30rd mag in .22lr conversion

[ARFrog]

That is about the MAGAZINES themselves.
Legally acquired large capacity magazines can be used with features in a rimfire rifle without the rifle becoming an assault weapon.

So he won't have no "splaining to do" unless he is breaking a law.
In other words, it's completely legal to have a large capacity magazine in an AR 22 as long as the magazines are legally acquired.

- "about the magazines." DUH, that's the essence, isn't it.

- "legally acquired." That's the rub. If you don't have pre-ban, Freedom magazines, or exempt feeding devices, then you have a problem.

- can use a rimfire with features. This is true for someone with legal magazines or not and was not stated otherwise.

- not having a "guilt" mindset. Not a problem and not something I spend a lot of time pondering. Instead, I find it best to understand the limitations of the law and see if there are legal work-arounds. In this case the OP in post #1 asked about using standard magazines in an AR22. He did not say he had "legal" magazines, therefore the discussion of not using them unless he had exempted exceptions.

[Paperchasin]

You can basically use any capacity magazine that you possess in your 22lr conversion or complete AR22 rifle. However/Whenever you acquired those magazines is a different topic.

[ar15barrels]

He did not say he had "legal" magazines, therefore the discussion of not using them unless he had exempted exceptions.

That's a perfect example of how a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset.

Did he say his magazines were acquired in an illegal manner?
No.

You assumed it.
You assumed GUILTY because he did not specifically state that they were legally acquired.

[ARFrog]

I believe the issue here is not assumptions and guilt but one of reading comprehension.

OP states his question in post #1 and says he is confused. OP is told that he can use standard mags if he has one of the valid exemptions.

OP restates his confusion in post#5 on can he use his 25 round mags.

I understand that each of us make our own judgements on whether we will conform to existing laws or not. However, stating the circumstances of the law is not an admission of guilt or a mindset of guilt.

If OP already has "legal mags" it would seem that there is nothing to discuss and this thread has no purpose.

I will leave things as in Paperchasin's comments in post #17.

[crufflers]

OP, decouple your mind from .22 cal and start again.

No magazines with capacity above 10 in California.

Except the metric eff ton that marched in for one week recently... and the hundred metric eff tons of kits that were for sale on CA shelves for years (replacing all the old ones that broke down), and the gazillion that were already here from before any bans.

I assume that any newer designs like Pmags, Lancer, Magpul drums etc... are all here due to the recent Million Mag March. IMHO. YMMV.

I never see any illegal mags.

[Robert1234]

If OP already has "legal mags" it would seem that there is nothing to discuss and this thread has no purpose.

Except his question was "can I use 30 round mags in a rimfire AR15?" (paraphrased)

He made no mention of how he acquired them, some assumed legally, you assumed illegally.

Those who assumed legally simply tried to answer the question as asked, which is/was the purpose if this thread.

[ARFrog]

Except his question was "can I use 30 round mags in a rimfire AR15?" (paraphrased)

He made no mention of how he acquired them, some assumed legally, you assumed illegally.

Those who assumed legally simply tried to answer the question as asked, which is/was the purpose if this thread.

Again with the lack of reading comprehension...

1.) your paraphrase omits the second part of the first sentence where the OP also brings up the notion of 10 rounds.

2.) the notion of legality was brought up by the OP in his second post, by another OP in post #2 and again in a third OP's posts #13 and #15. My comment in post #5 stated that UNLESS you had mags that fit into exceptions or rifles in other approved configurations, then you could not use them if they had more than 10 rds. I left it to the OP to decide what he had and what he could do or not do. I did not use the legal word but did try to make a Lucy Riccardo joke by referencing the "splaining" comment. I also also cited a post by the Librarian to back this up (which no one has commented on or refuted.)

I fully understand that we all want to use standard capacity magazines. Some do so because they have pre-ban mags; some because they have freedom mags; and some use them because they are willing to take the risk and play "catch me if you can" (which is fine if this their "informed" choice.)

It is interesting that there is another thread currently on Calguns about a DA prosecuting a member for using/having a 10+ magazine. I don't know whether he bought it that way, modified a blocked mag, it's pre-ban or Freedom, or if the DA is looking for notoriety. But the circumstance should give us all pause in this instance when some are basically telling a "confused" questioner that if he has one then he can use it - without regard to any clarifications or what the law tells us.

So, given that I am not and have no interest in being the "mag police", do with the information, opinion, etc what you will.

