AW Manufacture...

[lrdchivalry]

If a LEO can remove the magazine with bare hands, I'm not sure it matters that the mag release was used or not. If you have a rifle in which the magazine can be removed without a tool, and has other evil features, then it is illegally configured as an AW. It doesn't matter that it is an LEO who pulls out the mag. If he uses tools on the other hand, he has manufactured an AW.

If a magazine can be removed through normal operation of the weapon then it is a detachable magazine and therefore, illegal. If the weapon was illegally configured to begin with then it falls on the owner,however, that is not the topic of debate. What is the topic of debate, is an officer either with a tool or his hands changes a lawfully configured rifle into an illegal configuration just manufactured an AW and the answer is yes.

[lrdchivalry]

No cop is going to be busted for making an AW.
That's just the way it is in this state.

True..It will never happen.

[DigglerD]

The original statement...

It would have been funny to see that officer get that magazine out of the rifle and his fellow officers hook him up for manufacturing an AW.

This implied (to me at least) an officer, on the scene, fidgeting with the rifle trying to get the mag out would be manufacturing an AW if he did. I will admit this is a fairly narrow interpretation but it's the point I'm arguing... apologies for not making that clear.

If a LEO can remove the magazine with bare hands, I'm not sure it matters that the mag release was used or not. If you have a rifle in which the magazine can be removed without a tool, and has other evil features, then it is illegally configured as an AW. It doesn't matter that it is an LEO who pulls out the mag. If he uses tools on the other hand, he has manufactured an AW.

This is exactly my point.

... rifle into an illegal configuration and being subject to arrest for manufacturing...If said officer removes the mag lock with {REMOVED} his bare hands (if possible), again not referring to normal operation of the mag release, therfore, creating the situation where the weapon is now capable of accepting a detachable mag it's manufacturing. The officer has now turned a lawful configuration into an illegal one, thus manufacturing an AW.

If a magazine can be removed through normal operation of the weapon then it is a detachable magazine and therefore, illegal. If the weapon was illegally configured to begin with then it falls on the owner,however, that is not the topic of debate. What is the topic of debate, is an officer with {REMOVED} his hands changes a lawfully configured rifle into an illegal configuration just manufactured an AW and the answer is yes.

I removed references to tools because that's not at issue here... we all agree the use of tools is another story. So I think the distinction you have made is "normal operation". I don't think normal operation really matters. As another poster said, if you can push the mag, wiggle the BB, shake the gun around and then pull the mag out... it may not be normal operation but it does illustrate that the officer can remove the mag without the use of a tool thus proving it to be (not producing) an AW.

[Utha Schleigle]

If one is building a NOW fixed magazine rifle with AW attributes. I think it is wise if the builder test this aspect of magazine non-removal-ness. He should do it and have a friend or a different person do it so the builder can do everthing reasonable to have a legal gun. Think - as though your worst emeny is the police officer and Senator Feinstein is cackling at him to take all your guns/home/money/right to vote/freedoms. This is why I think tis thread is important.

[4 Brigada]

I had a "friendly" exchange with a off duty CHP at the range, I was shooting one of my FALs he came over and asked If I knew those were considered AW. I explained that it was a OLL receiver and that it had a permanently attached magazine. He replied that he could remove it. (the magazine is pinned in place, it doesnt even have the mag catch) so I gave him a bullet, a screwdriver and got a hammer from the toolbox in my truck. Told him to go for it, but if he broke it he bought it. He ended up asking if I wanted to sell it after he shot it cause his M1 socom front sight flew off.

[bluestaterebel]

I had a "friendly" exchange with a off duty CHP at the range, I was shooting one of my FALs he came over and asked If I knew those were considered AW. I explained that it was a OLL receiver and that it had a permanently attached magazine. He replied that he could remove it. (the magazine is pinned in place, it doesnt even have the mag catch) so I gave him a bullet, a screwdriver and got a hammer from the toolbox in my truck. Told him to go for it, but if he broke it he bought it. He ended up asking if I wanted to sell it after he shot it cause his M1 socom front sight flew off.

this is what i'm talking about. one leo at a time. i hope you turned him onto calguns. good story.

[4 Brigada]

i hope you turned him onto calguns

I myself had not yet embraced calguns. Now everybody that ask at the range I refer them to CG. Awesome site and great people.

[Utha Schleigle]

I had a "friendly" exchange with a off duty CHP at the range, I was shooting one of my FALs he came over and asked If I knew those were considered AW. I explained that it was a OLL receiver and that it had a permanently attached magazine. He replied that he could remove it. (the magazine is pinned in place, it doesnt even have the mag catch) so I gave him a bullet, a screwdriver and got a hammer from the toolbox in my truck. Told him to go for it, but if he broke it he bought it. He ended up asking if I wanted to sell it after he shot it cause his M1 socom front sight flew off.

I LOVE it!!!

Do these locking devise's and re=fitts have tamper resistant screw like they used put on GM carborators. With heat removalable Locktight and a non standard tool access - it is unlike-ly that a PD/CHP could defeat your NON-removal-ness mag with out a soldering iron and the specail tool.

[ar15barrels]

I may be wrong but I know that people pin and weld their muzzle breaks on 14.5" barrels as opposed to hand tightening them with anti seize... as I think the latter would be on you if a LEO took the rifle and simply twisted the muzzle break off.

Barrel length is primarily a federal issue and secondarily a state issue.
We permanent attach muzzle devices to 14.5" barrels in order for them to be considered 16" barrels by both federal and state laws.

Mere possession of a 14.5" barrel without a permanent attached muzzle device is llegal (constructive possession) if you don't also own a legally configured AR pistol, short barreled rifle (NFA item) or machinegun (NFA item).

[lrdchivalry]

The original statement...

This implied (to me at least) an officer, on the scene, fidgeting with the rifle trying to get the mag out would be manufacturing an AW if he did. I will admit this is a fairly narrow interpretation but it's the point I'm arguing... apologies for not making that clear.

This is exactly my point.



I removed references to tools because that's not at issue here... we all agree the use of tools is another story. So I think the distinction you have made is "normal operation". I don't think normal operation really matters. As another poster said, if you can push the mag, wiggle the BB, shake the gun around and then pull the mag out... it may not be normal operation but it does illustrate that the officer can remove the mag without the use of a tool thus proving it to be (not producing) an AW.

I think I understand your point... Correct me if I am wrong.

My statement just mentions pulling out the magazine, and nothing about changing a lawfully configured rifle into an illegal configuration (which was my original thought for that post). Going by what I typed and not by my thought behind it then I would have to agree with you.