Legality status of a M2HB in Kalifornia

[bubbapug1]

I had a Ma Deuce for a few years, from 2006 to 2016. I stupidly sold it fearing the new bans in Cali being proposed. I didn't want to be stick with a $10,000 pice of steel I had to give to the state.

Well my judgement lapsed and I bought a reweld (re-rivet) kit recently from Bowman. I do remember something about a new law making the Deuce an assault weapon in Kalifornia for real. it got caught up in a new bill designed to outlaw an AR rifle with a pistol buffer....

What exactly is the legal status of the M2HB now? Do they need to be registered as an assault rifle? That would preclude me building this in our state.

[edgerly779]

Cannot be .50 nmg in Ca for a sterter. 10 round belt max in Ca. Semi auto configuration only.

[RickD427]

I had a Ma Deuce for a few years, from 2006 to 2016. I stupidly sold it fearing the new bans in Cali being proposed. I didn't want to be stick with a $10,000 pice of steel I had to give to the state.

Well my judgement lapsed and I bought a reweld (re-rivet) kit recently from Bowman. I do remember something about a new law making the Deuce an assault weapon in Kalifornia for real. it got caught up in a new bill designed to outlaw an AR rifle with a pistol buffer....

What exactly is the legal status of the M2HB now? Do they need to be registered as an assault rifle? That would preclude me building this in our state.

Please see this discussion: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1688794

[RickD427]

Cannot be .50 nmg in Ca for a sterter. 10 round belt max in Ca. Semi auto configuration only.

The 10 round belt will not help you with regard to the "Large Capacity Magazine" issue. The reason is that the 10-round belt can be removed from the weapon without requiring disassembly of the action simply by firing all ten rounds.

Additionally, limiting a disintegrating belt to 10 rounds doesn't really met the 10-round limit. The law defines a "Large-Capacity Magazine" as a feeding device that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. A disintegrating belt can accept any number of rounds simply by adding links.

[jarhead714]

^We should all be paying this man a retainer.

[Rocklander97]

The 10 round belt will not help you with regard to the "Large Capacity Magazine" issue. The reason is that the 10-round belt can be removed from the weapon without requiring disassembly of the action simply by firing all ten rounds.

Additionally, limiting a disintegrating belt to 10 rounds doesn't really met the 10-round limit. The law defines a "Large-Capacity Magazine" as a feeding device that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. A disintegrating belt can accept any number of rounds simply by adding links.

Just because it can take more than ten. Doesn?t mean it?s not a ten rounder. There?s 30 round ar15 magazine with spring that can only take ten rounds. It CAN take 30 if you put a new spring it in. Isn?t there a law that prevent the government from punishing you for something you CAN do but haven?t done


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JWHuey]

^We should all be paying this man a retainer.

He's a cop, not a lawyer...

[Librarian]

Just because it can take more than ten. Doesn?t mean it?s not a ten rounder. There?s 30 round ar15 magazine with spring that can only take ten rounds. It CAN take 30 if you put a new spring it in. Isn?t there a law that prevent the government from punishing you for something you CAN do but haven?t done

Same argument gives you 'I have a large-capacity magazine, but I promise I'll never put more than 10 rounds in it!'

Doesn't work. The law restricts the capacity, not the use of the capacity.

[Rocklander97]

Same argument gives you 'I have a large-capacity magazine, but I promise I'll never put more than 10 rounds in it!'

Doesn't work. The law restricts the capacity, not the use of the capacity.

One - any magazine banned is unconstitutional
Two - they make cloth belt for 50BMG. Cut it to ten round
Three- the 50 BMG will be registered as OTHER not long gun.
Four - by that logic. Any belt fed gun including that weird ar15 upper that takes belt will be illegal by default.
Five - all guns in california will be illegal because there?s a POTENTIAL magazine somewhere that it can take more than ten rounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

One - any magazine banned is unconstitutional

Nice try, no cigar. Methinks this is just wishful thinking on your part. But if you really think so, please cite any published case law so holding. There's a bunch of statutory law holding otherwise.

Two - they make cloth belt for 50BMG. Cut it to ten round

There's two very different issues with the Disintegrating Link Belts. The first issue is whether such a belt is a "Large-Capacity Magazine" under Penal Code sections 16740 and 32310. If the feeding device has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, is a Large-Capacity Magazine, even if loaded with ten rounds or less, and even if it's not really a "magazine" in the conventional use of the word (like a belt). A disintegrating belt is a Large-Capacity Magazine because a extra link can be added to any location on the belt.

If you read section 16740 and 32310 in context, it's pretty clear that the legislature was clueless about belts when they drafted the terms. But the law is still the law until overturned or repealed.

The second issue with Disintegrating Belts is whether they can be installed in such a way as to constitute a "Fixed Magazine." That's the key to making a "Featureless" weapon that would otherwise be illegal under Penal Code section 30515. In other threads, folks have proposed modifying the cover so as to require "disassembly of the action" in order to insert a belt. But that doesn't make the magazine fixed. PC 30515 is clear that the "disassembly of the action" requirement for the magazine to be considered fixed applies to the removal of the magazine, not the insertion. All of the proposed "fixes" in the other threads would not work because the "Large Capacity Magazine" could be removed simply by firing all of the rounds. The same would be true of the cloth belt.

Three- the 50 BMG will be registered as OTHER not long gun.

That's groovy, but it don't change nothing. So long as it's not a "Rifle", "Shotgun" or "Pistol", it's gonna fall under the PC 30515(a)(9) definition of an "Assault Weapon."

Four - by that logic. Any belt fed gun including that weird ar15 upper that takes belt will be illegal by default.

Yup, You're right. Please see my earlier comment about stupid laws still being law.

Five - all guns in california will be illegal because there?s a POTENTIAL magazine somewhere that it can take more than ten rounds.

Nope. Go back and re-read your Penal Code. The test is not whether there is a potential magazine somewhere that can take more than ten rounds. The test is whether the magazine at hand can take more than ten rounds.

[sigstroker]

Nope. Go back and re-read your Penal Code. The test is not whether there is a potential magazine somewhere that can take more than ten rounds. The test is whether the magazine at hand can take more than ten rounds.

The existing belt has 9 links. It cannot hold more than ten rounds. In order to add an 11th round you have to MODIFY THE AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

[RickD427]

The existing belt has 9 links. It cannot hold more than ten rounds. In order to add an 11th round you have to MODIFY THE AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

That's not the way a disintegrating belt works. The links are not connected until the ammunition is loaded.

The cloth belt is different, but even the cloth belt is subject to the "Fixed Magazine" issue.

[bubbapug1]

Bummer. I guess I?ll build it in another state.