PDA

View Full Version : Legal interpretation and Q&A on AB 48 - Michel and Associates


swamp2
10-16-2013, 8:08 PM
Seems like a good topic for its own thread or perhaps even a sticky.

This is taken directly from the letter the firm published today (10/16/13) here (http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2013-California-Firearms-Related-Legislationnn-End-of-Session-Report.pdf).

Assembly Bill 48: AB 48 adds “buying” and “receiving” to the list of activities prohibited under Penal Code Section 32310(a), which already prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, offering for sale, giving, or lending of any standard-capacity magazine greater than ten rounds (aka “large-capacity magazine”).

AB 48 also defines manufacturing as “both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully-functioning “large-capacity magazine.”

Finally, AB 48 bans the purchase, sale, offering for sale, giving, receiving and lending of any “large-capacity magazine” “conversion kit.” The bill defines a “conversion kit” as “a device or combination of parts of a fully functioning “large-capacity magazine,” including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a ‘large-capacity magazine’.”

Each of these provisions takes effect January 1, 2014.

Due to the unclear definition of “conversion kit” provided by AB 48, many questions have been raised about what this provision actually prohibits. Below are some answers our office has prepared in response to questions about AB 48:

Q: Does AB 48 prohibit magazine extenders?

A. Yes. Any device capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a “large-capacity magazine” is prohibited under AB 48.

Q: Does AB 48 prohibit existing or new magazines that are not “large-capacity magazines,” or parts for these magazines.

A: No. Nothing in the plain language of AB 48 nor its legislative history suggest this. Magazines that were lawful for sale prior to AB 48 remain lawful to sell and possess, as are their parts.

Q: Does AB 48 prohibit the purchase and sale of “large-capacity magazine” repair/rebuild kits?

A: It is unknown what items would be prohibited as a “combination of parts” of a fully-functioning large-capacity magazine, including but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a “large capacity magazine.”

Because a “large capacity magazine” repair/rebuild kit does not really “convert” an existing magazine into a “large-capacity magazine,” a plain reading of AB 48 suggests that rebuild kits would not be prohibited. Rather than “converting” an existing magazine, a rebuild kit might itself be unlawfully assembled into a “large-capacity magazine.” According to the author’s statements about the intent of AB 48 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_48_cfa_20130701_095151_sen_comm.html)made before the Senate Public Safety Committee, however, AB 48 was intended to ban the sale of magazine rebuild kits. The confusion seems to have arisen based on the author’s fundamental misunderstanding of how a rebuild kit might itself be used to assemble a large-capacity magazine, rather than to “convert” an existing magazine into a large-capacity magazine.

If a court finds that AB 48's definition of a conversion is not clear on it’s face, it may turn to the bill’s legislative history for clarification. And, while the author’s comments alone may not be enough to convince a court that AB 48 applies to rebuild kits, it is impossible to know ahead of time. In any event, one City Attorney’s office has already informed our office that they believe rebuild kits are prohibited under a plain reading of the text of AB 48, because the parts contained in a magazine rebuild kit are capable of being used with one or more parts of an ammunition feeding device to assemble a large- capacity magazine.

So, while it is unclear (at best) as to whether AB 48 prohibits the transfer of magazine rebuild kits, for the time being there is risk of criminal prosecution for transferring them.

Q: If I purchased a magazine rebuild kit or magazine extender prior to January 1, 2014, may I still continue to possess it?

Yes. Nothing in AB 48 prohibits the continued possession of any device or combination of parts purchased prior to January 1, 2014, so long as they are not assembled into, or used to assemble, a “large- capacity magazine.”

Q: May I continue to possess my currently-possessed, grandfathered large-capacity magazines?

A: Yes. Nothing in the language of AB 48 is intended to prohibit the possession of grandfathered magazines. AB did include a provision that would have prohibited the possession of large-capacity magazines, and would have required existing “grandfathered” magazines to be surrendered, removed from the state, or destroyed. This provision did not become law, however, because SB 396 was defeated. This provision was included in AB 48 as well as SB 396 in case both bills had passed, so that the changes each bill would have made to the Penal Code would not be in conflict with one another. This is a common process in the legislature. Since SB 396 did not pass, existing grandfathered magazines remain lawful to possess.

Q: Is there any other way to repair existing “large-capacity magazines” without buying a rebuild kit?

A. Yes. Nothing in AB 48 or current law prohibits an individual from taking a grandfathered “large-capacity magazine” to a dealer for repair. The penal code expressly authorizes transfers of “large- capacity magazines” to a licensed firearms dealer for repair. Under CA law, licensed firearm dealers are authorized to obtain “large-capacity magazine permits” from the California Department of Justice, and many retailers maintain these permits. Accordingly, the dealer may order parts for the “large-capacity magazine” and complete any repairs.

berg
10-16-2013, 8:19 PM
This is very helpful, thanks for posting this.

donnie707
10-16-2013, 8:30 PM
Awesome thanks. So that means 10/20 and 10/30 magazines can still be purchased after 1/1/14 so long as you dont try to convert it to hi cap mags?

CWDraco
10-16-2013, 8:39 PM
The tricky part is what about a 11+ magazine that was modified into a 10rd magazine.

I own a Glock 10rd magazine. The internal frame of the magazine limits its capacity. It has 10 holes and is clearly a 10rd magazine.
I own a Glock 10rd magazine that was a 17rd magazine and now has a internal block limiting its capacity.

What happens if I disassemble the 10/17 magazine, did I just crate (manufacturer) a conversion kit post 1/1/2014? Since the 17rd body can be used with the 10rd factory magazine to create a 17rd magazine?

At one time many people (even LEO) functioned under the understanding as soon as a magazine was disassembled, it was no longer a magazine. So now instead of a magazine, does it become a "conversion kit"?

vincewarde
10-16-2013, 8:59 PM
Thank you very much!

One question: Does anything in AB48 (or the other new laws) prevent the importation of magazines permanently modified to hold 10 rounds or less?

My thought is the we could obtain magazines in another state and convert them prior to bringing them into the state. This would be the only way to get legal mags for some firearms for which 10 round magazines are not made.

nobody_special
10-16-2013, 9:57 PM
Awesome thanks. So that means 10/20 and 10/30 magazines can still be purchased after 1/1/14 so long as you dont try to convert it to hi cap mags?


One question: Does anything in AB48 (or the other new laws) prevent the importation of magazines permanently modified to hold 10 rounds or less?

My thought is the we could obtain magazines in another state and convert them prior to bringing them into the state. This would be the only way to get legal mags for some firearms for which 10 round magazines are not made.

There may be a problem. Reduced-capacity magazines (10/30s etc.) could fall under the "parts kit" definition in some cases.

For example, if a 10/30 is made using a block attached to the floorplate or follower, it is arguably an illegal "device or parts kit" due to the unmodified body and spring.

A block which is permanently attached to the body is probably best. It's difficult to envision a situation where one could "convert" an existing magazine (10/30 or plain 10-round) using only a spring, follower and floorplate make it an illegal kit. But I'm not sure.

socal-shooter
10-16-2013, 10:06 PM
Thanks

IPSICK
10-16-2013, 10:33 PM
...
Q: Is there any other way to repair existing “large-capacity magazines” without buying a rebuild kit?

A. Yes. Nothing in AB 48 or current law prohibits an individual from taking a grandfathered “large-capacity magazine” to a dealer for repair. The penal code expressly authorizes transfers of “large- capacity magazines” to a licensed firearms dealer for repair. Under CA law, licensed firearm dealers are authorized to obtain “large-capacity magazine permits” from the California Department of Justice, and many retailers maintain these permits. Accordingly, the dealer may order parts for the “large-capacity magazine” and complete any repairs.

