanent to begin with. That document was aimed at how they view the legal ways of turning a detachable magazine rifle into a Fixed magazine rifle. Trying to make the BB illegal. Its now refereed to as the "failed rule making" document. Since it was a total failure and went against the law. I can not find a on-line source for you to read independent of me. Here is what I have to show you from that document. Please note "D".
(3)
A firearm is not readily modifiable to receive a detachable magazine if, for
example:
(A) it does not have a magazine well;
(B) 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;
(C) 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; or
(D) the modification requires disassembly of the action.

This is where people got the idea to be safe you need to use epoxy. Those people have GOOD GROUNDS to warn us of this. the DoJ was crazy upset with people for using the law to own firearms they thought they banned. So prudence was (AND STILL IS) the best course to follow. Some of us take that risk, seeing as the DoJ and BoF have calmed down a whole lot and MANY OF THEM on now on our side.

hope this crazy post helps.

Freebird76
12-18-2011, 8:13 PM
Dieselpower - thanks. Your crazy post helps.

I'm just wondering if anyone has ever been charged or successfully prosecuted for using/manufacturing a "large capacity mag" blocked to 10 rounds in a way that was not sufficiently "permanent" in the eyes of the law.

I know that a lot of people on calguns and elsewhere worry about this happening, but I've never heard of one actual case.

I'm guessing this has not happened because it was stated numerous times above in this thread that no case law exists.

zfields
12-18-2011, 8:24 PM
Dieselpower - thanks. Your crazy post helps.

I'm just wondering if anyone has ever been charged or successfully prosecuted for using/manufacturing a "large capacity mag" blocked to 10 rounds in a way that was not sufficiently "permanent" in the eyes of the law.

I know that a lot of people on calguns and elsewhere worry about this happening, but I've never heard of one actual case.

I'm guessing this has not happened because it was stated numerous times above in this thread that no case law exists.


Either that, or no people want to volunteer to be test cases.

Cokebottle
12-18-2011, 8:42 PM
Either that, or no people want to volunteer to be test cases.
"Volunteering" is a simple matter of being in public.
There are plenty of people at ranges and on BLM land with magazines in various states of legal and illegal status (including 30rd mags in non-BB configurations on modern OLL builds).

The problem for the state is the impossibility of proving the charges.

1 - The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the magazines were imported or manufactured.
2 - The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation occurred within the 36 months prior to arrest.

Right now, I could walk up to the steps of Kamala's office with a box of XD9 16rd mags and a receipt showing that I purchased them in Nevada in 2006, and announce that in 2006 I illegally imported that box, and the DOJ could not touch me due to the statute of limitations.


Now, I'm not saying that it's "okay" to get away with something because it's impossible for the state to prove anything without a paper trail... Personally, I keep it clean. Mine or my wife's 92FS 15rd mags have been in our possession since the mid 90s. I have some rebuild kits for my XD9, and I have some rebuild kits for the AR.
6 of my 12 AR rebuild kits were blocked to 10rds. The remaining 6 remain disassembled in the same box with my XD kits, for use outside of California.


So the lack of case law (in the last 10 years) simply means that there have been no prosecutions. Either cops are looking the other way (I'm sure this is a small part of it), or the cops and/or DAs are having as difficult a time with the term "permanence" as we are... and in this case, we tend to err on the side of overkill, while the cops or DAs might be erring on the side of "a tool is required so it's permanent"

vta
12-19-2011, 2:02 AM
2 - The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation occurred within the 36 months prior to arrest.

Right now, I could walk up to the steps of Kamala's office with a box of XD9 16rd mags and a receipt showing that I purchased them in Nevada in 2006, and announce that in 2006 I illegally imported that box, and the DOJ could not touch me due to the statute of limitations.

I thought the statute is 5 years? At least that is what I heard once. Do you know where in the PC the statute of limitation is stated?

dieselpower
12-19-2011, 5:25 AM
I thought the statute is 5 years? At least that is what I heard once. Do you know where in the PC the statute of limitation is stated?

those are set by regulation based on type of offense, you can do a search and read on it. several lawyers have posted its 3 years. they have also commented that transporting into ca or importation can only be charged directly after you cross into ca and by that jurisdiction, or at you front door after receiving a shipped magazine. in the case of a shipping charge they must also prove you caused the shipment and it wasn't shipped to you in error.

on a side note, if you are accidentally shipped a 30rd magazine there is no law saying you can not legally keep it. its the same as finding one on the side of the road. both are loophole-legal to keep and enjoy.

tanakasan
12-19-2011, 7:16 AM
Either that, or no people want to volunteer to be test cases.

