Requirements for 10/30s?

[Germz]

The premise of the conversation is that unless a 10/30 is epoxied (and I am assuming riveted if not epoxied), then it is illegal. Has there been some recent case law that supports this? Has something come out that now defines what "permanent" is as used in the penal codes?

Or are we still referencing common use of the word?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[tommyboy619]

No case law. Definition of "permanent" is undefined.

[jeremiah12]

CA has not defined what permanent is.

Read this thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1001274

Because the SF city attorney sued some companies that were selling magazine parts kits back in 2013 when they were legal to sell, as well as the potential to be sued over poorly written CA laws and what has not been legally defined, many vendors prefer to CYA and take a very conservative approach and not sell things to CA unless they are sure they are 100% legal.

So for 10/30 mags, epoxied or riveted are generally considered a very good idea.

[Librarian]

CA has not defined what permanent is.

Read this thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1001274

Right. It's still the case that we have no guidance on the meaning of 'permanently' in PC 16350

16350. As used in Section 30515, "capacity to accept more than 10
rounds" means capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds. The term
does not apply to a feeding device that has been permanently altered
so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

We can guess, for example, that bubble gum filling would not be thought to be 'permanently altered'.

But with no guidance from amendments to the law or court cases, Do The Best You Can, and probably Don't Cut It Close.

And, since the only answer is 'nobody knows for sure', closed for lack of anything to say.