Linked ammo, 10 round or less OK?

[c good]

Hi Everyone:
Is it OK to have linked ammo in California as long as it's in 10 round links or less? Thanks for any input. c good

[CSACANNONEER]

Yep. 10 rds. or less unless, you had the belt assembled prior to the ban AND have not shot it (or otherwise disassembled it) to the point that it is 10 rounds or less. BUT, if you are within the city of LA, you need to be aware of the LA gun task force and their policies of confinsating ANY belts that have more than 10 rounds. You will also be arrested and charged with as many crimes as they can think of. So, be careful!

[csarel]

Where does it say it has to assembled prior to the ban? I thought it was just had to own them before?

[NRAhighpowershooter]

I was under the impression that if you owned the links before the hi-can ban that you could make the belt as long as you want..... I have a TON of M-60 links from the late 80's sitting here....

[blkA4alb]

Here are my thoughts on the preban links.

You should not shoot them below 10 rounds because once you do so you have effectively "destroyed" the high capacity magazine. To relink them would be the same as manufactoring a high capacity magazine.

Think of this the same way that you would think about blocking a 30 round body to 10 rounds. The law talks about modifying the magazine to not hold more than 10 rounds. It would be the same as takin a Cproducts 10 round magazine and making it hold 30 rounds again.

At least thats how I've wrapped my brain around this topic .

[Hunter]

A link will only hold 1 round. So if one has 1000 links separated it does not make a "large-capacity" magazine as defined. The same can be said for 10 links. But 11 links connected together is indeed a "large-capacity" magazine. So having single unconnected links prior to 2000 means you did not have a high-capacity magazine. If you now choose to assemble those links into belts of greater than 10 rounds, you will have committed the crime of "manufacturing a high-capacity magazine". No way around that.

[Hunter]

Now the other question is this:

Say one has 100rnd link ammo from pre 2000. If they pulled the ammo apart into 8 belts of 11-12 rounds, could they now connect more links to each of those "mini" belts........?????

Otherwords did the person have a "single" high capacity magazine or multiple high capacity magazines when they were all connected?

[csarel]

Can we get some black and white quoted law here? For a solid answer? Bill?
Buller? Buller?

[metalhead357]

Can we get some black and white quoted law here? For a solid answer? Bill?
Buller? Buller?

I'm hoping for some too....NEVER have seen anything in print on this; closest searches I find are DOJ comment periods trying to inlcude linked ammo as a detacable mag...but nothing about pre-owning or exceeding 10 rounds.

Would be nice to have ((and even sticky))as the subject does come up quite a bit........

[Hunter]

Can we get some black and white quoted law here? For a solid answer? Bill?
Buller? Buller?

The closes we have is the following that first defines what a "ammunition feeding device" includes:

This chapter shall be known as the "Department of Justice Regulations for Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines," may be cited as such and are referred to herein as "these regulations." The provisions of these regulations shall apply to assault weapons as defined in Penal Code section 12276.1 and as specified pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5, and large capacity magazines as defined in Penal Code section 12020 (c)(25).

ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED TO IDENTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS

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.

Then we have PC 12020 that defines "large-capacity magazine" as"

12020 (c)(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any
ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds

So links by themselves are not listed as an ammunition feeding device (AFD), only the belted ammo....and large-capacity magazine definition is any AFD that can hold more than 10 rounds...... Not definitive, but I would say this lends to single links that are not belted as NOT being classified as "large-capacity magazine". Thus if one started with a bucket of single links and belted ammo together into 11 rnds, it seems to violate manufacturing laws for "large-capacity magazine". On the other hand if the belt is already 11 rounds, adding to that belt is not manufacturing a "large-capacity magazine" since it is already one.

[DRH]

[Hunter]

Thanks DRH, the letter says exactly what I surmised. Now if I could only get a straight answer to my question of breaking down a single belt into mulitple "large-capacity" belts.....I don't think they would rule on that..but I could be wrong.

[csarel]

Nice, a good old fashioned "catch-22"

[Pulsar]

My thoughts on the subject.

It's ok for us to repair broken hi-caps, a used link is really nothing more than a broken mag that needs to be repaired.

Of course I don't have the money to spend on a lawyer to help me in court with this, but I honestly believe if this subject went to court this would be a very legitimate argument.

[VeryCoolCat]

I don't know... but I doubt you would be convicted and the entire case would probably be thrown out of the ludicrous ideas of "hi capacity" belts.

Like Harrott vs Kings County did to AR/AK series...

I'm sure a modern day BELT FED case would destroy the idea that "belts" are under the magazine law.