PDA

View Full Version : Registered "assault weapon" + hi cap mag = legal?


BigJ
06-05-2012, 7:43 PM
No question this has been answered hundreds of times before, so I apologize for being redundant. Search was not my friend this time however.

It sounds cliche, but its true: I do have a friend who legally owns a registered assault weapon. He also legally owns several hi cap (30 rounder) magazines.

My question is, can he use those hi cap magazines in his registered assault weapon with no modification of that assault weapon? Aka, without a bullet button?

Thanks for your time guys. A link to a previous discussion is just as welcome as a response.

nicoroshi
06-05-2012, 7:52 PM
You can use legally owned Hi-cap magazines in a registered AW.

You cannot however EVER put a hi-cap magazine into a gun equipped with a bullet button in CA.

ar15robert
06-05-2012, 7:52 PM
Did he register it with the state? Did he buy the mags and have in ca before 2000?If so then he is fine.

I have a raw and hi caps too.Gotta love the looks when i drop a mag with a finger and insert another 30 rounder and one reason i quit shooting at ranges with this gun is i got tired of all the newer gun owners telling me mine is not legal cause i dont have a bullet button.LOL

BigJ
06-05-2012, 8:04 PM
Yep he owned it legally before the ban, and registered it with the state during the open registration period. And he's had the mags at least as long. He's in good shape in that regard.

So they're good to go. And from the sound of it, so is he to use them. I'm glad to hear it. He was sure he was right, and I didn't really doubt him but I figure asking the experts couldn't hurt.

Thanks guys.

BKinzey
06-05-2012, 8:07 PM
Yes, if he has the separate "RAW" paperwork he can use hi-caps in it.

Although this link is for UNregistered AWs the first part has info on RAWs

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Possession_of_UNregistered_California_%22assault_w eapons%22

lorax3
06-05-2012, 8:09 PM
You cannot however EVER put a hi-cap magazine into a gun equipped with a bullet button in CA.

That statement is only true if the gun in question is non-RAW, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, or a semiautomatic pistol. Plenty of configurations you can use large-capacity magazines with fixed magazines, including RAWs and shotguns.

BigJ
06-05-2012, 8:26 PM
Yes, if he has the separate "RAW" paperwork he can use hi-caps in it.

Although this link is for UNregistered AWs the first part has info on RAWs

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Possession_of_UNregistered_California_%22assault_w eapons%22Thanks. I had read that but it doesn't specifically address the usage of hi caps with a RAW.

Just to be crazy clear on this, Librarian's sticky (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709) says the following
Large-capacity magazines and AR-type Off-List Lower (OLL) rifles

With a bullet button, you legally have a rifle that does not use 'detachable magazines'. A rifle with a bullet button and other SB23 'features' such as a pistol grip must use 10-round (or fewer) magazines. Using a large-capacity magazine in such a rifle creates/manufactures an illegal California 'assault weapon'.

To use large-capacity detachable magazines in semiautomatic centerfire rifles, the rifle must be 'featureless' - no pistol grip, fixed stock etc.It makes no mention of a RAW, which makes me think there is no exception for a RAW. In other words, if that quote is the complete picture, couldn't it be interpreted to mean dropping a 30 rounder in your RAW turns it from legal into illegal?

Or should I be reading that quote realizing there are RAW exceptions and therefore it doesn't apply?

mlaines
06-05-2012, 8:30 PM
My question is why can't a legally owned high cap mag be used in a (let's say AR) with a bulllet button? The doj says "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." is an AW characteristic. A fixed mag is not the same as a mag with a bullet button. Am I missing something? Or is it just to much of a gray area?

But the DOJ definition of a fixed mag is as follows...
Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the magazine.

Which is different than a detachable magazine (with a bullet button) that is defined by the DOJ as...
Magazine, detachable - An ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

BigJ
06-05-2012, 8:39 PM
My question is why can't a legally owned high cap mag be used in a (let's say AR) with a bulllet button? The doj says "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." is an AW characteristic. A fixed mag is not the same as a mag with a bullet button. Am I missing something?

But the DOJ definition of a fixed mag is as follows...
Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the magazine.

