[bwiese]

OK, it looks like some folks may be getting wild & wooly out there and they need to come back from the edge:

It is clear that there is no permanence requirement for the affixation of 10rd mags for OLL builds - esp given prior DOJ writings for the last 6+ years, DOJ's Feb 3rd "Cat 4" memo and the approval letters for the Barrett M82CA, and the reams of material in the recent Aug 16th NRA comment/rebuttal to DOJ. (The DOJ has, in fact, tried to muddle this issue of the permanence of the mag vs method attachment to gun, which are separate and independent issues.)

But some folks have been getting 'cute' with their OLL builds in another area.

The problem is not the method of affixation of the mag, but the permanence of the capacity limit of the mag itself if it has a larger tube. If you are using a true 10rd mag like Bushmaster's (or perhaps a couple of others) you're OK. But lotsa guys want "the look" and are blocking off higher-capacity mags using simple inserts or tabs, etc. that may be readily removable and possibly/likely considered nonpermanent.

We have the following items/definitions to consider:

12020(c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. ......


12276.1(a)(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.


12276.1(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.

The first item says, in effect, that a nonpermanently-blocked hicap, in itself, ain't kosher. [Unless of course, it started life as a legit hicap and was owned by you in CA before 1/1/2000 - but then why would you modifiy such a valuable item???]

The second two above play against each other. Even if the gun itself can't accept more than 10rds, if the mag has the ready possibility of being modded/recovered to more-than-10-round status, it could trigger the alternate AW defintion. The nonpermanence aspect of larger-cap tubes used for apperance's sake - even though somehow blocked somehow to 10rds - thus may not cut the mustard.

This is regardless of how it's screwed down to the rifle or whether or not it's welded, epoxied, etc. to the rifle - or how many tools or how much time it takes to repair, change, etc. The issue is, instead, how the mag capacity is limited; it is wholly independent of its means of attachment to the receiver or how permanent that attachment to the receiver is.

While 'constructive possession' concepts do not apply to AW characteristics, we're now one level removed and are operating at the magazine itself, instead. Real lawyers, not internet arseholes like myself would have to think about this. If your lawyer's arguing this with a judge it's too late.

We really have no standard for 'permanence' for mag modifications but some measure of reversibility in restoring such a mag to orig capacity may well make such blocked mags smell bad both alone (if not derived from a legit pre-2000 hicap mag), or when used in a fixed-mag rifle. While the first situation is less worrisome (misdemeanor) the latter situation could trigger an AW definition as the laws/regulations currently stand.

We don't know what the DOJ considers 'permanent'. DOJ's definition of permanence is all over the board and may depend on the phase of the moon, PMS, various personalities and their agendas, etc. The Vulcan fixed mag AR lower (with a true 10rd mag) was approved due to its 'permanence' (some glue and a tiny pin, gone in a few seconds for repair/update). The Evans Gunsmithing/GB Sales welded-up on-list Bushmaster and Colt rifles - were approved by DOJ due to the purported permanence of their magwell block but EGSW itself touts reversibility of this 'permanent' mod if the owner moves to a free state. (I really thing the Iggmeister overstepped his bounds on this one.)

Some of these 10rd mags derived from hicaps are just using bent tabs and are readily recoverable into hicaps. Some Colt 10rd mags sold from 1989 or so up thru early 90s are standard 20rd mags with a U-shaped piece of metal riveted to the baseplate; these rivets come off with a pair of dikes/wiresnippers, and the mag block can be removed in 1sec from the disassembled magazine, which reassembles like any other standard AR mag.

If you have an OLL build, etc. my gut feeling is you should have a true 10rd mag. I dunno about the DPMS mags but it appears the Bushmaster 10rd mag is indeed 'permanently' restricted to 10rds, and that people who have played with them ruin the magazine in attempts to disassemble them. Perhaps someone will eventually build 'large-looking' mags that are the same as the Bushmaster mag in terms of lack of modifiability into hicap status, but for now that doesn't appear to be the case.

Ultimately, nothing is permanent, and anything can be made into something else with enough time and money. It's all about how far one has to go: the 'ready ability' - with household tools and limited time - may determine this boundary here, and unpleasant side effects may result from your OLL build.

