Can I store my guns stored with a cable lock

[Cokebottle]

Like I said in my original reply, I'm probably missing something after 2 days without sleep, but I'm not sure where.

I don't think you're missing anything.
I agree that it is probably legal.

But does the OP really want to be the test case, especially when all he needs to do is separate the upper and lower if it's an AR pattern (not too practical with an AK)

[Crowesnest]

Why not just separate the upper from lower receiver? Voila...no issues.

[shark92651]

Legal technicality musings aside, it would be extremely foolish for the OP not to spend $20 per gun and take some BB's with him to WA and installing them before bringing them into CA. Risking potential felonies and/or 10's of thousands in legal fees and total disruption of his family life for the sake of saving a few bucks and 5 minutes of his time would be pretty foolish.

[Crowesnest]

Legal technicality musings aside, it would be extremely foolish for the OP not to spend $20 per gun and take some BB's with him to WA and installing them before bringing them into CA. Risking potential felonies and/or 10's of thousands in legal fees and total disruption of his family life for the sake of saving a few bucks and 5 minutes of his time would be pretty foolish.

[edwardm]

I don't think you're missing anything.
I agree that it is probably legal.

But does the OP really want to be the test case, especially when all he needs to do is separate the upper and lower if it's an AR pattern (not too practical with an AK)

I can think of 10 test cases I *do* want, and this is certainly not one of them. It would otherwise be a waste of time and resources.

A BB/Radlock/P50/whatever is cheap, easy to install, makes no permanent modifications and has the desired Rolaids Effect (i.e. avoids heartburn).

[Librarian]

Run a cable up the empty magwell of an AR-15, out the ejection port and back around to the magwell and lock it.

Then lawyer me on how the rifle can accept a magazine, let alone a detachable magazine. Like I said in my original reply, I'm probably missing something after 2 days without sleep, but I'm not sure where.

You're outside the 12276.1 definition for "capable of accepting."
You're outside the CCR definition of 'detachable' magazine.

Again, let's say you fill the magwell with some 2 part epoxy. Functionally it's doing nearly the same thing (less, really) than the cable.

The epoxy thing, yes. One might have lots of fun drilling that out.

But the cable lock thing, no.

It's no different using a cable lock as it is inserting a magazine - can't accept another magazine, right? But that doesn't satisfy the required alteration to the weapon - your sleeplessness is causing you to merge the 'common usage' of removable/detachable with the 'legal usage'.

Shark92651 has it right - just not a rational risk/benefit to try to avoid the bullet buttons.

[IncVoid]

Isn't a key a tool? Like a bullet tip?

It doesn't lock the magazine in tho, it locks magazines out, maybe that is the difference.

*not a solution but...*
What if one were to have another hole in the bottom of the receiver and in the magazine so you could put a cable lock through the receiver and magazine, locks the magazine and receiver together.
But you'd have to modify(drill) every magazine. Just buy your choice of magazine release locks.

Shooting the gun isn't illegal I don't think. Possession of an unregistered assault weapon is. If they come in with features..they have to be bullet buttoned.
Otherwise everybody would of been importing guns with the new cable lock that comes with them(some of them) through the mag well. So in practice I don't see it happening.
Even at the minimum, You'd have to remove the features, or install a BB before you take the cable lock off.

[dieselpower]

locking it isnt going to fly. the rifle can still accept a detachable magazine...now if the cable lock was PART of the firearm...you would have something..but its not part of the firearm..its a lock.

the law is written pointing at the rifle when in use...not the action used to ready it, not the magazine...the rifle. The rifle is merely locked. If this were true rifle in a case can not accept a detachable magazine..it needs a person to load it..cant do it by itself.

[Cokebottle]

the law is written pointing at the rifle when in use...not the action used to ready it, not the magazine...the rifle. The rifle is merely locked. If this were true rifle in a case can not accept a detachable magazine..it needs a person to load it..cant do it by itself.

But a key is a "tool"
A person isn't a tool. No... wait

Seriously though, I think it's something that MAY be defensible, but like I said, I'm sure it would end up being a test case... and likely one that CGF would not defend.

