New regs are out (Large-Capacity Magazine rules)

[Wiz-of-Awd]

I love how hard CalGunners try to make these things. The same people that ruined Sig Braces, no doubt. Remember what happened with the Sig Brace? More and more people kept wanting their own peace of mind letters saying they're okay, until eventually the Feds had to revoke all previous letters and flat out ban shoulder fire.

In other words, let it be. Yes, it's vague, but it's also clear ENOUGH - you will never get 100% resolution on this unless someone is busted and it goes to court

Epoxy
OR
Rivet
OR
Other undisclosed method

"Permanent" is still not defined. They just offered a couple methods they approve of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps - just perhaps - we are to consider the normally accepted definition of the word, "permanent."

A.W.D.

[AKA15]

I love how hard CalGunners try to make these things. The same people that ruined Sig Braces, no doubt. Remember what happened with the Sig Brace? More and more people kept wanting their own peace of mind letters saying they're okay, until eventually the Feds had to revoke all previous letters and flat out ban shoulder fire.

In other words, let it be. Yes, it's vague, but it's also clear ENOUGH - you will never get 100% resolution on this unless someone is busted and it goes to court

Epoxy
OR
Rivet
OR
Other undisclosed method

"Permanent" is still not defined. They just offered a couple methods they approve of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks this works for me. Im gonna find the smallest rivet possible.

[ifilef]

^^ this is correct.

It offers two *methods* (literally says both methods), not to be confused with two *steps* in a single method.

Couldn't be more clear.

BOTH are required. It is a process. If either sufficed, the regs would state 'by using either of the following methods.'

Also, the word 'and' follows the semi-colon in (A).

Moreover, (A) only addresses magazine block(s) while (B) addresses riveting it to floor plate or side wall.

"Prior to July 1, 2017, an individual may dispose of a large-capacity magazine by permanently altering the magazine’s feeding device so that it reduces the capacity to 10 rounds or less.

(1) A large-capacity magazine that is a box type can have its capacity permanently reduced by using both of the following methods:

(A) Inserting a rigid magazine capacity reduction device, also known as a magazine block, into the magazine body and then affixing the floor plate of the magazine to the body of the magazine with permanent epoxy. Metal magazines with metal floor plates have the option of being either welded closed or permanently epoxied closed once the magazine block(s) have been inserted. Due to magazine manufacturing variations (such as drum magazines or tubular magazines) it may be necessary to insert multiple magazine blocks in order to reduce the capacity to 10 rounds; and

(B) Once the capacity of the magazine has been reduced by inserting a rigid magazine block into the magazine, it shall be riveted in place through either the floor plate or side wall of the magazine body."

[ifilef]

Query: Is ANYTHING 'permanently altered' when it comes to magazines?

I would speculate that one can't call it permanent unless one would have to damage or destroy the magazine in order to gain access to the contents. That could be argued as a tougher standard than the new proposed regulations?

Go figure..

[tonyxcom]

BOTH are required. It is a process.

I don't think so.

(a) talks about inserting the mag block and then epoxying the floor plate to the magazine body, or welding the same two parts on a metal magazine.

(b) says that after inserting the mag block you rivet it together.

It does not say rivet it together after epoxying or welding the mag shut. This would have described a process. Block, epoxy/weld, rivet.

Block, epoxy/weld; block, rivet - clearly does not describe a process.

-----
...both of the following methods
(a); and
(b)
-----

When you read what is said in (a) and (b) it is clear they are describing two methods that permanently reduce the capacity of a magazine.
(a) Block & epoxy/weld and (b) Block & rivet.

[tonyxcom]

Query: Is ANYTHING 'permanently altered' when it comes to magazines?

Actually, now, yes. According to the DOJ, a blocked/epoxied or blocked/riveted magazine is a permanent reduction. That's all that matters.

[ifilef]

Perhaps I should not have deleted my reference to deferring to others what the two paragraphs mean because I am not particularly versed in the particulars.

Thanks, tonyx and others.

[NationsMostWanted]

Actually, now, yes. According to the DOJ, a blocked/epoxied or blocked/riveted magazine is a permanent reduction. That's all that matters.

Something new came out about one or pther?

[tonyxcom]

yeah read back a few pages.

[chris]

I think the state is over-reaching and we should challenge SB 1556 and the California Code of Regulations as unconstitutional.

.

don't count on the 9th circus for that. they will agree 100% with California law.

[tonyxcom]

don't count on the 9th circus for that. they will agree 100% with California law.

Yep, and it will take 3-5 years to even get there, then how many more years till it gets to the supreme court?

[KC_to_CA]

So I just got through reading the published doc and have the same questions as most.

I have several 10/XX magazines that simply have a rivet through the side to prevent the follower from going any farther than that point. From reading these regs, it appears that method of limiting isn't good enough anymore?

Also, does anyone have the section of the PC handy that the regs are referencing related to magazine conversion kits? What I'm trying to understand is if disassembled mags are legal to own or also need to be blocked or destroyed.

The docs said "high caps prior to 7/1/2017". All 10/xx mags prior to 7/1/2017 are not high cap mags. Correct? The docs to me seems to pertain to previously legally owned grandfather high cap mags. If you bought a magazine limited to 10 rounds, that should not be part of this doc. If you bought them from an online sources there should be an email describing your purchase of a 10 round magazine, albeit 10/xx. BTW IANAL.

[floogy]

Actually, now, yes. According to the DOJ, a blocked/epoxied or blocked/riveted magazine is a permanent reduction. That's all that matters.

That's a good interpretation of the law/reg.

Unless answered already, is a rivet a "block"? If a mag had a single rivet blocking it to 10 rounds, the rivet is the block. Since a "block" is not defined by the law or regs if I read it right. Then I might assume that an additional rivet or epoxy would be needed in addition to the "block rivet". Unless the rivet is securing itself as a rivet.

This is giving me a headache. Those criminals are on to something. Breaking the law is way easier.

[billyremo]

That's a good interpretation of the law/reg.

Unless answered already, is a rivet a "block"? If a mag had a single rivet blocking it to 10 rounds, the rivet is the block. Since a "block" is not defined by the law or regs if I read it right. Then I might assume that an additional rivet or epoxy would be needed in addition to the "block rivet". Unless the rivet is securing itself as a rivet.

This is giving me a headache. Those criminals are on to something. Breaking the law is way easier.

Imo the interpretation of the regulation would be a blocked magazine PLUS epoxy or a rivet. Though a rivet alone would likely block the magazine to the 10 rounds, I think the essence of the regulation would be something (MORE than a block) in order to permanently reduce the magazine capacity.

[Rickrock1]

Lame bAss libs