Which is different than a detachable magazine that is defined by the DOJ as...
Magazine, detachable - An ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

Because there's no legal way to get the hi cap into the AR without "manufacturing" an assault weapon.

mlaines
06-05-2012, 8:45 PM
I thought that because it's not a fixed mag that's being inserted it wouldn't. I guess I must be interpreting it wrong. Can you you elaborate

ke6guj
06-05-2012, 8:47 PM
Thanks. I had read that but it doesn't specifically address the usage of hi caps with a RAW.

Just to be crazy clear on this, Librarian's sticky (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709) says the following
It makes no mention of a RAW, which makes me think there is no exception for a RAW. In other words, if that quote is the complete picture, couldn't it be interpreted to mean dropping a 30 rounder in your RAW turns it from legal into illegal?

Or should I be reading that quote realizing there are RAW exceptions and therefore it doesn't apply?
it doesn't address large-cap mags in a RAW because it doesn't need to. That sippit is tallking about off-list rifles that aren't RAW.

think about it, what law would I be breaking if I inserted a large-cap mag into my RAW? How could I make it an Illegal AW when it is already a Registered AW?

BigJ
06-05-2012, 8:48 PM
I thought that because it's not a fixed mag that's being inserted it wouldn't. I guess I must be interpreting it wrong. Can you you elaborate

Sure but I'm mobile for the rest of the night. If someone hadn't already I'll try to explain tomorrow.

ke6guj
06-05-2012, 8:49 PM
I thought that because it's not a fixed mag that's being inserted it wouldn't. I guess I must be interpreting it wrong. Can you you elaborate
there is an cutting-edge argument that an attachable magazine held in with a maglock is not necessarly the same thing as a fixed-magazine. The issue is, can you point to a legal definition of fixed-mag to support your position? Do you have the $$$$$ to defind that position in court? IF not, then don't install an 11+ round mag in your maglocked rifle.

ar15robert
06-05-2012, 8:51 PM
Dont know the specific but sb23 banned anything with fixed magazine that held more than 10 rounds made after 2000.

OLLs came after that and is a fixed magazine.

mlaines
06-05-2012, 9:01 PM
there is an cutting-edge argument that an attachable magazine held in with a maglock is not necessarly the same thing as a fixed-magazine. The issue is, can you point to a legal definition of fixed-mag to support your position? Do you have the $$$$$ to defind that position in court? IF not, then don't install an 11+ round mag in your maglocked rifle.

This is the response (I guess you could say) I was looking for. I have not and don't plan on testing my "theory" but I wanted to see if anyone else had thought about the differences in definition on the DOJ legislature. To be honest I just noticed this tonight while reading through the firearms section in the DOJ's site. Then I read this thread so I thought I would ask. I don't have the time or money to argue this very gray area of definitions but I am very curious of what the outcome would be.

strongpoint
06-05-2012, 9:17 PM
My question is why can't a legally owned high cap mag be used in a (let's say AR) with a bulllet button? The doj says "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." is an AW characteristic. A fixed mag is not the same as a mag with a bullet button. Am I missing something? Or is it just to much of a gray area?

you're missing something: magazine plus bullet button DOES equal fixed magazine. you can't remove a mag from a bullet-buttoned rifle without a tool, which satisfies the legal requirement.

mlaines
06-05-2012, 9:40 PM
you're missing something: magazine plus bullet button DOES equal fixed magazine. you can't remove a mag from a bullet-buttoned rifle without a tool, which satisfies the legal requirement.

Not according to the DOJ's definition of a fixed mag. At least how I interpret it.



Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the maga- zine.

bwiese
06-05-2012, 9:42 PM
You can use legally owned Hi-cap magazines in a registered AW.

You cannot however EVER put a hi-cap magazine into a gun equipped with a bullet button in CA.


Untrue, if that gun were in fact a registered AW that (for whatever weird reason) had a BulletButton.

bwiese
06-05-2012, 9:45 PM
Not according to the DOJ's definition of a fixed mag. At least how I interpret it.



Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the maga- zine.

Irrelevant.

All that the CA AW law requires is that the magazine must not be 'detachable' per 11 CCR 5469(a) regulatory definition, to avoid triggering the SB23 definition.

