PDA

View Full Version : What happened to the CGF standard capacity magazine "loophole"?


mud99
06-06-2012, 1:08 PM
It's been a few months since I last saw this brought up, but at one point I remember hearing talk that CGF had found a loophole for the standard capacity magazine import/manufacturing problem, and that something was going to be happening soon...

Is this any closer, or will it be

:twoweeks:

M. D. Van Norman
06-06-2012, 1:21 PM
A lawsuit is still required, as I understand it. Given the ongoing delays in other legal actions, itís not surprising that this one has been delayed as well.

wildhawker
06-06-2012, 1:23 PM
Faced with a sure crunch once the Nordyke stays lifted, we made a decision to focus on core 2A cases. The magazine issue is still on the docket, but it's not as important as securing the heart of the Second Amendment (keep, bear, shoot).

-Brandon

stix213
06-06-2012, 1:51 PM
Faced with a sure crunch once the Nordyke stays lifted, we made a decision to focus on core 2A cases. The magazine issue is still on the docket, but it's not as important as securing the heart of the Second Amendment (keep, bear, shoot).

-Brandon

That's what I suspected.

But for those making the decisions, consider it would be a major moral boost to see a huge offensive action on our side win in the short term, which would help mobilize the troops better with regard to all other issues.

Our wins recently have been mostly defensively, which makes some people here talk like things are never getting better, only slowly worse. Winning on the magazine front would do a lot to change that perception.

bwiese
06-06-2012, 1:56 PM
Beyond what Brandon is saying, we need to wait for a case that clarifies certain matters (or rather, avoids not obstructing/deflecting our proposed conduct), and then for a non-gun attorney to deal with a specialized area of law and pave the path thru supporting paperwork, filings, etc. This latter effort depends on the former occurring first.

The 'special path' does exist unless something goes sideways in this non-gun case [for obvious reasons we do not wish to tip our hand and we say no more].

In the meantime, misapplied locap mags in one caliber that happen to work in another caliber/capacity combo is a happy alternative (and for semiauto firearms, those not having maglocks).

mud99
06-06-2012, 1:56 PM
Ok, I must have been mistaken, because I thought a solution was being worked on that did not require legal action.

bwiese
06-06-2012, 2:01 PM
Ok, I must have been mistaken, because I thought a solution was being worked on that did not require legal action.

Oh I think we always said we had to 'prime the path'.

In theory, we could "go and do it". But we do not have the supporting paperwork that we did have when the OLL craze started: the CA NRA lawyers had *years* of paperwork, agency opinions, etc. that buttressed our stance and deflected any changes. Things would have been a lot less certain in some ways [i.e., lots of arrests and extended court fights] if we didn't have those reams of paperwork and work product from Chuck Michel and Jason Davis, and a talkative DOJ.

These days, the DOJ BoF doesn't talk about anything (try asking if a certain grip is legal, etc.!) - and the pathways of getting agency commentary/stances will have to change for this matter (and it's helpful that non-gun matters cross into this effort).

mud99
06-06-2012, 2:01 PM
Now you've got me all excited!

:popcorn:

I like the deception and under-handed tactics. Reminds me of the antis.

Beyond what Brandon is saying, we need to wait for a case that clarifies certain matters (or rather, avoids not obstructing/deflecting our proposed conduct), and then for a non-gun attorney to deal with a specialized area of law and pave the path thru supporting paperwork, filings, etc. This latter effort depends on the former occurring first.

The 'special path' does exist unless something goes sideways in this non-gun case [for obvious reasons we do not wish to tip our hand and we say no more].

In the meantime, misapplied locap mags in one caliber that happen to work in another caliber/capacity combo is a happy alternative (and for semiauto firearms, those not having maglocks).

Bhobbs
06-06-2012, 3:45 PM
Now you've got me all excited!

:popcorn:

I like the deception and under-handed tactics. Reminds me of the antis.

I think everyone was excited when this was brought up originally. It's probably something that shouldn't have been mentioned until it was just about wrapped up.

Hopefully we get something positive to come along soon. It seems we are stuck in defensive mode.

diginit
06-06-2012, 5:58 PM
Prime the path??? Will a claymore help? LOL :oops:

mofugly13
06-06-2012, 6:38 PM
Does anyone have a link to the original thread where this was originally discussed?

Bhobbs
06-06-2012, 6:46 PM
Does anyone have a link to the original thread where this was originally discussed?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=375349&page=76

Pretty sure this is it. Edit: Yeah it is.

Gene posted:

1. The armored car company exemption is real but it's a second best solution.

2. We are actively working on the large-capacity ban. Ajax22 is aware of what we're up to. Capital expenditures have been made. When I can explain the hold up, well, it will be amusing. Doing these cases right requires dotting I's and crossing T's. That often takes times and keeps us from taking short cuts normal human beings take all the time.

