"Hi-Cap mags" ?

[Notorious]

Yep, stock up while you can.

[the86d]

...(I am active duty military and recently transfered into Cali)...

I thought he would have been exempt... being AD.Mil?

[Ron-Solo]

I spent over $300 the morning I had to trade my active LE identification for my retired identification. I even bought some for guns I don't yet own, but are on my list to buy.

[bergmen]

Okay, let me step back a bit and ask Ron-Solo for some assistance in understanding something that I am obviously not seeing. Let's see if we can resolve this.

As a Life Member in both NRA and CRPA, I spend a considerable amount of time attempting to understand the dizzying complexity of California's gun laws. I do so in an attempt to be legal in all I do with firearms as a native Californian, having lived here for 58 of my 62 years. I'm no lawyer and it isn't easy but I do my best.

I have looked at the Penal Code, studied the annual "Summary of California Gun Laws and Basic Safety Rules" that CRPA sends out each year and have studied the positions and descriptions that this forum has published to assist us in understanding the California Gun Laws as well, especially the link that I included in my post above.

So, here is my question that I cannot find an answer to:

How can I (as well as the OP) being non-LEO, non specially licensed FFL, possibly be in legal possession of a Ruger BX-25 magazine?

They were just introduced earlier this year, I could not have owned one prior to the 1-1-2000 cutoff date.

As I understand it, any hi-cap magazine acquired after 1-1-2000 would have to have been acquired in an an illegal transaction. One must have been in possession of the hi-cap magazine prior to 1-1-2000 in order to be in legal possession of it today and they were not available then.

So, how can I be in legal possession of a BX-25 in California (non-LEO, non specially licensed FFL)?

Thanks for your help in understanding this, I appreciate it.

Dan

[pdq_wizzard]

Let me take a stab at this,

I have had a 10-22 for 30 years, I have a number of the hotlips 25 round mags, (they are crap) Ruger has come out with the new 25 round mags, I want to replace one of my old mags with the new one from ruger so I order a rebuld kit and use it to replace my old one (if I have 5 25round mag's and order one more I need to destroy the one I am replacing I still have 5 mags)

for my 30 round AR mags I have all the old ones that I have replaced with Pmags I just flatten them with a hammer.

Okay, let me step back a bit and ask Ron-Solo for some assistance in understanding something that I am obviously not seeing. Let's see if we can resolve this.

As a Life Member in both NRA and CRPA, I spend a considerable amount of time attempting to understand the dizzying complexity of California's gun laws. I do so in an attempt to be legal in all I do with firearms as a native Californian, having lived here for 58 of my 62 years. I'm no lawyer and it isn't easy but I do my best.

I have looked at the Penal Code, studied the annual "Summary of California Gun Laws and Basic Safety Rules" that CRPA sends out each year and have studied the positions and descriptions that this forum has published to assist us in understanding the California Gun Laws as well, especially the link that I included in my post above.

So, here is my question that I cannot find an answer to:

How can I (as well as the OP) being non-LEO, non specially licensed FFL, possibly be in legal possession of a Ruger BX-25 magazine?

They were just introduced earlier this year, I could not have owned one prior to the 1-1-2000 cutoff date.

As I understand it, any hi-cap magazine acquired after 1-1-2000 would have to have been acquired in an an illegal transaction. One must have been in possession of the hi-cap magazine prior to 1-1-2000 in order to be in legal possession of it today and they were not available then.

So, how can I be in legal possession of a BX-25 in California (non-LEO, non specially licensed FFL)?

Thanks for your help in understanding this, I appreciate it.

Dan

[Ron-Solo]

1. I have an older 25 rd mag for my 10/22 that has a bad follower
2. I buy a BX-25 rebuild kit from a local store, on line' or gun show.
3. I replace the bad follower with one from the kit

I still only have one functioning magazine, and some extra parts

4. I decide that the mag body and spring should be replaced, so I swap those out.
5. Eventually, I swap out all the old parts with new parts.
6. I finish with one functioning magazine that sys BX-25 on it and a bunch of worn out parts.
7. I dispose of all the worn out parts.
8. I have the same number of magazines that I started with.

100% legal for ANYONE to do this, LE or regular Joe. LE doesn't have to worry about it, but us retired LE fall into the regular Joe category as far as mags are concerned.

The same is true of PMags, which were not around before 1-1-2000 either.

[bergmen]

And this is where my misunderstanding came from. It sounds to me as though you are "manufacturing" a BX-25 by using all of the repair parts in the repair kit to basically build a new mag from scratch and toss the parts of the old mag. This still leaves you with the same "number" of 25 round magazines in possession but sounds a bit like a "shell game" to me.

