High capacity mags?

[Notorious]

I'm having a hard time with this! Oh noes! The extra stress sucks! I can't handle it! Give me all your clips and mags and even revolver chambers, I'll take them all!

[SarcoBlaster]

I'm having a hard time with this! Oh noes! The extra stress sucks! I can't handle it! Give me all your clips and mags and even revolver chambers, I'll take them all!

Everybody knows they're revolver cylinders, not chambers, DUH!

[Cokebottle]

DOJ can't accept the transfer anyway I thought because ALL handgun transfers have to go through a FFL and the transferree has to have a HSC. Unless there are exceptions for this intrafamily thing which exempt them from either the FFL or HSC requirement.

I figured the long gun transfer is probably as good as just handing it over and smiling.

Intrafamilial transfers of handguns only have to go through an FFL if the parent and child do not reside in the same state. That's a Federal requirement.

You can simply hand your son a Glock and it's his. He is required to complete the Operation of Law to make the transfer legal (which registers it in his name). That's what the OpLaw form is for. Long guns are simply "Here ya go kid, don't put your eye out!"

And yes, the HSC is legally required for you to give the handgun to your son, but I don't know if there is a legal age restriction on the HSC. My concern would be more that the DOJ would simply not accept the OpLaw form where the recipient is a minor.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf

That form is good for handguns, and it only needed for handguns, but as I mentioned, Federal law requires that both parties be residents of the same state, and California requires that they be direct-lineage child/parent/grandparent/great grandparent.

[Cokebottle]

you can shape a block of wood pretty easy too and it's much less likely to fail than a fail

+1

I've seen a few mags modded by cutting paint stirring sticks and gluing two together to make them a bit thicker, then epoxying it to the bottom of the follower.

Now, with it epoxied to the bottom of the follower, IMHO, epoxying the floorplate is not needed, since the follower needs to be replaced, or the sticks need to be cut to increase the capacity.
Would it be a bad idea to stick a pop-rivet through the floorplate or epoxy it on? Of course not. It's certainly safer that way.

With the sticks (or pen) simply stuck inside the body and not mounted to anything? The floorplate must absolutely then be secured since it would be a simple matter of removing the floorplate and removing the pen or stick, no tools required.

[Toolfreak66]

So I have a situation I question. I have a promag magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and it has broken. As poor quality as promag is, they do have a lifetime replacement warranty. If I go there and turn in my old mag and they give me a new one, are any laws broken? They will not do a "parts kit" or just repair the broken parts off my old mag.

[Cokebottle]

So I have a situation I question. I have a promag magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and it has broken. As poor quality as promag is, they do have a lifetime replacement warranty. If I go there and turn in my old mag and they give me a new one, are any laws broken? They will not do a "parts kit" or just repair the broken parts off my old mag.

It is legal for you to give the magazine to a gunsmith for repair and for him to return it to you.

It is also legal for you to purchase a rebuild kit to repair the existing magazine.

This is why when people talk about dates or date codes being on mag bodies and being used by the DA to prosecute are simply talking out of their

[TheKlawMan]

So I have a situation I question. I have a promag magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and it has broken. As poor quality as promag is, they do have a lifetime replacement warranty. If I go there and turn in my old mag and they give me a new one, are any laws broken? They will not do a "parts kit" or just repair the broken parts off my old mag.

Yes. If Promag gives you one it will have violated PC 12020(a)(2).

"Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine."

Consult with an attorney as to whether or not you have any lilabiity as the recipient.

[Cokebottle]

Yes. If Promag gives you one it will have violated PC 12020(a)(2).

"Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine."

Consult with an attorney as to whether or not you have any lilabiity as the recipient.

Jeez, again????????

READ THE FREAKING LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PC12020(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(24) The lending or giving of any large-capacity magazine to a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071, or to a gunsmith, for the purposes of maintenance, repair, or modification of that large-capacity magazine.
(25) The return to its owner of any large-capacity magazine by a person specified in paragraph (24).

You just won't stop.
You've got it stuck in your thick head that high caps are 100% illegal.
You've told people they will go to jail if they use one at the range.

You've been told that you are wrong in nearly every thread that you post in.
You've gotten into harsh disagreements with the leading members of the Calguns Foundation, and you've been smacked down every time.

You need to give it a rest and stop playing "gun law attorney"

[TheKlawMan]

Jeez, again????????

READ THE FREAKING LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just won't stop.
You've got it stuck in your thick head that high caps are 100% illegal.
You've told people they will go to jail if they use one at the range.

