PDA

View Full Version : Interesting conversation wrt "permanence" and hi-cap mags


speedrrracer
02-06-2012, 12:08 PM
My wife and I had a bunch of friends/family over for dinner. 5 are ADA's here (one of them is my sister-in-law), a 6th, who is the spouse of one of the 5 ADAs, is their boss, and was himself an ADA for 23 years. A 7th is a LEO here who is also married to one of the 5 ADA's. We've known them all for 15+ years.

At such events, the conversation almost inevitably turns to "shop talk" because their jobs entail much more interesting things than most people's jobs. The conversation turned to guns, and in the process of discussing home defense and the law, my XDm came out to aid in the demonstrations.

I was quickly assembling a mag to load a snap cap when they stopped me. They were interested in the kit I had used (the EBR Works XDm conversion kit) to convert the mag to 10 rounds. I explained that I cut the spring short so it would only handle 10 rounds, and then the inserts occupy the space and enable the shorter spring to do it's job.

I hastily added "But it's not finished yet, I still have to epoxy the inserts into the magazine to meet the definition of permanence as required by the law."

That's when things got interesting. All were surprised that I felt cutting the spring, alone, wasn't sufficient to demonstrate permanence. They all agreed that with the cut spring, the magazine could never be useful for more than ten rounds, and therefore already met the definition of permanence.

I was surprised by this, so I started to probe a bit. I said, "But I could order a new spring, and use that instead, allowing the mag to hold more than ten rounds." They agreed that was possible, but was already covered by the penal code pertaining to assembling hi-cap mags (I was also shocked they knew about that, to be honest), and still didn't mean that the initial cutting of the spring wasn't permanent. "You could fill the magazine with epoxy, and that still wouldn't be permanent, because anyone with a drill press or dremel or hand file and lots of spare time could drill out the epoxy and you'd again have a hi-cap mag, right?"

I was really shocked at this point, because I felt they were arguing points I would have argued. I guess I've become conditioned to believe it's "us against them" in a way, and any ray of light from "that side" is unexpected.
They made another interesting point about the use of the word "permanence" in the law. They said, "You are a permanent resident of the USA in the eyes of the law, but you could move to Mexico tomorrow and in time become a permanent resident of that country. You're a permanent resident of the state of California, but you could move to Arizona tomorrow."

I asked them if any of them would prosecute me if I never epoxied the kit into the mag, and they each said "no way, but there might well be ADA's who would". The LEO said he wouldn't even waste his time unless I was a drug dealer or something and he needed a charge to bring me in.

So I'm just relaying this to the CG community. I'm not recommending you do anything or not do anything specific. IANAL, and I can't even understand half of Gene's posts. YMMV, etc, etc.

Maltese Falcon
02-06-2012, 12:15 PM
Interesting, thanks for posting. I will continue to err on the side of caution.

.

unusedusername
02-06-2012, 1:03 PM
First, I am not a lawyer.

Second, I would agree. It is pretty hard to un-cut a spring.

Most of the Mag-blocking kits that I have seen do not require the cutting of the spring as they essentially have a plastic dowel that goes inside the mag spring and blocks the follower from depressing past a specific point. Those kits are the ones with "permanence" issues.

As far as law goes, I know that "permanent" in law does not mean what it says in the dictionary.

Technically I could melt down a (metal) magazine and recast it into a different form that takes more bullets, however the law would consider that to be a new magazine and not a different form of the old one. The definition of when you stop having one magazine and start having another is complex and convoluted. See the Calguns interpretation of this law (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions) with regard to repairing pre-ban 10+ capacity magazines.

Steve1968LS2
02-06-2012, 1:39 PM
If the spring is cut the mag can no longer be made standard cap.. it has been as permently modified as an AR mag with a block and a rivet

I can see that logic.. After all I could epoxy the mag, but that's not ir-reversable.

RRichie09
02-06-2012, 2:27 PM
I think that your conversation just proved that while there are people on the law enforcement side of things who are not out to get us and use common sense when enforcing laws, there are others, maybe a few, that will use anything in their power to make us into criminals.

We don't go overboard to avoid harassment and/or conviction by the former but by the latter.

+1 to the ADA's and LEO's at your dinner table. I hope the anti-LEO and anti-DA people read this thread and re-think their position, but that would be asking too much because they all know better. :rolleyes:

therealnickb
02-06-2012, 2:40 PM
Are the inserts removable? Will the mag accept more than 10 rounds if you remove them?

There is nothing in the law I read that says the mag must feed any or all of the rounds. It just can't hold more than 10.

I'd say glue them!

EBR Works
02-06-2012, 3:36 PM
Interesting. We will continue to include instructions with our conversion kits to advise gluing the base plates for compliance. Unfortunately, some other LE agencies may not be as lenient. You are lucky to have local LE that is understanding of this issue.

therealnickb
02-06-2012, 3:50 PM
My wife and I had a bunch of friends/family over for dinner. 5 are ADA's here (one of them is my sister-in-law), a 6th, who is the spouse of one of the 5 ADAs, is their boss, and was himself an ADA for 23 years. A 7th is a LEO here who is also married to one of the 5 ADA's. We've known them all for 15+ years.

At such events, the conversation almost inevitably turns to "shop talk" because their jobs entail much more interesting things than most people's jobs. The conversation turned to guns, and in the process of discussing home defense and the law, my XDm came out to aid in the demonstrations.

I was quickly assembling a mag to load a snap cap when they stopped me. They were interested in the kit I had used (the EBR Works XDm conversion kit) to convert the mag to 10 rounds. I explained that I cut the spring short so it would only handle 10 rounds, and then the inserts occupy the space and enable the shorter spring to do it's job.

