Difference between "not having a fixed magazine" and having a "detachable" magazine

[Bolt_Action]

In light of Sen Yee's reintroduction of a ban on "evil featured" rifles that "do not have a fixed magazine", I have begun to have a thought going through my head. Here's how it works:

Right now, it is illegal to have a pistol grip AND a detachable magazine. Because of this, we have the bullet button rifle with pistol grips, because the bullet button's function is specifically called out as NOT being a detachable magazine. BUT, the general consensus seems to be that if a magazine is NOT DETACHABLE, it must therefore be "FIXED" (which would make it illegal to use with a 10+ round mag). But based on the wording of Sen. Yee's revisions to the CA AWB, this is clearly not true. Why should you care?

Here's why. Right now it's considered illegal to insert a "large capacity magazine" into a rifle fitted with a bullet button. But why should that be illegal? Just because a rifle sports a bullet button and doesn't have a detachable magazine DOES NOT MEAN that it necessarily has a "fixed" magazine. If anything, the wording of Sen Yee's ban proves this to be true. Changing the wording from "having a detachable magazine" to "not having a fixed magazine" clearly shows that the bullet button is neither a detachable magazine nor is it a fixed magazine.

Not Detachable /= Fixed.

Since bullet button rifles do not necessarily have fixed magazines, why is it illegal to use grandfathered large capacity magazines in these rifles?

[Librarian]

Generally, because there is no third condition to describe 'not detachable AND not fixed'.

[CWDraco]

This is what a Lawyer for the ATF told me and my wife at a diner party 7 (6>?) years ago. There is no such thing as the opposite of detachable = fixed. The law simply says what is NOT a detachable, it never defines fixed.

Gene and I got into a heated debate on it. A lawyer then joined in the fight, who realized the argument could actually hurt gun owners in CA so he backed off and changed his final statement against Gene's position.

1- Truth be told if you take a semiautomatic firearm with a BB into any other State its still has a detachable magazine. No one in the firearms industry uses CA legal definition as one that defines a detachable magazine.
2- The Firearms Industry uses varying degrees to describe a fixed magazine. They all revolve around the fact the Receiver itslef is designed to be the magazine. While its true a fixed magazine receiver can be retrofitted with an external detachable magazine, that's not the original design.
3- The AG / DoJ / BoF uses Firearm Industry standard literature for reference in the laws. None of those standard books and documents would define a fixed magazine as how WE GUN OWNERS have. We are the ones who said a BB = a Fixed magazine. The BoF didn't agree until it was forced to. Even after the DoJ / BoF agreed, they only agreed it met the statutory definition of what was NOT a detachable magazine. It wasn't until a BoF agent who is friendly with CalGuns said in court a BB made a fixed magazine that they took that stance. Up to that point it really didn't. I don't know if that set a legal precedent, but it did hurt this type of logic.

Just an FYI, that ATF Lawyer is a supervisor of some kind. I wish I got his name. He was high ranking in the BATFE and said clearly there was no way in COURT the law defining a detachable magazine can be used to define a fixed magazine. Therefore a firearm with a magazine lock could in fact have a LCM installed. Without a clear definition of a Fixed Magazine, the magazine locked firearm was simply NOT one with a detachable magazine. The opposite of a car is not a truck. You need to define both, not just one.

[stix213]

This is what a Lawyer for the ATF told me and my wife at a diner party 7 (6>?) years ago. There is no such thing as the opposite of detachable = fixed. The law simply says what is NOT a detachable, it never defines fixed.

Gene and I got into a heated debate on it. A lawyer then joined in the fight, who realized the argument could actually hurt gun owners in CA so he backed off and changed his final statement against Gene's position.

1- Truth be told if you take a semiautomatic firearm with a BB into any other State its still has a detachable magazine. No one in the firearms industry uses CA legal definition as one that defines a detachable magazine.
2- The Firearms Industry uses varying degrees to describe a fixed magazine. They all revolve around the fact the Receiver itslef is designed to be the magazine. While its true a fixed magazine receiver can be retrofitted with an external detachable magazine, that's not the original design.
3- The AG / DoJ / BoF uses Firearm Industry standard literature for reference in the laws. None of those standard books and documents would define a fixed magazine as how WE GUN OWNERS have. We are the ones who said a BB = a Fixed magazine. The BoF didn't agree until it was forced to. Even after the DoJ / BoF agreed, they only agreed it met the statutory definition of what was NOT a detachable magazine. It wasn't until a BoF agent who is friendly with CalGuns said in court a BB made a fixed magazine that they took that stance. Up to that point it really didn't. I don't know if that set a legal precedent, but it did hurt this type of logic.

Just an FYI, that ATF Lawyer is a supervisor of some kind. I wish I got his name. He was high ranking in the BATFE and said clearly there was no way in COURT the law defining a detachable magazine can be used to define a fixed magazine. Therefore a firearm with a magazine lock could in fact have a LCM installed. Without a clear definition of a Fixed Magazine, the magazine locked firearm was simply NOT one with a detachable magazine. The opposite of a car is not a truck. You need to define both, not just one.