Does anyone know if repair is mandated to be done by an authorized dealer? Seems silly to need a dealer to replace a worn out spring or follower.

swamp2
10-16-2013, 10:37 PM
There may be a problem. Reduced-capacity magazines (10/30s etc.) could fall under the "parts kit" definition in some cases.

For example, if a 10/30 is made using a block attached to the floorplate or follower, it is arguably an illegal "device or parts kit" due to the unmodified body and spring.

Excellent point. Between this thread and the other you're the master of gray areas...

bohoki
10-16-2013, 10:57 PM
For example, if a 10/30 is made using a block attached to the floorplate or follower, it is arguably an illegal "device or parts kit" due to the unmodified body and spring.


well that sounds a bit crazy if that was true than any pre-ban grandfathered magazine would be included as well

if its a magazine its not a "kit" or "parts of a kit" it is a whole

i'm still curious about the finding of magazines in storage auctions

and the statute of limitations say you buy a storage unit it has a couple ar-15 mags so you put your lock on it then wait 3 years paying rent then can you open the locker and use the mags?


also for the repair of magazines can you not go out of state and repair them with parts from a magazine you buy there?

i do like the gunstore idea they take your dented okay magazines and rebuild them into p-mags from their stock but what do they put for disposition of the magazine? destroyed?



also what is the story with the nuisance provision i assume it is only claiming that non grandfathered magazines are the ones that are the nuisance shouldn't they have to prove it is not grandfathered in a court of law before claiming it is nuisance only then it is forfeited


cause certain gunstore armchair lawyers filled with fud tell me that if they(you know the "them") find me with my old 15 year old rusty mini-14 mags and my ramline 10/22 30 rounder held together with ducttape with jbweld feedlips they will take them and destroy them (a mercy killing i know) but if they are taken and destroyed should i not be able to rebuild them with new parts cause after all they were destroyed

vincewarde
10-16-2013, 11:57 PM
There may be a problem. Reduced-capacity magazines (10/30s etc.) could fall under the "parts kit" definition in some cases.

For example, if a 10/30 is made using a block attached to the floorplate or follower, it is arguably an illegal "device or parts kit" due to the unmodified body and spring.

A block which is permanently attached to the body is probably best. It's difficult to envision a situation where one could "convert" an existing magazine (10/30 or plain 10-round) using only a spring, follower and floorplate make it an illegal kit. But I'm not sure.

Which is yet another reason to just buy 10 round magazines whenever possible - certainly until the situation is clear.

Hoop
10-17-2013, 8:14 AM
What about if someone were to buy a 30rd mag body from one company, a floor plate from another, and the spring from another? At what point does a "mag rebuild kit" become a "conversion kit"?

MudCamper
10-17-2013, 8:15 AM
Q: Is there any other way to repair existing “large-capacity magazines” without buying a rebuild kit?

A. Yes. Nothing in AB 48 or current law prohibits an individual from taking a grandfathered “large-capacity magazine” to a dealer for repair. The penal code expressly authorizes transfers of “large- capacity magazines” to a licensed firearms dealer for repair. Under CA law, licensed firearm dealers are authorized to obtain “large-capacity magazine permits” from the California Department of Justice, and many retailers maintain these permits. Accordingly, the dealer may order parts for the “large-capacity magazine” and complete any repairs.

This opinion is worth every penny that we paid for it.

What about followers and floor plates? These parts are IDENTICAL for both 10-round and 30-round magazines. According to this opinion, you can't buy these parts. You have to bring your 10-round mags to a gun dealer for repair or parts replacement as well.

Which is yet another reason to just buy 10 round magazines whenever possible - certainly until the situation is clear.

According to M&A, you can't buy parts for your legal 10-round mags either.

Bainter1212
10-17-2013, 8:38 AM
Does "receive" mean I can't "find" a mag? If I move into a new house and find a box in my attic that happens to have some 30 round mags in it, is this "receiving" or merely "possessing"?

mud99
10-17-2013, 9:25 AM
The way I see it, once this bill goes into effect, it will be less risky to own a fully assembled standard capacity magazine vs a collection of parts.

swamp2
10-17-2013, 10:21 AM
This opinion is worth every penny that we paid for it.

What about followers and floor plates? These parts are IDENTICAL for both 10-round and 30-round magazines. According to this opinion, you can't buy these parts. You have to bring your 10-round mags to a gun dealer for repair or parts replacement as well.

I completely disagree. These folks are very familiar wit this area of the law. They actually care about helping folks. Sure there are disclaimers all over the document but it provides more clarity than most here have.

It provides a clear definitive work around for a big problem folks have in terms of repairing existing legal 10+ round magazines. A key point is that nowhere do they claim that this is the only way to do so.

According to M&A, you can't buy parts for your legal 10-round mags either.

And that is 100% incorrect. As per a reading of the law and as per Q&A #2 in the OP.

umd
10-17-2013, 10:53 AM
This opinion is worth every penny that we paid for it.

Well... I did buy their book.

Renaissance Redneck
10-17-2013, 12:42 PM
Lately I've been ordering a bunch of springs and followers. I plan on continuing to do so until either the first of the year, or until the websites start to refuse to sell to us, which ever comes first. I'll be all stocked up to keep all my USGI mags in tip-top shape. It will be interesting to see how DOJ ultimately treats individual magazine parts.

CMonfort
10-17-2013, 2:37 PM
Due to the confusion created by this confusing law, we will be updating our memo soon to attempt to clarify some of the confusion over our memo that was intended to address some of the confusion. ;)

Unfortunately, there are numerous "what ifs" that may depend on how one or more ambiguities might be interpreted.

As alluded to in post number 16, our Q&A discussion regarding the ability to have a "large-capacity" magazine repaired through a dealer was not intended to suggest that would be the only way to facilitate the repair. That would simply be a lawful, low risk means of completing the repair, as it is specifically authorized by the Penal Code.

Nor was anything in our memo intended to suggest that the law prohibits the sale of any individual part(s), whether interchangeable with a "low capacity" magazine or not. Indeed, as drafted, it is even unclear whether the law effectively targets rebuild kits as a whole. Due to the ambiguous nature of the law, we are unable to advise whether any particular part or combination of parts may be deemed covered by the definition in AB 48.

The author has stated on the record that rebuild kits were the target; whether a court will get there (under various scenarios), or find that statement controlling, is unknown.

We appreciate very much the questions and scenarios raised in these threads. Reviewing them has been helpful in our attempt to address this issue and provide some "clarity" for gun owners. (And when I say our, I mean criminal attorneys, firearm attorneys, and firearm experts. This law is undoubtedly confusing and poorly crafted from our viewpoint, too.)

As soon as an updated version of the memo is posted, I will provide a link.

But don't hope for too much clarification, at the end of the day we are unable to take a position on unknown ambiguities. We can't predict whether one interpretation of an ambiguity (or potential ambiguity) will be selected over another, by law enforcement and/or prosecutors in different jurisdictions. What is evident is that even the legislature did not know what it meant, as the author lacked a fundamental understanding of the subject matter she was attempting to regulate.

sunborder
10-17-2013, 7:38 PM
MY question is this: What legal challenges are we prepared to bring? Is an injunction in the works?

wjc
10-17-2013, 7:50 PM
Got the memo in my email.