No one is expecting how we're going to take down this ban and there isn't a whole lot California can do to stop it.

-Gene

and even sold some Ruger 10/22 mags to have standing as a company that sells magazines for what ever coming legal work was to be done. This of course got everyone all excited for the hi cap mag ban being basically nullified.

mofugly13
06-06-2012, 7:31 PM
I don't think that is the first thread about it. The original thread had promises and made it sound as if it was going to be a slam dunk, and take just a couple months. I believe there was even a statement along the lines of "no litigation required." Where is that first thread?

Sent from my XT603 using Tapatalk 2

Bhobbs
06-06-2012, 8:04 PM
I don't think that is the first thread about it. The original thread had promises and made it sound as if it was going to be a slam dunk, and take just a couple months. I believe there was even a statement along the lines of "no litigation required." Where is that first thread?

Sent from my XT603 using Tapatalk 2

That's the thread that I know of where it was discussed in any detail.

hoffmang
06-06-2012, 8:17 PM
We're waiting on a specific outcome in a specific case. If I gave more data than that it would tip CA DOJ and let them get a head start on thinking of how to defend against it.

-Gene

Bhobbs
06-06-2012, 9:20 PM
We're waiting on a specific outcome in a specific case. If I gave more data than that it would tip CA DOJ and let them get a head start on thinking of how to defend against it.

-Gene

Is there any time frame for when the case will be decided?

mud99
06-06-2012, 9:20 PM
Let me guess, somebody is making a collection of pencil feeding devices which happens to feed many, many different kinds of funny shaped pencils.

BTW, if the CGF store sold magazines with CGF logos on them, that might be an awesome way to fund this initiative. I would definitely spend a bit more to buy those magazines.

jdberger
06-06-2012, 9:28 PM
Is there any time frame for when the case will be decided?

Never. :D

These things happen in their own time. They're sort of organic in nature. As much as we would like to push them, we can't. All we can do is get cases teed up in anticipation of the right circumstances.

hoffmang
06-06-2012, 9:34 PM
Is there any time frame for when the case will be decided?

Answering that question would give a smart CA DOJ attorney - of which there are plenty - key data to figure out how we plan to challenge the import/sale ban.

-Gene

G60
06-06-2012, 9:36 PM
Is there any time frame for when the case will be decided?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/twoweeks.gif

Sorry, you kinda set yourself up for that one.

Ubermcoupe
06-06-2012, 9:43 PM
Every time I hear/see a thread on this I get excited and I have to remind myself to Slooooooow dowwwwwwn.

I trust the process and one of these days I will be shooting beta mags just because I can.
Keep on it guys! :)

goober
06-06-2012, 9:48 PM
sandwich.
nap.
repeat.

Bhobbs
06-06-2012, 9:52 PM
Answering that question would give a smart CA DOJ attorney - of which there are plenty - key data to figure out how we plan to challenge the import/sale ban.

-Gene

Ok. Well the wait hasn't killed me yet so I can wait some more.

ubet
06-06-2012, 9:58 PM
Completely OT, but I am going to own all the standard cap mags I dare want and USE them, in 20 days. :p

Chosen_1
06-06-2012, 10:02 PM
Reserved Powers of the Federal Government...

:)

kcbrown
06-06-2012, 10:19 PM
We're waiting on a specific outcome in a specific case. If I gave more data than that it would tip CA DOJ and let them get a head start on thinking of how to defend against it.


It's always a good idea to control the flow of information in battle.

That said, I hope this doesn't rely on the enemy being stupid in order to generate the desired outcome.

That it's possible to defend against it has me very concerned...

Panchira!
06-07-2012, 12:36 AM
I'll be out of California before anything happens. For now I wait.

JackRydden224
06-07-2012, 12:49 AM
Answering that question would give a smart CA DOJ attorney - of which there are plenty - key data to figure out how we plan to challenge the import/sale ban.

-Gene

So that's where all the smart people in the government are ? Yikes.

Gene, how can we help in the fight ?

wildhawker
06-07-2012, 12:51 AM
So that's where all the smart people in the government are ? Yikes.

Gene, how can we help in the fight ?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=362574

nicki
06-07-2012, 1:06 AM
Answering that question would give a smart CA DOJ attorney - of which there are plenty - key data to figure out how we plan to challenge the import/sale ban.

-Gene

Certain things are on a need to know basis and at this time, I am not privy to Calguns strategy nor am I going to ask the guys to share things here on a public forum.

Do we really want to make our opponent's work easier, they do lurk and read our posts you know.

The LCAV had an event in SF and they got the SFPD mobilized because they feared we would show up en mass. Let's just say they looked really intelligent.

