CA legal FAL mags

[code_blue]

Its a moot point as only a moron would permanently attach a pre-2000 legally owned standard capacity magazine to a CA firearm with no "evil features."

Because, you know, if you have no "evil features" you don't need a bullet button. Maybe you should review the flow chart before calling people out

I will even give an example. I have an M1A. It is featureless therefore it does not require a bullet button. I can legally use any pre-2000 11+ round magazines that I own. If I put on an E2 stock with a pistol grip, I am now required to put on a bullet button and "permanently attach" my 10 round or less magazines.

Now if I use a grip wrap, as we are discussing for the FAL with no FH or a muzzle brake and a non-collapsible/folding stock, I can remove my bullet button and resume use of my pre-2000 11+ round mags.

But I respect your right to call me out and argue with me about semantics

FIFY. Muzzle brakes are not classified as an Assault Weapon feature in CA.

[CSACANNONEER]

Its a moot point as only a moron would permanently attach a pre-2000 legally owned standard capacity magazine to a CA firearm with no "evil features."

Because, you know, if you have no "evil features" you don't need a bullet button. Maybe you should review the flow chart before calling people out

I will even give an example. I have an M1A. It is featureless therefore it does not require a bullet button. I can legally use any pre-2000 11+ round magazines that I own. If I put on an E2 stock with a pistol grip, I am now required to put on a bullet button and "permanently attach" my 10 round or less magazines.

Now if I use a grip wrap, as we are discussing for the FAL with no FH or a muzzle brake and a non-collapsible/folding stock, I can remove my bullet button and resume use of my pre-2000 11+ round mags.

But I respect your right to call me out and argue with me about semantics

Only a moron would think that an under educated gun owner might not think that he/she was being extra safe by using a mag lock on a featureless rifle. I've helped straighten out more than one person who thought this way. Also, only a moron would think that a FAL without a PG or folding stock but with a muzzle brake would require a mag lock.


BTW, only a moron would distinguish between legally owned mags which were legally acquire pre 1-1-2000 and legally owned mags which were legally acquired post 1-1-2000 for the context of this thread. The only legal difference between +10 round mags legally acquired pre 2000 to those legally acquired post 1-1-2000 has to to with being able to legally remove them from the state and then re import them.

[adam6955]

FIFY. Muzzle brakes are not classified as an Assault Weapon feature in CA.

Ya it was phrased wrong. It is fixed now. I guess I should have wrote "or a muzzle brake in place of a flash hider" or some such. I thought the CA M1A example would have made it obvious that I knew what I was talking about....

I find, in matters that will cause a well-intentioned person to accidentally commit a felony, that it is better to say something that is true and clear, rather than something that is true and unclear.

For instance, somebody might have a featureless rifle and 20 round milsurp mags, knowing that this is legal. Then they might become afraid of attention, so they put a bullet button on their setup. They just committed a felony by trying to be MORE careful.

"Semantics" is the difference between going to jail or not.

Good point. I think in most cases the flow chart keeps it pretty clear though.