CA Magazine Question

[Contraband]

I've searched High and low in the CA DOJ website for an EXPLICIT statement that says that a magazine must be permanently fixed to 10 rounds. I ordered some "CA Legal" 10/30 mags from stag for my ar15. The only modification that was done was a simple tab bent into the body to prevent the follower from going down. I found that this tab could be easily broken.:rolleyes:

I recently bought some rebuild kits from 44mag, and I am using a delrin insert to prevent the follower from going down (shaped like a "U", made it myself). This thing is wedged in there pretty tight, it requires some tools to pry it out, and generally undo-able on the field...but is reversible to an extent. Would this be considered legal??? :confused:

If a simple tab was all that was required, I would imagine this being ok.

But again, I am looking for an explicit statement cited from the DOJ (or an explicit statement that says otherwise).

Can anyone help??

[hoffmang]

12276.1 (b) (3) says:

(d) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of
accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to
include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it
cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

Everything else is interpretation. Some senior DOJ staff have said that the descriptions of permanence in the failed regulations are some of the valid definitions of permanent.

-Gene

[mymonkeyman]

12276.1 (b) (3) says:


Everything else is interpretation. Some senior DOJ staff have said that the descriptions of permanence in the failed regulations are some of the valid definitions of permanent.

-Gene

Also note that the statute itself is weird. If a non-large-capacity magazine is incapable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, isn't it redundant to mention that magazines permanently altered to not hold more than 10 rounds are also non-large-capacity magazines. It's a weird language and a court could either put lots of weight on "permanently" (i.e. they put it in the statute so it's really important) or no weight (i.e. it's just an example of one such magazine added for clarity).

[hoffmang]

Also note that the statute itself is weird. If a non-large-capacity magazine is incapable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, isn't it redundant to mention that magazines permanently altered to not hold more than 10 rounds are also non-large-capacity magazines. It's a weird language and a court could either put lots of weight on "permanently" (i.e. they put it in the statute so it's really important) or no weight (i.e. it's just an example of one such magazine added for clarity).
Irwin Nowick's drafting service at your service...

-Gene

[bwiese]

Also note that the statute itself is weird. If a non-large-capacity magazine is incapable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, isn't it redundant to mention that magazines permanently altered to not hold more than 10 rounds are also non-large-capacity magazines. It's a weird language and a court could either put lots of weight on "permanently" (i.e. they put it in the statute so it's really important) or no weight (i.e. it's just an example of one such magazine added for clarity).

I believe the language may have had a tad of thought to it and relate to prevention of trivial situations where someone put a screw in the side to block follower travel. CA gun laws often seem to incorporate a rather insane 'double prevention' concept - the writers may have thought they were stopping easy (re)conversion of mags back into hicaps: they not only wanted to block hicaps, they perhaps wanted to block the unblocking of blocked hicaps.

[40 packin]

The law is pretty weird in that regard. You can't purchase said mags in Cali, nor can you bring them into California from an outside entity, however once you have them in your possession its not necessarily illegal. Well, thats what my old FFL told me anyway.

[Clodbuster]

After the hi-cap ban, some mfgs (Mecgar for example) assembled a half metal magazine to a another half made of solid plastic for the correct lenght of a full size magazine. This is permanent. Some of the newer 10 rounders have a channel in the full lenght metal mag body to limit capacity. This is not permanent.

Clod

I've searched High and low in the CA DOJ website for an EXPLICIT statement that says that a magazine must be permanently fixed to 10 rounds. I ordered some "CA Legal" 10/30 mags from stag for my ar15. The only modification that was done was a simple tab bent into the body to prevent the follower from going down. I found that this tab could be easily broken.:rolleyes:

I recently bought some rebuild kits from 44mag, and I am using a delrin insert to prevent the follower from going down (shaped like a "U", made it myself). This thing is wedged in there pretty tight, it requires some tools to pry it out, and generally undo-able on the field...but is reversible to an extent. Would this be considered legal??? :confused:

If a simple tab was all that was required, I would imagine this being ok.

But again, I am looking for an explicit statement cited from the DOJ (or an explicit statement that says otherwise).

Can anyone help??

