short shells

[Merc1138]

Willing to admit I stand corrected. But presently, I need more validation. I am not entirely sure "Because there is nothing that says you cannot do so, there is no reason to assume you cannot do so." is enough for me. Cool for you, not so much for me. But again, if I could get more validations on the topic, not just guys saying "oh yeah, he is right", but validation with some legal standing or more versed arguments, I could & would gladly concede.

But as it stands, no way I personally would show up with 12 Aguila mini shells per tube in my KSG and start blasting away in CA. But in CO, I have and would no problem

Do you need validation that it's not illegal to eat strawberry fruit roll-ups on a Sunday? No. There is no law stating that, and if there is no law prohibiting something, then it is legal. That's how the laws in this country(and still CA) work.

There is no legal standing to be found, because there aren't any cases that cover it, and with nothing in the PC. As I pointed out, if it were a problem then there's a bigger issue at hand with large bore low capacity AR magazines.

And it seems that a federal tossed out the stupid "only loading 7 rounds into a magazine" bit in NY, which would be the only sort of law that would apply(but we aren't in NY, and there actually is case history of such a law being struck down). http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/ny...k-gun-law.html

[m850168]

+1 to interesting question; and to this is a grey area. I agree with the logic that as the law is written it is legal to "overfill" a magazine by using smaller catridges, but I also think that's clearly violating the spirit of the law and would definitely not recommend putting more than ten rounds into any magazine, barring the exceptions Merc quoted.

If you are planning to do so, seriously consider consulting an attorney with experience in this area, and if they give you the go ahead pay them to write an opinion letter to that effect. That way, you have a very strong argument that you did not have any criminal intent if you run into trouble down the line.

[glock_this]

Do you need validation that it's not illegal to eat strawberry fruit roll-ups on a Sunday? No. There is no law stating that, and if there is no law prohibiting something, then it is legal. That's how the laws in this country(and still CA) work.

There is no legal standing to be found, because there aren't any cases that cover it, and with nothing in the PC. As I pointed out, if it were a problem then there's a bigger issue at hand with large bore low capacity AR magazines.

And it seems that a federal tossed out the stupid "only loading 7 rounds into a magazine" bit in NY, which would be the only sort of law that would apply(but we aren't in NY, and there actually is case history of such a law being struck down).

Terrible, terrible analogy. One cannot send me to a legal hell if I make a wrong choice. One can.

If there is one thing I have come to learn in the gun law arena, I don't assume the logic you assume in that there not being an official law on it means one cannot be popped for it and that is because numerous times, I have made assumptions over the years, only to have been proven wrong as I come to find a different piece of info that covers that topic that was not considered and I simply cannot navigate the laws to know what it applicable and what is not. As well, I am not 100% in agreement there's not a law per se as my distilled down belief still is, 10 round limit. So, that is the angle I view it from. Maybe playing it overly safe, ok then. In this case, for this scenario, that works for me.

Up until the berry analogy, you make some fine points and I am start to swing your direction. But you are 1 guy (maybe girl) and I need more than that to convince me it is not as simple as "10 round limit is 10 round limit even if you can shove 12 in it". Sorry man, just not there yet.

[Merc1138]

+1 to interesting question; and to this is a grey area. I agree with the logic that as the law is written it is legal to "overfill" a magazine by using smaller catridges, but I also think that's clearly violating the spirit of the law and would definitely not recommend putting more than ten rounds into any magazine, barring the exceptions Merc quoted.

If you are planning to do so, seriously consider consulting an attorney with experience in this area, and if they give you the go ahead pay them to write an opinion letter to that effect. That way, you have a very strong argument that you did not have any criminal intent if you run into trouble down the line.

"Spirit" means dick. If we followed the "spirit" of the law in CA we wouldn't have ARs, AKs, pistols developed after 2013, etc. since we know the intent of the anti 2a legislators in this state. We also know what anti 2a types think about the "spirit" of the 2nd amendment as opposed to the law as written.

At the same time, an opinion letter from a lawyer isn't going to save you from being arrested and charged with something either.

[Merc1138]

Terrible, terrible analogy. One cannot send me to a legal hell if I make a wrong choice. One can.

If there is one thing I have come to learn in the gun law arena, I don't assume the logic you assume in that there not being an official law on it means one cannot be popped for it and that is because numerous times, I have made assumptions over the years, only to have been proven wrong as I come to find a different piece of info that covers that topic that was not considered and I simply cannot navigate the laws to know what it applicable and what is not. As well, I am not 100% in agreement there's not a law per se as my distilled down belief still is, 10 round limit. So, that is the angle I view it from. Maybe playing it overly safe, ok then. In this case, for this scenario, that works for me.