You've been told that you are wrong in nearly every thread that you post in.
You've gotten into harsh disagreements with the leading members of the Calguns Foundation, and you've been smacked down every time.

You need to give it a rest and stop playing "gun law attorney"

Why must you insist on giving bad advice to the OP and why can't you stay on point? My post says nothing about all LCMs and is specific to the one he asked about. I assume he is not exempt else he would say so and I assume he possessed his broken magaizne before the operative date of the LCM law.

The OP asked if any laws were broken; not if he was breaking them. Pro Mag would clearly be breaking the law by giving him a new Magazine, as it would not be returning the one given to it ("that magazine") "for the purposes of maintenance, repair, or modification". The new magazine is simply not "that magazine" but is an entirely diffent one.

I suggest you are the one who needs to read the law and am amazed that you would be so upset by my advice to the OP to consult with an attorney as to whether or not he would have any liability.

[Cokebottle]

Why must you insist on giving bad advice to the OP and why can't you stay on point? My post says nothing about all LCMs and is specific to the one he asked about. I assume he is not exempt else he would say so and I assume he possessed his broken magaizne before the operative date of the LCM law.

Which is exactly why you are wrong.

He asked if he could return a broken mag to have to repaired or replaced.
You said he could not, and posted PC12020(a)(2)

You ignored the exemptions listed in PC12020(b)(24) and (25).

It is perfectly legal for someone to (24) give a high cap to a gunsmith or FFL for repair or modification, and it is perfectly legal for that gunsmith or FFL to (25) return that magazine to the owner.

You are the one giving bad advice.

Read and understand the law before you offer advice to others.

[TheKlawMan]

Which is exactly why you are wrong.

He asked if he could return a broken mag to have to repaired or replaced.
You said he could not, and posted PC12020(a)(2)

You ignored the exemptions listed in PC12020(b)(24) and (25).

It is perfectly legal for someone to (24) give a high cap to a gunsmith or FFL for repair or modification, and it is perfectly legal for that gunsmith or FFL to (25) return that magazine to the owner.

You are the one giving bad advice.

Read and understand the law before you offer advice to others.

1. OP did not ask if "he could return a broken mag to have to (sic) repaired or replaced" but if "I go there and turn in my old mag and they give me a new one, are any laws broken? They will not do a "parts kit" or just repair the broken parts off my old mag." He did NOT ask only if he was breaking any law, but if "any laws were broken". Since the "gunsmith" was not "returning" the magazine thqt the OP lent or gave to the smith for "the purposes of maintenance, repair, or modification", but was returning a magazine other than "that magazine". Pro Mag was breaking the LCM law.

2. You keep insisting that possession is legal. Perhaps under some circumstances, but here the OP knows he will be receiving a "new" magazine and that his old one is not merely being repaired. Hence I suggested he obtain legal advice.

You are so certain that the OP doesn't need legal advice it should be easy for you to cite black letter law or precedent putting to rest any question of whether or not the OP would have liability for aiding or abetting or conspiracy. Please do so.

[kemasa]

Toolfreak66 said:

If I go there and turn in my old mag and they give me a new one, are any laws broken? They will not do a "parts kit" or just repair the broken parts off my old mag.

Cokebottle said:

It is perfectly legal for someone to (24) give a high cap to a gunsmith or FFL for repair or modification, and it is perfectly legal for that gunsmith or FFL to (25) return that magazine to the owner.

This is true, BUT is NOT what was said above. You are assuming that a replacement would be considered a repair or modification. It is unclear if the CA DOJ would consider a replacement to qualify, but the law does not say that. If the magazine was fixed by someone, using the working old parts and just replacing the broken parts, then it would qualify under the law.

TheKlawMan said:

2. You keep insisting that possession is legal. Perhaps under some circumstances, but here the OP knows he will be receiving a "new" magazine and that his old one is not merely being repaired. Hence I suggested he obtain legal advice.

Please show where possession is illegal. There are aspects which are illegal, such as importation, but not possession.

If you want to have some fun, read 12020 (b) and (b)(21).

[Cokebottle]

1. OP did not ask if "he could return a broken mag to have to (sic) repaired or replaced" but if "I go there and turn in my old mag and they give me a new one, are any laws broken? They will not do a "parts kit" or just repair the broken parts off my old mag." He did NOT ask only if he was breaking any law, but if "any laws were broken". Since the "gunsmith" was not "returning" the magazine thqt the OP lent or gave to the smith for "the purposes of maintenance, repair, or modification", but was returning a magazine other than "that magazine". Pro Mag was breaking the LCM law.