ATF deals with federal law, not California penal codes. Detachable/fixed on the federal level is a completely different set of codes, regulations, and case law.

[ke6guj]

In light of Sen Yee's reintroduction of a ban on "evil featured" rifles that "do not have a fixed magazine", I have begun to have a thought going through my head. Here's how it works:

Right now, it is illegal to have a pistol grip AND a detachable magazine. Because of this, we have the bullet button rifle with pistol grips, because the bullet button's function is specifically called out as NOT being a detachable magazine. BUT, the general consensus seems to be that if a magazine is NOT DETACHABLE, it must therefore be "FIXED" (which would make it illegal to use with a 10+ round mag). But based on the wording of Sen. Yee's revisions to the CA AWB, this is clearly not true. Why should you care?

Here's why. Right now it's considered illegal to insert a "large capacity magazine" into a rifle fitted with a bullet button. But why should that be illegal? Just because a rifle sports a bullet button and doesn't have a detachable magazine DOES NOT MEAN that it necessarily has a "fixed" magazine. If anything, the wording of Sen Yee's ban proves this to be true. Changing the wording from "having a detachable magazine" to "not having a fixed magazine" clearly shows that the bullet button is neither a detachable magazine nor is it a fixed magazine.

Not Detachable /= Fixed.

Since bullet button rifles do not necessarily have fixed magazines, why is it illegal to use grandfathered large capacity magazines in these rifles?

many of us have opined that using a maglock to make a non-detachable magazine makes it so that it has an "attachable, but not detachable, magazine":D And there is no definion that states that that attachable magazine is legally defined as a fixed magazine. However, we do not have the $$$$$, and are not willing to risk the felony conviction, to pursue that option at this time. Just like there are other firearms configurations that would be fun to have with detachable magazine, and should be legal, it isn't worth the risk at this time.

[onethumb]

This is what a Lawyer for the ATF told me and my wife at a diner party 7 (6>?) years ago. There is no such thing as the opposite of detachable = fixed. The law simply says what is NOT a detachable, it never defines fixed.

Gene and I got into a heated debate on it. A lawyer then joined in the fight, who realized the argument could actually hurt gun owners in CA so he backed off and changed his final statement against Gene's position.

1- Truth be told if you take a semiautomatic firearm with a BB into any other State its still has a detachable magazine. No one in the firearms industry uses CA legal definition as one that defines a detachable magazine.
2- The Firearms Industry uses varying degrees to describe a fixed magazine. They all revolve around the fact the Receiver itslef is designed to be the magazine. While its true a fixed magazine receiver can be retrofitted with an external detachable magazine, that's not the original design.
3- The AG / DoJ / BoF uses Firearm Industry standard literature for reference in the laws. None of those standard books and documents would define a fixed magazine as how WE GUN OWNERS have. We are the ones who said a BB = a Fixed magazine. The BoF didn't agree until it was forced to. Even after the DoJ / BoF agreed, they only agreed it met the statutory definition of what was NOT a detachable magazine. It wasn't until a BoF agent who is friendly with CalGuns said in court a BB made a fixed magazine that they took that stance. Up to that point it really didn't. I don't know if that set a legal precedent, but it did hurt this type of logic.

Just an FYI, that ATF Lawyer is a supervisor of some kind. I wish I got his name. He was high ranking in the BATFE and said clearly there was no way in COURT the law defining a detachable magazine can be used to define a fixed magazine. Therefore a firearm with a magazine lock could in fact have a LCM installed. Without a clear definition of a Fixed Magazine, the magazine locked firearm was simply NOT one with a detachable magazine. The opposite of a car is not a truck. You need to define both, not just one.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the LCM rule had nothing to do with detachable/fixed:

Evil Feature + Fixed (ie--BB) LCM = Unregistered Assault Weapon.

Evil Feature + Detachable Mag = Unregistered Assault Weapon.

Evil Feature + Fixed (BB) Mag of 10rd or less = Long Gun

No Evil Feature + Detachable Mag (of any capacity) = Long Gun


So the idea of how to detach the mag is immaterial to the capacity of the mag. The Evil Feature is what is linked to magazine capacity. Lack of an evil feature means they don't care how it detaches, and allows LCM use, provided that you have a grandfathered LCM.

Right?

[thedrickel]

Yes it's true, the BB is not a fixed magazine. It's really legal to use a 30rd mag with it. It's just been one of those things we don't talk about on CGN.

[CWDraco]

ATF deals with federal law, not California penal codes. Detachable/fixed on the federal level is a completely different set of codes, regulations, and case law.

gee really, I didnt know that...:rolleyes:

He was an attorney who worked for the Federal Government's Agency that has direct control of firearms laws... if you think that doesn't matter you need to educate yourself more and stop trying to educate me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the LCM rule had nothing to do with detachable/fixed:

Evil Feature + Fixed (ie--BB) LCM = Unregistered Assault Weapon.

Evil Feature + Detachable Mag = Unregistered Assault Weapon.