Hell, I could end up being all wet. But there's enough room for argument that it does not make sense to tempt The Beast, esp for something so cosmetic.

Don't worry about logic, this is political. Remember, if you have a legal 20rd mag that you can legally use in your M1A, and then if you screw it down to your M1A (i.e, make it a fixed magazine), you've committed a felony. When laws like that exist, you know they're out for you and they're not just good-hearted liberal 'do-gooders' but are evil incarnate. Walk carefully.

GET/INSTALL A TRUE 10RD MAGAZINE FOR YOUR FIXED MAG BUILD...

[NeoWeird]

***I would like to say I have not done this, but knowing the function and design of the magazines I am about to discuss, I know what I am about to descibe to be true.***

I would like to say I read through a portion of your post and once the legal CCRs and what not came out I sort of lost focus and decided to add something.

There really aren't that many TRUE 10 round permanent magazines out there. Many magazines can have their capacity altered by a simple alteration of the mag follower; think I am wrong, look at the flush fitting magazines that hold 10 rounds; why would you need more room than that? In some cases it is for aid in removal of the magazine, but in most cases it is to accomodate a more intricate and reliable follower. I bet I could turn a Bushmaster 10 round mag into a 15ish round mag with a nail and a lighter; no joke. The 20/30 rounders could be altered to standard capacity with a hand drill and POSSIBLY a file or two. However these magazines are somehow legal enough to sell, purchase, import, own, use, etc. If they are acceptable as removable magazines, then they should be acceptable as fixed magazines. I would imagazine that the use of any of these mags as a fixed mag in an OLL receiver would be no more grey than the unapproved method of affixing the magazine the receiver. As I always say: It's your 'behind' on the line, and you need to make the choice of what you think is right, legal, and safe.

Now the real problem, as you addressed, are those people who are taking normal capacity magazines and turning them into restricted magazines. These are the people entering into VERY grey area, but in all honesty, how permanent is permanent when I have already addressed that issue with my first paragraph on manufactured restricted magazines? It's my personal belief that ANYTHING can be done by someone who is determined, moderately intelligent, with the right tools and know how. That said, ANY magazine can be made from anything, or modified in anyway. Hell, I bet I could make a functional mag tube with an empty soda can, a pocket knife, and a mallet (ok, so it might not function great, but it would still be a magazine). Still there is a point where, as you pointed out, they can be readily converted back to standard capacity. I do not believe the people who make such builds do so by mistake; whether it be to break the law down the line, or the way I imagine it to most often be, just to save a magazine in case they move or laws change; these people KNOW the area they are getting into, and if not they better get a crash course in what they are doing.

We can't babysit EVERYONE, and some people are just going to ignore the rules even if they know them. As you said, it's best to have a true 10 rounder in there, but as always, there are going to be people who push the envelope and those who break it. I won't be one of them, though I know they exist. All I can do is hope nothing bad happens to them, and try to help educate those whom I can. Outside of that, there is nothing we can really do.

I totally lost focus on what my original point was, so....yeah....good bye.

[anotherone]

I just thought I'd chime in a bit here while we're on the topic of magazines and off-list lowers. I forget the exact case, but there was a conviction involving a guy who had a fixed mag SKS with duckbill magazines in the same gun case. Yes I know there's not supposed to be any constructive AW concepts but this case law could also apply to a fixed mag OLL build where pre-ban magazines were present in the same gun case as well. Use caution.

Personally I either use the Armalite or Promag 10 rounders so my builds look like glued mag Vulcans or I use Stag 10 round flush mags so they look like a FAB-10. Yes, fixed 10/30 mags look cooler but it's better to play it safe and have your rifle look like a FAB-10 or Vulcan than to look like an M-4 or M-16.

[tenpercentfirearms]

What does it matter if you go the MonsterMan route!

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by anotherone

I forget the exact case, but there was a conviction involving a guy who had a fixed mag SKS with duckbill magazines in the same gun case. Yes I know there's not supposed to be any constructive AW concepts but this case law could also apply to a fixed mag OLL build where pre-ban magazines were present in the same gun case as well. Use caution.