It rocks. Thanks for creating it.

SacTown
10-17-2013, 8:11 PM
Tag

nobody_special
10-17-2013, 8:26 PM
My thanks to Clint Monfort and M&A for the efforts in producing the memo.


But don't hope for too much clarification, at the end of the day we are unable to take a position on unknown ambiguities. We can't predict whether one interpretation of an ambiguity (or potential ambiguity) will be selected over another, by law enforcement and/or prosecutors in different jurisdictions. What is evident is that even the legislature did not know what it meant, as the author lacked a fundamental understanding of the subject matter she was attempting to regulate.

Which is why I subscribe to the kcbrown school of judicial expectations: be as pessimistic as possible. It's safer that way.

dave1947
10-17-2013, 8:45 PM
AB 48 also defines manufacturing as “both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully-functioning “large-capacity magazine.”
what about reassembly after you took it apart to clean it

maxima
10-17-2013, 9:16 PM
A: It is unknown what items would be prohibited as a “combination of parts” of a fully-functioning large-capacity magazine, including but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a “large capacity magazine.” As far as I can think of:

Music wire can be used to rebuilt "standard cap" magazine spring.
Sheet metal can be cut to rebuilt floor plate.
Sheet metal can be cut and rebuilt mag body.
Sheet metal can also be reshaped to rebuilt mag follower.

The above materials can be used to rebuild/make/convert almost any magazine, "standard cap" or reduced cap (quality wise is another story). Are the combination of those above rebuild kits? And should those be banned according to AB48, since it does not define how you rebuild/convert the mags?

mag360
10-17-2013, 10:20 PM
So much wasted discussion over a complete nonsense concept and yet it has been on the books for 13 years. THIS is why the rest of the country hates us.

Thank you to M&A for helping us navigate our assinine victimless paper crime laws. I need a scotch.

SWalt
10-17-2013, 10:53 PM
So much wasted discussion over a complete nonsense concept and yet it has been on the books for 13 years. THIS is why the rest of the country hates us.

Thank you to M&A for helping us navigate our assinine victimless paper crime laws. I need a scotch.

Take a look at my sig line, there maybe a clue of my opinion.

SWalt
10-17-2013, 10:55 PM
Thanks for the information. It gives all of us a clue the many ways they want to make us all criminals.

Ninety
10-17-2013, 11:05 PM
Another what if..

What about removing your legally owned rebuild kits from the state for use in a free state and then return with them? AFAIK as long as you owned them in the state prior to the ban you wouldn't be importing as you already owned them prior to the law...

arsilva32
10-18-2013, 12:47 AM
this law will save countless um (cough) lives.


don't you just love how people that don't know a dam thing about guns and feeding devices, prob never even seen them up close, are making the laws that restrict them. WTF!

nick
10-18-2013, 1:21 AM
i do like the gunstore idea they take your dented okay magazines and rebuild them into p-mags from their stock but what do they put for disposition of the magazine? destroyed?

I suppose, they could also sell it to a free state, or to a state which allows the sale of "pre-ban" mags.

RP1911
10-18-2013, 6:56 AM
... What is evident is that even the legislature did not know what it meant, as the author lacked a fundamental understanding of the subject matter she was attempting to regulate.

Signature material.

Unfortunately this is not uncommon in the Legislature. They pass it and it becomes law. They realize the mistakes and sometimes in the next session they fix the mistakes.

mag360
10-18-2013, 7:48 AM
If I take some mags to the dealer that are broken, can he fix them for me, then give me a "paper trail" to shove in the face of stupid LEO that says "SEE, I legally OWN this and it was fixed by xyz dealer" Is that now a legitimization of something that they want to eliminate by any means necessary? kind of hard to prosecute when it says this mag was fixed by your own policies you have spelled out.

MudCamper
10-18-2013, 7:57 AM
Due to the confusion created by this confusing law, we will be updating our memo soon to attempt to clarify some of the confusion over our memo that was intended to address some of the confusion. ;)

Unfortunately, there are numerous "what ifs" that may depend on how one or more ambiguities might be interpreted.

As alluded to in post number 16, our Q&A discussion regarding the ability to have a "large-capacity" magazine repaired through a dealer was not intended to suggest that would be the only way to facilitate the repair. That would simply be a lawful, low risk means of completing the repair, as it is specifically authorized by the Penal Code.

Nor was anything in our memo intended to suggest that the law prohibits the sale of any individual part(s), whether interchangeable with a "low capacity" magazine or not. Indeed, as drafted, it is even unclear whether the law effectively targets rebuild kits as a whole. Due to the ambiguous nature of the law, we are unable to advise whether any particular part or combination of parts may be deemed covered by the definition in AB 48.

The author has stated on the record that rebuild kits were the target; whether a court will get there (under various scenarios), or find that statement controlling, is unknown.

We appreciate very much the questions and scenarios raised in these threads. Reviewing them has been helpful in our attempt to address this issue and provide some "clarity" for gun owners. (And when I say our, I mean criminal attorneys, firearm attorneys, and firearm experts. This law is undoubtedly confusing and poorly crafted from our viewpoint, too.)

As soon as an updated version of the memo is posted, I will provide a link.

But don't hope for too much clarification, at the end of the day we are unable to take a position on unknown ambiguities. We can't predict whether one interpretation of an ambiguity (or potential ambiguity) will be selected over another, by law enforcement and/or prosecutors in different jurisdictions. What is evident is that even the legislature did not know what it meant, as the author lacked a fundamental understanding of the subject matter she was attempting to regulate.

Thanks for the clarification.

glock_this
10-18-2013, 8:02 AM
Nothing, relative to modified 10/20 10/30 mags, is "permanent", "permanently attached" or "permanently modified". Every commonly accepted method to "permanently" block a mag can be undone in minutes. I know, I have undone them all in 5 mins or less.

fireguymfd
10-18-2013, 8:26 AM
Question for CMonfort?

"Nor was anything in our memo intended to suggest that the law prohibits the sale of any individual part(s), whether interchangeable with a "low capacity" magazine or not. Indeed, as drafted, it is even unclear whether the law effectively targets rebuild kits as a whole. Due to the ambiguous nature of the law, we are unable to advise whether any particular part or combination of parts may be deemed covered by the definition in AB 48.

The author has stated on the record that rebuild kits were the target; whether a court will get there (under various scenarios), or find that statement controlling, is unknown."

So AB 48 was intended to stop the flow of legal rebuild/parts kits to Californian's. SF sued 44 Mag, Copes and Exile because they believed the kits were being used by buyers to manufacture high capacity magazines. I can't delve into the intent of buyers, frankly, I cannot see how SF could either. However, the suit seeks damages for a practice that was apparently legal, otherwise there would have been no need for AB 48. The original letter from the DOJ allowed the purchase of parts kits to rebuild existing high capacity magazines. If you read the Exile website warnings, it gives three examples of legal rebuild kit ownership. #1 to repair existing mags... #2 to build blocked 10 rounders. #3 implies that rebuild kits can be owned and stored as parts kits... no need to repair originally owned magazines.

I have a few questions:

1) Assuming all three practices are legal, how does AB 48 effect this lawsuit? How can you sit before a judge and say we seek damages for a legal practice.... because we believe they know buyers are manufacturing high capacity magazines? And furthermore, nevermind that our allies passed AB 48.