I hastily added "But it's not finished yet, I still have to epoxy the inserts into the magazine to meet the definition of permanence as required by the law."

That's when things got interesting. All were surprised that I felt cutting the spring, alone, wasn't sufficient to demonstrate permanence. .

As I read into your post, this is my take. Your comments about what the "law" was, probably provoked their response. Had you said, these mags as is are in full compliance, you may have received a different argument.

JMO, but I'll stand by my statement above. If you can pop out the inserts and load more than 10, I don't see that mod as "permanent". If you load 20 and it only feeds half of them, you might still be in trouble. Not worth it to me.

Kodemonkey
02-06-2012, 4:01 PM
Okay, I know you could drill and cut an epoxied mag to get it back apart - but you would end up making the mag unusable. So therefore it isn't a magazine anymore, it is just a bunch of broken parts.

I'm not connecting that you could make a high cap magazine with broken parts.

Also, it is the manufacture of a high capacity magazine that is the crime. So if you broke it apart only to attempt to build a high capacity magazine you are breaking the law there, not when you epoxied the 10 round one together. Even if you were able to get it apart without breaking it, I still don't see that a crime is committed because it is the manufacture of the high cap mag that is illegal.

Or am I missing something here?

bwiese
02-06-2012, 4:06 PM
Discussions about permanence will have to involve DOJ's various forays into what they regard as permanence, which is all over the map.

They regard the locktite on the Walther P22CA as permanent.

They regarded the epoxy + soft drift pin locking the 10rd mag into the DOJ-approved Vulcan AR lower as 'permanent'.

Also, the DOJ created notions of permanence in their proposed 2006 attempted re-rendering of definition of 'detachable magazine'.

I would hope that in the future individuals do not give ADAs incomplete information without adequate preparation. If something goes sideways in that office due to a noob's inadequate supply of information/background, we end up 'educating' ADAs the wrong way.

therealnickb
02-06-2012, 4:12 PM
Okay, I know you could drill and cut an epoxied mag to get it back apart - but you would end up making the mag unusable. So therefore it isn't a magazine anymore, it is just a bunch of broken parts.

I'm not connecting that you could make a high cap magazine with broken parts.

Also, it is the manufacture of a high capacity magazine that is the crime. So if you broke it apart only to attempt to build a high capacity magazine you are breaking the law there, not when you epoxied the 10 round one together. Even if you were able to get it apart without breaking it, I still don't see that a crime is committed because it is the manufacture of the high cap mag that is illegal.

Or am I missing something here?

The ADA's were saying you didn't need to epoxy. They said cutting the spring was enough. I didn't agree because you could then remove the pegs, reassemble the mag and insert more than 10 rounds.

bwiese
02-06-2012, 4:17 PM
The ADA's were saying you didn't need to epoxy. They said cutting the spring was enough. I didn't agree because you could then remove the pegs, reassemble the mag and insert more than 10 rounds.

We thus then run into the 'is it a broken hicap mag' or 'is it a nonhicap mag' question.

We know that 'broken AW' (missing non characteristic feature parts) vs 'non-AW' (working gun with non-12276.1PC features configuration) are two separate entities.

Your 10rd mags built from over-10rd-parts should take a helluva lot of effort to disassemble and/or reconstitute higher capacity in the caliber/chambering they were designed for.

Kodemonkey
02-06-2012, 4:21 PM
The ADA's were saying you didn't need to epoxy. They said cutting the spring was enough. I didn't agree because you could then remove the pegs, reassemble the mag and insert more than 10 rounds.

Okay, let me try to be more clear. I was referencing this particular quote:

"You could fill the magazine with epoxy, and that still wouldn't be permanent, because anyone with a drill press or dremel or hand file and lots of spare time could drill out the epoxy and you'd again have a hi-cap mag, right?"


I am questioning these specific words. I say this because there are mag kits (magpull 10/20 kits) that DO NOT cut the spring in the rebuild. I've tried to take an epoxied one apart before to put on Ranger pulls and I destroyed the mag and the floorplate in the process. Could I have gotten it back together with duct tape? maybe, but I doubt it would have been a very reliable mag.

Also, once I pulled that mag apart I wouldn't have a hi cap mag. I would have mag parts. If I put them together again with the mag block it would still be a 10 rounder. If I took out the mag block to make a 20 rounder then I would be breaking the law at that point and not before.

Don Edmondson
02-06-2012, 4:31 PM
All those posts and no asked what county are you in Don

therealnickb
02-06-2012, 4:41 PM
We thus then run into the 'is it a broken hicap mag' or 'is it a nonhicap mag' question.

We know that 'broken AW' (missing non characteristic feature parts) vs 'non-AW' (working gun with non-12276.1PC features configuration) are two separate entities.

Your 10rd mags built from over-10rd-parts should take a helluva lot of effort to disassemble and/or reconstitute higher capacity in the caliber/chambering they were designed for.

This is what I'm saying. OP said "I quickly assembled a mag". I think that is asking for trouble.

Had he assembled the mag without the inserts, It would have held more than 10 rounds. I'll bet if it was loaded to "full capacity" it would function properly until it got down to 10. I don't have any idea if that would matter, but why risk it?

BTW. I'm not trying to make an argument about how much epoxy makes a mag mod "permanent". I'm just disagreeing with the ADA's position as described by the OP.

therealnickb
02-06-2012, 4:45 PM
Okay, let me try to be more clear. I was referencing this particular quote:

"You could fill the magazine with epoxy, and that still wouldn't be permanent, because anyone with a drill press or dremel or hand file and lots of spare time could drill out the epoxy and you'd again have a hi-cap mag, right?"