Yes, in Deputy AG/DOJ FD Asst. Dir. Tim Rieger's letter to Chuck Michel a couple of years ago, he refers to People v. Reynolds (Monterey County) - apparently the detachable mags were in the same gun case as the SKS rifle, and the rifle had its fixed mag removed. Tim Rieger even refers to this as "an interesting interpretation". We also don't know if the SKS was really an SKS.

Right now I can't track down Reynolds - (if someone has a link I'd appreciate it). Dunno if this was appealed, the final status, etc.

[JOEKILLA]

It's funny this is being discussed. I just ordered my Stag Arms flushed 10-rounder today.

[metalhead357]

Bill,

While I understand what you're trying to do in all this to protect us all from ourselves, me-thinks there's an issue that you're overlooking. And that simply is precedent. Couple that with shortsidedness; no offense intended.

If we (you, me, we, they, billy bob, whoever) cave to the DOJ-ONLY interepretation not only does it negate the federal defintion but could ultimately be our undoing as DOJ will then truly have the ability to change definitions to suit thier fancy....

Permanent is as permanant as a politicians promises.....
Given enought time, effort and energy anybody could turn a concrete block into a blow up doll and back again.
If we allow the DOJ to place this shell game with defintions of what is permanant, permantly affixed and now....with your take on things.... "What really is a true ten rounder".

Its nuts. I beg of you to stop. WHY cater to DOJ's whims when there is already 50 of 50 states subscribing to the current defintions, and now Cali want to make up thier own?

Good God Bill! What's gotton into you of late? A fixed 10 rounder IS a fixed 10 rounder................................. leave it at that

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by metalhead357

While I understand what you're trying to do in all this to protect us all from ourselves, me-thinks there's an issue that you're overlooking. And that simply is precedent. Couple that with shortsidedness; no offense intended.

You are very unclear on what's what, and who has what authority to define things, etc.

There is no precedent. This is a completely separate issue from the method of affixing a mag that the DOJ is trying to change. This is totally unrelated to any other states' definition or any federal definition (and, no there could even be a totally separate fed definition and it wouldn't overrule California's).

If we (you, me, we, they, billy bob, whoever) cave to the DOJ-ONLY interepretation not only does it negate the federal defintion but could ultimately be our undoing as DOJ will then truly have the ability to change definitions to suit thier fancy....

What federal definition? There is no federal definition. And what says the state has to have a definition equivalent to the fed definition? We know the now-expired Fed definition of AW is substantially different than CA's multiple definitions, and this is no different.

Permanent is as permanant as a politicians promises.....
Given enought time, effort and energy anybody could turn a concrete block into a blow up doll and back again.

True. But there's a level of 'smells bad' here. While there is no regulatory definition of permanence, the law sections I quoted do mention 'permanently altered'. Pop rivets won't pass a smell test, esp if matters surrounding this come to a court: the judge will make a decision as a matter of law of whether the method of reducing mag capacity is permanent.

If we allow the DOJ to place this shell game with defintions of what is permanant, permantly affixed and now....with your take on things.... "What really is a true ten rounder".

The issue you're skirting is an extremely dangerous one. With the AW definition and a fixed mag, the DOJ was artificially trying to insert a concept of permanence that is not in the law (thus they were trying to change the regulatory definition).

Here, we have a statutory definition that includes permanence, and if it gets violated it indirectly triggers the secondary definition of AW.

This is NOT really a DOJ Firearms Division matter. This is a matter for local courts, esp as it involves stuff defined in Penal Code, and not regulatory matters. Actual statuory law tells you that certain mags must be permanently altered, and defines 'capacity to accept

Its nuts. I beg of you to stop. WHY cater to DOJ's whims when there is already 50 of 50 states subscribing to the current defintions, and now Cali want to make up thier own?

Dude, you are so unclear on the concept that it boggles. Other states', and federal, definitions do not apply here: CA has codified what they consider a 10rd mag, which includes a former hicap mag that has been permanently altered. If these issues come to trial a judge makes decisions on matters of law - which would include what he consideres permanent, and he might base that off of what a 'reasonable person' might - or might ask for expert testimony. Most certainly, a filler block or a pop rivet won't likely count.

