Standard Capacity Mags

[rand17]

As an FFL in Calif. and a holder of a "high capacity" mag permit...would it be legal to order an on list hand gun with a 13rd mag from a wholesaler..... like lets say a Glock 23 gen3 made in austria...and then remove the high capacity mags and replace them with 10rd mags and then sell the gun to a client...legal?

[acespawnshop]

Yes. And a great good cause to put on your hi cap mag permit application too

[rand17]

seems to easy! Ha!

[rand17]

and is anyone else doing it this way??

[kemasa]

Yep, that is a good reason to have the permit.

[OCArmory]

Yes but be careful some pistols are listed by sKU for example CZ. The high capacity ones have a different sKU then the ten round ones

[rand17]

Yeah I got ya....Its a gen3 glock Austria model...should be safe...

[kemasa]

Yes but be careful some pistols are listed by sKU for example CZ. The high capacity ones have a different sKU then the ten round ones

Yes, but it is the firearm that matters, unless it can be shown that the firearm with different magazines is somehow a different firearm.

They have had the wrong Sig model number, which had so-called high capacity magazines and was not the CA version, on the list, as well as other issues. Hard to blame the FFL when they have made mistakes, yet they do.

[acespawnshop]

We have done this before plenty of times.

[mkasda]

[QUOTE=kemasa;17841983]Yes, but it is the firearm that matters, unless it can be shown that the firearm with different magazines is somehow a different firearm.

Kemasa, would you happen to have some backup for this?
I'm not doubting your word, just prefer to have some backup for any potential audit issues.

[OCArmory]

IF the box has a different SKU than the one listed on the roster how can you say that does not matter. And yes during an audit I have had the DOJ ask the manufacturer how the pistol left their possession i.e. make model and SKU. It was Colt, about a pistol and they were looking to cite me for specifically this.

[kemasa]

Not all SKUs are listed, plus those with packages don't change the firearm. If the firearm is the same as tested, which is what the certified list is about, that is what counts.

The CA DOJ does not always want to follow the CA PC, so that does not mean that you won't have issues. If you don't want any issues, then don't be a FFL and don't have any firearms.

Where does it says that where the firearm was made matters (ie. Glock)? For the Glocks lists, which version is it really? We know it is not a Gen4, but what about a Gen2? Then there is the issue that the whole concept of the list is bogus.

Look at the CA PC regarding so-called high capacity magazines with regards to exemptions, which the CA DOJ denies. It is poorly written, but they want to make up what it means when the CA PC says something different.

[OCArmory]

I believe the error lies with the manufacturer not the DOJ. If the manufacturer did not submit it as a specific SKU but a CZ75B only, then we wouldn't have this problem. See Glock for example. The list just says Glock 17 not a specific SKU. I actually understand why US glocks are not on the roster as they are classifying them as a different company. The new company would have to submit it's models for testing and make them compliant.

You are getting a little confrontational with your
"If you don't want any issues, then don't be a FFL and don't have any firearms." comment. We deal with plenty of issues and are happy to take the law as far as it allows but I believe you to be completely wrong on this. The company in this case CZ lists a gun by a specific SKU or even Springfield for that matter. Now you are saying if it looks the same the it counts.

[kemasa]

The CA DOJ has a lot more info about the firearm than what is on the web page or the DES.

Glocks are Glocks, so to accept that where it is made, even though it is the same exact firearm, does not make sense.

I am saying if it IS the same firearm, then it is on the list. The SKU with packages are a prime example. The package aspect does not matter. So why do you want to claim that I am saying that if it LOOKS the same as I am NOT saying that at all, so please show me where I did or you need to correct yourself. Under your view, if you don't have the original box to determine what the original SKU is, you don't know, so you can't transfer it, right?

Glocks don't have a different model depending on the magazines or other items that come with it, so should they be rewarded and others punished because they do it differently even though it is the same exact firearm? Companies setup their SKUs and all that long before the issue with CA came up, so should they be forced to change everything in order to be able to sell the same exact firearm?

It is not confrontational, it is reality. The fact is that the CA DOJ would like to say that you can't buy ANY firearms and would do that if they could get away with it. Look at the issue with regards to the C&R FFL and COE with regards to the 1 in 30. The waiting period section it lists that it only applies to C&R firearms, so if they really wanted it to apply for the 1 in 30, then they would have said that. In many cases it is NOT what the CA PC says, but what they WANT it to be. That would not work for anyone other than the government. The same is true with the chance in the sales tax for firearms from private parties who are out of state.

[cruising7388]

As an FFL in Calif. and a holder of a "high capacity" mag permit...would it be legal to order an on list hand gun with a 13rd mag from a wholesaler..... like lets say a Glock 23 gen3 made in austria...and then remove the high capacity mags and replace them with 10rd mags and then sell the gun to a client...legal?

I'm not sure, but I think that for an FFL to make this change could put this into the category of manufacturing which would require a FFL Type 7 license. I vaguely remember this issue coming up about bullet buttons that prevented the FFL from installing a bullet button on an imported firearm without having a FFL license for manufacturing.