[Robert1234]

Again with the lack of reading comprehension...

1.) your paraphrase omits the second part of the first sentence where the OP also brings up the notion of 10 rounds.

2.) the notion of legality was brought up by the OP in his second post, by another OP in post #2 and again in a third OP's posts #13 and #15. My comment in post #5 stated that UNLESS you had mags that fit into exceptions or rifles in other approved configurations, then you could not use them if they had more than 10 rds. I left it to the OP to decide what he had and what he could do or not do. I did not use the legal word but did try to make a Lucy Riccardo joke by referencing the "splaining" comment. I also also cited a post by the Librarian to back this up (which no one has commented on or refuted.)

I fully understand that we all want to use standard capacity magazines. Some do so because they have pre-ban mags; some because they have freedom mags; and some use them because they are willing to take the risk and play "catch me if you can" (which is fine if this their "informed" choice.)

It is interesting that there is another thread currently on Calguns about a DA prosecuting a member for using/having a 10+ magazine. I don't know whether he bought it that way, modified a blocked mag, it's pre-ban or Freedom, or if the DA is looking for notoriety. But the circumstance should give us all pause in this instance when some are basically telling a "confused" questioner that if he has one then he can use it - without regard to any clarifications or what the law tells us.

So, given that I am not and have no interest in being the "mag police", do with the information, opinion, etc what you will.

Admit it, you made an assumption, and your assumption was incorrect for the scenario given. Casting aspersions at everyone who noticed doesn't change that. Own it and move on, that's what adults do. It's an internet forum, not peace talks between two warring nations.

Why are you so desperate to prove you weren't wrong when you so obviously were dude?

[ARFrog]

Admit it, you made an assumption, and your assumption was incorrect for the scenario given. Casting aspersions at everyone who noticed doesn't change that. Own it and move on, that's what adults do. It's an internet forum, not peace talks between two warring nations.

Why are you so desperate to prove you weren't wrong when you so obviously were dude?

Once again, "do with the information, opinion, etc what you will."

If it makes you feel better imparting your assumptions of original sin, I now respond as follows:

I have sinned...

I have done wrong...

Mea culpa to the Calguns masses.

I await my bus to the re-education camp in occupied Seattle.

[pinger]

Seattle... hahahah that's funny

[Silence Dogood]

This thread is a laugh and a half.

A few CGers got caught up arguing semantics with one another, all stating truths, each clearly founded in their own perspectives and assumptions. Nothing new to anyone familiar with Calguns.net about that.

But it isn't the bickering that amuses me!

All of the 25 posts are accurate in their statements of fact (inherently excepting stated opinions which can neither be true or false) except for one: post #10.

And what's hilarious to me about this is the fact that in all of the bickering, no one seems to have noticed the false statement:

This is exactly why my bolt action .22LR rifle is a registered assault weapon in california...

I'm curious, oktavist, how did CA DOJ respond to the registration application for your rimfire bolt-action firearm? Or was this post a joke?

[ar15barrels]

All of the 25 posts are accurate in their statements of fact (inherently excepting stated opinions which can neither be true or false) except for one: post #10.

And what's hilarious to me about this is the fact that in all of the bickering, no one seems to have noticed the false statement:

This is exactly why my bolt action .22LR rifle is a registered assault weapon in california...

I'm curious, oktavist, how did CA DOJ respond to the registration application for your rimfire bolt-action firearm? Or was this post a joke?

Obvious joke post is obvious.
Unnamed rimfire's can't be assault weapons.

[crufflers]

This thread is a laugh and a half.

But it isn't the bickering that amuses me!

joke?

Yep, you are pretty quick.

[rookie]

I am very confused on this rimfire magazine rules. I was at poway weapons and gear earlier today and they had m&p 15-22 magazines that held 25 rounds for sale on the rack. I was really surprised because I thought these were illegal but one of the guys behind the counter said rimfire was exempt. Hmm...

[crufflers]

I am very confused on this rimfire magazine rules. I was at poway weapons and gear earlier today and they had m&p 15-22 magazines that held 25 rounds for sale on the rack. I was really surprised because I thought these were illegal but one of the guys behind the counter said rimfire was exempt. Hmm...

Uh huh... I doubt they had 25 rounders for sale. Selling them NOW and using them now are two different things... and the LGS guy was probably correct referring to the fact that rim fire doesn’t have to be featureless... not referring to the mag he could legally sell NOW.