I am questioning these specific words. I say this because there are mag kits (magpull 10/20 kits) that DO NOT cut the spring in the rebuild. I've tried to take an epoxied one apart before to put on Ranger pulls and I destroyed the mag and the floorplate in the process. Could I have gotten it back together with duct tape? maybe, but I doubt it would have been a very reliable mag.

Also, once I pulled that mag apart I wouldn't have a hi cap mag. I would have mag parts. If I put them together again with the mag block it would still be a 10 rounder. If I took out the mag block to make a 20 rounder then I would be breaking the law at that point and not before.
If you can't cram more than 10 rounds into a mag without cutting, sanding, filing or drilling it, I'm not going to worry about it.

Kodemonkey
02-06-2012, 4:48 PM
Okay, new dumb question...

Let's just assume that you make a 10 round mag with a rivet, epoxy, cut mag spring, or all of the above. When does the action of "non permanence" happen? Meaning, if the statue of limitations is 3 years on the import or manufacture of a high cap magazine, then what would that be of an incorrectly "permanent" 10 rounder? Or are you always going to be screwed because if they change the definition of permanent or are able to demostrate that it's not a permanent it is an ongoing violation of law?

Kodemonkey
02-06-2012, 4:48 PM
dupity

therealnickb
02-06-2012, 4:54 PM
Okay, new dumb question...

Let's just assume that you make a 10 round mag with a rivet, epoxy, cut mag spring, or all of the above. When does the action of "non permanence" happen? Meaning, if the statue of limitations is 3 years on the import or manufacture of a high cap magazine, then what would that be of an incorrectly "permanent" 10 rounder? Or are you always going to be screwed because if they change the definition of permanent or are able to demostrate that it's not a permanent it is an ongoing violation of law?

not tracking....

speedrrracer
02-06-2012, 6:12 PM
Are the inserts removable?

Yes, because as of now I have not epoxied them in.


Will the mag accept more than 10 rounds if you remove them?


I guess it depends on what you mean by "accept".

If I remove the inserts, the shortened spring will not float magically in the air. It will fall to the bottom of the magazine, and the mag will, arguably, no longer be a mag. It will no longer be a device which can feed ammunition to a firearm.

It will; however, be suitable as an inefficient storage box for ammunition which happens to be easily stored inside a space in the handgun. IANAL, but I think internal storage in firearms is not illegal, there are AR-15 stocks which have storage inside them.


There is nothing in the law I read that says the mag must feed any or all of the rounds. It just can't hold more than 10.


You are right, but again, it does say it must be a magazine. If it cannot feed ammunition, is it a magazine or is it just a storage box?


I would hope that in the future individuals do not give ADAs incomplete information without adequate preparation. If something goes sideways in that office due to a noob's inadequate supply of information/background, we end up 'educating' ADAs the wrong way.


Good advice. I believe I conveyed no information to them, although I did represent that my belief at the time was that the law required me to epoxy the inserts into the mag. I asked questions, and they answered.

If you feel I erred in some way, please don't hesitate to correct me. I agree that the last thing "we" need is some ignorant n00b like me screwing things up, and I'm serious about that! I do not want to cause any problems, so please let me know if you feel I did!


Okay, let me try to be more clear. I was referencing this particular quote:

"You could fill the magazine with epoxy, and that still wouldn't be permanent, because anyone with a drill press or dremel or hand file and lots of spare time could drill out the epoxy and you'd again have a hi-cap mag, right?"


I am questioning these specific words. I say this because there are mag kits (magpull 10/20 kits) that DO NOT cut the spring in the rebuild. I've tried to take an epoxied one apart before to put on Ranger pulls and I destroyed the mag and the floorplate in the process. Could I have gotten it back together with duct tape? maybe, but I doubt it would have been a very reliable mag.

Also, once I pulled that mag apart I wouldn't have a hi cap mag. I would have mag parts. If I put them together again with the mag block it would still be a 10 rounder. If I took out the mag block to make a 20 rounder then I would be breaking the law at that point and not before.


Kodemonkey, what is your specific question wrt the quoted text? I've also been asked via pm to ask their opinions of that exact kit, and once I understand that kit better I will ask them, unless bwiese says it's a bad idea to ask their opinions.

I believe they were trying to explain to me that there is a difference between "real" permanence (e.g., once you are dead you are permanently dead and nothing in the universe can change that) and legal permanence (means whatever a court decides it means that day).


All those posts and no asked what county are you in Don


Sorry Don -- San Diego


This is what I'm saying. OP said "I quickly assembled a mag". I think that is asking for trouble.

Had he assembled the mag without the inserts, It would have held more than 10 rounds.


No, therealnickb, it would not have, because the springs were already cut. Or...well, again, here we get into the definition of "held" and "magazine". Yes, in the absence of the inserts, more than 10 rounds would have gone into the non-functional storage box. :)

bohoki
02-06-2012, 7:26 PM
there is the argument to be made that the law requires permanant modification if you are lowering the capacity of a large capacity magazine

being it is not a large capacity magazine and is a repair parts kit if it is assembled to only contain 10 or fewer cartridges

what is the difference between it and say a standard glock 26 magazine

one could attach a +2 on one why is its base not required to be epoxied

also the law specifies "large capacity feed devices" not large capacity containment devices heck you could remove the spring on many magazines and "hold" more than 10

i say if you cut the spring enought and add a block so that removing the block and then loading the magazine would cause a stoppage before the 11th round was fired

but then with that reasoning just about every "usa magazines" brand magazine would qualify

MindBuilder
02-06-2012, 7:31 PM
I agree with speedrrracer that if the magazine will not feed more than 10 rounds then it is not a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. There was California case law a few years ago that in order for a gun to be loaded, the ammo had to be in a position it could be fired from, like in the chamber or magazine (with certain exceptions like for persons commiting crimes at the time). Before that, it was said that if the ammo was touching the gun (even strapped to the stock) it was loaded. If the spring can't feed more than 10 rounds then I'd say the ammo is not in a position to be fired, and the magazine is a combination feeding/storage device. It must be remembered however that the law here is not blatantly indisputable, and judges frequently give gun laws a very twisted interpretation.

