Belt fed guns don't need bullet button???

[munkeeboi]

Following 2 threads about getting a Yugo MG 42

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=184559

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=184517

What's the restriction on belt-fed devices as it clearly doesn't fall under the detachable mag portion of the AW ID chart?

Can someone please chime in (with codes if attainable) on how these can be shipped into CA?

[Dr Rockso]

My understanding is that the 1919 is legal because the grip doesn't protrude conspicuously beneath the action, thus it doesn't have a pistol grip per CA law. The MG 42 looks like it would be considered a pistol grip.

[grahlaika]

Interesting question. The MG 42 doesn't have a magazine either, so even with the pistol grip I'm not sure it falls under the restriction. It's also not listed, but who knows. It IS evil-looking, so someone is bound to take offense to it...

[Dr Rockso]

Interesting question. The MG 42 doesn't have a magazine either, so even with the pistol grip I'm not sure it falls under the restriction. It's also not listed, but who knows. It IS evil-looking, so someone is bound to take offense to it...

IIRC the law doesn't say 'magazine', it says 'ammunition feeding device'. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that a belt doesn't fit that description.

[wash]

That's a kind of grey area.

I don't know how a court would feel about this, but if you stuck with 10 round belts and locked the top plate or whatever you would open to remove a belt (with some sort of bullet button), it might fall under the non-detachable magazine part of the law.

My advice is to not do it unless you can afford to loose the rifle and $10,000+ for legal fees unless there is a suitable legal precedent.

[timdps]

Don't have a source, but the belt is considered the "ammunition feeding device"/ magazine and is detachable, meaning you need to lose the pistol grip to bring it into CA.

TNW in Oregon builds modified grip assemblies for the semi-auto MG42s that it ships to CA. Have seen one on the gun a friend owns (in CA).

You will still be limited to 10 round belts unless you owned belts before the AWB.

Tim

[timdps]

The belt is self removing after the last round is fired...

That's a kind of grey area.

I don't know how a court would feel about this, but if you stuck with 10 round belts and locked the top plate or whatever you would open to remove a belt (with some sort of bullet button), it might fall under the non-detachable magazine part of the law.

[wash]

So is a garand clip...

[bwiese]

A belt is regarded as a 'detachable magazine', and you should treat belt-fed guns as equivalent to detachable-magazine guns for determination of whether or not you can have evil features.

The tripod-mounted M1919 was approved as a non-assault weapon because supposedly the pistol grip didn't protrude enough. However, that may well be specious and the actual reason it was allowed was because it was a non-shoulder-fireable weapon.

Note also that one must use caution in assembling belts of ammo so as not to exceed the 10 round limit, and existing pre-2000 belts of ammo should not be shot down to below 11 rounds if they are to be "refilled".

See the formal regulatory definition of 'detachable magazine', and note the emphasized sections:

11 CCR 5496
(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.

So is a Garand clip...

Sorry, no. Please note the above definition specifically excludes true "clips".

[Liberty1]

and existing pre-2000 belts of ammo should not be shot down to below 11 rounds if they are to be "refilled".

So put a dud in the 12 slot...

[wash]

Bill, that's not my point, it ejects after the last round, just like a linked belt disintegrates and ejects after the last round is fired.

If a tool is required to remove the belt, wouldn't that be functionally identical to an SKS and possibly defendable (even if it's not the greatest idea ever)?

The code you quoted seems to read like that.

[bwiese]

Bill, that's not my point, it ejects after the last round, just like a linked belt disintegrates and ejects after the last round is fired.

If a tool is required to remove the belt, wouldn't that be functionally identical to an SKS and possibly defendable (even if it's not the greatest idea ever)?

Yes, in theory, but I don't believe any known gun's belted ammo requires or allows a restrained belt that requires tool for removal. Also, the linked belts might be 'tearable' which would add a lot of color.

[wash]

I really need to build up my 1919A4 kit so I can figure out how these things work better.

[GSequoia]

Bill, that's not my point, it ejects after the last round, just like a linked belt disintegrates and ejects after the last round is fired.

But in a Garand the magazine is the feeding device itself.

[timdps]

The tripod-mounted M1919 was approved as a non-assault weapon because supposedly the pistol grip didn't protrude enough. However, that may well be specious and the actual reason it was allowed was because it was a non-shoulder-fireable weapon.

Is there a DOJ letter or published opinion somewhere for us to use for reassuring out of state sellers regarding belt-fed non-pistol grip weapons?

Note also that one must use caution in assembling belts of ammo so as not to exceed the 10 round limit, and existing pre-2000 belts of ammo should not be shot down to below 11 rounds if they are to be "refilled".

Am assuming you are talking about disintegrating link belts for 1919, M2HB M60 etc. here. This should not apply to non-disintegrating belts. Probably a good idea to specify disintegrating or non-disintegrating when referring to belts in CA usage.