Blocked 30 round mag body and 10 round mag spring

[vta]

Has anyone tried this yet? I am planning on either cutting my mag spring or buying springs for 10 round cproducts mags to assemble 10/30 mags with a 30 gi mag bodies and polymer blocks between the shorter spring and floor plate.

Once the spring is cut, it would not function without the block inserted which should practically be considered a 'permenant' conversion.

It still can be used as a 30 round mag when I move to a free state by simply replacing the cut springs with new springs and removing the blocks.

Does anyone see problems with this? I am speaking specifically about the construction method of the 10/30 mags that can still be disassembled for cleaning and repairing. Not worried about constructive possession issues at this moment since I don't plan on having extra full size springs laying around.

[roushstage2]

That's not permanent. You could have an uncut [i.e.- normal] spring, open the mag, and replace the spring. You now have a hi-cap mag in about 30 seconds. It's not an issue of not having the uncut springs around; it's that the modification isn't permanent: the idea of permanent being that you cannot undo the modification without destroying the mag.

[vta]

That's not permanent. You could have an uncut [i.e.- normal] spring, open the mag, and replace the spring. You now have a hi-cap mag in about 30 seconds. It's not an issue of not having the uncut springs around; it's that the modification isn't permanent: the idea of permanent being that you cannot undo the modification without destroying the mag.

I beg to differ with that opinion. Having to replace a part to return the mag to a 30 rounder means that it can not be made into a 10+ round mag in the existing state (without introducing replacement parts). It is effectively destroyed even though the necessity for destruction is not anywhere defined in permenance. What you are describing is no different than saying that I can take a riveted mag, cut it open, and replace the previously riveted body with a new, unriveted body to make a 30 rounder from a 10 rounder.

If replacing parts on a magazine takes away the idea of permenance on a modded 10/30 mag, there probably isn't a single technique out there that I couldnt return back to a full cap mag with 1 or 2 new parts.

[roushstage2]

I didn't make the law, so beg to differ all you like. Most people go with the "destruction of the mag" as a guideline to be extra safe (this is California after all). Rivets do suffice I suppose, done properly.

Take your own example though. Having to cut open a riveted mag and replace the body...you destroyed the old mag. You had to cut the old body away, thus destroying the mag and making it parts.

[zfields]

Doesnt sound permanent to me.

[vta]

I didn't make the law, so beg to differ all you like. Most people go with the "destruction of the mag" as a guideline to be extra safe (this is California after all). Rivets do suffice I suppose, done properly.

Take your own example though. Having to cut open a riveted mag and replace the body...you destroyed the old mag. You had to cut the old body away, thus destroying the mag and making it parts.

That is one example and another would be simply replacing an epoxied follower and spring (another commonly accepted method of 'permenant' conversion) on a pmag. Instant 10+ round mag. There is no definition of what "destruction" of the mag means. Cutting of the spring in your definition could also be described as "destruction".

If you think it is not permenant, please quote the specific part of the law that supports your argument. Unless it is just your personal opinion then I will just take it as that.

[vta]

Here is one scenario that might fall into question that I was thinking about. If one simply removes the block and reassemble the mag using the cut springs, the mag will not be able to feed as the follower won't reach the feed lips. However, I could theoretically keep loading rounds down the mag until the spring does build tension for the top rounds to feed. The question is then even if there are more than 10 rounds in the mag, only a few rounds from the top will feed until the spring loses tension (theoretically less than 10). Yet the mag contains 10+ rounds even with most of them unusable. That might be the gray area I would be worried about. I am not concerned about the aforementioned descriptions of permenance at all at this time point unless some stronger arguments are made with references to the specific text in the law.

[LTP90]

From the Penal code

(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.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action
firearm.
(d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from
the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this
section.

So that is what is says, then you have to look at case law. What is DOJ's definition of permanent?

[m03]

Doesnt sound permanent to me.

How does one justify the many factory 10rd. pistol magazines in Cali that, with a single part swap, become 12+ round magazines?

Last I check, Glock, S&W, etc. aren't epoxying or riveting their magazines.

[zfields]

How does one justify the many factory 10rd. pistol magazines in Cali that, with a single part swap, become 12+ round magazines?

Last I check, Glock, S&W, etc. aren't epoxying or riveting their magazines.

All the factory 10 round mags I have owned were internally blocked, so just swapping springs/followers wouldnt change the capacity.

[vta]

From the Penal code

(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.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action
firearm.
(d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from
the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this
section.

So that is what is says, then you have to look at case law. What is DOJ's definition of permanent?

Not sure what they define as permenant. That seems to be the gray area most 10/30 mags are dealing with. Like the magpul round limiter floor plate they sell commercially for their 20rd mags that converts a 20 rounder to a 10 rounder, some people epoxy the floor plate just to "be safe" while others (myself included) deem that as unnecessary.

My understanding is that if you are replacing parts of a 10 round mag to make it a 30 (as the aforementioned response suggested with the new spring) , it is the act of manufacturing that mag into a 30 that is illegal, not the possession of the prior converted 10 round mag that you used for parts.

[vta]

All the factory 10 round mags I have owned were internally blocked, so just swapping springs/followers wouldnt change the capacity.

I can swap out a xd mag body and instantly make it 10+ rounds.

[vta]

The mag body is a part the same way that the spring, follower or base plate is a part. Nothing special about the mag body in the eyes of the law.

[dieselpower]

I will once again take up this fight...LOL

The only magazine that needs to comply with the exclusions are those magazine that were LEGAL Large capacity magazines in Ca prior to 1/1/2000 that are altered to only hold 10 or less. This alteration must be permanent as per what a common person (jury) would think.

Another magazine that needs to comply with the exclusions on altered magazines is a magazine bought outside of CA, that is going to be transported into CA. That magazine must first be permanently altered. Permanently altered is defined as what a common person (jury) would think it is.

A pile of magazine parts needs no permanent alteration to be assembled into a 10 round magazine. Parts are parts since parts are not a magazine. A 10 rd magazine is NOT a Large Capacity magazine and therefore isnt regulated by exclusions.

So to the OP. Yes, you can add a block to the bottom of a long body and you have built a 10rd feeding device. Its not a feeding device that was altered..its just a 10 rd feeding device. It needs no permanent alteration.

This type of 10rd magazine has been in use since 1994. This has been used to make legal hunting 5 round magazines for over 30 years.

please read every word of the exclusions...not just the buzz words...

In AW law:

(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.

note the words "feeding device" and "has been"

general magazine restrictions;

(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.

Once again note the words "feeding device" and "has been". There is no law stating a pile of parts is a feeding device.

If you take a magazine apart, its a pile of parts. If you must take a magazine apart to remove a limiting device, you must break the law when assembling it...manufacturing. The magazine itself (un-molested) is a legal 10 rd magazine/

[vta]

@dieselpower. That is my initial understanding as well. Thanks for your explanation. Would you mind giving me your thoughts on post #7?