As far as the permanence of epoxy, it should be kept in mind that if the magazine is metal, the expoxy may be easily disolved with certain solvents. If I remember right, acetone (fingernail polish remover) disolves epoxy.

And finally, if your magazine holds more than ten rounds, a judge may dismiss the charges, but would probably hold your arrest as valid probable cause even if the arresting officer did not verifiy that it could actually feed more than 10.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't even know these laws very well so don't take any of this as legal advice.

keneva
02-06-2012, 7:51 PM
Wouldn't it be much easier to say, "Gee, I had a lucky day. I was walking through the park the other day, Sat. Feb. 4th, 2012, and found 3 10 plus round mags. The really lucky part of this is that they just happen to fit my Glock 19. True story. It was a lucky day.

curtisfong
02-06-2012, 9:06 PM
If you are going to deliberately break the law, it would be far easier (not to mention smarter) not to say *anything* about where the magazines came from without a lawyer present.

colossians323
02-07-2012, 4:39 AM
I'm just curious as to how Americans Disability Act is relevant here? And why is it that people who fall under ADA know so much about the law:confused:

r3dn3ck
02-07-2012, 5:12 AM
The LEO said he wouldn't even waste his time unless I was a drug dealer or something and he needed a charge to bring me in.

nuff said about that cop right there. I don't even need to bash him... he's done it for him and all of them for me.

If you don't have something illegal going on, he'll just make something up. Nice. You call this person friend?

GrizzlyGuy
02-07-2012, 5:16 AM
I'm just curious as to how Americans Disability Act is relevant here? And why is it that people who fall under ADA know so much about the law:confused:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s1600/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

In this context ADA = Assistant District Attorney

goodlookin1
02-07-2012, 7:20 AM
The definition of "Permanently Altered" is purposefully vague, admitted by the DOJ. During the 45-day comment/response period for SB23, numerous questions were posed...one such as this:

(A4.05 - 22)
Public Comment:
The description of "permanently altered" is vague and confusing because the irreversible standard is unachievable.

DOJ Response:
The Department agrees the definition lacks clarity. The Department has deleted the proposed definition because it believes the phrase “permanently altered” conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people. None of the alternative definitions considered by the Department added clarity to the inherent meaning of the phrase.


So there you have it. The DOJ agrees it lacks clarity, yet it concurrently believes that the definition of "Permanently Altered" is sufficiently understood by a reasonable person. If you feel like reading a very "insightful" document on the responses from the DOJ to Public Comments regarding SB23, please be my guest....you will get a good understanding of just how far the DOJ's head is stuck up its own ***.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf (comments on Permanency start on page 31)

In this case, however, getting back to the OP, do not take one or a couple LEO's reasonable and logical responses as Law...many other LEO's do not agree with your LEO friends and neither do many DA's. For the price of a magazine these days, just epoxy the dang things and be done with it. No, it's not permanent as a reasonable person understands "permanency". There IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERMANENT 10 RND MAGAZINE!!! There can ALWAYS be modifications made to hold more than 10 rounds. Given the time and tools, anything can be done (or undone). But for the purposes of the law, there is an expectancy for someone to do what they can to make it as permanent as possible, and it seems to be that Epoxy is what he lawyers here say is sufficient.....or at least what a "reasonable person" would say is sufficient.

therealnickb
02-07-2012, 7:46 AM
No, therealnickb, it would not have, because the springs were already cut. Or...well, again, here we get into the definition of "held" and "magazine". Yes, in the absence of the inserts, more than 10 rounds would have gone into the non-functional storage box. :)

IMO this part contradicts your original statement that you needed to glue the inserts to make the mag legal.

I know you intend to epoxy these so it is mute in your case. However unlikely it might be that it would ever come up, we both agree it's not worth taking a chance.

I still think you would have been given a different opinion had you said, "I cut the spring therefor this mag is legal". I'll bet the ADA's would have disagreed. Lawyers like to make arguments. That's what they do and have been trained to do.

At the end of the day, it's what the judge and jury say. Why give anyone a reason to introduce you to them?

Kodemonkey
02-07-2012, 8:34 AM
The definition of "Permanently Altered" is purposefully vague, admitted by the DOJ. During the 45-day comment/response period for SB23, numerous questions were posed...one such as this:

(A4.05 - 22)



So there you have it. The DOJ agrees it lacks clarity, yet it concurrently believes that the definition of "Permanently Altered" is sufficiently understood by a reasonable person. If you feel like reading a very "insightful" document on the responses from the DOJ to Public Comments regarding SB23, please be my guess....you will get a good understanding of just how far the DOJ's head is stuck up its own ***.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf (comments on Permanency start on page 31)

In this case, however, getting back to the OP, do not take one or a couple LEO's reasonable and logical responses as Law...many other LEO's do not agree with your LEO friends and neither do many DA's. For the price of a magazine these days, just epoxy the dang things and be done with it. No, it's not permanent as a reasonable person understands "permanency". There IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERMANENT 10 RND MAGAZINE!!! There can ALWAYS be modifications made to hold more than 10 rounds. Given the time and tools, anything can be done (or undone). But for the purposes of the law, there is an expectancy for someone to do what they can to make it as permanent as possible, and it seems to be that Epoxy is what he lawyers here say is sufficient.....or at least what a "reasonable person" would say is sufficient.


