PDA

View Full Version : Would a Prince50 mag lock be kosher under the newly proposed legislation?


rimfire78
08-08-2012, 10:07 PM
I've been reading and hearing conflicting definitions as to what SB 249 would do, and how far it would go.
I am only asking questions here, and am not trying to spread any FUD, as some of the info I have heard will undoubtedly be wrong. So, If you are also unsure about this newly proposed law, please don't let my questions confuse you further.

Under SB 249, would a prince 50 mag lock be legal?
You could still remove it with a "tool" so wouldn't it have to be welded to be legal?

And would a featureless rifle be legal? I've been hearing that it would make all mag catches illegal. Including those on semi-auto pistols like the 1911.

Thank you for any light that you can shed on this for me.

hornswaggled
08-08-2012, 10:15 PM
It would re-define what is a detachable magazine as it pertains to assault weapons. A magazine that can be released with use of a tool would then be considered detachable.

killmime1234
08-09-2012, 5:09 AM
^^^This. Featureless builds are gonna be our future.

ptoguy2002
08-09-2012, 6:37 AM
IMHO, allen wrench = tool, and you don't have to disassemble the action to get it out, so no go.
For a normal AR, don't worry about, go featureless.
I'm worried about bullet button guns with <16" barrels and perm flash hider.
Flash hider is an evil feature, so no featureless there. Those folks are going to have to figure something out (and spend more money).

sjwolf
08-09-2012, 7:10 AM
I'm worried about bullet button guns with <16" barrels and perm flash hider.
Flash hider is an evil feature, so no featureless there. Those folks are going to have to figure something out (and spend more money).

This is what I'm worried about, but no ones brought it up before that I've seen. At this point if it passes I won't be taking it out, but I'm going to maintain that the law says "Flash Suppressor" and mine is sold as a "Flash Hider." Plus, there are companies that sell their A2's as a "compensator," and I remember reading on here once that the gov't considers an A2 a "compensator" as well. I wouldn't listen to me if I were you, but this is my mindset to this unconstitutional bill.

tenpercentfirearms
08-09-2012, 7:11 AM
Or just take your upper off your lower and let them sit next to each other in the safe.

ptoguy2002
08-09-2012, 7:20 AM
Or just take your upper off your lower and let them sit next to each other in the safe.
What if it isn't an AR type, and the barrel+perm FH is in the receiver?

hornswaggled
08-09-2012, 7:24 AM
That brings up a good point, is it possible to pin a 1.5" muzzle brake in place of a flash suppressor on 14.5" barrels? Never heard anyone talk about permanently attached brakes.

tenpercentfirearms
08-09-2012, 7:25 AM
What if it isn't an AR type, and the barrel+perm FH is in the receiver?

Can you take it apart to where it is no longer a semi-automatic detachable magazine rifle? Take the bolt out? Take the op rod off? If it can't fire semi-automatic, the law doesn't apply. No constructive possession for AWs in CA.

It is sad it has to sit around the house in pieces, but if you can't reassemble it in 30 seconds, you need to practice more. And the end goal is to eventually defeat all of this in the courts, so it wouldn't be a permanent state of disassembly. However, you keep your firearms and we keep fighting.

ptoguy2002
08-09-2012, 7:43 AM
And thinking about a bit further, I may have a problem with my [registered] Barrett M82CA. Theoretically, the mag can come out with a tool and without diss-assembly of the action. I'd have to look, but I think the swing down mag is screwed in.
This one is the DOJ approved one too.
So how does that work, if DOJ approved the Barrett swing down as legal, and now it isn't?
Can I be the lawsuit plaintiff?
Or find one of the guys with the FAL's that DOJ approved, and use them.

tenpercentfirearms
08-09-2012, 7:49 AM
And thinking about a bit further, I may have a problem with my [registered] Barrett M82CA. Theoretically, the mag can come out with a tool and without diss-assembly of the action. I'd have to look, but I think the swing down mag is screwed in.
This one is the DOJ approved one too.
So how does that work, if DOJ approved the Barrett swing down as legal, and now it isn't?
Can I be the lawsuit plaintiff?
Or find one of the guys with the FAL's that DOJ approved, and use them.

Now wait a second. So by Barrett M82CA (registered) you mean you registered it under AB50 (or whatever the hell it was) back in 2005-2006 correct?