Because its Cali, I went with purchased, already modified mags. Mine are limited and either pinned or riveted. I did not modify nor construct, plain and simple.

Once relocated to a free state, the standard cap mags are very cheap compared to the 10/20's and 30's.

I'm too old for a Club Fed vacation!:oji:

Robert

paratroop
12-19-2011, 8:16 AM
one thing to add. I read "constructive posession" a couple times in this thread. From what i remember California doesnt have constructive posession laws. that is a federal thing. and the feds dont care about our magazine issues.

vta
12-19-2011, 9:44 AM
one thing to add. I read "constructive posession" a couple times in this thread. From what i remember California doesnt have constructive posession laws. that is a federal thing. and the feds dont care about our magazine issues.

that's good to know. i guess it makes sense since magazine kits are already publicly known to be perfectly legal to own. extra parts would be no different. also it goes with dieselpower's point about keeping the original base plates from the youtube video.

dieselpower
12-19-2011, 11:36 AM
one thing to add. I read "constructive possession" a couple times in this thread. From what i remember California doesn't have constructive possession laws. that is a federal thing. and the feds don't care about our magazine issues.

that's good to know. i guess it makes sense since magazine kits are already publicly known to be perfectly legal to own. extra parts would be no different. also it goes with dieselpower's point about keeping the original base plates from the youtube video.


Correct. While there is no "constructive possession" law on the books for LCMs, that doesn't stop a DA from charging you with manufacturing if they have the evidence showing that. People lose sight of that fact. I am allowed to own all the parts to make a LCM, I am just not allowed to make an LCM. If I am making an LCM, my parts are illegal. This was touched on in Question and Answer # 4 of the LCM letter to the AG office. Read the AG's answer closely.

The Hoffman Letter (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-large-cap-magazines-2005-11-10.pdf)

Please note a disassembled magazine is an LCM if they can PROVE your intent is to assemble that into a working LCM after you cross back into CA.

People have been arrested leaving gun shows in Nevada after buying LCMs and crossing into CA. That tells me several things...
1) AG/DoJ Agents are in the crowds in other States watching CA residents shop.
2) People have been arrested for either transporting LCMs (working LCMs) or they didn't shut up and said they were going to assemble them into LCM later (even when out of State)
3) They had the magazines disassembled, but Suspect A said Suspect B was going to make LCMs, and Suspect B said Suspect A was going to make LCMs.

anyway you look at it, if you buy LCMs across State lines, disassemble them IMMEDIATELY. If stopped by LEO after crossing back.... STHU or stay on track, "these are repair parts and I am going to make 10 rd magazines AS PER THE LAW WHICH ALLOWS ME TO DO THAT."

Oh and I found this posted in a past thread
PC 799. Prosecution for an offense punishable by death or by
imprisonment in the state prison for life or for life without the
possibility of parole, or for the embezzlement of public money, may
be commenced at any time.
This section shall apply in any case in which the defendant was a
minor at the time of the commission of the offense and the
prosecuting attorney could have petitioned the court for a fitness
hearing pursuant to Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

800. Except as provided in Section 799, prosecution for an offense
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for eight years or
more shall be commenced within six years after commission of the
offense.

801. Except as provided in Sections 799 and 800, prosecution for an
offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison shall be
commenced within three years after commission of the offense.

so 12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine means 801 applys.

vta
12-19-2011, 12:52 PM
So with the 3 year statute, you are safe as long as you never disassemble them for any purpose including to clean them. once it's taken apart, putting it back together would be a new lcm manufacturing offense.

dieselpower
12-19-2011, 1:08 PM
So with the 3 year statute, you are safe as long as you never disassemble them for any purpose including to clean them. once it's taken apart, putting it back together would be a new lcm manufacturing offense.