Wonderful :rolleyes: clear as mud. So, I guess the question would be; "is there any case law as it pertains to permanence of a 10 round magazine?"

Kodemonkey
02-07-2012, 9:09 AM
[QUOTE=speedrrracer;7988517


Kodemonkey, what is your specific question wrt the quoted text? I've also been asked via pm to ask their opinions of that exact kit, and once I understand that kit better I will ask them, unless bwiese says it's a bad idea to ask their opinions.

[/QUOTE]

The Magpul kit can be found here:

https://www.exilemachine.net/shop/magpul-pmag-10-rd-limiter-blk-3pk-2820.html

It replaces the part that interfaces with the floorplate of the mag. Meaning, you take a 20 round mag and remove a part and replace it with this part. (this part is the button that allows you to slide the floor plate off - you press up on it to allow clearance for the floor plate to move.)

I have seen two different ways to make these mags "permanent":

1) one is to drill a small hole through the floor plate and install a roll pin to make it so the button cannot be pressed in and therefore the floor plate not removed
2) another way is to put a good amount of epoxy on the floorplate. This glues the "button", floor plate, and the magazine body together.

I've done process 2 myself and I recently tried to get it apart to put a ranger pull on the bottom. I tried screwdrivers, pliers, and a ball peen hammer (once I wrecked it I figured what the heck) and the only way I got it apart was to smash the floor plate to pieces. I consequently cracked the magazine body in the process.

The first question I would ask would be, if you have to break pieces of the magazine in order to take it apart would that constitute "permanent"?

The second question would be, if I have to replace parts in the magazine in order to make it a high capacity magazine (as in the above example - the original button is replaced and discarded), how can this ever be capable of being a high capacity magazine with the parts that are in it?

Thanks for asking these questions. I was just at a party with a good friend who is a LA ADA and I've never got into the conversation about it. Next time I see him I might bring it up, but it's like me and having people ask me computer questions whenever I see them - sometimes I am just not in the mood to talk shop.

Kodemonkey
02-07-2012, 9:14 AM
dupe city man. What is going on with CGN lately?

Uxi
02-07-2012, 9:32 AM
The second question would be, if I have to replace parts in the magazine in order to make it a high capacity magazine (as in the above example - the original button is replaced and discarded), how can this ever be capable of being a high capacity magazine with the parts that are in it?


Reasonable and logical that it's permanent. If you have to saw off or exchange pieces, sounds pretty permanent to me. Sawing off would be modification. Exchange would be manufacture, right?

But who says reason and logic have anything to do with the law.

viet4lifeOC
02-07-2012, 9:59 AM
I asked them if any of them would prosecute me if I never epoxied the kit into the mag, and they each said "no way, but there might well be ADA's who would". The LEO said he wouldn't even waste his time unless I was a drug dealer or something and he needed a charge to bring me in.

In essence...it's all academic and the conversation doesn't resolve anything.

Uxi
02-07-2012, 10:03 AM
Well it partially shows a luck of the draw. I think the questions were wrong, though. Doesn't matter what they actually think. What matters if they would try to get a conviction/arrest for it, anyway though. Cop basically said he would and probably a good bet the ADA's would have an eye on boosting their own stats, too.

speedrrracer
02-07-2012, 11:42 AM
IMO this part contradicts your original statement that you needed to glue the inserts to make the mag legal.

My poor writing skillz, sorry. The difference is because my opinion had changed. I had come into that evening believing epoxying/etc was the only action that would be acceptable to the ADA's. When they all said no, cutting the spring was in their opinion sufficient, I started to look at the situation in a different light.


At the end of the day, it's what the judge and jury say. Why give anyone a reason to introduce you to them?

Agreed, although it's interesting that the people who perform those introductions are the ADA's, and the subset I spoke with said they would not do such introductions if the spring was cut and the inserts not epoxied.

@Kodemonkey -- questions sent.


In essence...it's all academic and the conversation doesn't resolve anything.

Yes, and perhaps I should make it more clear that this was just a conversation and not a legal ruling of any kind. It was interesting to me to note that a significant subset of [everyone in my county who could choose to prosecute me or not] said they would not prosecute me in that situation.


Doesn't matter what they actually think

I believe it matters very much. These are the people who choose whether or not to prosecute you. Also, they all claim there are no quotas nor stats kept.

supersonic
02-07-2012, 12:58 PM
They regard the locktite on the Walther P22CA as permanent.

They regarded the epoxy + soft drift pin locking the 10rd mag into the DOJ-approved Vulcan AR lower as 'permanent'.