So it is a registered 50 BMG, but not a registered AW?

I have had a theory about this for years now and I think we might actually get to test it. If I were you, I would not worry about it. Please see this thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124912&highlight=12285

So deep down inside, if anyone ever charged me for 12280 A B or C (now 30600s), I would pull out my .50 BMG registration and remind them that I am a person exempt and cannot be charged with those sections of the penal code.

ptoguy2002
08-09-2012, 7:56 AM
Now wait a second. So by Barrett M82CA (registered) you mean you registered it under AB50 (or whatever the hell it was) back in 2005-2006 correct?

So it is a registered 50 BMG, but not a registered AW?

I have had a theory about this for years now and I think we might actually get to test it. If I were you, I would not worry about it. Please see this thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124912&highlight=12285

So deep down inside, if anyone ever charged me for 12280 A B or C (now 30600s), I would pull out my .50 BMG registration and remind them that I am a person exempt and cannot be charged with those sections of the penal code.

The Barrett was a non-AW (fixed mag), registered after the 50 BMG ban. But I do have pre-2000 RAW's.
And I understand the theory from that link, but I sure don't want go first.

tenpercentfirearms
08-09-2012, 8:07 AM
The Barrett was a non-AW (fixed mag), registered after the 50 BMG ban. But I do have pre-2000 RAW's.
And I understand the theory from that link, but I sure don't want go first.

I have handled a Barrett M82 .416 and I assume they are the same. I would recommend you simply take it apart.

And again, this is if it even passes.

The other thing you should do is just go back to regular magazine. They can't charge you! ;)

I too keep my guns legit. However, if they ever came at me bro, that is going to be my defense.

ptoguy2002
08-09-2012, 8:55 AM
I have handled a Barrett M82 .416 and I assume they are the same. I would recommend you simply take it apart.

And again, this is if it even passes.

The other thing you should do is just go back to regular magazine. They can't charge you! ;)

I too keep my guns legit. However, if they ever came at me bro, that is going to be my defense.

They are different. Barrett made their .416 versions with a bullet button IIRC.
The M82CA has a swing down mag, see below pics.
It can't be taken apart easily.
Can't go back to regular mags, because they welded a block into the receiver so it wouldn't take one. Can't do featureless on .50, it is borderline dangerous, need to have a good grip on it.
Either way I'm F-ed.
I suppose I have an approval letter. And if SB249 is declaratory of existing law, I should still be good?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/Spikespigiel/M82A1CAL.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/Spikespigiel/82A1CAL-CAletter001.jpg

Prince50
08-09-2012, 9:01 AM
This is part of the bigger picture I was talking about in another thread. I too have the Barrett M82A1-CAL that came with the swing down magazine. It cannot be removed after purchase/registration because the 50BMG registration is not the same as the AW registration, and any new registration would not be the same as the previous two.

Any new registration would most likely be amended to say the Bullet-ButtonŽ would have to stay in the newly registered rifle, as any rifle already an AW by features would be illegal.

This is how they have done it in the past, and yes the new AB249 would render the Barrett M82A1-CAL illegal.

Glad I own one, as I would not mind being the firt test case.

Smoke that Yee.

Darin

tenpercentfirearms
08-09-2012, 9:47 AM
How does the swing down magazine remove? Can you just unscrew it with the firearm put together? Then yeah, it is going to be illegal unless you take it apart or rely on 12285 to protect you.

Glad I own one, as I would not mind being the firt test case.

Smoke that Yee.

Darin Darin Mother Fing Prince everyone!

ptoguy2002
08-09-2012, 10:01 AM
How does the swing down magazine remove? Can you just unscrew it with the firearm put together? Then yeah, it is going to be illegal unless you take it apart or rely on 12285 to protect you.

Darin Mother Fing Prince everyone!

I think they are one way screws. I'll check for sure when I get home. Not easy one way or the other. And it still doesn't require you to disassemble the action to do it.
http://www.tufnutworks.com/Images/traf/owst.gif

Sydwaiz
08-09-2012, 10:09 AM
This is part of the bigger picture I was talking about in another thread. I too have the Barrett M82A1-CAL that came with the swing down magazine. It cannot be removed after purchase/registration because the 50BMG registration is not the same as the AW registration, and any new registration would not be the same as the previous two.

