Another question about legal technicalities

[GTKrockeTT]

Why don't you take it to the DOJ practice range in Sacramento, try out your idea, and ask them what they think? Report back to us here on your findings.

better yet, get it on videotape.

[Scotty]

Sac Valley Shooting Center already banned the DOJ from using the range so you won't find any out there. It be even harder to get onto the DOJ's range.

[383green]

First off, I DID read the FAQ. Carefully. Many times. And I've also read the AW-related laws in question. Carefully. Many times. Not just the DOJ's description of the laws, not just any other random person's interpretation of the laws... the actual law text. So please don't simply respond with "go read the FAQ". I did, and I wouldn't be writing this if I thought that it addressed what I'm writing about here.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but if you mean that it takes tools + time to remove the magazine, then that magazine is not a detachable magazine for the purposes of AW laws.

I understand and agree with that. That agrees 100% with my understanding of the various CA AW laws. I am not disputing that statement in any way.

That is irrelevant. Once that magwell is open and a pistol grip is present you've violated the PC 12276.1 defintion of a by-features assault weapon: " semiautomatic rifle with detachable magazine and <list of evil features>"

Here's where I really don't see how you arrived at this conclusion. I agree that what you said is correct for many (and probably most) pinned-magazine ARs, particularly if the design of the magazine pinning is such that after using a tool to remove that magazine, it is then possible to install and remove another magazine without further use of a tool. As another forum member correctly (in my understanding) pointed out, after you remove the nut on a "Sporting Conversions style" magazine pinning modification, you could then cram a magazine into the mag well, hold it in place, empty it, and then pull it back out and cram in another one. That very clearly meets the legal definition of a "detachable magazine", and I am not disputing that in any way.

However, one question which I have asked myself and have seen other people ask has only been given terse answers like "go read the FAQ" and/or "go away and don't buy lowers" in all the threads I have read. This question relates to a different method of securing the magazine than the most common method of simply replacing the button on a regular catch with some type of nut that keeps it from being depressed. Again, I agree that simply loosening the nut on a "Sporting conversions style" fixed magazine setup results in a gun that accepts a detachable magazine until the nut is again installed in a manner that keeps it from being removed without a tool. I am not disputing that!

SO- does anyone make a mag catch which does not unscrew, but requires a tool (say a bullet) to depress? That way a new mag latches in place until a TOOL is used to release it again..?

I do not see any conflict between the AW law text and this proposed configuration. For the sake of clarity, I'll define this configuration as one with a spring-loaded magazine catch whose actuating button is recessed into a hole that's too small to stick a human finger into. Thus, it is necessary to stick a tool (which could include a bullet tip) deeply into that hole to release the magazine. I don't think I've seen any of the knowledgable folks here contend that such a configuration would be a detachable magazine, as clearly and unambiguously defined in the AW law text, while the magazine is installed. The sole thing that I'm disputing is that the gun suddenly becomes an AW once that magazine is removed. In such a design, once you've used a tool to remove the magazine, another magazine crammed into the mag well is automatically latched in a manner that requires a tool to remove. The law does not say that any magazine which can be removed from the gun is a detachable magazine. It says that any magazine which can be removed without a tool is a detachable magazine. In this suggested configuration with a small, recessed spring-loaded release button, once the magazine is removed it is still necessary to use a tool to remove any other magazine that's installed.

This is, in my mind, distinctly different from the case where unscrewing a nut yields a gun which then allows magazines to be installed and removed without further use of a tool until that nut is then manually secured again. The use of a nut to secure an otherwise conventional AR magazine catch is not the only way to make an AR lower meet the legal definition of having a non-detachable magazine; it's simply the easiest and least expensive way to do it, and thus the most common way.

Dave are you looking for trouble? Or do you want to become the poster boy for the DOJ? Now is not the time to walk that close to the edge of the cliff.

Following that line of reasoning, none of us should consider buying an off-list lower for any reason. No, I don't think I'm exaggerating or trying to use a slippery-slope argument. I am arguing that a small-recessed-button configuration is 100% legal under the current AW laws, just as the Harrott decision made it 100% legal to buy an off-list stripped lower. It's not exploiting a loop-hole or walking on the edge of the cliff any more than buying an off-list stripped lower is. It simply complies with the law as written. If somebody can explain why my assertion is not correct, citing AW law text that I've missed or misunderstood, court case history, or with any other well-reasoned argument, I'd really like to read that. I truly haven't seen this addressed in any meaningful way, and it seems to me that Bill's comments on this topic have not addressed the question in anywhere near the same kind of well-supported and well-reasoned way as the rest of his really outstanding CA-AR-AK FAQ (P.S.: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR WRITING THAT FAQ, BILL!!).