Has there ever been a "rendering" of what is not permanent, though? That is the elusive answer many are after. As far as I know, not one arrest has occurred, nor has a citation been given, as the result of someone using blocked magazines that hold <11 rounds in which the floorplate is removable with the use of only a tool. I had a local Sheriff's dept roll up on us at one of our favorite shooting spots to "check everything out" recently. We had numerous AR/AK 10, 20, 30, 100, 10/20, and 10/30 - and many hi-cap handgun mags - strewn about the bed of a pickup (right alongside all of our rifles/pistols). As the first deputy was approaching, I was walking towards him hand-loading a blocked 10/30 P-Mag. As he got up to me, he says something to the tune of "You do know that '30-round Hi-Cap Mags' are illegal, right?" At that point, I could have gone through all the laws that applied here, but I wanted to talk as little as possible to the police about anything. My response was simply "Um...there is no law against possession." When the supervising officer got to the truck bed and surveyed several EBR's, HG's, and a mountain of the magazines listed above, he simply reached down and attempted to push in the mag release on ONE AR-15. Then, he approached me and said "You are right. Possession is not illegal." Then, he reached out and gestured that he wanted to check out my P-Mag, and I figured I wasn't going to be a dick about this, so I handed it to him. He only pushed down the follower then looked at me and said "Hey, this one's perfectly fine. It's a blocked 10-rounder!" - and handed it back to me. No inspection of the floorplate to see how it was installed (I don't epoxy my magazines...too messy). Then, after a few more minutes of nothing more than looking at our arsenal, they split. So that is my single only contact with law enforcement where the subject of "Hi-Cap" magazines came up. Including an "allowed inspection" which only checked for capacity, not "permanence" (and the cop knew it was blocked). And yes, I know a lot of heads are exploding, and I know that I didn't have to answer any questions, nor should I have handed that magazine over. I know it now, and I knew it then. Let's just say there are "other parts" to the story (which I won't get into, nor are they relevant to the thread topic) which made certain acts of cooperation by me not absolutely necessary, but definitely helpful & beneficial to all involved. :D

Also, once I pulled that mag apart I wouldn't have a hi cap mag. I would have mag parts. If I put them together again with the mag block it would still be a 10 rounder. If I took out the mag block to make a 20 rounder then I would be breaking the law at that point and not before.

:hurray:

what is the difference between it and say a standard glock 26 magazine

one could attach a +2 on one why is its base not required to be epoxied

^^^THIS...Probably one of, if not THE best argument about the whole "epoxy/glue/rivet" issue of permanence. Bravo.:cool:

therealnickb
02-07-2012, 1:54 PM
Agreed, although it's interesting that the people who perform those introductions are the ADA's, and the subset I spoke with said they would not do such introductions if the spring was cut and the inserts not epoxied.


Yes, and perhaps I should make it more clear that this was just a conversation and not a legal ruling of any kind. It was interesting to me to note that a significant subset of [everyone in my county who could choose to prosecute me or not] said they would not prosecute me in that situation.



I believe it matters very much. These are the people who choose whether or not to prosecute you. Also, they all claim there are no quotas nor stats kept.Well, I still think they would have argued the other way if you had stated your mag was perfectly legal without the epoxy. Just my gut opinion on the mindset of most legal beagles I know. "We" non professionals don't get to tell them what a law means.

goodlookin1
02-08-2012, 6:19 AM
Let's just say there are "other parts" to the story (which I won't get into, nor are they relevant to the thread topic) which made certain acts of cooperation by me not absolutely necessary, but definitely helpful & beneficial to all involved. :D

Bow chicka wow wow!!!

:D:D:D

vincewarde
02-08-2012, 7:25 AM
IMHO the bottom line is that we will not know what the definition of "permanent" is until someone is the subject of prosecution and we have case law. Even if DOJ issues an opinion, it is not law or even case law - it's just what they say the law means.

We could challenge the law based on vagueness - but if we won the legislature would likely just change the law to make it clearer and more restrictive, perhaps even removing the possibility of modifying magazines altogether.

supersonic
02-09-2012, 8:28 PM
Bow chicka wow wow!!!

:D:D:D

Meh....slightly amusing, I suppose.:facepalm:.....or not.

locosway
02-09-2012, 11:09 PM
Curious, if you put a base plate on a mag body, and it was able to accept more than 10 rounds because the spring was missing, would this be a high cap mag?

Seems to me it would be no different than the box of 50 rounds you just bought. It's simply holding the ammo as it can't feed it.

I think the magazine must be assembled in working order for it to be considered a "magazine". If the block isn't epoxied in, and you can still disassemble the magazine you're simply going from a 10 round mag to parts, and what you do from those parts would seem irrelevant, unless you were to assemble the parts into a non-legal manner.

I guess what I'm getting at is I would think that permanence in regards to the magazine would be while the magazine is currently assembled. As once it's disassembled it's just parts. This is very different from a firearm where the serialized frame is always a firearm, no matter if it's disassembled.

goodlookin1
02-10-2012, 5:46 AM
Meh....slightly amusing, I suppose.:facepalm:.....or not.
Lighten up, bro....just a joke. You left the door open by not elaborating, so I took a shot :)


Curious, if you put a base plate on a mag body, and it was able to accept more than 10 rounds because the spring was missing, would this be a high cap mag?

Seems to me it would be no different than the box of 50 rounds you just bought. It's simply holding the ammo as it can't feed it.

I think the magazine must be assembled in working order for it to be considered a "magazine". If the block isn't epoxied in, and you can still disassemble the magazine you're simply going from a 10 round mag to parts, and what you do from those parts would seem irrelevant, unless you were to assemble the parts into a non-legal manner.

I guess what I'm getting at is I would think that permanence in regards to the magazine would be while the magazine is currently assembled. As once it's disassembled it's just parts. This is very different from a firearm where the serialized frame is always a firearm, no matter if it's disassembled.