[Clodbuster]

Only issue I have is when the words "Capacity to accept" ( in reference to magazines or Cat 3 weapons) is used, it should at least be interpreted the same...on this side of the wall.

Clod

12276.1 (b) (3) says:


Everything else is interpretation. Some senior DOJ staff have said that the descriptions of permanence in the failed regulations are some of the valid definitions of permanent.

-Gene

[bohoki]

Only issue I have is when the words "Capacity to accept" ( in reference to magazines or Cat 3 weapons) is used, it should at least be interpreted the same...on this side of the wall.

Clod

what is the difference between capacity and capability?

i think the only way to make an ar-15 30 round body permnanantly 10 would be to chop it in half insert spring and follower in top half and then use a block as the baseplate attach it with some screws or rivits through the body then for kicks attach the bottom to the block the bottom half of the magazine is no longer capable of feeding ammunition

of course the law when applied seldom is done logically so be careful out there

[hoffmang]

On rifles there is no permanence requirements - even if CA DOJ would like to dream..

On Magazines there is a requirement for permanence, but what that really means is pretty debatable.

-Gene

[Contraband]

So...If a cop stops me and asks are those 30 round magazines and I respond with "they've been modified to accept only 10 rounds" and show him/her that you can't stuff more than 10 into it, am I still within legal limits?

I would like to know if my spacer block is legal :confused:

One other way I could make it "permanent" would be to cut the spring, add more spacer. That way, the mag cannot be used without the spacer I made. Then the spring would have to be replaced if I wanted to convert to 30 rounds. Because to me permanent would mean rendering a part such that it can only be replaced.

[uclaplinker]

The idea that even a 10rd magazine like those from MecGar that are cut down with plastic on the bottom are "permanent" is hooey, too. Add a shortened, thinner spring and you could feed 11rds. There is absolutely, positively NO SUCH THING as a permanent 10rd magazine.

With enough effort I could convert a bag of Skittles and a toaster into a large capacity magazine and a bag of Skittles.

[mymonkeyman]

The idea that even a 10rd magazine like those from MecGar that are cut down with plastic on the bottom are "permanent" is hooey, too. Add a shortened, thinner spring and you could feed 11rds. There is absolutely, positively NO SUCH THING as a permanent 10rd magazine.

With enough effort I could convert a bag of Skittles and a toaster into a large capacity magazine and a bag of Skittles.

Group buy on skittle gun before DOJ ruins the party.

[Contraband]

I think the 11th round clearance is there so you can load it closed bolt. Mine can accept an 11th round if you stuff it hard enough. But to me that doesn't really count because the round does not seat properly and could wear on the feed lips.

[Flat Broke]

I have a pair of 30rd mags that I acquired when I bought my rifle in December 99. I've never used them because of FUD, but after doing reading on the subject, will be adding a bullet guide and using these mags in the future. Once I grind my mag catch, I'll be looking for new mags to replace my existing 10rd mags, as they likely won't work well/at all.

So I was shopping for 10rd AK mags, and realized that you can buy 30rd mag parts(they're cheap compared to 3rd party 10/30 mags). I was intending to buy 30rd mag parts and modify them to only accept 10 rounds. This could be done in a variety of ways from a rivet in the side of the mag body to limit the follower travel, to spacer blocks under the follower, etc, etc. I can get the parts easily enough, but I don't want to create a 10/30mag that doesn't pass scrutiny here in CA.

In reading the infor Gene cited...(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of
accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to
include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it
cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

Would epoxying a block to the bottom of the follower qualify as permanently altered, or would I be better off making a mod to the mag body to limit follower travel. I would consider a rivet more permanent than a screw, but that's open to interpretation.

In the case of the OP's 10/30 AR mags that were purchased. Since he didn't do the modification, is he off the hook for any wrong-doing should some LEA decide that the mags don't satisfy the law?

Thanks in advance,
Chris

[hoffmang]

If you look back at the proposed regs, you'd see that screw + epoxy looks to be enough and rivets alone sure seem to be enough. An important point of fact is that some of the rostered and approved handguns only have dimples in the mag bodies to stop the follower and since DOJ BoF approved them that must be good enough.

OP is pretty safe as long as the mods from the manufacturer are at all reasonable (and they are.)