2) Rebuild kits have taken off in the past few years. I see many blocked 10 round rebuild kits at the ranges. I know folks who keep rebuild kits, drive to Nevada and assemble them there... for a day of freedom. Assuming this practice has been legal all along, and like possession of existing pre ban high capacity magazines, parts kits are still legal to possess. Is it a likely scenario that keeping receipts to prove possession of parts kits prior to AB 48 would allow for continued use of parts kits in this manner?

California has a history of creating stupid laws that keep law-abiding citizens compliant because they are written so badly. Rather than risk a long drawn out legal battle over this ambiguity, we comply. I think AB 48 is a great example. The former laws allowed parts to be shipped to Californians. Many vendors bagan to cater to Californians. Ironically, the Exile machine warnings prove that this legal amiguity led to unofficial interpretations of the law. At a minimum, the DOJ is culpable because they never said purchasing such parts was illegal. Still a dangerous proposition when dealing with fanatical anti-firearm politicians. I have never been comfortable purchasing rebuild kits for many of those reasons.

Nor*Cal
10-18-2013, 8:32 AM
Nothing, relative to modified 10/20 10/30 mags, is "permanent", "permanently attached" or "permanently modified". Every commonly accepted method to "permanently" block a mag can be undone in minutes. I know, I have undone them all in 5 mins or less.

Mine have the blocks epoxied to the floor plates and the floor plates are epoxied to the mag bodies and pinned. I took no chances.

You can undue these in minutes? No way, not without destroying the mag and making it plastic scrap.

IPSICK
10-18-2013, 9:56 AM
Nothing, relative to modified 10/20 10/30 mags, is "permanent", "permanently attached" or "permanently modified". Every commonly accepted method to "permanently" block a mag can be undone in minutes. I know, I have undone them all in 5 mins or less.

That process sounds illegal after 1/1/2014.

SOAR79
10-18-2013, 9:58 AM
tagged

jpx0123
10-18-2013, 10:16 AM
Mine have the blocks epoxied to the floor plates and the floor plates are epoxied to the mag bodies and pinned. I took no chances.

You can undue these in minutes? No way, not without destroying the mag and making it plastic scrap.

this is where i am confused. i have some 10/20 and 10/30 mags. some where bought that were modified by a manufacturer and bought at an LGS. i don't know how it was limited but the bases were apoxied so i can't take them apart, but they don't have a pin visible if they pinned it.

i have other that had a block apoxied to the follower and i apoxied the base plates when i got them and they have no pins.

are both of these ok under AB48? im so confused about these crap.

umd
10-18-2013, 10:25 AM
are both of these ok under AB48? im so confused about these crap.

I don't believe that anything in AB48 could affect the legality of an already assembled 10/20 or 10/30 as long as you don't take it apart. If you take it apart, that brings into the question of parts kits, etc. Any issues regarding the permanence of the modification would already be present under the current law.

scootle
10-18-2013, 4:06 PM
This info needs to be stickified at the very tip top of all the CalGuns forums, imho. Would curb a ton of the endlessly repeating threads around here, hopefully. :D

vincewarde
10-19-2013, 2:27 PM
AB 48 also defines manufacturing as “both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully-functioning “large-capacity magazine.”
what about reassembly after you took it apart to clean it

I think you may have answered your own question. Disassembly and reassembly are not assembly. At least this would seem to be a good argument.

ronlglock
10-20-2013, 6:00 AM
Relating to this:
Q: Does AB 48 prohibit magazine extenders?
A. Yes. Any device capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a “large-capacity magazine” is prohibited under AB 48

If someone has grandfathered magazines that came from the factory with an "extended floor plate" (such as the Mec-Gar +2 for a SIG P226, or the G26 +2) would those extended floor plates now be illegal? I would contend that it is integral to the magazine as it will not function if the part is removed.

CWDraco
10-20-2013, 7:05 AM
Relating to this:
Q: Does AB 48 prohibit magazine extenders?
A. Yes. Any device capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a “large-capacity magazine” is prohibited under AB 48

If someone has grandfathered magazines that came from the factory with an "extended floor plate" (such as the Mec-Gar +2 for a SIG P226, or the G26 +2) would those extended floor plates now be illegal? I would contend that it is integral to the magazine as it will not function if the part is removed.

just as LCM are grandfathered as are "kits", I think your magazines with extenders are also grandfathered. You just need to convince the LEO arresting you they are not illegal.

have fun with that... sorry for your loss :confused:

nobody_special
10-20-2013, 7:55 AM
There is no explicit grandfather clause, but continued possession is not illegal.

Hoop
10-20-2013, 8:33 AM
Seems to me the only things that are clearly illegal will be magazine extenders and possibly 20-30+ round magazine bodies but I don't know how they'd enforce either of those. Apart from sending the usual flunkys to gun shows looking for dealers selling those items it's going to be pretty much impossible to determine when and where someone obtained an unmarked, undated steel magazine body.

Ford8N
10-20-2013, 9:01 AM
this law will save countless um (cough) lives.


don't you just love how people that don't know a dam thing about guns and feeding devices, prob never even seen them up close, are making the laws that restrict them. WTF!

This has been going on for decades. Nothing new. We gun owners have come to accept it from our Rulers. And the sheep that keep voting to keep those Rulers in power love and agree with them. Just the way it is in California.

IPSICK
10-20-2013, 11:04 AM
Relating to this:
Q: Does AB 48 prohibit magazine extenders?
A. Yes. Any device capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a “large-capacity magazine” is prohibited under AB 48

If someone has grandfathered magazines that came from the factory with an "extended floor plate" (such as the Mec-Gar +2 for a SIG P226, or the G26 +2) would those extended floor plates now be illegal? I would contend that it is integral to the magazine as it will not function if the part is removed.

From what I'm seeing so far, many of the extenders are incompatible with 10-rounders. So I'm not sure how any of these incompatible extenders could be illegal per the description of "conversion kit".

CWDraco
10-20-2013, 12:57 PM
There is no explicit grandfather clause, but continued possession is not illegal.

I believe the Grandfather claus will be in force due to the wording "after 1/1/2014" meaning anything before that date is excluded from the law. This is why a LCM owned prior to 1/1/2000 is legal and exempt from some portions of the law, such as manufacturing since it existed as a magazine prior to 1/1/2000.

In the case of extenders they are owned prior to 1/1/2014, but can never be used. just like magazine rebuild kits can never be assembled into working magazines, but are legal to posses if owned prior to 1/1/2014.

shortround1
10-20-2013, 3:06 PM
this law will save countless um (cough) lives.


don't you just love how people that don't know a dam thing about guns and feeding devices, prob never even seen them up close, are making the laws that restrict them. WTF!

I'll tell you what a conversion kit is... It's a shoulder thingy that goes up.

CWDraco
10-20-2013, 3:27 PM
I'll tell you what a conversion kit is... It's a shoulder thingy that goes up.

I went to diner with some in-laws and the gun laws came up... yup AB48 bans multiple firing magazines. Seems some illegal magazines allow guns to fire more then 1 bullet at a time. I tried to correct the person, but it wasn't going to happen, she's a Professor so I just shut up. No reason to ruin a loved ones diner party.

Meplat
10-20-2013, 3:53 PM
Signature material.

Unfortunately this is not uncommon in the Legislature. They pass it and it becomes law. They realize the mistakes and sometimes in the next session they fix the mistakes.

Now that is Peloseyesqu! They have to pass it to find out what's in it! Somebody.........please.........wake me up!!

Meplat
10-20-2013, 3:57 PM
That process sounds illegal after 1/1/2014.