I want normal capacity magazines as much as the rest of you, all I will tell you is you gotta have "faith" in our guys.

Our guys are out of the box planners, so when they hit, the Cal DOJ won't know what hit them.

Nicki

451040
06-07-2012, 3:44 AM
Take the money you'd spend on a few hi-caps and send a contribution to Calguns Foundation.

oni.dori
06-07-2012, 9:22 AM
In the meantime, misapplied locap mags in one caliber that happen to work in another caliber/capacity combo is a happy alternative (and for semiauto firearms, those not having maglocks).

Wha...? Are we talking about something along the lines of a .458 SOCOM 10-rounder kind of thing?

winnre
06-07-2012, 9:35 AM
I hope we get freedom back while I am still alive.

Bhobbs
06-07-2012, 10:01 AM
Wha...? Are we talking about something along the lines of a .458 SOCOM 10-rounder kind of thing?

I think that's one way he's talking about.

If you wanted to misuse .458 SOCOM mags in a 5.56 rifle, would you have to own a .458 SOCOM upper or what?

oni.dori
06-07-2012, 10:15 AM
Not necessarily I would imagine. You can own pre-ban Glock 17 mags, and not own a Glock 17. No law against that. However, I'm sure it would be asking for unwanted attention.

1859sharps
06-07-2012, 12:16 PM
I know it's hard to be patient. I am as anxious as the next person to be able to once again buy magazines greater than 10 round capacity.

However, the ability to buy magazines greater than 10 round capacity is meaningless if we can't buy handguns because they all fell off the roster for example.

10+ mags...very cool....but without guns, the right to carry and the right to use those guns...meaningless

just try and be patient a little while longer.

Rattlehead
06-07-2012, 12:49 PM
Wha...? Are we talking about something along the lines of a .458 SOCOM 10-rounder kind of thing?

An example of this would be using an M&P 40 mag that holds 10 rounds of 40, and loading it with 9mm, which will leave you with a 12-13 round 9mm M&P magazine if I recall correctly. It's legal because it still functions in the gun it was designed for.

Works for Glock 40 mags as well when you load with 9mm. You need to make sure you function check everything because it won't always feed the last round.

G60
06-07-2012, 12:56 PM
Shall issue is, as it should be, along with defense of innocent gun owners, the number one priority.

bwiese
06-07-2012, 1:18 PM
Wha...? Are we talking about something along the lines of a .458 SOCOM 10-rounder kind of thing?

Sure or a 9mm vs 40S&W/357Sig variation.

Test to see if it works reliably before you bet your life.

unusedusername
06-07-2012, 1:27 PM
I think that's one way he's talking about.

If you wanted to misuse .458 SOCOM mags in a 5.56 rifle, would you have to own a .458 SOCOM upper or what?

There is no legal requirement to own a .458 SOCOM upper in order to own .458 SOCOM magazines, however if you only own a 5.56mm upper and the magazines are marked ".223/5.56mm" then it would be much harder to argue to a Judge that they are actually .458 SOCOM magazines.

Contrast that with someone who owns a 9mm Glock and a .40 Glock where they were found with a magazine that says ".40" on the side of it but it has 12 9mm bullets in it. They would have a much easier time saying "Oops I didn't realize I grabbed the wrong magazine, and I didn't count the bullets when I put them in. Also, please show me where in the law does it say that it is illegal to put 9mm bullets into my legal 10 rounder .40 magazines?"

Just consider how you would be able to explain that they are .458 SOCOM magazines that hold 10 rounds in a way that would convince non-gunny folks.

Personally, if I were to go this route I would at minimum find magazines with base plates that clearly say "458 SOCOM, 10 rounds" or "50 Beowulf, 10 rounds" on the bottom of them, and get at least some parts of a rifle capable of firing that caliber.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advise. It may even be bad advise.

nick
06-07-2012, 1:35 PM
Not necessarily I would imagine. You can own pre-ban Glock 17 mags, and not own a Glock 17. No law against that. However, I'm sure it would be asking for unwanted attention.

Which is sad, as it's not unusual. I was buying mags like crazy right before the ban, since I couldn't afford to buy all the guns to go with them at the time. I bought the mags for the guns I wanted at the time, and well, tastes do change. So, for example, I have a bunch of mags for Beretta 92FS, and I don't have anything that accepts those mags - I tried one, and didn't like it at all. At least, SW 59 mags are good for Marlin Camp 9, as I ended up not liking that one either. I'm yet to acquire/build an Uzi or a Sten, but I have the mags for them.

Somehow I doubt I'm the only one who did this back then.

oni.dori
06-07-2012, 3:05 PM
So then, would it be plausible to buy a 30-round .223/5.56 magazine, or assembling a parts kit with the intention of using it with you .458 upper?