That regulatory definition of 'detachable magazine' is not triggered when a tool is required to remove the mag from the firearm. Period.

Librarian
06-05-2012, 9:47 PM
Not according to the DOJ's definition of a fixed mag. At least how I interpret it.



Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the maga- zine.

OK, what do you call a magazine inserted in an OLL equipped with a magazine lock?

I'll grant some 'terminological inexactitude' here, but we really have only two choices, 'fixed' and 'detachable', and we know that the magazine lock moves the weapon away from being able to accept a detachable magazine.

mrdd
06-05-2012, 9:48 PM
My question is why can't a legally owned high cap mag be used in a (let's say AR) with a bulllet button? The doj says "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." is an AW characteristic. A fixed mag is not the same as a mag with a bullet button. Am I missing something? Or is it just to much of a gray area?

But the DOJ definition of a fixed mag is as follows...
Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the magazine.

Which is different than a detachable magazine (with a bullet button) that is defined by the DOJ as...
Magazine, detachable - An ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

A firearm with a magazine lock (e.g. bullet button) does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. A magazine in such a magwell is is not detachable without a tool, hence it is a fixed magazine.

I am not sure what text you are quoting here, but I am certain it is neither law nor regulation.

Mr. Beretta
06-05-2012, 9:50 PM
No question this has been answered hundreds of times before, so I apologize for being redundant. Search was not my friend this time however.

It sounds cliche, but its true: I do have a friend who legally owns a registered assault weapon. He also legally owns several hi cap (30 rounder) magazines.

My question is, can he use those hi cap magazines in his registered assault weapon with no modification of that assault weapon? Aka, without a bullet button?

Thanks for your time guys. A link to a previous discussion is just as welcome as a response.

Yes

Carnivore
06-05-2012, 10:04 PM
Well then I guess the real question here is who of you that think it is legal wants to step up to the plate and risk an arrest to test your theory that a 10+ round magazine in a BB AR is legal?

Other then that why sit and argue over it??? Just asking.

mlaines
06-05-2012, 10:08 PM
A firearm with a magazine lock (e.g. bullet button) does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. A magazine in such a magwell is is not detachable without a tool, hence it is a fixed magazine.

I am not sure what text you are quoting here, but I am certain it is neither law nor regulation.

I'm quoting the department of justice. All I am saying is I read a gray area and there's room for interpretation and wanted to see if anyone else sees what I see.
The verbiage and definitions had me questioning what I had always thought was not questionable. Here is what I'm quoting. (from the DOJ)

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Penal Code section 12276, “assault weapon” shall also mean the following:
Rifles
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

Magazine - Any ammunition feeding device.
Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the maga- zine.
Magazine, detachable - An ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

mlaines
06-05-2012, 10:13 PM
Well then I guess the real question here is who of you that think it is legal wants to step up to the plate and risk an arrest to test your theory that a 10+ round magazine in a BB AR is legal?

Other then that why sit and argue over it??? Just asking.

Agreed. My intent is not argumentative I just wanted opinions and apologize if its coming off like that. Thanks all for your thoughts.

mlaines
06-05-2012, 10:24 PM
OK, what do you call a magazine inserted in an OLL equipped with a magazine lock?

I'll grant some 'terminological inexactitude' here, but we really have only two choices, 'fixed' and 'detachable', and we know that the magazine lock moves the weapon away from being able to accept a detachable magazine.

Like your terminology. Lol. Exactly what do you you call a magazine inserted in an OLL equipped with a magazine lock? That's my point. If there is such a thing as a detachable mag is there such a thing called a non-detachable mag. That being said I see your point about them only offering two choices.

strongpoint
06-06-2012, 3:21 AM
I'm quoting the department of justice.

...

Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the maga- zine.

wait, where exactly did you find this definition of "magazine, fixed"? it's not from the AW law or the CCR, and unless it's from another source that carries just as much weight of law, you're just rehashing this question (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=149662).

nicoroshi
06-06-2012, 4:33 AM
Untrue, if that gun were in fact a registered AW that (for whatever weird reason) had a BulletButton.