Good God Bill! What's gotton into you of late? A fixed 10 rounder IS a fixed 10 rounder................................. leave it at that

Your thought processes are all over the place...

Actually, a fixed 10 rounder is NOT a fixed 10 rounder. The fixing of the mag into the receiver is NOT the friggin' issue we are discussing. It's HOW the actual mag is made/established as a 10 rounder, and is initially independent of the rifle, and can then trigger the rifle into being an AW.

You assert:

• vague handwaving about fed vs other state's vs CA mag definitions, which is totally irrelevant - CA can and does have their own definitions in statutory law;
  
• that this is something vague that DOJ controls - instead of being codified in actual statutory law;
  
  
• since there's no standard of permanence you can go hog-wild;
  
  
• that such risks are worth the cosmetic appearance of a slightly longer magazine for no functional purpose;

I assert:

• you are confusing this 'permanently altered' business I broached today with the matter of the separate, independent 'capacity to accept' stuff in the proposed regulatory definition update discussed in the Aug 16 DOJ comment meeting;
  
• a 10rd mag from a hicap body better be more than reasonably considered 'permanently altered'. The word 'permanent' was used in the *law*, so you'd better at least make a helluva good effort to show some compliance.
  
• Pop rivets or a wood block insert just won't cut it. A judge would make a decision regard this matter of law as to what is permanent. While there are no clear standards codfied (or added to regulatory body to further fill in) you're like not to have such things fly.
  
• If your version of 'permanently altered' doesn't fly, you possessed and manufactured a 12276.1(a)(2) assault weapon;
  
• DOJ was already broadly aware of this (DOJ letters warning about a related situation exist, St. Iggnatious didn't like fixed longer-looking mags on FAB10 guns. But it's not the look that's relevant, it's the permanent alteration that is.)
  
• I contend that the possible grief is not worth it for the minor cosmetic appeal.
  
• DOJ is aware of this so this is no secret.

Good God Bill! What's gotton into you of late? A fixed 10 rounder IS a fixed 10 rounder................................. leave it at that

What has gotten into me? Nothing, I continue to know how to read & write and analyze.

I doubt you a whole lot of spare cash to pay for a lawyer just for the fun of battle. Going thru the appeals chain can easily run $50+K.

And if I maybe am wrong it's a matter of good luck - but my way you are compliant with actual statutory law.

If you are wrong, in a murky situation absolutely up for grabs, you are screwed.

Some people are getting way way ahead of themselves because they don't have basic analytical/reading skills and want things the way they want. I'm sure this argument will not be popular with the Gunscal crowd, which is fine by me.

Again, I urge any fixed-mag OLL builders to have 10rd magazines. If you are using modded 20 or 30rd tubes, whatever's blocking it to 10rds better be in there so damned good it's gonna destroy the mag tube to remove.
The other issue is that larger mags are clearly visible with their distinct appearance so it's plainly visible at a range.

[mltrading]

That's why I stick with 10-round-look 10-round magazines.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by mltrading

That's why I stick with 10-round-look 10-round magazines.

Good man, sensible.

[PIRATE14]

Well.....I had discussed this same thing in a few different circles, it all goes back to the word permament.

Now, I remember when COLT, Bushmaster, Armalite,,,,etc were going about building new 10rd mags and had to comply w/ the now defunct FED AW laws, this is how you ended up w/ super short (crummy follower) or some weird 10 rd mags that were in two pieces or intended to fall apart if someone tried to make them accept more than 10 rds, this was to satisfy the ATF.

Currently you only have CALI AW laws to go with and any of the 58 DAs could take you to court on the 10 rd / 30 look alikes but this would definitely put you up on the next step compared to someone w/ a fixed 10 rd BM mag.

While this is all relevant and it is a worthy topic to chew on.......

As you contemplate your builds it's something that you should consider and have all of your facts and laws in row.

[Skawrpion]

How about the C-product 10 rd 30rd lookalike?? I just replaced my bush 10rd for a stag flush. thanks for the heads up bwiese.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by Skawrpion

How about the C-product 10 rd 30rd lookalike?? I just replaced my bush 10rd for a stag flush. thanks for the heads up bwiese.