-Gene

[Fjold]

So...If a cop stops me and asks are those 30 round magazines and I respond with "they've been modified to accept only 10 rounds" and show him/her that you can't stuff more than 10 into it, am I still within legal limits?

I would like to know if my spacer block is legal :confused:

One other way I could make it "permanent" would be to cut the spring, add more spacer. That way, the mag cannot be used without the spacer I made. Then the spring would have to be replaced if I wanted to convert to 30 rounds. Because to me permanent would mean rendering a part such that it can only be replaced.


The fact that you keep saying that it would be difficult to get the spacer out but that you can and you could just replace the spring if you wanted to convert it to 30 rounds, would lead me to believe that you could have a lot of trouble (Read that as high legal fees) defending those modifications as "permanent"

[Flat Broke]

If the definition used in this case for "magazine", is "any amunition feeding device"; wouldn't that be inclusive of all 4 pieces (body,spring,follower, floor plate) assembled in such a fashion to feed ammunition? If that is the case, why wouldn't OP's proposed mods be legal, so long as the sum of the parts couldn't feed more than 10rds? If he could remove the spacer, and replace the spring to make the mag accomodate 30 rds, that doesn't automatically negate the legality of the 10rd config. I don't see how it would be any different than purchasing/selling parts for a 30rd mag being legal; but assembling parts to build a 30rd mag being illegal.

The main issue seems to be that so long as the sum of the parts comprising the magazine can only support configuration for 10rds. To elaborate, if his orriginal mod was to add a stop block, but leave the spring the same length, that would be different because none of the essential parts would have to be replaced (thus building a new magazine) to allow the 30rd capacity. Whereas, with his block AND cut spring; if he removes the block, the mag can't feed amunition with the cut spring even though it could then hold 30rds. Since it can't feed amuntion, it's not a magazine.

Trust me, I want to have a crystal clear understanding of this issue myself; so I'm open to any and all discussion on the topic that leads to such an understanding.

Chris

[hoffmang]

A spacer that is not retained in some real way would be a hard case to win. A spacer riveted in or probably screwed through with a drop of epoxy is probably permanent.

-Gene

[snobordr]

Group buy on skittle gun before DOJ ruins the party.

Taste the rainbow!

[xmustanguyx]

i'm a bail agent i modesto/sacramento area.
Every, and i mean EVERY Law enforcement officer i've asked about
this type of situation has said the same thing...
...if you are lawfully minding your own business, going to /from the range,
even at the range with 30 round mags they DO NOT mess with you.
i have gone to metcalf with a buddy of mine with some questionable 30 round
preban mags..(it's on him to abide by the law) and not even the range master
made a fuss about the 30 rounders.
Now on that note some nosy shooter was commenting on he's going to get
arrested, those aren't allowed, etc, etc.
Well we just went about our business and have never had any trouble.
that said, my 2 cents is this: every officer usually interprets the law his own way. The ca penal code and SB23 is written so accurately and without question as we all know (sarcasm!) so be careful.
good luck.

[hawk81]

Any 10 round magazine can be converted back to its normal capacity of more than 10 rounds.

[hoffmang]

Any 10 round magazine can be converted back to its normal capacity of more than 10 rounds.

If you mean physically, yes - even a heating duct has the capacity to become a large-capacity magazine with tools and time. If you mean legally - well, not inside the state of California.

-Gene

[BillCA]

I'd suggest that the need to replace any part of a 10-round magazine in order to convert it to a hi-cap feeding device would mean that the original magazine is "permanently altered". For exampe, if you have to replace the spring with a different length spring after removing a block.

I'd also suggest that if you need to use tools to remove a part of the magazine in order to make it function as a hi-cap magazine then the magazine is permanently altered. Thus, a screw with some epoxy or serious locktite would qualify. If you have to machine (drill) out a rivet, it's a permanent change. If you need to file off dimples, it's permanent. If you need to drive a screw into a Delrin block to remove the block, it's a permanent alteration.

To suggest that the use of tools is irrelevant means that any magazine is suspect, since one could bend heating duct metal into a magazine form and weld it to a 10-round body to construct a hi-cap magazine.