Yes, disassembly of a magazine turns it into parts, but that doesnt trump the fact that the law says the magazine must be permanently altered to only hold ten. The fact is, it is still very simple to do a quick change and take out whatever block youre using to make it 10 or less IF it is not sealed/riveted/etc. Any restoration is not allowed. The real question is, how permanent is "Permanently Altered"? DOJ believes this is easily understood, yet here we are having this discussion....

You really should read the comments section of the document I provided earlier: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf - starting page 31

Question:
Recommended revision: "Permanently altered
means any change or modification which
cannot be readily restored or converted to
allow the magazine or other feeding device to
accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Answer:
The Department disagrees with the comment. The statute does not allow for the alteration to be
restored. Therefore, such definition would be in conflict with the statute and the Department does
not have authority to conflict with the statute.

locosway
02-10-2012, 6:21 AM
Yes, disassembly of a magazine turns it into parts, but that doesnt trump the fact that the law says the magazine must be permanently altered to only hold ten. The fact is, it is still very simple to do a quick change and take out whatever block youre using to make it 10 or less IF it is not sealed/riveted/etc. Any restoration is not allowed. The real question is, how permanent is "Permanently Altered"? DOJ believes this is easily understood, yet here we are having this discussion....

You really should read the comments section of the document I provided earlier: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf - starting page 31

Looking at the difference between a 10 round and 17 round Glock 17 magazine, I can now see why permanence is an issue. The 10 round magazine is a 17 round magazine with internal "permanent" modifications.

I agree that permanent is not clear enough, as what one may deem permanent (e.g. cutting a spring) another may not.

Thanks for sharing that document.

FastFinger
02-10-2012, 7:59 AM
Wouldn't it be much easier to say, "Gee, I had a lucky day. I was walking through the park the other day, Sat. Feb. 4th, 2012, and found 3 10 plus round mags. The really lucky part of this is that they just happen to fit my Glock 19. True story. It was a lucky day.

Wow! What a coincidence! That was a lucky day for me also, while walking the dog I found 26 standard capacity 30 rnd AR mags and a few mags for my AK also. Got to walk that dog more often.

supersonic
02-10-2012, 11:01 AM
Lighten up, bro....just a joke. You left the door open by not elaborating, so I took a shot :)

Actually, I didn't leave any "door" open as I clearly explained why I wasn't going to go any further in the post. There was a very good reason not to elaborate beyond the info I had already given, which I had already explained. It was also beneficial to the CGN community that I go no further. You see, when ever I make a post on a serious subject that can go too far (as far as having repercussions on this community's well-being, Calguns comes FIRST AFAIAC). So your comment was seen as kind of "tounge-in-cheek" smartass quip.

But "lighten up?" That's never an issue with me, as I can take anything that anyone can dish out, It's only the internetz! However, when I recited your whole "Bow-chika-wow ....etc....etc" in my head, I got the douche-chills due to its inherent cheesiness. Reminded me of bad 80's porn score.:p

goodlookin1
02-10-2012, 12:36 PM
So your comment was seen as kind of "tounge-in-cheek" smartass quip.

Thank you :D

But "lighten up?" That's never an issue with me, as I can take anything that anyone can dish out, It's only the internetz! However, when I recited your whole "Bow-chika-wow ....etc....etc" in my head, I got the douche-chills due to its inherent cheesiness. Reminded me of bad 80's porn score.:p

Exactly where the whole "bow chicka wow wow" thing came from. Although I intended it not to mean that anything you said was cheezy, only jokingly alluded to the sentence you said as meaning "sexual favors with the LEO so no one else would get busted". In any case, you felt strongly enough about my quip to respond to it with a "meh" and a facepalm, which I mistook as you taking me too seriously.

Had I have known that you take things lightly, I would have also added something about the oxymoron that is your signature....I mean come on, "Glock" and "Perfection" in the same logo??? :43::43::43:



:hide:

supersonic
02-10-2012, 2:27 PM
Exactly where the whole "bow chicka wow wow" thing came from. Although I intended it not to mean that anything you said was cheezy, only joking alluded to the sentence you said as meaning "sexual favors with the LEO so no one else would get busted".

Had I known that was your meaning & attempt at levity, my response would have been a gut-bust "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!":smilielol5::rofl2:


Thank you
In any case, you felt strongly enough about my quip to respond to it with a "meh" and a facepalm, which I mistook as you taking me too seriously.


No "Thank You" necessary! And, yes, you DID mistake my 'facepalm' for taking you too seriously. The 'facepalm' was merely my way of saying "Aw, MAN! You certainly can do better than that, can't you?;)

I would have also added something about the oxymoron that is your signature....I mean come on, "Glock" and "Perfection" in the same logo??? :43::43:

Ah...an attempt at humorous hi jinx by a Glock Hater , 'eh? I suppose there is one around every corner who has yet to own the Austrian Lifesaver! Nothing, however - and under ANY circumstances, can be said about the sheer flawlessness in perfection about the unobtainium-forged Hi-Points. Made with the same pride in craftsmanship and poise as Blackthorneinmyside/Vulcan/Hesse rifles!!! :)

goodlookin1
02-10-2012, 5:11 PM
Had I known that was your meaning & attempt at levity, my response would have been a gut-bust "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!":smilielol5::rofl2:
LOL, that's why when I read your reply, I was kinda like, "Dang, kinda harsh of him! I thought it was kinda funny..." ;) Kinda curious how you initially thought I meant it???



No "Thank You" necessary! And, yes, you DID mistake my 'facepalm' for taking you too seriously. The 'facepalm' was merely my way of saying "Aw, MAN! You certainly can do better than that, can't you?

It's hard to convey tone over such a medium...what is often said in jest is taken in earnest.