Evil Feature + Fixed (BB) Mag of 10rd or less = Long Gun

No Evil Feature + Detachable Mag (of any capacity) = Long Gun


So the idea of how to detach the mag is immaterial to the capacity of the mag. The Evil Feature is what is linked to magazine capacity. Lack of an evil feature means they don't care how it detaches, and allows LCM use, provided that you have a grandfathered LCM.

Right?

No the law that stops you from slapping a 30rd magazine into a magazine locked firearm is the law that says, Fixed magazines may not have a capacity greater then 10 or its an AW. That's basically all the law says. There is no definition of a Fixed magazine in CA law. At one time there was a AW guide that defined a Fixed Magazine as internal to and part of the firearm itself. The fact that it is not in the law hurts us.

If it was in the law, we could argue a magazine locked firearm could have LCM attached without triggering AW status.

The ONLY reason a magazine locked semiautomatic firearm is said to have a "fixed magazine" is no one is brave enough to take it to court, I certainly am not and I have friends in high places. I may not bang hot chics, but I know the people who do...:D

[onethumb]

gee really, I didnt know that...:rolleyes:

He was an attorney who worked for the Federal Government's Agency that has direct control of firearms laws... if you think that doesn't matter you need to educate yourself more and stop trying to educate me.



No the law that stops you from slapping a 30rd magazine into a magazine locked firearm is the law that says, Fixed magazines may not have a capacity greater then 10 or its an AW. That's basically all the law says. There is no definition of a Fixed magazine in CA law. At one time there was a AW guide that defined a Fixed Magazine as internal to and part of the firearm itself. The fact that it is not in the law hurts us.

If it was in the law, we could argue a magazine locked firearm could have LCM attached without triggering AW status.

The ONLY reason a magazine locked semiautomatic firearm is said to have a "fixed magazine" is no one is brave enough to take it to court, I certainly am not and I have friends in high places. I may not bang hot chics, but I know the people who do...:D


So you're saying that a BB rifle with NO evil features and an LCM (why you would put a BB on, I don't know...but for arguments sake, let's just say that you did), would be a UAW, but if you take the BB off, then it is legal?

[ke6guj]

So you're saying that a BB rifle with NO evil features and an LCM (why you would put a BB on, I don't know...but for arguments sake, let's just say that you did), would be a UAW, but if you take the BB off, then it is legal?

that's the current position that most of us take.

[CWDraco]

AW law as it relates to a magazine
(a)Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

(1)A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: <--- defined here (http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf)"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
(A)A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B)A thumbhole stock.
(C)A folding or telescoping stock.
(D)A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E)A flash suppressor.
(F)A forward pistol grip.

(2)A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
or
(5)A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. <------ There is no definition of a fixed magazine in CA law. The Industry Standard one DOESNT support a magazine lock as a fixed magazine. For the rest of the entire world that would just be a safety lock on a DETACHABLE MAGAZINE FIREARM.

(3)A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches. <-------- No matter what kind of magazine or the magazines capacity, under 30" is an AW

Now if we were to look back a few years or if we were to look at a Firearms Industry Standard book a magazine is defined as;
Magazine- Any ammunition feeding device.

An internal box or fixed magazine (also known as a blind box magazine when lacking a floorplate) is built into the firearm and is not easily removable. This type of magazine is found most often on bolt-action rifles. An internal box magazine is usually charged through the action, one round at a time. Military rifles often use stripper clips or chargers permitting multiple rounds, commonly 5 or 10 at a time, to be loaded at once. Some internal box magazines use en-bloc clips that are loaded into the magazine with the ammunition and that are ejected from the firearm when empty.

A detachable box magazine is a self-contained mechanism capable of being loaded or unloaded while detached from the host firearm. They are attached via a slot in the firearm receiver usually below the action but occasionally to the side (Sten, FG42, Johnson LMG) or on top (Madsen machine gun, Bren gun, FN P90). When the magazine is empty, it can be detached from the firearm and replaced by another full magazine. This significantly speeds the process of reloading, allowing the operator quick access to ammunition. This type of magazine may be straight or curved, the curve being necessary if the rifle uses rimmed ammunition or ammunition with a tapered case. Box magazines are often affixed to each other with clips, tape, straps, or built-in studs to facilitate faster reloading: aka jungle style.

There are, however, exceptions to these rules. The Lee-Enfield rifle had a detachable box magazine only to facilitate cleaning. The Lee-Enfield magazine did open, permitting rapid unloading of the magazine without having to operate the bolt-action repeatedly to unload the magazine. Others, like the Breda Modello 30, had a fixed protruding magazine that resembled a conventional detachable box but was non-detachable.

[Librarian]

Folks are straining mightily to apply logic and accurate usage to California law.

If those qualities actually meant anything to our Legislators, the laws in question would not exist - because, as we see (and have said here and elsewhere for over 10 years) the laws make no sense and have no relationship at all to actual firearms.

See also the (unsuccessful) Indiana Pi Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill).

[curtisfong]

You're posting to a necro thread that hasn't been added to in two years asking if somebody has posted something new in two years?