No, the lock isn't technically a part of the firearm, but the opinion of the CGF is that the "tool" used for the bullet button must not be attached to the firearm in any way, including a lanyard on the trigger guard.
In the same way, the lock could be considered to be an attachment, and like with a BB or other maglock, it is certainly not "capable of accepting a detachable magazine".... nor any other magazine for that matter.

It might fly in a friendly jurisdiction.... but I'm not going to be the one to try it.
It would be interesting to get an opinion from the DOJ on it.

[edwardm]

The epoxy thing, yes. One might have lots of fun drilling that out.

But the cable lock thing, no.

It's no different using a cable lock as it is inserting a magazine - can't accept another magazine, right? But that doesn't satisfy the required alteration to the weapon - your sleeplessness is causing you to merge the 'common usage' of removable/detachable with the 'legal usage'.

Shark92651 has it right - just not a rational risk/benefit to try to avoid the bullet buttons.

I'm not merging "common" vs. "legal" usage. I'm staring at the CCR section right now (and was in my initial reply).

Compare it to this: drill a hole across the magwell. Insert a long bolt, attach a nut on the other end. Tack-weld the nut to the bolt. It's the equivalent of a cable. Rifle cannot accept ANY magazine. It is, at best, a single-shot rifle now. Both cable and bolt can be undone with a tool (key/dremel), which would then place the rifle within the purview of 12276.1. Until that time, the rifle doesn't fall within 12276.1. I quote 11 CCR 5469 for quick reference within the thread, but it's not applicable. You can't cram ANY ammunition feeding device in the magwell. You need not even reference "detachable magazine", you can stop right at 12276.1.

11 CCR 5469:

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) "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.

While I realize this discussion is purely academic, I do professionally believe it is an inherently defensible way to remove an SB23 AW from AW status. Smart? No. Could you craft a reasonable defense around it? Yes.

Good discussion, though, guys. At least it gave me something non-real world to ponder today. Now, time for some Rough Stock and bed. Check in on this tomorrow AM.

[Librarian]

I'm not merging "common" vs. "legal" usage. I'm staring at the CCR section right now (and was in my initial reply).

Compare it to this: drill a hole across the magwell. Insert a long bolt, attach a nut on the other end. Tack-weld the nut to the bolt. It's the equivalent of a cable. Rifle cannot accept ANY magazine. It is, at best, a single-shot rifle now. Both cable and bolt can be undone with a tool (key/dremel), which would then place the rifle within the purview of 12276.1. Until that time, the rifle doesn't fall within 12276.1. I quote 11 CCR 5469 for quick reference within the thread, but it's not applicable. You can't cram ANY ammunition feeding device in the magwell. You need not even reference "detachable magazine", you can stop right at 12276.1.

Except for the red part, I think you're correct. I just don't see the equivalence between cable lock and drilling-and-bolting (or filling with epoxy or welding the mag well shut).

It would be my expectation that my skepticism would be shared by a prosecutor, in the vanishingly unlikely event that such a case would come before one.

It's in the same realm as disassembling an AR pattern into the separate upper and lower assemblies: arguably in that condition one does not have a rifle of any kind, and there is no convincing argument that ONLY that upper is the one which can be associated with that lower - any .22 rimfire upper or a pump-action or bolt-action upper might be used with that lower, and all three cases are not within the definition of 'assault weapon'.

[XDshooter]

Except for the red part, I think you're correct. I just don't see the equivalence between cable lock and drilling-and-bolting (or filling with epoxy or welding the mag well shut).

It would be my expectation that my skepticism would be shared by a prosecutor, in the vanishingly unlikely event that such a case would come before one.

It's in the same realm as disassembling an AR pattern into the separate upper and lower assemblies: arguably in that condition one does not have a rifle of any kind, and there is no convincing argument that ONLY that upper is the one which can be associated with that lower - any .22 rimfire upper or a pump-action or bolt-action upper might be used with that lower, and all three cases are not within the definition of 'assault weapon'.