Getting technical, but yes if you illegally import a LCM and 2 years 11 months later, disassemble it to clean it, when you assemble it back into a LCM, you are committing the crime of manufacturing post 1/1/2000. If you had waited the extra month and past the 3 year mark the LCM is legal. You can disassemble and reassemble at will (contact a lawyer on that one.. I am not a lawyer).

BUT BUT BUT... the DoJ has changed the law starting 1/1/2012. A LCM is a NUISANCE. LEO are allowed to take and destroy without charging you with a crime. So in the above situation, while they can not arrest you, they can take the LCM from you and tell you to go pack sand ...you are not getting it back.

zfields
12-19-2011, 1:10 PM
Because its Cali, I went with purchased, already modified mags. Mine are limited and either pinned or riveted. I did not modify nor construct, plain and simple.

Once relocated to a free state, the standard cap mags are very cheap compared to the 10/20's and 30's.

I'm too old for a Club Fed vacation!:oji:

Robert

Very true. Im enjoying my $6 AK mags.

Bhobbs
12-19-2011, 1:11 PM
Getting technical, but yes if you illegally import a LCM and 2 years 11 months later, disassemble it to clean it, when you assemble it back into a LCM, you are committing the crime of manufacturing post 1/1/2000. If you had waited the extra month and past the 3 year mark the LCM is legal. You can disassemble and reassemble at will (contact a lawyer on that one.. I am not a lawyer).

BUT BUT BUT... the DoJ has changed the law starting 1/1/2012. A LCM is a NUISANCE. LEO are allowed to take and destroy without charging you with a crime. So in the above situation, while they can not arrest you, they can take the LCM from you and tell you to go pack sand ...you are not getting it back.

Does that include legal LCMs? If I had a legal LCM and took it to the range and used it legally, could a LEO seize it and destroy it?

vta
12-19-2011, 2:01 PM
If your initial expired offense is importing rather than manufacturing then I would guess disassembling after 3 years would be fine. But if you brought in magazine kits and illegally manufactured them here, I would assume even after 3 years, disassembling and reassembling would be a whole new offense. You are right that this it's getting a but more technical and most likely impossible to prove or disprove. This is all hypothetical talk anyways but interesting nonetheless.

Did not know about the new law coming in on 2012. That seems to violate all sorts of private property laws.

shortround1
12-19-2011, 2:30 PM
So the authorities will have to power to destroy even legally owned private property now? This state just keeps getting better and better. :(

AR87
12-19-2011, 4:38 PM
Original Poster,

Asking this question if likely going to leave you more confused than you were before on the subject, as literally EVERY person has a different idea about what "permanence" means as it pertains to this subject. I chose to go overkill on the subject and have a blocked mag from Addax Tactical that has a polymer block inside, and the baseplate is pinned shut so that it can never be removed. Not convenient for cleaning at all, but I don't have to worry about any law enforcement officer arguing that I have an illegal setup, as you would literally have to destroy the magazine body to get to the inside and remove the polymer block. Not convenient by any means, but I haven't had any issues with it, and don't expect to.

Understand, however, that from a legal perspective, the law is always written in such a way that it can be viewed more than one way (even when that is completely not the intention) and the job of interpretation is up to a judge; not all judges are made equal with identical thoughts and feelings about the subject, so some might shrug off one setup while another might say that it's illegal. So basically there are illegal setups that are more illegal than others, if that makes any sense (it kind of doesn't to me, so... yeah). I guess what I'm trying to say is that you should try to get the most permanent solution possible, so as to avoid any issues, although I would be surprised if anyone actually closely inspected your equipment unless you were either hunting or maybe competing. Just my .02... Surely someone will come on here and either call me an idiot or try to prove me wrong in some form or fashion... Oh well. Hope I was able to help somehow. Subject is a confusing one, and one under much scrutiny and debate regardless of how cut and dry some people try to make it...

AR87
12-19-2011, 4:55 PM
So with the 3 year statute, you are safe as long as you never disassemble them for any purpose including to clean them. once it's taken apart, putting it back together would be a new lcm manufacturing offense.

That is interesting. Also kind of a ridiculous loophole for prosecutors, but interesting indeed. Kinda scary how many ways the law can swing around and bite you in the *** on this stuff.