Any new registration would most likely be amended to say the Bullet-ButtonŽ would have to stay in the newly registered rifle, as any rifle already an AW by features would be illegal.

This is how they have done it in the past, and yes the new AB249 would render the Barrett M82A1-CAL illegal.

Glad I own one, as I would not mind being the firt test case.

Smoke that Yee.

Darin

Damn, we miss you guys! :)

ptoguy2002
08-09-2012, 10:12 AM
.....I would not mind being the firt test case.

Smoke that Yee.

Darin

I think any gun that had a DOJ approval letter for it, like the top load FAL's, or the M82CA's, would be good game. Either way though, the ex-post facto in this is undeniable with the changing of the language.

ptoguy2002
08-09-2012, 10:17 AM
Am I the only one who is starting to stress about this?
I'm f'ed with some HK's too.

tintguy
08-09-2012, 10:20 AM
From my understanding if sb249 passes Ar-15's rifles and pistols have to be in one of the following configurations to be legal.

A) upper and lower separated
B)cmmg 22.cal conversion kit installed
C) go featureless

As for the AR pistol I'm thinking option A or B. What do you guys think?

tenpercentfirearms
08-09-2012, 10:40 AM
From my understanding if sb249 passes Ar-15's rifles and pistols have to be in one of the following configurations to be legal.

A) upper and lower separated
B)cmmg 22.cal conversion kit installed
C) go featureless

As for the AR pistol I'm thinking option A or B. What do you guys think?

Pistols A will be the only option. .22 rimfire are the same as centerfire in the pistol world.

DonFerrando
08-09-2012, 10:47 AM
If there was a way to put the screwhead of the Prince50 Mag-Lock Kit's set screw on the inside of the button instead of the outside so you would need to remove the upper, then use the Allen wrench from the inside shouldn't that bring the rifle in compliance? I am asking because I'd hate to throw away my vertical foregrips and expensive hammer stocks...

:mad:

Fate
08-09-2012, 10:54 AM
At this point if it passes I won't be taking it out, but I'm going to maintain that the law says "Flash Suppressor" and mine is sold as a "Flash Hider." Plus, there are companies that sell their A2's as a "compensator," and I remember reading on here once that the gov't considers an A2 a "compensator" as well. I wouldn't listen to me if I were you, but this is my mindset to this unconstitutional bill.

Listening to you will get someone convicted of a felony.

DonFerrando
08-09-2012, 10:57 AM
Listening to you will get someone convicted of a felony.

Must... not... think... this... thought... ARRRGHH

Fate
08-09-2012, 11:04 AM
From my understanding if sb249 passes Ar-15's rifles and pistols have to be in one of the following configurations to be legal.

A) upper and lower separated
B)cmmg 22.cal conversion kit installed
C) go featureless

As for the AR pistol I'm thinking option A or B. What do you guys think?

Pistols A will be the only option. .22 rimfire are the same as centerfire in the pistol world.

10% is mostly right. He forgot that one could turn it into a single shot by disabling the gas system. Mag capacity (and detachability) would no longer be an issue either.

AR/AK pistols cannot be run in a featureless or non-mag locked state due to the CA AW regulations that state any semi-auto pistol that accepts a magazine outside of the grip is an AW. Many also have threaded barrels which would also trigger AW status in the above.

Sydwaiz
08-09-2012, 11:12 AM
If there was a way to put the screwhead of the Prince50 Mag-Lock Kit's set screw on the inside of the button instead of the outside so you would need to remove the upper, then use the Allen wrench from the inside shouldn't that bring the rifle in compliance? I am asking because I'd hate to throw away my vertical foregrips and expensive hammer stocks...

:mad:

This. Yes there is a way but it would require some simple mods to the inside of the lower. I thought of this a while back. But it's basically turning your AR into a top loader like the old FAB10. The way I see it is once you crack open your upper and lower, you have just disassembled it.

tenpercentfirearms
08-09-2012, 11:33 AM
Let's keep the pressure on appropriations and then we won't even need to worry about this discussion. We can find ways to comply with the bill if it becomes law. We always do.

DonFerrando
08-09-2012, 11:34 AM
This. Yes there is a way but it would require some simple mods to the inside of the lower. I thought of this a while back. But it's basically turning your AR into a top loader like the old FAB10. The way I see it is once you crack open your upper and lower, you have just disassembled it.