True but why would someone ever put a bullet button on a RAW?
That makes no sense what so ever, and there is absolutely NO reason I can think of that someone would want to attach a bullet button on a RAW.
So although your statement is correct that a RAW with a bullet button can have high cap magazines legally installed I personally don't see that ever happening.
When I think of an OLL with a bullet button Installed And 'evil features' I would wager my left jewel that it was purchased AFTER the ban and according to PC 12276.1 could not have a magazine of more than 10 rounds without being an AW.

lorax3
06-06-2012, 5:27 AM
True but why would someone ever put a bullet button on a RAW?
That makes no sense what so ever, and there is absolutely NO reason I can think of that someone would want to attach a bullet button on a RAW.

It does happen. I met someone a few years ago who was manufacturing magazine locks. Most of his weapons were RAWs but he needed guns to test his mag lock designs, so he put them on his RAWs.

five.five-six
06-06-2012, 5:31 AM
Why would you put a BB on a RAW :confused:

mlaines
06-06-2012, 7:13 AM
wait, where exactly did you find this definition of "magazine, fixed"? it's not from the AW law or the CCR, and unless it's from another source that carries just as much weight of law, you're just rehashing this question (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=149662).


It is from the AW Law. Here is the link.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf?

If you scroll all the way to the bottom, there is a glossary section that defines terms used within the Assault Weapons Identification Guide.

Mesa Tactical
06-06-2012, 8:42 AM
My question is why can't a legally owned high cap mag be used in a (let's say AR) with a bulllet button? The doj says "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." is an AW characteristic. A fixed mag is not the same as a mag with a bullet button.

That's exactly what a bullet button does: make it a fixed magazine rifle.

bwiese
06-06-2012, 8:53 AM
True but why would someone ever put a bullet button on a RAW?
That makes no sense what so ever, and there is absolutely NO reason I can think of that someone would want to attach a bullet button on a RAW.
So although your statement is correct that a RAW with a bullet button can have high cap magazines legally installed I personally don't see that ever happening.
When I think of an OLL with a bullet button Installed And 'evil features' I would wager my left jewel that it was purchased AFTER the ban and according to PC 12276.1 could not have a magazine of more than 10 rounds without being an AW.


Sonny, you've demonstrated a failure to be deeply analytical. Just because you can't think of any reason doesn't mean that reason doesn't exist.

I own a whole stack of regd' AWs - various ARs, 2 FALs etc.

Several of my ARs are "Category 3", meaning they are reg'd due to features and not by make/model. (That is, I lucked out to have some non-"Colt AR15" off-list AR receivers/guns that never made it onto the Kasler list [11 CCR 5499] in 2000 or afterwards, all the way up to 1/1/07 when the Roberti-Roos and Kasler lists were frozen by AB2728.)

The advantage to putting a Bullet Button on these particular Cat3 RAW guns of mine is I can transport them as non-AWs, and with far less restrictive transport restrictions: i.e, don't have to worry about 'specific destination' issues with non-AWs.

The AW status of Category 3 (off-list) RAWs is determined soley by the configured features suite, not the AW registration. The registration only 'allows' the gun to be an AW; what an off-list gun actually is - AW vs. non-AW - is only determined at the instant of examination of its current configured features.

By using a separate, removable 'tool' like a MagMagnet - and this is one of the few legitimate uses for it!! - I can then legally override the BulletButton while at the range, because it's reg'd AW. Also because it's a reg'd AW I can use my hicap mags in it too [regardless of BB status].

Next time THINK before you jump on someone...

bwiese
06-06-2012, 8:56 AM
That's exactly what a bullet button does: make it a fixed magazine rifle.

For practical purposes yes.

There is a slight difference spread out over the PC vs regulation but it really offers nothing exploitable.

If you put a hicap mag in a maglock'd OLL you'll be regarded as having a gun with an over-10 fixed mag.

bwiese
06-06-2012, 8:59 AM
It is from the AW Law. Here is the link.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf?

If you scroll all the way to the bottom, there is a glossary section that defines terms used within the Assault Weapons Identification Guide.

The only relevant definition is the 11 CCR 5469(a) definition of 'detachable magazine....'

If the mag requires a tool to remove from gun, it's not a detachable magazine - nor does it have the 'capacity to accept a detachable magazine'.

That suffices to make the gun legal if the mag is 10rds or less.