I dunno about the C Products mag - got a link to the pic/detailed description?

[Skawrpion]

Originally Posted by bwiese

I dunno about the C Products mag - got a link to the pic/detailed description?

http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/in...6652725e60726e "You're welcome tenpercent" :P

I would not want to use this mag anyways to much of an "attention getter" I'll stick with the neutered look.

[mailman]

I agree with bwiese, mostly because I always want to avoid added questions and attention from anyone. Im not at the range to show off, but to mearly stay legal and have fun. The "30rd look" just dosn't do it for me, and now that i think about it , it might hit my front grip when breaking it open, no thanks.



.

[JPglee1]

I say if the magazine is permanently welded shut and is limited to only hold 10rds by omitting key parts inside then it should be 100% legal.

Maybe I'll weld a cut off 30rd mag body tube to the floorplate of my 10rd AK mag, then it'll be a 10rd mag with an extended faux floorplate

LMAO.

Some people need to unwind a little bit.


J

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by JPglee1

I say if the magazine is permanently welded shut and is limited to only hold 10rds by omitting key parts inside then it should be 100% legal.

Welded shut may cut the mustard, esp as mag tubes are fragile enough to damage/render unusable when removing stuff like this. That's prob good enough to pass the 'permanently altered' threshold.

But things like mags that have little tabs to stop the follower travel, and which can be reset with a punch or drilled out, ain't gonna fly.

A block inserted in the mag that can be removed, or a pop rivet fastener, would most likely not be considered permanent in court.

Maybe I'll weld a cut off 30rd mag body tube to the floorplate of my 10rd AK mag, then it'll be a 10rd mag with an extended faux floorplate LMAO

That's actually rational if you want 'the look'.

Some people need to unwind a little bit.

Some people need to read the actual law. This is something totally in statutory law and not dependent on regulatory definition.

Perhaps you live out in the sticks where this stuff is laughed at by LEOs, but this is serious legal stuff that could cause problems when SHTF, as it might well determine a transition into AW status.

[JPglee1]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Welded shut may cut the mustard, esp as mag tubes are fragile enough to damage/render unusable when removing stuff like this. That's prob good enough to pass the 'permanently altered' threshold.

But things like mags that have little tabs to stop the follower travel, and which can be reset with a punch or drilled out, ain't gonna fly.

Im not gonna post how'd I'd do it publicly, but I can assure you it won't be returnable to 30rd (PM inbound)


J

[AxonGap]

I guess I'm a practical shooter. If you didn’t get a standard cap before 2000 what’s the point? Aside from looks I see it more as a hindrance then anything else, so why draw more attention? Also, if you’re going gripless that’ll just add insult to injury!

[JPglee1]

Originally Posted by AxonGap

I guess I'm a practical shooter. If you didn’t get a standard cap before 2000 what’s the point? Aside from looks I see it more as a hindrance then anything else, so why draw more attention? Also, if you’re going gripless that’ll just add insult to injury!

IMHO its essential cuz most rifles look completely goofy with limited capacity mags in them.

FAL and AR-15 especially. Besides it'll make those LEO/Range encounters all the more entertaining


J

[Skawrpion]

Originally Posted by JPglee1

Besides it'll make those LEO/Range encounters all the more entertaining


J

OUCH!!! can you say taser?? LOL

[blkA4alb]

Originally Posted by Skawrpion

OUCH!!! can you say taser?? LOL

For having a 30 round look alike? I sure hope not....

[mltrading]

Originally Posted by AxonGap

I guess I'm a practical shooter. If you didn’t get a standard cap before 2000 what’s the point? Aside from looks I see it more as a hindrance then anything else, so why draw more attention? Also, if you’re going gripless that’ll just add insult to injury!

EXACTLY, brother.

[Ford8N]

Originally Posted by blkA4alb

For having a 30 round look alike? I sure hope not....

Remember, this is Kalifornia....

[DJMAN]

So how many of us on this site bought these hi-cap look-a-likes? Wow money down the drain.

[JPglee1]

Originally Posted by DJMAN

So how many of us on this site bought these hi-cap look-a-likes? Wow money down the drain.