Librarian
06-07-2012, 3:33 PM
So then, would it be plausible to buy a 30-round .223/5.56 magazine, or assembling a parts kit with the intention of using it with you .458 upper?

Given you actually have a .458 socom upper, yes. That helps 'the visuals' immensely.

I looked yesterday; apparently, except for a very small number of marked magazines back about 5 years ago, there seems to be no .458-specific mags. The explanation is that the intention was to allow using the standard 5.56 mags, so no new mags were needed. For folks out of CA, that's a simple and elegant solution. For those of us in CA, that might induce some cognitive dissonance in LEOs.

kcbrown
06-07-2012, 4:01 PM
Given you actually have a .458 socom upper, yes. That helps 'the visuals' immensely.

I looked yesterday; apparently, except for a very small number of marked magazines back about 5 years ago, there seems to be no .458-specific mags. The explanation is that the intention was to allow using the standard 5.56 mags, so no new mags were needed. For folks out of CA, that's a simple and elegant solution. For those of us in CA, that might induce some cognitive dissonance in LEOs.

I don't quite understand how that would work. I didn't see anything in the law that made an exception for using a non-gimped magazine on a firearm of a caliber that differs from the one the magazine was originally intended for.

Which is to say, it seems to me that, with the exception of fully assembled pre-ban magazines that have been in the state since before the ban, the magazine in question has to be a 10 round magazine for the caliber it was intended. It may wind up holding more rounds for a different caliber, but that's a side-effect.

What oni.dori is talking about is building or buying a magazine which can hold more than 10 rounds in the caliber it was designed for. I can't see how that would not be considered a violation of the law.

hoffmang
06-07-2012, 4:49 PM
That said, I hope this doesn't rely on the enemy being stupid in order to generate the desired outcome.
Our theory is extremely solid, but why give them extra months to come up with better arguments against when we can constrain them to weeks via the MSJ process? I don't care how perfect our legal argument is, I'm not going to give the other side any slack I can ethically deny them.
Shall issue is, as it should be, along with defense of innocent gun owners, the number one priority.
Better to carry 11 rounds than leave 17 at home.

-Gene

kcbrown
06-07-2012, 4:56 PM
Our theory is extremely solid, but why give them extra months to come up with better arguments against when we can constrain them to weeks via the MSJ process? I don't care how perfect our legal argument is, I'm not going to give the other side any slack I can ethically deny them.


That's what I was hoping for. Thanks, Gene.

bwiese
06-07-2012, 5:19 PM
Contrast that with someone who owns a 9mm Glock and a .40 Glock where they were found with a magazine that says ".40" on the side of it but it has 12 9mm bullets in it. They would have a much easier time saying "Oops I didn't realize I grabbed the wrong magazine, and I didn't count the bullets when I put them in. Also, please show me where in the law does it say that it is illegal to put 9mm bullets into my legal 10 rounder .40 magazines?"


Yup. You want to help out the 'smell test'.


Personally, if I were to go this route I would at minimum find magazines with base plates that clearly say "458 SOCOM, 10 rounds" or "50 Beowulf, 10 rounds" on the bottom of them,

Absolutely. Markings and package wrappings really help a lot.


and get at least some parts of a rifle capable of firing that caliber.


Certainly helpful.

winnre
06-07-2012, 5:22 PM
So a lower that says .223 and a lower that says MULTI-CAL may have the exact same specifications, the only difference being the engraving?

bwiese
06-07-2012, 5:30 PM
So a lower that says .223 and a lower that says MULTI-CAL may have the exact same specifications, the only difference being the engraving?

A factory lower has to have a caliber marking or "Multi...".

It does not matter what you use in that lower (as long as otherwise legal).
You are free to use any caliber regardless of what the lower is marked.

[Edge condition is 50BMG.]


(Also, a pistol lower does not have to be marked "Pistol". And just because a lower is marked "Pistol" doesn't necessarily mean it's legally eligible to be one, certainly in CA.)

Gunsmith Dan
06-08-2012, 2:49 PM
hmmm always thought a win against a magazine limit ban would be the domino that makes all the others fall.

Basically if the government can't restrict how many rounds you can have in a weapon, per 2A, then all the other restriction in the AW ban would not hold water.

But I could be wrong :D

hoffmang
06-08-2012, 6:28 PM
hmmm always thought a win against a magazine limit ban would be the domino that makes all the others fall.

Basically if the government can't restrict how many rounds you can have in a weapon, per 2A, then all the other restriction in the AW ban would not hold water.

But I could be wrong :D

The legal theories underlying the different issues are pretty discrete. As such, we could win everything else and potentially not prevail at 10/11 rounds on pure 2A theories.

-Gene

goober
06-08-2012, 6:29 PM
But I could be wrong :D

clearly