Sniper3142
12-19-2011, 5:55 PM
Has anyone tried this yet? I am planning on either cutting my mag spring or buying springs for 10 round cproducts mags to assemble 10/30 mags with a 30 gi mag bodies and polymer blocks between the shorter spring and floor plate.

Once the spring is cut, it would not function without the block inserted which should practically be considered a 'permenant' conversion.


IMHO, this would be a 10 round magazine.

The only way to change it into a Large Capacity Magazine is to alter or modify it by adding a part not present and removing an existing part. And anyone (DA, Cop, etc) doing that is manufactering a LCM.

BTW, there is no constructive possession regarding LCMs in this state.

dieselpower
12-19-2011, 6:08 PM
Does that include legal LCMs? If I had a legal LCM and took it to the range and used it legally, could a LEO seize it and destroy it?

from what the law says, yes. but people are looking at it to see. there is a whole thread on it.

heres the deal. the old laws viewed post-1/1/2000 LCMs a nuisance. The way the new law is worded it says ALL LCMs are a nuisance. How this happened was a the old laws refereed back to each other is a way where post and pre 1/1/2000 magazines were different. With the re-numbering of the laws, the grandfather clause excusing pre-1/1/2000 magazines gets lost. In effect it wold be a legal battle neither side wants to fight, but its there if an LEO wants to try it.

Think about it this way. In some towns fireworks are legal, but if an Officer is called out due to you being an idiot with them he may just take them away from you. Now you may fight this and may get them back, or you may just let it go. The problem is once you lose a legal LCM, its gone forever. Thats where a legal challenge will come from.

vta
12-19-2011, 10:16 PM
Original Poster,

Asking this question if likely going to leave you more confused than you were before on the subject, as literally EVERY person has a different idea about what "permanence" means as it pertains to this subject. I chose to go overkill on the subject and have a blocked mag from Addax Tactical that has a polymer block inside, and the baseplate is pinned shut so that it can never be removed. Not convenient for cleaning at all, but I don't have to worry about any law enforcement officer arguing that I have an illegal setup, as you would literally have to destroy the magazine body to get to the inside and remove the polymer block. Not convenient by any means, but I haven't had any issues with it, and don't expect to.

Understand, however, that from a legal perspective, the law is always written in such a way that it can be viewed more than one way (even when that is completely not the intention) and the job of interpretation is up to a judge; not all judges are made equal with identical thoughts and feelings about the subject, so some might shrug off one setup while another might say that it's illegal. So basically there are illegal setups that are more illegal than others, if that makes any sense (it kind of doesn't to me, so... yeah). I guess what I'm trying to say is that you should try to get the most permanent solution possible, so as to avoid any issues, although I would be surprised if anyone actually closely inspected your equipment unless you were either hunting or maybe competing. Just my .02... Surely someone will come on here and either call me an idiot or try to prove me wrong in some form or fashion... Oh well. Hope I was able to help somehow. Subject is a confusing one, and one under much scrutiny and debate regardless of how cut and dry some people try to make i...

If you read thru the thread from the beginning, I think you will find that its quite helpful for someone who its confused or has false understanding on this topic. Save for a few objective opinions, a lot of good information here.

Bhobbs
12-19-2011, 10:21 PM
from what the law says, yes. but people are looking at it to see. there is a whole thread on it.

heres the deal. the old laws viewed post-1/1/2000 LCMs a nuisance. The way the new law is worded it says ALL LCMs are a nuisance. How this happened was a the old laws refereed back to each other is a way where post and pre 1/1/2000 magazines were different. With the re-numbering of the laws, the grandfather clause excusing pre-1/1/2000 magazines gets lost. In effect it wold be a legal battle neither side wants to fight, but its there if an LEO wants to try it.

Think about it this way. In some towns fireworks are legal, but if an Officer is called out due to you being an idiot with them he may just take them away from you. Now you may fight this and may get them back, or you may just let it go. The problem is once you lose a legal LCM, its gone forever. Thats where a legal challenge will come from.

Doesn't surprise me. It's like these people have no idea of the consequences of their actions. That or they don't care enough to research the laws they make.