He of course did it in another state.

bohoki
10-20-2013, 4:17 PM
I suppose, they could also sell it to a free state, or to a state which allows the sale of "pre-ban" mags.

no i meant what do they put down for the p-mag that they used to rebuild the worn magazine i'm assuming there are some papertrail rules to having the large capacity magazine permit

axhoaxho
10-20-2013, 6:04 PM
Thanks for the information.

nobody_special
10-20-2013, 6:33 PM
I believe the Grandfather claus will be in force due to the wording "after 1/1/2014" meaning anything before that date is excluded from the law. This is why a LCM owned prior to 1/1/2000 is legal and exempt from some portions of the law, such as manufacturing since it existed as a magazine prior to 1/1/2000.

In the case of extenders they are owned prior to 1/1/2014, but can never be used. just like magazine rebuild kits can never be assembled into working magazines, but are legal to posses if owned prior to 1/1/2014.

There's a subtle distinction here. The wording in AB48 is "commencing January 1, 2014" and it just means that the law doesn't take effect until that time.

A grandfather clause is an exemption to the new law, applied to items already possessed. AB48 does not have a grandfather clause. Every action that is illegal due to AB48 fully applies to "devices and conversion kits" that were lawfully possesed before 2014.

The situation is mostly the same for large-cap mags. There is only one grandfather clause, for re-importation of legal pre-ban magazines. But that's it.

klewan
10-20-2013, 6:56 PM
I remember this bill having a provision that any mag longer than needed to contain 10 rounds was going to be banned. What happened to that?

What's scary is 10 of the brighter Calgunners could have come up with a law that didn't have ANY workarounds. NONE. This "English as a Second language" effort, not so much...Hard to believe how bad this law was written...

donnie707
10-20-2013, 7:33 PM
does any store sell 10/20 or 10/30 mags that has the floor plate permanently sealed on? and what constitutes as permanent?

nobody_special
10-20-2013, 8:07 PM
I remember this bill having a provision that any mag longer than needed to contain 10 rounds was going to be banned. What happened to that?

What's scary is 10 of the brighter Calgunners could have come up with a law that didn't have ANY workarounds. NONE. This "English as a Second language" effort, not so much...Hard to believe how bad this law was written...

Section 1.5 that completely banned possession of high-caps will not take effect, because SB396 was not passed. This is explained in section 3 of AB48.

I hope this law is vauge enough to be struck down. (Or even better, all of 32310-32311 is struck on 2A grounds.) Otherwise, DAs who want to stick it to gun owners can take advantage of the lack of clarity.

does any store sell 10/20 or 10/30 mags that has the floor plate permanently sealed on? and what constitutes as permanent?

I've seen some with blocks and epoxied floorplates. As for what constitutes permanent, everyone has an opinion but nobody knows.

SelfGovernor
10-20-2013, 11:33 PM
Assembly Bill 48: AB 48 adds “buying” and “receiving” to the list of activities prohibited under Penal Code Section 32310(a), which already prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, offering for sale, giving, or lending of any standard-capacity magazine greater than ten rounds (aka “large-capacity magazine”).



What is the legal definition of importation? If someone has repair kits before the ban and travels to another state, is it considered importation when they return with them?

Never mind that CHP pulling you over and finding your "illegal" rebuild kits, I'm more interested in what a prosecutor will think, or how a judge will instruct a jury.

:confused::confused::confused:

nobody_special
10-21-2013, 12:00 AM
What is the legal definition of importation? If someone has repair kits before the ban and travels to another state, is it considered importation when they return with them?


Yes. (Ah! - finally something that is relatively clear.)

Tincon
10-21-2013, 1:31 AM
Yes. (Ah! - finally something that is relatively clear.)

Or not.

Both the revised section 32310 and the new section 32311 contain the language "Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400)."

32420. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation of a
large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000,
lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with
the same large-capacity magazine.

So while it may be "importation" it is not punishable under section 32310 or 32311.

Paul223
10-21-2013, 4:36 AM
Thank you for the posting.

nobody_special
10-21-2013, 6:46 AM
Tincon, that exception explicitly does not apply to 32311.

Tincon
10-21-2013, 7:53 AM
Tincon, that exception explicitly does not apply to 32311.

What are you basing that on?

nobody_special
10-21-2013, 8:00 AM
The first two words of 32410: "Section 32310".

AFAICT It provides an exemption to 32310, not 32311. Also, it refers to LCMs, not conversion kits and devices.

And if my answer were incorrectt, 32410 would be unnecessary.

Tincon
10-21-2013, 8:16 AM
The first two words of 32410: "Section 32310".

AFAICT It provides an exemption to 32310, not 32311. Also, it refers to LCMs, not conversion kits and devices.

And if my answer were incorrectt, 32410 would be unnecessary.

ALL of the sections in "Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400)" refer to section 32310 only (and accordingly, LCMs). If we were to accept your argument, the language in 32311 referring to "Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400)" would be superfluous and a nullity. As such, I don't think your interpretation is plausible.

umd
10-21-2013, 8:22 AM
ALL of the sections in "Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400)" refer to section 32310 only (and accordingly, LCMs). If we were to accept your argument, the language in 32311 referring to "Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400)" would be superfluous and a nullity. As such, I don't think your interpretation is plausible.

Well, you are basing your position on the idea that they wouldn't make such a stupid mistake. Sure, 32311 says "Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400)", but nothing in 32400 and on appears to be relevant to conversion kits. At best it's confusing and ambiguous. It seems to me that they were just careless (surprise!) when they referenced an irrelevant list of exceptions.

Tincon
10-21-2013, 8:25 AM
Well, you are basing your position on the idea that they wouldn't make such a stupid mistake.

Well, the canon of statutory interpretation make that assumption. There are some other interesting problems with the failed SB 396 section, however I will reserve comment in case it rears its ugly head again.

nobody_special
10-21-2013, 8:50 AM
If we were to accept your argument, the language in 32311 referring to "Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400)" would be superfluous and a nullity

I don't think so, don't have the PC in front of me right now but I thought there were other exemptions in that section, such as for LEO etc.

Tincon
10-21-2013, 8:59 AM
I don't think so, don't have the PC in front of me right now but I thought there were other exemptions in that section, such as for LEO etc.

There are lots of exemptions and they all refer to 32310 and LCMs, but the implication of the language in 32311 is that all of the exemptions in article 2 also apply to 32311.

SEC. 2.
Section 32311 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

32311.
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2014, any person in this state who knowingly manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large capacity magazine conversion kit is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This section does not apply to a fully assembled large-capacity magazine, which is governed by Section 32310.
(b) For purposes of this section, a “large capacity magazine conversion kit” is a device or combination of parts of a fully functioning large-capacity magazine, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine.

32400. Section 32310 does not apply to the sale of, giving of,
lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any
large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and
county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any
law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official
duties, whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by
the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.



32405. Section 32310 does not apply to the sale to, lending to,
transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state
of, a large-capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer, as defined in
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, who
is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of that
officer's duties.

32410. Section 32310 does not apply to the sale or purchase of any
large-capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to
Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive.

32415. Section 32310 does not apply to the loan of a lawfully
possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of
the following conditions are met:
(a) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not
prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 29610), Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 29800), or Chapter 3 (commencing with
Section 29900) of Division 9 of this title or Section 8100 or 8103 of
the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or
ammunition.
(b) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or
location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not
otherwise prohibited, and the person who lends the large-capacity
magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the
large-capacity magazine is loaned.

32420. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation of a
large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000,
lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with
the same large-capacity magazine.