DOJ has admitted to this in Federal court in the Richards, Haynie, etc. vs
Harris ongoing case.

SeanCasey
06-06-2012, 9:07 AM
All I am saying is I read a gray area and there's room for interpretation and wanted to see if anyone else sees what I see.

There is no gray area here.


(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds.

Bullet button is a fixed magazine.

Magazine - Any ammunition feeding device.
Belt, clip, mag, tube, etc.

Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the maga- zine.

Note they used the word "frequently" not exclusively, thus a fixed magazine does not require being loaded from a clip or open breech, but a typical fixed mag does (a la Mosin Nagant, SKS, etc). This does not exclude a bullet button as when the magazine is loaded into the weapon it is fixed and requires a tool to review.


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

Note the "nor use of a tool" and further description states "a bullet.... is considered a tool". Thus the bullet button configured weapon does not have a detachable magazine and is therefore a fixed magazine.

Based on the PC more than a 10 round mag in a fixed magazine configuration on a non-RAW is an AW. There is no gray area here.

I know what you are trying to reach for but it just isn't there. A greater than 10 round mag in a BB config will get you arrested and will get you prosecuted.

nicoroshi
06-06-2012, 10:06 AM
Sonny, you've demonstrated a failure to be deeply analytical. Just because you can't think of any reason doesn't mean that reason doesn't exist.

I own a whole stack of regd' AWs - various ARs, 2 FALs etc.

Several of my ARs are "Category 3", meaning they are reg'd due to features and not by make/model. (That is, I lucked out to have some non-"Colt AR15" off-list AR receivers/guns that never made it onto the Kasler list [11 CCR 5499] in 2000 or afterwards, all the way up to 1/1/07 when the Roberti-Roos and Kasler lists were frozen by AB2728.)

The advantage to putting a Bullet Button on these particular Cat3 RAW guns of mine is I can transport them as non-AWs, and with far less restrictive transport restrictions: i.e, don't have to worry about 'specific destination' issues with non-AWs.

The AW status of Category 3 (off-list) RAWs is determined soley by the configured features suite, not the AW registration. The registration only 'allows' the gun to be an AW; what an off-list gun actually is - AW vs. non-AW - is only determined at the instant of examination of its current configured features.

By using a separate, removable 'tool' like a MagMagnet - and this is one of the few legitimate uses for it!! - I can then legally override the BulletButton while at the range, because it's reg'd AW. Also because it's a reg'd AW I can use my hicap mags in it too [regardless of BB status].

Next time THINK before you jump on someone...

Fair enough I stand corrected
I am not your 'sonny' by any stretch of the imagination though.

stix213
06-06-2012, 10:47 AM
I'm quoting the department of justice. All I am saying is I read a gray area and there's room for interpretation and wanted to see if anyone else sees what I see.
The verbiage and definitions had me questioning what I had always thought was not questionable. Here is what I'm quoting. (from the DOJ)

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Penal Code section 12276, “assault weapon” shall also mean the following:
Rifles
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

Magazine - Any ammunition feeding device.
Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the maga- zine.
Magazine, detachable - An ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

Realize that there is an AW case against the CA DOJ specifically for spreading misinformation in this manner. I don't believe the fixed and detachable magazine definitions you put here are actually from any law.

Librarian
06-06-2012, 12:08 PM
Thanks. I had read that but it doesn't specifically address the usage of hi caps with a RAW.

Just to be crazy clear on this, Librarian's sticky (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709) says the following
It makes no mention of a RAW, which makes me think there is no exception for a RAW. In other words, if that quote is the complete picture, couldn't it be interpreted to mean dropping a 30 rounder in your RAW turns it from legal into illegal?

Or should I be reading that quote realizing there are RAW exceptions and therefore it doesn't apply?

That's the 2008 thread - read, instead the one linked below, that says NOTE: A Registered Assault Weapon (RAW) is already an 'assault weapon', and not included in this problem. If you have a RAW, use any magazine you legally own.

Librarian
06-06-2012, 12:21 PM
It is from the AW Law. Here is the link.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf?

If you scroll all the way to the bottom, there is a glossary section that defines terms used within the Assault Weapons Identification Guide.

Ah, there's your problem.