I wouldn't say THAT...as long as they are done RIGHT they are 100% legal...

shoddy "on the edge" conversions are one thing, correctly done is another.


J

[hoffmang]

If you bought a real commercial 10 rounder that is restricted to 10 rounds and is for sale from the manufacturer/retailer to California, you're fine at the end of the day. It might add some risk of confusion should LEO or a DA get involved with your gun.

-Gene

[highspeed11]

What do you think about the .50 Beowulf 10rnd magazine that is branded .50 Beowulf with the AA logo even though it appears to be a 30rnd 5.56mm mag?

[xenophobe]

A few points...

1) 30 rounders get in the way, are troublesome to use prone and on the bench.

2) As Bill said, you're open to further scrutiny by the courts...

3) 10 Round Bushie mags looks SO Cali Off-List, that I think every build should have one.

[metalhead357]

Ok Bill, by the issues (in two parts, since the board wont let me exceed 100000 characters

Originally Posted by bwiese

You are very unclear on what's what, and who has what authority to define things, etc..

No, I'm not. DOJ has regulatory authority to adopt regulations and defintions....as evidenced by all this same sort of maddness from back in SB23 days.

Originally Posted by bwiese

There is no precedent. This is a completely separate issue ........

I both agree and disagree. The precedent of DOJ adopting new language is well established; been handed back to them on a plate in some SMALL regard that "series" wont cut it. So how is this issue with mags, 'permantly altered' and all the related not the same? I contend it is. Federal definitons ARE used in Cali on numerous accounts, the firearms & related only being ONE subsect of the dual use of the Federal code. Hasn't your history taught you anything Bill? FED LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. Now while it might take a good case and 20 years to get there is another issue. But from individual rights, business ownership, affirmative action...etc, Fed law has trumped state law for well over 50 years...all with precedent.

Originally Posted by bwiese

What federal definition? . ..

And this m' friend is where I think you are off-base. There are federal definitions of "permantly altered" or there would be NO sales of cut recievers, parts kits, demilled whojamabobs. Antique Fireams and C&R defintion IS used in Cali law....

Originally Posted by bwiese

But there's a level of 'smells bad' here. While there is no regulatory definition of permanence, the law sections I quoted do mention 'permanently altered'.

No doubt on it smelling bad~ and hence why I DO think you have the member's best intrest at heart and not sitting here yelling something the equivilant of "Here goes Bill saying the sky is falling again". You HAVE brought up an interesting TAKE/Perspective?side/opinion on all this. I'm neither ignorant of that nor am I saying you're at fault.

In your own words......

While there is no regulatory definition of permanence, the law sections I quoted do mention

that is because Cali HAS relayed on Federal defintions for years.

So while YOUR take on pop rivits is interesting, it is neither law nor regulation. the now sunsettttttted FEDERAL AW ban pretty much made it "clear" what BATF would accept as "permantly" altered when it comes to mags. They accepted weld, they accepted alterations that could not be 'disassembled' in the field.....

Originally Posted by bwiese

The issue you're skirting is an extremely dangerous one. With the AW definition and a fixed mag, the DOJ was artificially trying to insert a concept ..

I'm not skirting anything, dont presume to know what I do or have done in anything as it relates to the OLL and related. If you mean "you" as in the greater sum of Cali...ok, so be it.....

No quams with what you've said about artificailly inserting a defintion of permanence...that IS what they are trying to do.....AND THIS is precisely what I mean/meant about us NOT BOWING DOWN TO DOJ nonsense. They DO have the authority to do it. But WHY help them? WHY get the mebership (to the OLL crowd) all hellbent over an issue that DOJ has not specifically brought up? To me at least and those that PM'd me in support~ think YOU'RE loading thier guns for them. But granted- this is an entirely different theology at work here and we'll likely never agree on it entirely...but I'm willing to try

Originally Posted by bwiese

Here, we have a statutory definition that includes permanence........triggers the secondary definition of AW..

Ok......... and what? I'll tell you...a TEST CASE. So while I doubt any here wish to be that test case, again I say I salute ya' for looking out for the membership. But you and I both know that it WILL BE a test case that ultimately decides this.