Interesting, though I'd hate to have to do any permanent alterations to any part of the firearm. I recognize that this would turn it into a top loader which is dumb and probably dangerous too but at least I'd be able to keep it and store it until the day that this issue is resolved or society breaks down in which case I won't care. Just as long as I don't have to get rid of any of my expensive accessories. I had to save for a long time to built the AR I wanted. :(

DonFerrando
08-09-2012, 11:34 AM
Let's keep the pressure on appropriations and then we won't even need to worry about this discussion. We can find ways to comply with the bill if it becomes law. We always do.

Definitely!

Sydwaiz
08-09-2012, 12:56 PM
Interesting, though I'd hate to have to do any permanent alterations to any part of the firearm. I recognize that this would turn it into a top loader which is dumb and probably dangerous too but at least I'd be able to keep it and store it until the day that this issue is resolved or society breaks down in which case I won't care. Just as long as I don't have to get rid of any of my expensive accessories. I had to save for a long time to built the AR I wanted. :(

While the alteration is permanent to the lower, it would also be invisible and can still be returned to stock.

SgtDinosaur
08-09-2012, 3:32 PM
I never thought I would be glad to have a lower with a fixed magazine in my safe. Hope I never have to actually use it.

rimfire78
08-09-2012, 7:27 PM
I never thought I would be glad to have a lower with a fixed magazine in my safe. Hope I never have to actually use it.

Yeah no doubt.
When I got on board, I picked up a muzzle brake, fixed stock, hammerhead grip, grip wrap, and a .22 conversion so that if this ever happened I'd have a choice as to configuration.
If it were to pass, I may end up just locking it down though.

Q: Where would a stripped lower stand in all this?

huntercf
08-09-2012, 7:53 PM
Pistols A will be the only option. .22 rimfire are the same as centerfire in the pistol world.

What about a GSG-22PK, the upper and lower cannot separate.

Prince50
08-09-2012, 8:15 PM
Fear not guys, should this pass (Which it should not), I have a California complaint alternative ready once again! ;)

Darin

rimfire78
08-09-2012, 8:17 PM
Fear not guys, should this pass (Which it should not), I have a workaround ready once again! ;)

Darin

Sweet!

huntercf
08-09-2012, 8:35 PM
Fear not guys, should this pass (Which it should not), I have a workaround way to be compliant ready once again! ;)

Darin

Fixed it for ya!
Awesome by the way!:D

Prince50
08-09-2012, 9:24 PM
Thaks for the fix!

I'll edit above

Grizzerman
08-09-2012, 9:53 PM
Isn't it a little early to be feeding the enemy with so much information?

Lone_Gunman
08-09-2012, 11:17 PM
Now wait a second. So by Barrett M82CA (registered) you mean you registered it under AB50 (or whatever the hell it was) back in 2005-2006 correct?

So it is a registered 50 BMG, but not a registered AW?

I have had a theory about this for years now and I think we might actually get to test it. If I were you, I would not worry about it. Please see this thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124912&highlight=12285

So deep down inside, if anyone ever charged me for 12280 A B or C (now 30600s), I would pull out my .50 BMG registration and remind them that I am a person exempt and cannot be charged with those sections of the penal code.

Wait a frickin minute... I registered an M1A back in '99 as an AW 'cause it had a FH. I later removed the FH and sold it through an FFL to a person out of state. Are you telling me that because I complied in '99 I may be in a very good place?

Brown Rock
08-09-2012, 11:28 PM
That brings up a good point, is it possible to pin a 1.5" muzzle brake in place of a flash suppressor on 14.5" barrels? Never heard anyone talk about permanently attached brakes.

This is probably what i'll be doing if SB249 passes. Where do they sell 1.5" AR muzzle brakes?

tenpercentfirearms
08-10-2012, 7:44 AM
Wait a frickin minute... I registered an M1A back in '99 as an AW 'cause it had a FH. I later removed the FH and sold it through an FFL to a person out of state. Are you telling me that because I complied in '99 I may be in a very good place?

You need to read it and decide. No one is in a hurry to test this one.

Lone_Gunman
08-10-2012, 9:09 AM
You need to read it and decide. No one is in a hurry to test this one.

Yeah... It won't be me testing it...

