WARNING: "look like hicap" *magazine* issues...

[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.