Up until the berry analogy, you make some fine points and I am start to swing your direction. But you are 1 guy (maybe girl) and I need more than that to convince me it is not as simple as "10 round limit is 10 round limit even if you can shove 12 in it". Sorry man, just not there yet.

Actually, it's a perfect analogy. Something is either in the PC or it isn't. Even if not explicitly stated in the PC, the DOJ has not published any interpretation to include loading more shells of a different size than the magazine was originally designed for, nor has it been an issue settled one way or the other in court. Just the same as my mention of the fruit roll-up. The only difference is that my mention of the fruit roll-up sounds silly(which was intentional).

People deciding the legality of things on their own based on absolutely nothing(which is what you seem to want to do with the magazine) would be one way gun shop FUD starts. Now if you want to only stick 10 shells in the magazine(or not eat strawberry fruit roll-ups on a sunday) because it makes you feel better at night, that's your choice to make, but it has no effect on the legality of the matter.

It's just odd that you immediately recognize the fruit roll-up analogy as silly nonsense, but want to stick to the shells in the magazine thing with nothing to base it on. If I told you 10 years ago that NY banned serving a soda over 16oz , you'd laugh in my face, yet the silliness is irrelevant(and that one actually happened, simply later than 10 years ago).

[NightHawk]

Do you need validation that it's not illegal to eat strawberry fruit roll-ups on a Sunday? No. There is no law stating that, and if there is no law prohibiting something, then it is legal. That's how the laws in this country(and still CA) work.

There is no legal standing to be found, because there aren't any cases that cover it, and with nothing in the PC. As I pointed out, if it were a problem then there's a bigger issue at hand with large bore low capacity AR magazines.

And it seems that a federal tossed out the stupid "only loading 7 rounds into a magazine" bit in NY, which would be the only sort of law that would apply(but we aren't in NY, and there actually is case history of such a law being struck down). http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/ny...k-gun-law.html

You just made water squirt out my nose at work. LoL

[bovver]

Wouldn't a featureless shotgun without a detachable magazine be exempted? Would it have to be a Preban featurless shotgun?
California gun laws make my head explode, it's all silly nonsense.
Too bad the street criminals and the ones in office don't have to live by the same rules the subjects of the Emerial State have to live by.

[glock_this]

Actually, it's a perfect analogy. Something is either in the PC or it isn't. Even if not explicitly stated in the PC, the DOJ has not published any interpretation to include loading more shells of a different size than the magazine was originally designed for, nor has it been an issue settled one way or the other in court. Just the same as my mention of the fruit roll-up. The only difference is that my mention of the fruit roll-up sounds silly(which was intentional).

People deciding the legality of things on their own based on absolutely nothing(which is what you seem to want to do with the magazine) would be one way gun shop FUD starts. Now if you want to only stick 10 shells in the magazine(or not eat strawberry fruit roll-ups on a sunday) because it makes you feel better at night, that's your choice to make, but it has no effect on the legality of the matter.

It's just odd that you immediately recognize the fruit roll-up analogy as silly nonsense, but want to stick to the shells in the magazine thing with nothing to base it on. If I told you 10 years ago that NY banned serving a soda over 16oz , you'd laugh in my face, yet the silliness is irrelevant(and that one actually happened, simply later than 10 years ago).

No, it's not a good analogy. Though I get your point, it was terrible. What you did was hyperbole... not analogy.

Me, as a private citizen, acting how I feel is best to protect my livelihood that I see I could be risking because I cannot navigate the laws to my satisfaction on this topic and just posting about it here is not in anyway FUD nor spreading FUD. Being conservative in an seemingly not defined area, which you also admit is not defined as it does not say you can nor cannot but you are opting to take the "since it says you cannot you can" position I wouldn't take, is not a FUD issue.

I have told you several times what I base my position on, albeit simple and basic, but you just don't want to accept it as good enough and respect my tentativeness of taking your advice - someone I don't know nor does not have to answer to the law or consequences if they happen to be wrong and I get busted with 24 rounds in my KSG.

And in some ways, you seem to agree with me as you stated, "At the same time, an opinion letter from a lawyer isn't going to save you from being arrested and charged with something either." which implies you are not 100% entirely sure about your position holding legal water as I read it, so you throw out a bit of a caveat.

[Merc1138]

No, it's not a good analogy. Though I get your point, it was terrible. What you did was hyperbole... not analogy.

Me, as a private citizen, acting how I feel is best to protect my livelihood that I see I could be risking because I cannot navigate the laws to my satisfaction on this topic and just posting about it here is not in anyway FUD nor spreading FUD. Being conservative in an seemingly not defined area, which you also admit is not defined as it does not say you can nor cannot but you are opting to take the "since it says you cannot you can" position I wouldn't take, is not a FUD issue.