The Gleam
08-11-2012, 12:08 PM
They are different. Barrett made their .416 versions with a bullet button IIRC.
The M82CA has a swing down mag, see below pics.
It can't be taken apart easily.
Can't go back to regular mags, because they welded a block into the receiver so it wouldn't take one. Can't do featureless on .50, it is borderline dangerous, need to have a good grip on it.
Either way I'm F-ed.
I suppose I have an approval letter. And if SB249 is declaratory of existing law, I should still be good?


Ironically, I came here today to pose/post the question on how SB249 may affect the conversion on the M82-A1-CA from swing-down SKS style mag to a Bullet Button, as I have contemplated doing that for a couple of years on mine. I have heard of people having done it. There has been talk in the past about it here on Calguns. I've bounced around the idea for the past couple of years on mine because the swing-down is a PIA, and it would be so much easier with a BB.

I thought it would simply be a matter of getting a reverse-tool for removing the anti-tamper machine screws, removal and install of the BB (and if I had to go to an AW-Licensed FFL to do that, I can easily facilitate that task).

However, I had not heard about the "welded a block into the receiver" - that's a bummer because I have spare standard 10 round mags. Could the block not simply be dremelled out?

I did a search, but are there any posts here on Calguns detailing the process by anyone that has done the conversion? Can you extrapolate on the "welded block"? Isn't the "receiver" on this merely a plate that is a conjunction piece and the same on all 82-A1, whether CA based or not?

edgerly779
08-11-2012, 12:26 PM
Does this mean that after passage my fab10 will be in demand?

ptoguy2002
08-11-2012, 1:23 PM
However, I had not heard about the "welded a block into the receiver" - that's a bummer because I have spare standard 10 round mags. Could the block not simply be dremelled out?



Look at the area where the front lug of the magazine would engage into the receiver. On mine, there is a vertical plate welded in that would prevent the lug of a standard mag from going in. Theoretically you could cut it out. The receiver is the entire lower on the Barrett.

The Gleam
08-11-2012, 1:41 PM
Look at the area where the front lug of the magazine would engage into the receiver. On mine, there is a vertical plate welded in that would prevent the lug of a standard mag from going in. Theoretically you could cut it out. The receiver is the entire lower on the Barrett.

Thanks, I'll pull it out later today and take a look at it. I never really gave it much concern before, but now it's gnawing.

Duck Killer
08-11-2012, 1:43 PM
Doesn't the law clearly state depressing of a button with a tool? Prince 50 is a removing of a screw so shouldn't it be fine.

ptoguy2002
08-11-2012, 2:08 PM
Doesn't the law clearly state depressing of a button with a tool? Prince 50 is a removing of a screw so shouldn't it be fine.

For the purposes of this section, “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action. “Detachable magazine” includes a magazine that may be detached from the firearm by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet.

Incorrect. The Prince50 doesn't require dissassembly of the action. So you are screwed that way. The depressing bit is one part, but it also says "OR" use of a tool. Allen wrench = tool So you are screwed twice.

donw
08-11-2012, 3:20 PM
Interesting, though I'd hate to have to do any permanent alterations to any part of the firearm. I recognize that this would turn it into a top loader which is dumb and probably dangerous too but at least I'd be able to keep it and store it until the day that this issue is resolved or society breaks down in which case I won't care. Just as long as I don't have to get rid of any of my expensive accessories. I had to save for a long time to built the AR I wanted. :(

i did another thread that's active here, right now, about that very thing: removing the gas tube, the gas key and blocking the gas block with a staked pin...then ALL evil features could be retained as you'd have a single shot, bolt action, magazine fed rifle.

in the event the law is rescinded, changed or defeated in the future, re-establishing semi-auto capabilities are easily accomplished.

if you don't like that option..go featureless...but...you MUST give up the pistol grip and flash hider...(these are easily changed back to original AR features, too) and you may retain semi-auto performance...your choice.

if we ever reach the point to where society "Breaks down" i ain't gonna worry about a BB...or a MMG...or a FH...or a forward mounted vertical pistol grip...it's gonna be time to fill the air with spent brass 'n' muzzle flash...

JTROKS
08-14-2012, 10:25 PM
So the new mag-lock cannot release the mag unless the action is opened and only then a tool can be used to detach the 10 round mag.

It's too early to reveal my version and there is no screwing around, for the bill is too vague and the likelihood of the enemy fishing for info is high.