Originally Posted by bwiese

This is NOT really a DOJ Firearms Division matter. This is a matter for local courts, .

Same as above...no argument here other than to say that is why we must FIGHT THE DOJ DEFINTION, or even absence thereof.....

Originally Posted by bwiese

Dude, you are so unclear on the concept that it boggles. Other states', and federal, definitions do not apply here: CA has codified what they consider a 10rd mag.......

From thine own words..."he may"...and then again he may not. Both of us seem to already agree that the issue of 'permanant' is a transitory term. A weld may be UNwelded, a pop rivet un rivedted, a hole filled in, sheet metal re-added, etc. ANY "reasonable" person when provided with the knowlege of above I'd like to think/hope would conclude that someone who went to the trouble of actually TRYING to comply with the law and went and fudged-up a couple of perfectly good mags with some welds, cuts, pop rivets, etc...has suffiently tried in the spirit of the law to comply. I WOULD AGREE though that using Elmer's glue or a loose fitting allen head or phillips screw is not even close to anyone's defintion of permantly altered.

And No Bill, I am perfectly clear on the issues; I'm certainly sorry if my writing style mystifies you. Most can discren between two objects in the same sentence; ideally, if I handt been at work I "coulda" whipped out a 19 page rebuttle line by line, but I kept it brief. Plenty of others understood what I am saying....so I dont know why that leaves you guessing where I satand, and on what.

Originally Posted by bwiese

Your thought processes are all over the place...
Actually, a fixed 10 rounder is NOT a fixed 10 rounder. ..

Ah, Duhhhhhh? A fixed 10 rounder IS a fixed ten rounder. Same as a fixed shotgun barrel that shant be capable of holding more than 3 shells afield is fixed with all but a wooden dowl. The GUN itself had originally had the ability to accept more, but for the purposes of hunting Cali law HAS PROSCRIBED A SOLUTION, use a wooden dowl that cannot be taken out without disassembling the gun. The only reason why any of this is an issue is that we're actually talking about a detachable mag? Oh gooodness me? REALLY? Well then I guess THAT definition of detachable mag would then fit the sks an a million other models. Stop flattering yourself Bill by attempting to deflect the issue onto an issue of me not understanding.

I think its more than apparent to some that you've "pigon holed" yer'self and have failed to look beyond California Criminal law. There ARE other laws, namely fish and game that could be interjected, there are welfare defintions that could be as well. I only mentioned Federal as that HAS been used in Cali Penal code multiple times throughout ownership, transportation, etc........so why not here?

[metalhead357]

continued...

Originally Posted by bwiese

You assert:
vague handwaving ....

• that this is something vague that DOJ controls - instead of being codified in actual statutory law;
• ...you can go hog-wild;
• that such risks are worth the cosmetic appearance ......

I assert:

• you are confusing this 'permanently altered' business ....
• a 10rd mag from a hicap body better be more than reasonably considered 'permanently altered'. The word 'permanent' was used in the *law*, so you'd better at least make a helluva good effort to show some compliance.
• Pop rivets or a wood block insert just won't cut it. A judge would make a decision

A lot to tackle there Bill, but you've said nothing new save you've now countered what you said earlier with the quip that one must be BEYOND reasonable to make something permanent. And that frankly is ludacrous. The fact that you've overlooked the Fish and game code fully demonstrates your lack of a sufficient "total" view of this. Cali laws CAN be countered with other sunstantive cali laws without cowtowing to DOJ's absence to get thier defintions established. Lets play "what if" in the opposite. What if we DO get a PRO gun judge that also collects AW's from back in the day and is already fully versed in OLL significance? I'd say a pop rivet would have a lot more distance through the legal fields than either yours or mine opinions here.......

The rest of the asssertations are the same things you've already said to which I have addressed.....

Originally Posted by bwiese

If your version of 'permanently altered' doesn't fly,.......;

• DOJ was already broadly aware of this (DOJ letters warning about a related situation exist, St. Iggnatious didn't like fixed longer-looking mags on FAB10 guns. But it's not the look that's relevant, it's the permanent alteration that is.).