In that document, the DOJ Makes Things Up. Unless it directly quotes statute or regulation, what is written in that doc is interpretation.

What we have is 11 CCR 5469(a) ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED TO IDENTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.There is no complementary definition of 'fixed magazine'. We can infer that 'fixed' is different from 'detachable' and we can guess the back formation of that definition might be

"any ammunition feeding device
that can [ONLY] be removed readily
from the firearm with neither [EITHER]
disassembly of the firearm action
nor [OR] use of a tool being required."

strongpoint
06-06-2012, 12:32 PM
It is from the AW Law. Here is the link.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf?

If you scroll all the way to the bottom, there is a glossary section that defines terms used within the Assault Weapons Identification Guide.

problem is, like i alluded to earlier, that "fixed magazine" definition doesn't come from any legally valid source -- it's not in the penal code, and it's not in the california code of regulations. i'm not sure where DOJ is pulling that definition from, but that guide was last revised in november 2001.

you almost got me with this argument, though! if that "fixed magazine" definition -- which set off alarm bells because i'd never seen it before -- was actually binding, one could then deduce a gray area for magazines that require a tool to detach (thus NOT "detachable") but aren't affixed to the firearm during loading (thus NOT "fixed"). magazines in a bullet-buttoned rifle could then potentially be defended as a third, unlabeled category, creating a loophole for 10+ mags in a maglocked rifle.

but that argument is moot because (as bwiese outlines):

1) that definition doesn't exist in state law, so we're governed only by the "detachable magazine" definition in 11 CCR 5469(a). all rifle configurations either fall into that definition ("detachable") or they do not ("fixed").

and

2) the DOJ has admitted in a federal court filing that a bullet button creates a fixed-magazine configuration (CGN discussion thread here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=429902)).


Realize that there is an AW case against the CA DOJ specifically for spreading misinformation in this manner. I don't believe the fixed and detachable magazine definitions you put here are actually from any law.

could someone with pull at the CGF advise DOJ toward revising the AW ID guide to eliminate this wording? it's bad to have potentially misleading information floating around out there.

strongpoint
06-06-2012, 12:47 PM
There is no complementary definition of 'fixed magazine'. We can infer that 'fixed' is different from 'detachable' and we can guess the back formation of that definition might be

"any ammunition feeding device
that can [ONLY] be removed readily
from the firearm with neither [EITHER]
disassembly of the firearm action
nor [OR] use of a tool being required."

isn't it simpler than that? i'm not sure "fixed" needs an explicit definition -- the way i read it is this:

magazine configurations fall into one of two categories:

a) meets 11 CCR 5469(a) definition ("detachable").
b) everything else ("fixed").

bwiese
06-06-2012, 1:33 PM
Folks...

Here's the skinny...


there's a statutory 'detachable magazine' definition in PC, section 12021.5 (old PC numbering).
It is irrelevant to 'by-features' AW status...
.
The statutory definition was insufficient for SB23 matters in 2000, so a new regulatory definition
of 'detachable magazine...' was adopted and placed into regulatory definitions in 11 CCR 5469.
These definitions apply to 12276.1PC (old PC numbering) only.
.
I'll note that the Roberti-Roos 'SKS w/detachable magazine' entity would use the definition of
'detachable magazine' from PC 12021.5 and not from regulatory code.
.
The term 'fixed magazine' is not defined in Penal Code or regulation.
.
Because of the primary definition of by-feature SB23 AWs, we don't need to really know what a
'fixed magazine' is: we merely need to know that a magazine is NOT a 'detachable magazine' per
the formal 11 CCR 5469 regulatory definition. If the magazine is not considered a detachable
magazine per that definition, the gun can have other 'evil features' (formal term: "characteristic
features").
.
We really don't know what a fixed magazine is. In theory, it could be different from a non-detachable
magazine. This starts getting into expert testimony area, construction of the law, history, etc.
.
Despite the above, one should regard for now the terminology 'fixed magazine' as being a handwaving
equivalent of 'not a detachable magazine'.