For the record, I intend to fix my 10-round magazines with a recessed and lok-tited nut, because that's a well-known , cheap and easy way to do it. I have no intention of loosening that nut without first removing the upper, stock and grip, for the exact reasons that we do seem to agree on. I'm just stating that I can see no reason why a specific, different, more difficult, more expensive method of modifying the lower would not produce a gun where the fixed 10-round magazine can be removed with the use of a tool (i.e. pin punch, bullet tip, etc.) plus time (i.e., fishing around in the pocket or tool box for it) without creating a restricted weapon while leaving the grip, etc. attached.

Even if I had such a gun and achieved consensus here and from the DOJ that what I'm talking about is kosher, I'd probably still reload it by hinging open the upper rather than fishing around for a tool and removing the magazine, and just reserve the option of removing the magazine in case it gets a "death jam" that requires magazine removal to clear the gun. It would be nice to be able to do that without pulling out a telestock wrench and so forth, and then risking losing those dang detent pins just to render the gun safe before taking it home and fixing it.

[ohsmily]

Though your description does sound as though it might be legally compliant by one interpretation, I think that a prosecuting attorney could make a successful argument that this it is so close to a detachable magazine (yes I know you would still need a tool) that it violates the law. GRANTED, nothing in the language states that your contraption would be 100% illegal, BUT, again, the law is fluid and is partly a matter of argument and interpretation by a judge and jury.

Interesting though. If these lowers are NOT banned, I would consider moving toward a device like this pending approval by the DOJ.

(for those of you who didn't get his description...the thrust of his argument is that when a magazine is inserted into the open magazine well, it is AUTOMATICALLY RETAINED AND FIXED IN PLACE AND WOULD REQUIRE A TOOL TO REMOVE.)

definitely questionable.

[Sgt Raven]

Though your description does sound as though it would might be legally compliant by one interpretation, I think that a prosecuting attorney could make a successful argument that this is so close to a detachable magazine (yes I know you would still need a tool) that it violates the law. GRANTED, nothing in the language states that your contraption would be 100% illegal, BUT, again, the law is fluid and is partly a matter of argument and interpretation by a judge and jury.

Interesting though. If these lowers are NOT banned, I would consider moving toward a device like this pending approval by the DOJ.

(for those of you who didn't get his description...the thrust of his argument is that when a magazine is inserted into the open magazine well, it is AUTOMATICALLY RETAINED AND FIXED IN PLACE AND WOULD REQUIRE A TOOL TO REMOVE.)

definitely questionable.

I think it would be safer if it took a tool to remove and install the magazine. IE a bullet tip or pin punch to remove the mag and have to push the pin in again to install the other mag. All mags would have to be 10 rounds or less.

[ohsmily]

I think it would be safer if it took a tool to remove and install the magazine. IE a bullet tip or pin punch to remove the mag and have to push the pin in again to install the other mag. All mags would have to be 10 rounds or less.

....agreed....but having to do this does not render his idea moot or inoperable. The basic idea of it would still work to make loading the rifle easier but still comply...

[achee]

Very interesting reply Mr. Green. I now realize the flaw in my thinking when I originally posted my question. You guys are right, with the current hex nut system, once removed, the retaining properties of the "non-hand-removable" retention system is gone so therefore it would be a "removable magazine". Interesting point you've made though if someone came up with a perhaps spring loaded system that requires a key or some kind of tool for each removal.
For all you people who got all upset about this question. This was merely submitted as an interesting question in my mind. I was simply wondering whether actually removing a magazine constitutes a "removable magazine". In my scenario, I now see how it does, in Mr. Green's scenario... I have no intention of actually removing the mag or violating the law in any way. I'm just gonna open up my receiver like everyone else out there. I just thought it was an interesting (albeit practically useless) bit of legal technicality. Hope everyone's not all offended.

Andrew

[Sgt Raven]

What's to stop someone from using a 20, 30, 75 or 100 rd mag?

SB23..........

[bwiese]

We have a good regulatory definition of detachable magazine in CCR 978.20.

But regulations are not always as strong as black-letter law. They can be challengable - although courts must give them 'great weight'.

The basic law - involving detachable magazine - really means a mag that can be removed and replaced.

I would look here at the broad concept until advised otherwise. That is, besides taking tools + time issue, the goal is to not have a mag removed OR replaced in normal course of operation.

[1911_sfca]

Even if I had such a gun and achieved consensus here and from the DOJ that what I'm talking about is kosher, I'd probably still reload it by hinging open the upper rather than fishing around for a tool and removing the magazine,

Then what's the point of this thread? Academic argument? No one in their right mind is going to push the envelope this far, unless you are on VERY good terms with your local LE, DA, and the DOJ. Why bother even exploring it? the truth of the matter is that whether your hypothetical configuration is legal wouldn't be decided by you or me, or by whether it meets the letter of the law (clearly, it does), but rather by a judge and 12 jurors.. so why even go into it?