32425. Section 32310 does not apply to either of the following:
(a) The lending or giving of any large-capacity magazine to a
person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, or to
a gunsmith, for the purposes of maintenance, repair, or modification
of that large-capacity magazine.
(b) The return to its owner of any large-capacity magazine by a
person specified in subdivision (a).

32430. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation into this
state of, or sale of, any large-capacity magazine by a person who has
been issued a permit to engage in those activities pursuant to
Section 32315, when those activities are in accordance with the terms
and conditions of that permit.

32435. Section 32310 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this
state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by any
entity that operates an armored vehicle business pursuant to the laws
of this state.
(b) The lending of large-capacity magazines by an entity specified
in subdivision (a) to its authorized employees, while in the course
and scope of employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's
armored vehicle business.
(c) The return of those large-capacity magazines to the entity
specified in subdivision (a) by those employees specified in
subdivision (b).

32440. Section 32310 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for any federal,
state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with
the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the
discharge of their official duties, whether on or off duty, and where
the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and
scope of their duties.
(b) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for use by a
sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with
Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, who is authorized to carry a
firearm in the course and scope of that officer's duties.
(c) The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for export or for
sale to government agencies or the military pursuant to applicable
federal regulations.

32445. Section 32310 does not apply to the loan of a large-capacity
magazine for use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television,
or video production.

32450. Section 32310 does not apply to the purchase of a
large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit
issued pursuant to Section 31000, 32650, or 33300, or pursuant to
Article 3 (commencing with Section 18900) of Chapter 1 of Division 5
of Title 2, or pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 32700)
of Chapter 6 of this division, for any of the following purposes:
(a) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or
video production.
(b) For export pursuant to federal regulations.
(c) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies,
or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations.

donw
10-21-2013, 9:05 AM
i need an excedrin...:gene::helpsmilie:

Tincon
10-21-2013, 10:20 AM
Point of clarification here, it is not at all clear how a court would rule on this. An overzealous prosecutor may well decide to prosecute someone for something that would be legal with an LCM, but somehow arguably illegal with a "conversion kit" (obviously just a disassembled LCM). I think that is an absurd result, and of course it requires that one give no meaning to the introductory clause in 32311(a). Originally I was posting in response to the assertion that the law on that point was "relatively clear". It is anything but. Unfortunately, in many anti-gun jurisdictions in this state, that may mean prosecution.

sdfire
10-22-2013, 7:41 AM
So what happens to the magazines when the gun owner dies? Can his family not take possession of the grandfathered magazines?

sbrady@Michel&Associates
10-22-2013, 12:30 PM
Well... I did buy their book.

If you were unsatisfied with the book, please feel free to e-mail me your reasons. Chuck is currently preparing the Second Edition, and if there is any way to make it better, he is open to hearing it; especially if you believe something is incorrect in it. Thanks.

umd
10-22-2013, 12:33 PM
If you were unsatisfied with the book, please feel free to e-mail me your reasons. Chuck is currently preparing the Second Edition, and if there is any way to make it better, he is open to hearing it; especially if you believe something is incorrect in it. Thanks.

No, I was happy with it. The person I was replying to said the advice is worth what you pay for it, and I was saying I did pay for it :)

I haven't read through the whole thing but good to know that there will be a new edition for the updated laws. It would be nice if there could be some kind of addendum we could purchase if we already have the first edition though.

chris
10-22-2013, 12:35 PM
Thanks for the updated explanation.

Hokanut
12-27-2013, 5:56 PM
The "author" of this bill would be funny if the bill wasn't designed to infringe on our constitutional right. Why is it none of our elected officials can even accurately describe what it is they want to ban?

Vlad 11
12-28-2013, 12:53 AM
The "author" of this bill

Here is the control freak who caused all this nonsense

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2rPVziSU1H8/UO22j6IU_vI/AAAAAAAAhX0/frOQqv9UC9U/s1600/11-skinner.jpg

socal-shooter
12-28-2013, 1:05 AM
Can someone define "transfer" , does this mean transporting ?

JDay
12-28-2013, 2:44 AM
Can someone define "transfer" , does this mean transporting ?

Transfer is to change hands.

CWDraco
12-28-2013, 5:29 AM
So what happens to the magazines when the gun owner dies? Can his family not take possession of the grandfathered magazines?

No. The magazine's ownership can't be transferred to another person inside CA. A spouse maybe able to swing joint ownership at best.

Same with restricted parts (devices) and "kits".

JUSTINDEAN
01-01-2014, 3:25 PM
So, having a "permanent" 10/20;10/30 is still legal? Owning the parts kits to "manufacture" 10/20;10/30 as of January 1 2014 per AB 48 is now illegal ? :) thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Armando de la Guerra
01-01-2014, 3:47 PM
Here's my question-how many rebuild kits have been sold in CA over the past few years? Ever hear of closing the barn door after the horse ran away?

AKSOG
01-01-2014, 3:51 PM
So, having a "permanent" 10/20;10/30 is still legal? Owning the parts kits to "manufacture" 10/20;10/30 as of January 1 2014 per AB 48 is now illegal ? :) thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

I didn't see anything about posession being illegal

Librarian
01-01-2014, 4:18 PM
I didn't see anything about posession being illegal

Kits possessed yesterday or sooner are still legal - it's getting new ones we are pretty sure is illegal.

Kasspur
01-01-2014, 7:00 PM
I don't believe that anything in AB48 could affect the legality of an already assembled 10/20 or 10/30 as long as you don't take it apart. If you take it apart, that brings into the question of parts kits, etc. Any issues regarding the permanence of the modification would already be present under the current law.

AB48 says you cant buy, sell, import (blah blah blah blah). It says nothing about what you already own. If you disassemble your 10/20, 10/30 and put it back in that configuration after say, cleaning it. You have not made a "High Capacity" magazine because it is still limited to 10 rounds. Also since all of the aforementioned parts were yours to begin with and you are not buying, selling, importing, etc. no law is broken.

That being said, people that wonder if you can take your mags out of state convert them into standard capacity magazines (30) and then convert them back before you come back to CA...go for it, because what you are bringing back is a fully assembled 10 round magazine. It's not a parts kit because it is fully assembled and it is not a "High Capacity" because it only holds 10 rounds.

If a LEO says "well I can convert your magazine by removing the limiter". You say "Yeah but you had to remove a functional piece of my 10 round magazine to do it. That's like saying I can squeeze a few more HP out of my 93 Suburban buy removing the catalytic converter, but I didn't, so I didn't break any laws. The device was there when you pulled me over."

The whole thing about these laws that really bother me is that this CA government assumes people are guilty and must be proved themselves innocent. They pass these "keep people honest" laws. You've already passed a 10 round limit law. If people break it then deal with them accordingly. Those that are following it, well leave them alone. Don't impose more restrictions on them that make it impossible to repair their already owned property. What's next? I bought a sports car so you are going to give me a speeding ticket because I have the intent on going fast even though it's just parked in my driveway?

JDay
01-01-2014, 7:57 PM
That being said, people that wonder if you can take your mags out of state convert them into standard capacity magazines (30) and then convert them back before you come back to CA...go for it, because what you are bringing back is a fully assembled 10 round magazine. It's not a parts kit because it is fully assembled and it is not a "High Capacity" because it only holds 10 rounds.

If a LEO says "well I can convert your magazine by removing the limiter". You say "Yeah but you had to remove a functional piece of my 10 round magazine to do it. That's like saying I can squeeze a few more HP out of my 93 Suburban buy removing the catalytic converter, but I didn't, so I didn't break any laws. The device was there when you pulled me over."