Ah...an attempt at humorous hi jinx by a Glock Hater , 'eh? I suppose there is one around every corner who has yet to own the Austrian Lifesaver! Nothing, however - and under ANY circumstances, can be said about the sheer flawlessness in perfection about the unobtainium-forged Hi-Points. Made with the same pride in craftsmanship and poise as Blackthorneinmyside/Vulcan/Hesse rifles!!! :)
I'm mainly joking. I mean, I've certainly never sported a partial over any glock i've ever seen, but they're fine weapons for the people who like the ergonomics of them. I just cant get over the "feel" of them. They point differently with their more "obtuse" frame angle and I cant seem to get used to it. And the trigger, I mean what the heck is with that stupid metal shard that LOVES to dig into my finger? Is that the best that Glock can do to design a safety??? :facepalm: Honestly, it wasnt even my gun and I wanted to take the dremel to it! :43:

But oh the longing for a hi-point....I have to make sure i'm at home when I look at those things! Easy access to a new pair of underwear...

Librarian
02-10-2012, 5:31 PM
From a comment on page 33 The Department agrees that "irreversible" is not synonymous with the word "permanent". The Department has deleted the proposed definition because it believes the phrase “permanently altered” conveys a meaning that is sufficiently understood by reasonable people. None of the alternative definitions considered by the Department added clarity to the inherent meaning of the phrase.

supersonic
02-10-2012, 6:20 PM
I'm mainly joking. I mean, I've certainly never sported a partial over any glock i've ever seen, but they're fine weapons for the people who like the ergonomics of them. And the trigger, I mean what the heck is with that stupid metal shard that LOVES to dig into my finger?

Um...you must be confused, as there are no 'metal' parts in a Glock trigger. The whole assembly, sans the internal trigger bar, is made of plastic. Sounds to me like you need to toughen up and develop some callouses on that trigger finger. WORK those little snausages! WORK 'em!!!. :p

It's hard to convey tone over such a medium...what is often said in jest is taken in earnest.

Hey! I think I may have run into one, or both, of those guys at a party once!:smilielol5:

speedrrracer
02-15-2012, 7:01 AM
The first question I would ask would be, if you have to break pieces of the magazine in order to take it apart would that constitute "permanent"?

The second question would be, if I have to replace parts in the magazine in order to make it a high capacity magazine (as in the above example - the original button is replaced and discarded), how can this ever be capable of being a high capacity magazine with the parts that are in it?


OK, finally heard back from each of them. Again, they were all clear this isn't legally binding, you might get different ADA's, etc, etc.

Answer to question #1: All said yes, with the caveat that when you say "break pieces of the magazine" the magazine then becomes non-functional or remains legal.

Answer to question #2: I also forwarded them your example of keeping the original equipment, and that set off alarms.
2 of them found it questionable, the rest said it was flat-out a bad idea. The prevailing opinion here was that by keeping parts on hand which facilitate a switch to illegal status, it then appeared to them that you never intended to make a permanent modification, and were just doing it for show, perhaps to pass a cursory examination.

Those who thought it was a bad idea would prefer to see a backup of the replacement, so that if the replacement did fail, you'd have another replacement which would maintain the legality of the magazine. This, they said, would speak for your intent to permanently modify the magazine. At the very least, if the replacement failed, they'd want to see the magazine become non-functional.

Hope that answers your questions (and the questions of those who pm'd me)!

Kodemonkey
02-15-2012, 7:24 AM
OK, finally heard back from each of them. Again, they were all clear this isn't legally binding, you might get different ADA's, etc, etc.

Answer to question #1: All said yes, with the caveat that when you say "break pieces of the magazine" the magazine then becomes non-functional or remains legal.

Answer to question #2: I also forwarded them your example of keeping the original equipment, and that set off alarms.
2 of them found it questionable, the rest said it was flat-out a bad idea. The prevailing opinion here was that by keeping parts on hand which facilitate a switch to illegal status, it then appeared to them that you never intended to make a permanent modification, and were just doing it for show, perhaps to pass a cursory examination.

Those who thought it was a bad idea would prefer to see a backup of the replacement, so that if the replacement did fail, you'd have another replacement which would maintain the legality of the magazine. This, they said, would speak for your intent to permanently modify the magazine. At the very least, if the replacement failed, they'd want to see the magazine become non-functional.

Hope that answers your questions (and the questions of those who pm'd me)!

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. However, question 2 was asking if I replaced a part to make it CA legal and the old piece was THROWN AWAY, how could that possibly ever a high cap. I would have to purchase the old part back to make it a high cap. They pretty much answered the question though, I would never keep the old high cap parts anyway. There's no reason to because it would take a hammer to take apart the 10 rounders and would break them anyway.

Thanks again for asking them the questions. They were pretty much the answers I expected.

PhantomII
02-15-2012, 8:30 AM
Just to be pedantic, with no clear cut definition of "permanent" any mag can be made into a high capacity magazine.

I can take a standard 10 round magazine and by simply disassembling it, replacing 2 easy to obtain parts, and reassembling it with the different parts, convert it into a 20 or 30 round magazine.

A 20 round P-Mag with a 10 round mag block in it is not a permanently altered high capacity mag, it is a 10 round magazine.

It can be altered to accept more than 10 rounds by replacing parts but until someone does that, it remains a 10 round magazine.

Disassembling the magazine, changing parts, and reassembling the magazine with the different parts to convert it would be manufacturing or assembling a high cap magazine and is illegal.

As far as I'm aware, there is no constructive possession of a high cap magazine so being in possession of said parts cannot be a crime.

The trick is to convince the courts.