As noted above, yours and mine opinions arnt woth the bytes it took to store them for people to read, And unfortunately neither is our Asian Friend. He didn't like OLL's in the first place and he hasn't gotton his way. So why should he now? The rest of the division is not beholden to his word as holy writ, nor the rest of cali law. As for it being "My" defintion, it aint...........

• Originally Posted by bwiese

  I contend that the possible grief is not worth it for the minor cosmetic appeal.

  DOJ is aware of this so this is no secret. .

I AGREEEEEEEEEEE. It aint worth it to really anyone. The fact that DOJ is aware of it and has thus done nothing about it again weighs in "our" favor........

Originally Posted by bwiese

What has gotten into me? Nothing, I continue to know how to read & write and analyze.
I doubt you a whole lot of spare cash ..

No doubts about it, I know you know how to read and write, etc; my refference is that this seems a total tangent to the overall OLL issue, it appears to me that this is a half-cocked analysis........it needs more seasoning

Originally Posted by bwiese

And if I maybe am wrong it's a matter of good luck - but my way you are compliant with actual statutory law.
If you are wrong, in a murky situation absolutely up for grabs, you are screwed..

I have no doubt about it Bill, again, I didn't write to Slam you, the piece you wrote is below the standard to which to write though. IMO its not fully thought out...that's all. I FULLY agree that the 'standard" ten rounder IS the smarter choice.

But I have a question for you? If someone hadn't "pushed the envelope" with the OLL issue......... where then would we be?

I see the mag issue as a completely seperate issue, that while interesting, aint gonnna get anyone here kept outta jail when the 10 rounder in question is surrounded by an OLL and faced with one of those 58 zealous DA's.............

Originally Posted by bwiese

Some people are getting way way ahead of themselves

Again, I urge any fixed-mag OLL builders to have 10rd magazines.

See the previous comments, and well said if you want to be compliant~ and bowing to a PC defintion that DOJ may very well change its mind on again and again, and again.......

[artherd]

Summary here, the smart money plays this one safe and uses a 10 round mag, the bushmaster "slightly longer ten rounder" is probally OK.

Don't muck up a 30 rounder you find under your bed. (or under someone else's bed!) with a 2x4.

[metalhead357]

Oh Artherd! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY can't I get that gift of brevity that you seem to have

Amen bro.

[adamsreeftank]

Thanks for the heads up Bwiese. More good advice for those of us who want to stay within the letter of the law.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by adamsreeftank

Thanks for the heads up Bwiese. More good advice for those of us who want to stay within the letter of the law.

No worries.

Again, this is a completely separate issue from the Aug 16 redefinition stuff.

The material in my thread's initial post was about the lack of permanence of larger mags being downscaled to 10rds triggering AW status, regardless of their method of attachment - as opposed to a false standard of permanence of attachment insisted upon by DOJ for the Aug 16 matters.

The former is actually material in statutory law that the DOJ had nothing to do with: the definitions are in the law itself.

Other folks' insistence that Federal definitions are relevant to all this are just plain wrong. Fed law does not trump state law in these cases - it sometimes overlaps, often not completely, and Feds give states wide latitudes to do their own gun laws.

[Librarian]

Reynolds is eluding me, but Chuck Michel's site refers to Dingman, which he litigated, as being about the same issue.

Just scanned Lexis/Nexis - I can't identify any People v Reynolds case that went to Court of Appeal or Supreme Court of CA and was in Monterey or had to do with an SKS. Bunch of "Appellant's petition for review DENIED." with no other information. Has to be 1990 - 2003.

[rorschach]

Crap, now I gotta take my riveted G3 mags off my HK's??

After, of course, removing the trigger housing and F.H...

[artherd]

Bill, I find nothing for People v. Reynolds in any appellate or higher court in any county in CA.

However I found dignman: People v. Dingman, 55 Cal.Rptr. 211 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 1996) http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba..._v_dingman.txt

[VeryCoolCat]

I wonder how long til we run into the first OLL with a PRE-2000 c-mag

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by VeryCoolCat

I wonder how long til we run into the first OLL with a PRE-2000 c-mag

Pre/post 2000 status of modded hicap mag is irrelevant to 12276.1(a)(2).