It's is comical when people forget the things that bring us to the present.


Permanence was not a requirement for a rifle to accept detachable magazines. This is what the DOJ tried to pull with their underground regulations years ago and it was smacked down.

An AR or any rifle for that matter that CANNOT accept a detachable magazine can not be an assault weapon. No matter the way it is accomplished.

Don't get into a groove of things, just because we have something that we all feel is the 'norm", and disapprove of new ideas.

[Librarian]

Permanence was not a requirement for a rifle to accept detachable magazines. This is what the DOJ tried to pull with their underground regulations years ago and it was smacked down.

I don't think I'm talking about 'permanence'. A 'bullet button' is, after all, removable (I've never done it, but folks say it's easy). I think the distinction is 'modification to the gun'. I'll argue that a cable lock is not a 'modification to the gun', while the other things - epoxy etc. - are.

[IncVoid]

This is tough. This is what I'm thinking.

I have heard that Lanyarded tools are part of the rifle thus the rifle is able to detach the magazine by itself(without tools I mean).
Ask CA DOJ if a lanyarded cable lock is considered part of the rifle then.
Lanyard the cable lock to the trigger guard and cable lock through the ejection port and magwell.
Better yet. Mail yourself the keys and ask the officer/CA DOJ to get a magazine in or out of the magwell without tools if ya really wanna be a smart a** about it.(Don't be a smart *** to doj, that is sarcasm)

A lower ready to accept an easily detachable magazine AND pistol grip is an AW. The BB makes magazines not easily detachable.
Doesn't say anything about the rifle being able to function.
So even though you have a rifle that will not chamber a round due to the cable lock being there, it is still has to prevent insertion and removal of magazines, which a cable going through the magwell does. Regardless of how easy or not, it still requires a tool to remove the device(the cable lock).
BB devices themselves need tools to be removed. I'd ask CA DOJ about it tho, you'd have to ask if a "key" is considered a "tool" I would think it would be, looks more like a tool than a bullet.

xdshooter. Are you are saying that doj used to say in the past that if it can be turned into an AW via removal of devices or modification that it was always an AW? That must have sucked.

It would be great if we could get guns firearms into california by just cable locking the mag wells or actions of the firearms. Install bullet buttons when we got them. But probably not the best of ideas.(Maybe this could be technically legal but counter productive due to bad press/incidents, now I see why people don't like open carry)

I think most people would probably agree that, that allowance would allow lazy or misinformed people to not install a BB and Just remove the lock and possibly make an AW once they got their rifles.
Then some misinformed person is being charged with making an AW, they get on the news claiming that some dealer sold them an AW and they are looking at time for it, and bad press happens and people get scared of this or that.

But misinformed people put hi-caps in bb'd guns or installing a feature on a firearm after buying an accessory or stock or grip is no different than the above scenario.
Misinformed people breaking laws. Just because people are uninformed of things doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to get the firearm we want to buy with a cable lock through the mag well and action though.



Right now the majority of people are saying remove features or install BB like devices unless you're out to prove something in court.

[edwardm]

Then we shall agree to disagree! And if I ever have the unfortunate task of representing a client who went with the cable lock idea, I'll let everyone know how it plays out.

I understand your argument, and I find it coherent, but I don't agree with it, as you don't agree with mine. I'm OK with that. After a so-so night of sleep, I can't see any reason to continue beating this horse, but I'm glad the topic came up. Good mental exercise and discussion.

Except for the red part, I think you're correct. I just don't see the equivalence between cable lock and drilling-and-bolting (or filling with epoxy or welding the mag well shut).

It would be my expectation that my skepticism would be shared by a prosecutor, in the vanishingly unlikely event that such a case would come before one.

It's in the same realm as disassembling an AR pattern into the separate upper and lower assemblies: arguably in that condition one does not have a rifle of any kind, and there is no convincing argument that ONLY that upper is the one which can be associated with that lower - any .22 rimfire upper or a pump-action or bolt-action upper might be used with that lower, and all three cases are not within the definition of 'assault weapon'.