[Jicko]

I think we'll see him on the news, before he can report back here....

Why don't you take it to the DOJ practice range in Sacramento, try out your idea, and ask them what they think? Report back to us here on your findings.

[383green]

Then what's the point of this thread? Academic argument? No one in their right mind is going to push the envelope this far, unless you are on VERY good terms with your local LE, DA, and the DOJ. Why bother even exploring it? the truth of the matter is that whether your hypothetical configuration is legal wouldn't be decided by you or me, or by whether it meets the letter of the law (clearly, it does), but rather by a judge and 12 jurors.. so why even go into it?

I do not yet see how exploring this is any different than exploring the legal purchase of an off-list lower. In both cases (unless further discussion convinces me otherwise), I contend that we are taking actions which are very obviously against the desire of the authors of the AW laws, yet are entirely legal as those laws were written. The AW law authors didn't just want us to need to break open the tops of our ARs to reload them; they didn't want us to have anything at all that's part of, compatible with, or even looks like a member of the AR-15/M16 family. We have decided based on a careful reading of the AW laws, the results of court cases such as Harrott, and letters from the DOJ, that buying these stripped off-list lowers and then building them into non-detachable-magazine guns is legal and safe. A few folks tested the waters at first, and I'd guess that they experienced at least a little bit of a pucker factor. As more and more folks buy these lowers without getting hauled off in handcuffs, we feel increasingly secure that our understanding of what's legal and what's not in this area is accurate.

I do not yet see how exploring the real implications of the legal definition of a detachable magazine is any different. I expect that the overwhelming majority of us will just do the bolt-in-magazine thing because that is currently the easiest, cheapest, and maybe most undertsandably "safe" way to do it... for now. If a result of this discussion turns out to be a new understanding that a "small recessed mag button" lower is kosher and that there's no legal risk in dropping the mag at the range with such a lower, maybe somebody will feel sufficiently motivated to design such a modification and then submit details to the CA DOJ for their ruling on its legality. If the DOJ then confirms its legality, such a modification might go into production and start showing up on the market. At that point, this would be well beyond an academic discussion.

If nobody had bothered to explore the concept of buying a stripped off-list lower in the first place, we wouldn't all have brand spanking new lowers in our safes and/or waiting for 10 days at the local dealer's store. Maybe the result of this discussion will be that what I'm suggesting is not viable, or even that it's viable but too provocative to play with in public. I'm just not yet convinced that it's not potentially a better way to make a more usable yet SB-23 compliant fixed-magazine AR gun. Heck, if we reach a consensus here that what I'm suggesting should be OK, maybe I'll even come up with a paper design, run it by DOJ, and then cobble together a prototype if their response makes that seem like a safe and reasonable course of action. Or maybe some new legislation would show up by then that makes the whole thing a moot point.

BTW, I'm happy that my previous posting in this thread has generated some interesting and well-considered replies already. I didn't get much traction the last time I brought the topic up.

[383green]

I just thought it was an interesting (albeit practically useless) bit of legal technicality. Hope everyone's not all offended.

If it does turn out that it's kosher to drop the mag from a suitably-designed lower, this might not be practically useless. Such a design would not be as simple as buying a #10-32 nut and a bottle of Lok-Tite at the local Ace Hardware and bolting in an unmodified magazine catch, but I don't see any particular technical reason why such a magazine catch assembly couldn't be designed, produced and sold if market demand was high enough.

On the other hand, if the end result is a registered letter from CA DOJ saying "this is not legal because section blah-blah says such-and-such, and the case A vs. B said this-and-that", then this discussion will turn out to be a practically useless academic argument.

I think it's too soon to tell.

And I'm not at all offended. I'm happy that some folks are taking this seriously.

And once again, I won't act on anything here without clear consensus and good legal standing, so I sincerely hope that none of y'all will be seeing me on the nightly news any time soon.

[Rascal]

We have a good regulatory definition of detachable magazine in CCR 978.20.

But regulations are not always as strong as black-letter law. They can be challengable - although courts must give them 'great weight'.

The basic law - involving detachable magazine - really means a mag that can be removed and replaced.

With neither a tool or breaking open the weapon

I would look here at the broad concept until advised otherwise. That is, besides taking tools + time issue, the goal is to not have a mag removed OR replaced in normal course of operation.

Bill, I'm sure that you are right, but just for the sake of argument.


I agree with SgrRaven that it's more than just using a tool to keep it from coming out, but also from being loaded. You can not have a detatchable magazine if you have to use a tool to load the magazine also. If you can't force a loaded magazine into the magwell without using a tool to make it work, then it DOES NOT HAVE A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE.

[ohsmily]

"detachable" (1 T)