If you put a hicap mag into a BulletButtoned semoauto centerfire rifle, you have 99.99% most likely
violated the alternate SB23 AW definition of "fixed magazine holding over 10 rounds". [The history of this
alternate defintion was apparently to ban SKSes with long-arsed fixed 30rd 'banana mags' - in addition
to the SKSes with detachable (AK) mags. Given the efforts required to change such a fixed mag on such
guns requires minor tool use, and avoiding 'detachable magazine' definition also requires some tool use,
the semantic overlap is significant and obvious.

Trying to exploit a possible minor semantic difference between 'fixed magazine' and not-a-'detachable
magazine' is dangerous nor is it remotely useful in getting any new useful firearms configuration.
.
Regardless of what the DOJ 'AW guide' (many call it "DOJ's Coloring Book") says - and I will note that that
material offers grounds for significant confusion, and is amongst matters in litigation - the relevant definition
of 'detachable magazine' for OLL non-AWs is and only is the regulatory definition in 11 CCR 5469(a).
Bypassing what is described by this definition makes the gun a legal non-AW [providing no other separate
laws broken].
.
The Federal litigation between CGF [with SAF partner] vs. Calif DOJ in Richards, Haynie, etc. vs. (Kamala)
Harris includes statements by CA DOJ BoF that BulletButton'd ARs are indeed California legal. There is no
grey area, period.


.

strongpoint
06-06-2012, 4:30 PM
The term 'fixed magazine' is not defined in Penal Code or regulation.
.
Because of the primary definition of by-feature SB23 AWs, we don't need to really know what a 'fixed magazine' is: we merely need to know that a magazine is NOT a 'detachable magazine' per the formal 11 CCR 5469 regulatory definition. If the magazine is not considered a detachable magazine per that definition, the gun can have other 'evil features' (formal term: "characteristic features").
.
We really don't know what a fixed magazine is. In theory, it could be different from a non-detachable magazine. This starts getting into expert testimony area, construction of the law, history, etc.
.
Despite the above, one should regard for now the terminology 'fixed magazine' as being a handwaving equivalent of 'not a detachable magazine'.
.
...
.
Regardless of what the DOJ 'AW guide' (many call it "DOJ's Coloring Book") says - and I will note that that material offers grounds for significant confusion, and is amongst matters in litigation - the relevant definition of 'detachable magazine' for OLL non-AWs is and only is the regulatory definition in 11 CCR 5469(a). Bypassing what is described by this definition makes the gun a legal non-AW [providing no other separate laws broken].


already understood, at least by me. but at least one person has been confused enough by these official-looking words in a no-longer-current publication to catch a glimpse of a loophole where none truly exists.

so the followup question is, will it really require litigation for the "definition" of "fixed magazine" to be stricken from the AW ID guide -- or better yet, for the whole stale publication to be purged by the DOJ until such time as it's updated to reflect the current state of affairs?

bwiese
06-06-2012, 5:27 PM
Given things are in litigation I would not expect DOJ to budge, and they will hold their position as to sufficiency.

The Calguns AW Flowchart, in the meantime, is now used by many local and some state agencies to determine AW legality instead of using the DOJ 'AW Coloring Book'.

Santa Cruz Arms
06-06-2012, 11:42 PM
Bill,

I just had a long post with specific scenarios typed out and when I hit reply, the server crapped out on me.. so I will attempt to summarize.

Excuse my ignorance on the RAW and BB technicalities.

It seems like a lot of this thread is trying to make things too complicated..

In my understanding based on current CA AW law and looking at the CGF flowchart:

Assuming I legally owned "high capacity" detachable magazines prior to the ban.

I own, purchase or build a semi auto, centerfire rifle that is NOT on any of the lists in "Appendix A, B or C" in the flowchart. My choices to stay legal are as follows:

A: Have no "evil features" on the gun, do NOT have a bullet button. At this point I have a "featureless" rifle, which by-defnition is NOT an AW and I can use my detachable "high-cap" mags.

B: I want to put some evil features on that same rifle. Remove detachable magazine, install bullet button, install "evil features". At this point I can NOT install any magazine with 10+ capacity. I would simply need magazines with a capacity of 10 or below.

C: I decide I'm bored with the "evil features" and would rather use my legally owned "high-capacity" magazines. I would need to remove the magazine, remove the "evil features", remove the bullet button. At that point I am good to go to start using my 10+ detachable magazines again.