Replacement is a perfectly legal option to "repair"

2. You keep insisting that possession is legal. Perhaps under some circumstances

You have one chance and one chance only to redeem yourself.

Post a direct quote from the California PC or the USC that states that possession of high capacity magazines is a crime.

You can't, because it's not.
It's not legal "perhaps under some circumstances"... it is legal.
There is a period at the end of that sentence.
Possession and use is not a crime (unless it violates some other law).

Go ahead. You've been claiming that I'm giving bad advice and spreading FUD. Here's your chance to prove me wrong and I'll shut up.

I make the same challenge to you if you are man enough to take it.

Prove me wrong, or shut the hell up and get out of these high-cap magazine related threads.

You are so certain that the OP doesn't need legal advice it should be easy for you to cite black letter law or precedent putting to rest any question of whether or not the OP would have liability for aiding or abetting or conspiracy. Please do so.

There is no precedent because it has never been charged.
Possession is not a crime.

Furthermore, if you read the exemptions, FFLs are exempt.
Yes... it is legal to give a magazine to an FFL, and it is legal for an FFL to give you a magazine... and even to sell one to you.
The catch is that FFLs are not exempt from importation. Only FFLs with a high cap permit are exempt from importation, and if the DOJ were to discover that an FFL were selling to civilians, they would yank the high cap permit.

There are 32 exemptions listed in PC12020(b)
I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.


But my offer stands.
Prove me wrong and I'll STFU.

Fail to prove me wrong and it's your turn to STFU.

If you are man enough.

[Cokebottle]

This is true, BUT is NOT what was said above. You are assuming that a replacement would be considered a repair or modification. It is unclear if the CA DOJ would consider a replacement to qualify, but the law does not say that. If the magazine was fixed by someone, using the working old parts and just replacing the broken parts, then it would qualify under the law.

General opinion (and no, the DOJ won't issue an official opinion, but the lack of arrests/prosecutions speaks for itself) is that, using rebuild kits for example, it is legal if there is a direct path for the rebuild, even if 100% new parts are being used.

IF it is acceptable for an individual to purchase a complete rebuild kit, disassemble their old broken mag, and assemble the new one, then it would likewise be legal for the manufacturer to replace a broken magazine with a new one.

If you want to have some fun, read 12020 (b) and (b)(21).

I've always liked that one.

[kemasa]

Replacement is a perfectly legal option to "repair"

Please document this claim. Where does it say that a magazine can be replaced? That is NOT a repair. There are laws regarding the repair and replacement of firearms, but it mentions replacement.

Furthermore, if you read the exemptions, FFLs are exempt.

Quite true, for the sale or purchase, not for loans, not for giving.

Yes... it is legal to give a magazine to an FFL, and it is legal for an FFL to give you a magazine... and even to sell one to you.

Incorrect as far as giving, correct for selling or purchase, based on the exact wording of the law. One could claim that the price was $0 and that it was sold or purchased for that amount.

12020(b)(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by
a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.

Please show me where a FFL can GIVE you a magazine. The law says sale or purchase.

The catch is that FFLs are not exempt from importation. Only FFLs with a high cap permit are exempt from importation, and if the DOJ were to discover that an FFL were selling to civilians, they would yank the high cap permit.

Please document this and read the following quoted section:

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
...
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.
...
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
...
(21) The sale or purchase of any large-capacity magazine to or by
a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.

The law is badly written and it clearly says that (a) does not apply to the sale or purchase of any large capacity magazine to or by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071, which means that if a FFL (assuming that they have ALL the required permits/licenses) buys a large capacity magazine (or sells it to anyone), they are exempt from 12020(a)(2),
which is NOT limited to only magazines within CA.

(26) The importation into this state of, or sale of, any
large-capacity magazine by a person who has been issued a permit to
engage in those activities pursuant to Section 12079, when those
activities are in accordance with the terms and conditions of that
permit.

This is SEPARATE from 12020(b)(21). (b) is ANY of the following. This means that if you were able to get a permit, but were not licensed until 12071, this would apply.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:

There are 32 exemptions listed in PC12020(b)
I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.

You might want to more carefully read what is in CA PC 12020 and not just assume things based on how the CA DOJ is enforcing it. They won't admit that there is a problem and FFLs won't risk their freedom and business to prove it otherwise.