I have told you several times what I base my position on, albeit simple and basic, but you just don't want to accept it as good enough and respect my tentativeness of taking your advice - someone I don't know nor does not have to answer to the law or consequences if they happen to be wrong and I get busted with 24 rounds in my KSG.

And in some ways, you seem to agree with me as you stated, "At the same time, an opinion letter from a lawyer isn't going to save you from being arrested and charged with something either." which implies you are not 100% entirely sure about your position holding legal water as I read it, so you throw out a bit of a caveat.

A letter from a lawyer was m850168's idea, not mine. This is the real world, not elementary school where a note from your parent means something. You can pay a lawyer to write an opinion for anything, doesn't mean anything when it comes to getting cuffed and then charged by the DA. Believing the letter means something makes about as much sense as thinking something is illegal with no logical basis for doing so.

It's also not hyperbole, as I gave an equally silly but real world scenario that was simply inverted(the NY large cap soda ban).

Again, you fail to understand how laws work in the US. You're calling "being conservative in a seemingly not defined area".

1. There's nothing "seemingly" about it not being defined. It is or it isn't.
2. There are many things not defined in law, those things would be legal.
3. Laws say what you cannot do, not what you can. Unless there is a law stating a certain way to do something, but in reality that's simply a "don't do this unless you do it this particular way".

Your position is based on nothing other than what makes you sleep better at night, which was stated by me, not you. The only thing you've stated is that because you don't understand how laws work, you prefer to do something a certain way even though there is no reason to do so.

[Merc1138]

Wouldn't a featureless shotgun without a detachable magazine be exempted? Would it have to be a Preban featurless shotgun?
California gun laws make my head explode, it's all silly nonsense.
Too bad the street criminals and the ones in office don't have to live by the same rules the subjects of the Emerial State have to live by.

As I stated back in reply #14, large capacity magazine laws, and assault weapon laws are two different things. "Featureless" doesn't have anything to do with being unable to get or manufacture a large capacity magazine.

This is large capacity magazine law:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions

This is shotgun assault weapon law:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Shotguns

[bovver]

As I stated back in reply #14, large capacity magazine laws, and assault weapon laws are two different things. "Featureless" doesn't have anything to do with being unable to get or manufacture a large capacity magazine.

This is large capacity magazine law:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Large-capacity_magazine_restrictions

This is shotgun assault weapon law:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Shotguns

To be honest after reading through this thread and how you talk down to people, (don't know if you realize that's how you're coming off or not) I just ignored all your replys and am only answering this because you called me out.
I see where you are trying to be helpful but to talk to people who are not as informed as you in the manner you use is off putting to put it mildly.
To the point most gun laws in this state appear to be left up to interpretation and telling people they're good to go is one thing but if someone gets into trouble is another and "but I read on Calguns" will not keep them out of trouble.

[Quiet]

Last I heard...
CA DOJ BOF determined ammunition capacity of a tubular magazine using the same size cartridge the manufacturer uses.

Example...
Mossberg Model 500 = chamber size 3". So, they use 3" 12Gauge shells to determine capacity.

[Merc1138]

To be honest after reading through this thread and how you talk down to people, (don't know if you realize that's how you're coming off or not) I just ignored all your replys and am only answering this because you called me out.
I see where you are trying to be helpful but to talk to people who are not as informed as you in the manner you use is off putting to put it mildly.
To the point most gun laws in this state appear to be left up to interpretation and telling people they're good to go is one thing but if someone gets into trouble is another and "but I read on Calguns" will not keep them out of trouble.

I'm sure if you paid a lawyer for an opinion letter they'd be all smiles(this is just a guess on my part, maybe m850168 can confirm). You didn't pay me, and prompted me to repeat myself. You got what you paid for. If you want to ignore people who post answers and provide references for them, be my guest.

Complaining about how I post immediately after stating that you're not bothering to read it... that didn't seem silly to you?

Last I heard...
CA DOJ BOF determined ammunition capacity of a tubular magazine using the same size cartridge the manufacturer uses.

Example...
Mossberg Model 500 = chamber size 3". So, they use 3" 12Gauge shells to determine capacity.

I recall reading something similar, just can't remember where.

[Steve_In_29]

WOW!! All this over shells that really only function reliably in Win 1300s. Of which I own one.

I am also pretty sure the manufacturers determine mag capacity using the shortest shell the gun is DESIGNED to take. Every one of my shotguns ONLY meets the stated capacity when 2 3/4" shells (2 1/2" for .410) are used and come up one short with 3".

[Arrieta578]

Are you guys talking about those 2" and 2 1/2" 12 ga. shotgun shells designed for light game guns that only hold 3/4 to 7/8oz. of bird shot?