Am I on the money with the situations above or am missing something there?

On a separate note, if the "mag magnet" makes a BBed rifle an AW because it created a detachable magazine, would the reverse also not be true. If you had a BBed rifle, removed any "evil features" and installed a "mag magnet" would you not then be able to use your legally owned "high-capacity" magazines? *** I am asking this question purely out of curiosity. Obviously it would be a BAD idea to use the mag magnet on a BBed rifle with a high-cap magazine, since an LE search could easily have the mag magnet, "fall off", thus creating a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 10 ***

Mesa Tactical
06-07-2012, 6:39 AM
It seems like a lot of this thread is trying to make things too complicated..

Welcome to Calguns!

I think it's fair to say that about most of the threads in this sub-forum.

QuarterBoreGunner
06-07-2012, 7:04 AM
This thread.

My head.

Asplode.

curtisfong
06-07-2012, 7:51 AM
A: Have no "evil features" on the gun, do NOT have a bullet button. At this point I have a "featureless" rifle, which by-defnition is NOT an AW and I can use my detachable "high-cap" mags.

B: I want to put some evil features on that same rifle. Remove detachable magazine, install bullet button, install "evil features". At this point I can NOT install any magazine with 10+ capacity. I would simply need magazines with a capacity of 10 or below.

C: I decide I'm bored with the "evil features" and would rather use my legally owned "high-capacity" magazines. I would need to remove the magazine, remove the "evil features", remove the bullet button. At that point I am good to go to start using my 10+ detachable magazines again.


More or less, except there is no such thing as a detachable magazine; only a firearm that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine. The attribute "detachable" belongs to the firearm, not the magazine


On a separate note, if the "mag magnet" makes a BBed rifle an AW because it created a detachable magazine, would the reverse also not be true. If you had a BBed rifle, removed any "evil features" and installed a "mag magnet" would you not then be able to use your legally owned "high-capacity" magazines?

I am not a lawyer, but I can see this argument might hold water. Would I want to be the test case? No.

Again, though, your terminology is off. A mag magnet makes your firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine (because you can remove the magazine from the firearm w/o a tool).

The attribute "detachable" belongs to the firearm, not the magazine.

bwiese
06-07-2012, 8:17 AM
Bill,

In my understanding based on current CA AW law and looking at the CGF flowchart:

Assuming I legally owned "high capacity" detachable magazines prior to the ban.

I own, purchase or build a semi auto, centerfire rifle that is NOT on any of the lists in "Appendix A, B or C" in the flowchart. My choices to stay legal are as follows:

A: Have no "evil features" on the gun, do NOT have a bullet button. At this point I have a "featureless" rifle, which by-defnition is NOT an AW and I can use my detachable "high-cap" mags.

CORRECT


B: I want to put some evil features on that same rifle. Remove detachable magazine, install bullet button, install "evil features". At this point I can NOT install any magazine with 10+ capacity. I would simply need magazines with a capacity of 10 or below.


CORRECT


C: I decide I'm bored with the "evil features" and would rather use my legally owned "high-capacity" magazines. I would need to remove the magazine, remove the "evil features", remove the bullet button. At that point I am good to go to start using my 10+ detachable magazines again.


CORRECT



Am I on the money with the situations above or am missing something there?


You're OK...


On a separate note, if the "mag magnet" makes a BBed rifle an AW because it created a detachable magazine, would the reverse also not be true. If you had a BBed rifle, removed any "evil features" and installed a "mag magnet" would you not then be able to use your legally owned "high-capacity" magazines?



Technically yes. The risk is if the MagMagnet fell off, you'd have a semi auto centerfire rifle with an over-10rd magazine that's regarded as 'fixed mag'.

Things that can fall off easily can fall off easily during an investigation or in the back of a patrol car.



*** I am asking this question purely out of curiosity. Obviously it would be a BAD idea to use the mag magnet on a BBed rifle with a high-cap magazine, since an LE search could easily have the mag magnet, "fall off", thus creating a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 10 ***


You got it.

Santa Cruz Arms
06-07-2012, 1:05 PM
Thanks Curtis and Bill.. Much appreciated!

Steve