I know it's a fine line and open to interpretation. It would seem to me that whatever old 25 round magazines that existed before 1-1-2000 were of a different design and model type than the BX-25 and parts would not be interchangeable.

A sharp LEO that knows the law well (like the CHP Officer in the OP's original post) would call the ownership into question.

It just seems more like a grey area to me and possibly a bit risky.

Thanks for your clarification though I'm still a bit confused.

Dan

[Notorious]

I understand the theory but in practice, are all the parts from the different mags interchangeable? If not, then how would you use the BX-25 parts to repair Hot Lips or Pmags to replace GI mags.

The other assertion made by a previous post was that whatever you owned legally before the ban was your "lifetime" cap on how many you can have. You can have more but you can't ever exceed what you had over your limit. While true, it doesn't mean you can assemble one out of completely new parts and destroy the old one.

[Baconator]

I understand the theory but in practice, are all the parts from the different mags interchangeable? If not, then how would you use the BX-25 parts to repair Hot Lips or Pmags to replace GI mags.

The other assertion made by a previous post was that whatever you owned legally before the ban was your "lifetime" cap on how many you can have. You can have more but you can't ever exceed what you had over your limit. While true, it doesn't mean you can assemble one out of completely new parts and destroy the old one.

So is it your interpretation that if you damage a magazine that is no longer manufactured that you are now sol? Say you are an leo and you buy some pmags before you retire and after you do retire magpul goes out of business and you can't buy replacement parts for that magazine, are you not allowed to have your high capacity magazine anymore?


Sent from my evil Apple iPad using Tapatalk

[Notorious]

So is it your interpretation that if you damage a magazine that is no longer manufactured that you are now sol? Say you are an leo and you buy some pmags before you retire and after you do retire magpul goes out of business and you can't buy replacement parts for that magazine, are you not allowed to have your high capacity magazine anymore?


Sent from my evil Apple iPad using Tapatalk

If you can't repair it anymore with available parts, yes.

So if you had a Thermold mag that broke, and there are no other mags that you can cannibalize, you can't just assemble a Pmag out of a kit and call it a day.

That would also apply if you just had a mag destroyed, like if you just had an Orlite blown up to pieces... how do you repair that? Assemble a completely new one?

You can claim you replaced it bit by bit and made a new one, but it's a dangerous shell game.

I don't even feel very comfortable with the concept that you are repairing and replacing every single component until 100% of the magazine has been replaced with brand new parts so that nothing of the old magazine remains. I guess if it is the same mag, like you just had 1 GI mag and you bought the same GI mag components over and over and kept rebuilding the same mag with GI mag components, that's okay. But the people that claim they use Pmag parts to repair GI mags until there is no more GI mag and everything is Pmag... it would appear that scenario would be a shell game.

[Falconis]

How's this, do whatever it is you want and if you get popped for it, make sure you call the CGF hotline

[IlDuche]

Back to the CalCop post, just having a case doesn't mean you have a gun....

Okay, If i stop a guy holding a crack pipe (ignore the pipe a paraphernalia), I'm assuming he's got rock. If I stop a car that has a pistol case, I'm assuming he has a pistol. At minimum I can ask. It's reasonable to assume that possession of gun case= possession of gun. Doesn't make it a bad thing. Just is what it is. I'll ask to see it, so I can play with it and see if I want to buy one later.

I know you are very big on the oathkeepers, but dude, not all cops are out to stomp on the constitution. Some of us just follow laws that the State makes, and go from there. I don't have to arrest anyone (except DV, thanks OJ).

[Notorious]

Yep, we can always ask and get consent, but we don't have a right to start searching based on you having a gun case.

[CalCop]

Okay, If i stop a guy holding a crack pipe (ignore the pipe a paraphernalia), I'm assuming he's got rock. If I stop a car that has a pistol case, I'm assuming he has a pistol.

That's not the same. A crack pipe is in itself illegal and gives you reasonable suspicion the perp has other illegal stuff, so you get to search for the rock. A gun case is NOT illegal, and does NOT give you reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. You should NOT search the case just to go fishing to see if you can find a violation. Absent other circumstances, in my opinion, you shouldn't even ask for consent to search the case. It is irrelevant.

However, if dude is a felon, he shouldn't be in possession of a firearm, then you have RS and should search the case....there are other scenarios, too, that we don't need to get into.

I know you are very big on the oathkeepers, but dude, not all cops are out to stomp on the constitution. Some of us just follow laws that the State makes, and go from there.

As I said earlier in the thread, no one can tell you or I how to balance our oath to the constitution against unconstitutional laws.

[Notorious]

However, if dude is a felon, he shouldn't be in possession of a firearm, then you have RS and should search the case....there are other scenarios, too, that we don't need to get into.

What about the NRP or no-term parolees? Can't even do anything to those guys....