Then the cop says "limiter, what limiter?" as he tosses it. Sure you can subpoena the dashcam footage but the camera will have been malfunctioning that day.

Kasspur
01-01-2014, 8:13 PM
Then the cop says "limiter, what limiter?" as he tosses it. Sure you can subpoena the dashcam footage but the camera will have been malfunctioning that day.

honestly, and I'm not trying to be a smart***** here, but have any of you come across an LEO that would do something like that? I'm sure it's possible...but the encounters (I would hope) would be few and very far between. I keep my mags "perm" blocked. What I mean by that is that if you wanted to disassemble them It would take at least two tools to do it...maybe one, but I can almost guarantee that LEOs aren't carrying this/these tool(s) as standard equipment. In order to disassemble the magazine he would literally have to break it open without said tool. This magazine would be have to be admitted into evidence (if actual arrest occurred) destroyed. No camera needed to prove that this magazine had to be destroyed to remove the magazine limiter from it.

umd
01-01-2014, 8:14 PM
AB48 says you cant buy, sell, import (blah blah blah blah). It says nothing about what you already own. If you disassemble your 10/20, 10/30 and put it back in that configuration after say, cleaning it. You have not made a "High Capacity" magazine because it is still limited to 10 rounds. Also since all of the aforementioned parts were yours to begin with and you are not buying, selling, importing, etc. no law is broken.

That being said, people that wonder if you can take your mags out of state convert them into standard capacity magazines (30) and then convert them back before you come back to CA...go for it, because what you are bringing back is a fully assembled 10 round magazine. It's not a parts kit because it is fully assembled and it is not a "High Capacity" because it only holds 10 rounds.

If a LEO says "well I can convert your magazine by removing the limiter". You say "Yeah but you had to remove a functional piece of my 10 round magazine to do it. That's like saying I can squeeze a few more HP out of my 93 Suburban buy removing the catalytic converter, but I didn't, so I didn't break any laws. The device was there when you pulled me over."

The whole thing about these laws that really bother me is that this CA government assumes people are guilty and must be proved themselves innocent. They pass these "keep people honest" laws. You've already passed a 10 round limit law. If people break it then deal with them accordingly. Those that are following it, well leave them alone. Don't impose more restrictions on them that make it impossible to repair their already owned property. What's next? I bought a sports car so you are going to give me a speeding ticket because I have the intent on going fast even though it's just parked in my driveway?

I don't believe personally that disassembly and reassembly would be manufacturing but som people have that position and the law is not clear enough to say with certainty, so that's why I acknowledged that it "brings into the question."

Kasspur
01-01-2014, 8:27 PM
I don't believe personally that disassembly and reassembly would be manufacturing but som people have that position and the law is not clear enough to say with certainty, so that's why I acknowledged that it "brings into the question."

I may be wrong here but I don't think you can manufacture something that has already been manufactured. You can disassemble something that has been manufactured and then reassemble it and fix it but it doesn't mean you manufactured it. For instance, I break down my rifle to clean it, refinish the wood and then put it back together...does that mean I manufactured a 1943 Tula Mosin Nagant? Not trying to be argumentative here but disassembly/reassembly/fixing is not manufacturing...otherwise, we all have some money to pay to Magpul's class action lawsuit for using their product name for 90% of the 10/30s,20s out there. :)

JDay
01-01-2014, 8:31 PM
honestly, and I'm not trying to be a smart***** here, but have any of you come across an LEO that would do something like that? I'm sure it's possible...but the encounters (I would hope) would be few and very far between. I keep my mags "perm" blocked. What I mean by that is that if you wanted to disassemble them It would take at least two tools to do it...maybe one, but I can almost guarantee that LEOs aren't carrying this/these tool(s) as standard equipment. In order to disassemble the magazine he would literally have to break it open without said tool. This magazine would be have to be admitted into evidence (if actual arrest occurred) destroyed. No camera needed to prove that this magazine had to be destroyed to remove the magazine limiter from it.

Not personally but if you look hard enough you can find threads about radlock screws getting loosened while in the property room.

Kasspur
01-01-2014, 8:40 PM
Not personally but if you look hard enough you can find threads about radlock screws getting loosened while in the property room.

Point taken...but if something had to be destroyed (baseplate or mag body) to remove, that is not easily covered up. Are they going to buy/replace the damaged part of the magazine to cover up the evidence? This seems like an extreme case that the LEO would have to go way out of his way to do and to be honest, I think, if he went to these lengths, you would have really had to have pissed him off.
Good point about the raddlock though. That can be easily done. I didn't think of that.

umd
01-01-2014, 8:41 PM
I may be wrong here but I don't think you can manufacture something that has already been manufactured. You can disassemble something that has been manufactured and then reassemble it and fix it but it doesn't mean you manufactured it. For instance, I break down my rifle to clean it, refinish the wood and then put it back together...does that mean I manufactured a 1943 Tula Mosin Nagant? Not trying to be argumentative here but disassembly/reassembly/fixing is not manufacturing...otherwise, we all have some money to pay to Magpul's class action lawsuit for using their product name for 90% of the 10/30s,20s out there. :)

Stop trying to apply sense and logic to nonsensical laws. Manufacturing now has a specific legal definition in the penal code. As I said I agree with your logical interpretation but do not have confidence in the legal interpretation at this time.

Kasspur
01-01-2014, 8:49 PM
Stop trying to apply sense and logic to nonsensical laws. Manufacturing now has a specific legal definition in the penal code. As I said I agree with your logical interpretation but do not have confidence in the legal interpretation at this time.

Duly noted, I guess I'm just venting at this point. On a side note...Well, that's another topic in a different forum.

nobody_special
01-01-2014, 8:49 PM
If a LEO says "well I can convert your magazine by removing the limiter". You say "Yeah but you had to remove a functional piece of my 10 round magazine to do it. That's like saying I can squeeze a few more HP out of my 93 Suburban buy removing the catalytic converter, but I didn't, so I didn't break any laws. The device was there when you pulled me over."


Or, it's like saying you temporarily altered your magazine to hold 10 rounds, and the officer takes you off to jail.

JDay
01-01-2014, 8:59 PM
Point taken...but if something had to be destroyed (baseplate or mag body) to remove, that is not easily covered up. Are they going to buy/replace the damaged part of the magazine to cover up the evidence? This seems like an extreme case that the LEO would have to go way out of his way to do and to be honest, I think, if he went to these lengths, you would have really had to have pissed him off.
Good point about the raddlock though. That can be easily done. I didn't think of that.

If you take the mags out of state and use them as 30 round magazines there you're going to have two followers. One with a limiter and one stock. I doubt the base plate is going to be glued or riveted in this case. It would be a simple matter for an officer to toss the limited follower and put the stock one back in. You can tell whoever you want that he did this but his word is the only one the court cares about.

Kasspur
01-01-2014, 9:16 PM
Or, it's like saying you temporarily altered your magazine to hold 10 rounds, and the officer takes you off to jail.

It's not like that because as current law dictates I do not own any 10+ round magazines. It's kind of a burden of proof thing for him now isn't it?

Does he really have any evidence that this sealed and pinned mag is a recent cover up for a 10+ round magazine? The assumption that a long 10 round magazine is really a 30 round incognito can only be proved otherwise by fitting 10+ rounds in it (cameras rolling, his and mine). If he cant without destroying the magazine in question it's "have a nice day officer" or "I'll see you in court over this magazine you destroyed". Granted court would be a burden I and I'm sure anyone on these forums would want to endure but it would not be prosecutable.

(I may be getting far out there. I blame New Years drinking on that...Happy New years btw everyone)

nobody_special
01-01-2014, 9:23 PM
If you take the mags out of state and use them as 30 round magazines there you're going to have two followers. One with a limiter and one stock. I doubt the base plate is going to be glued or riveted in this case. It would be a simple matter for an officer to toss the limited follower and put the stock one back in. You can tell whoever you want that he did this but his word is the only one the court cares about.

What's more, if you can do this then clearly the alteration to the magazine was not permanent.

Kasspur
01-01-2014, 9:26 PM
If you take the mags out of state and use them as 30 round magazines there you're going to have two followers. One with a limiter and one stock. I doubt the base plate is going to be glued or riveted in this case. It would be a simple matter for an officer to toss the limited follower and put the stock one back in. You can tell whoever you want that he did this but his word is the only one the court cares about.

My limiter is not on the follower it is riveted to the baseplate. I think you are thinking of a different style limiter. Once the baseplate is riveted to the limiter the baseplate is unremovable without special tools or brute force.

nobody_special
01-01-2014, 9:33 PM
Does he really have any evidence that this sealed and pinned mag is a recent cover up for a 10+ round magazine? The assumption that a long 10 round magazine is really a 30 round incognito can only be proved otherwise by fitting 10+ rounds in it (cameras rolling, his and mine).

All he has to do is (1) convince a jury that you assembled it within the statute of limitations, and (2) convince the same jury (consisting of California liberals) that your modification is easily reversible as designed, and is therefore not permanent.

I believe both would be straightforward in many circumstances, especially if one made statements to the police about how you went out of your way to make our legal by putting in the block...

nobody_special
01-01-2014, 9:34 PM
My limiter is not on the follower it is riveted to the baseplate. I think you are thinking of a different style limiter. Once the baseplate is riveted to the limiter the baseplate is unremovable without special tools or brute force.

Ah - I think that should be okay.

nobody_special
01-01-2014, 9:38 PM
Tagged.

Need to research if shipping, without "ill" intent, all the parts of an over 10rd mag separately to a private individual in CA is legal.

A. All parts shipped separately boxed
or
B. Package #1: Body. Package #2: Spring, Follower, Floorplate, Insides, etc.

This is not a legal opinion notice. From what I am seeing posted at various places, it still appears legal. Can anyone confirm at this stage? However, I have not seen a DOJ letter. Such a letter would probably be deliberately delayed. Until stronger ban language is drafted for next year. No secret for the DOJ, since they already know.

Nobody knows, but I do not think it is safe to assume this is legal under AB48. My belief is that both of your scenarios are illegal, but it will take a prosecution to find out for sure.

Kasspur
01-01-2014, 9:46 PM
What's more, if you can do this then clearly the alteration to the magazine was not permanent.

Lets roll back to 911...

The Pentagon I would consider a "Permanent structure" It's west side was "disassembled" by a tool ("[supposed] airplane") but then rebuilt. So if we are defining permanency here...do I need to have a jumbo jet slam into my follower to make it legitimate to break the permanency of my magazines? Permanence is "not readily destroyed/disassembled/dismantled" (ie. bullet button) but is with specialty tools to do so.

Based on this reasoning. The BB we fight so hard to defend as permanence is not really creating a permanently fixed mag but we say it is because you use a tool to remove it? Nothing is permanent everything will succumb to something. Whether it be fire, flood, act of god or power tools.

If having to use a tool to remove the permanence of a fixed magazine is acceptable then why isn't using a tool acceptable to remove the permanence of a magazine for maintenance.

nobody_special
01-01-2014, 9:55 PM
I've seen that argument before, but it is based on a logical fallacy. (The "no true Scotsman" fallacy, I think?)

Permanence can be shown by intent. If an alteration is too flimsy or reversible then it is not permanent. This is a judgment call that will be made by a jury.

A tent is not considered permanent. A wood framed house is, even though it well not last forever. If your argument were correct, both would be considered permanent... but they aren't.

nobody_special
01-01-2014, 9:57 PM
Err, hang on... I'm not sure, but I think we may agree.

Kasspur
01-01-2014, 10:19 PM
I've seen that argument before, but it is based on a logical fallacy. (The "no true Scotsman" fallacy, I think?)

Permanence can be shown by intent. If an alteration is too flimsy or reversible then it is not permanent. This is a judgment call that will be made by a jury.

A tent is not considered permanent. A wood framed house is, even though it well not last forever. If your argument were correct, both would be considered permanent... but they aren't.

It's actually not. A tent is considered an temporarily erected structure and is designed as such (no plumbing, electricity, foundation to bind it there). A wood framed house is permanent (to an extent) and can be disassembled, refitted and repaired with special tools. And being a wood framed house one would expect that repairs after degradation would be needed (termites, rot, fatigue). Same as magazines (except, I hope, for rot and termites). I intended my house (magazine) to stay (work) there permanently...but I had to repair it with tools.

nobody_special
01-02-2014, 12:08 AM
Right, I agree.

Some on this site argue that drop-in blocks satisfy permanancy, which I think is very dangerous.

Sparrow99
01-27-2014, 10:55 AM
Old thread I know but I had a question, does the law still allow you to sell existing owned conversion kits to people outside of the state in to states where buying them is still legal?

mag360
01-28-2014, 9:12 AM
I don't know what a conversion kit is. But of course you are allowed to sell something to someone in another state where that something is legal.

PhillyGunner
01-28-2014, 11:07 AM
Old thread I know but I had a question, does the law still allow you to sell existing owned conversion kits to people outside of the state in to states where buying them is still legal?

The OP quotes AB 48 to prohibit 'sale' and 'offering for sale' of the now named 'conversion kits'.

For my personal comfort level, I would feel that is pretty specific language regardless of where the end recipient may reside.

JD87
02-20-2014, 11:18 PM
My question is in reference to magazines with limiters that are not "permanently installed" (I personally like the ability to disassemble my magazines for cleaning once in a while:rolleyes:).

So, here are the components needed to assemble an EVIL magazine:
http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y468/acej587/Pmag1_zps54cb5ede.jpg (http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/acej587/media/Pmag1_zps54cb5ede.jpg.html)


Now, lose the part on the bottom right corner and replace with the limiter and re-assemble.
http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y468/acej587/Pmag2_zpsd5fbb393.jpg (http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/acej587/media/Pmag2_zpsd5fbb393.jpg.html)

While not "permanent", if the magazine were to be disassembled by a LEO and then re-assembled, minus the limiter, would it not be missing a critical component to make it a complete "fully functional" LCM? If I'm missing something here, forgive my ignorance. :cool2:

mshill
02-21-2014, 5:14 AM
While not "permanent", if the magazine were to be disassembled by a LEO and then re-assembled, minus the limiter, would it not be missing a critical component to make it a complete "fully functional" LCM? If I'm missing something here, forgive my ignorance. :cool2:

This question has been heavily contested in this forum. Answer is that there is no jurisprudence either way.

JD87
02-21-2014, 6:49 AM
I'm sure it has and I was also sure I wasn't the first to raise the question. Haven't had much time to read through the forum lately. -J

Timthetwin
04-08-2014, 10:59 AM
I have some questions regarding this law.
1: I am confused whether you can own rebiuld kits? I think no is that correct?
2: Can I have an FFL buy 30rd pmags and block them?
3: Are 10/30 mags legal to buy and possess post Jan 1?

Thanks