Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967

Question on Modifying Magazines...

Recommended Posts

[Please, let's not get political here, but...]

 

Well alrighty... as of yesterday, we now have a new law here in the Golden "Tarnished Brass" State that sez that we need to be rid of all magazines with a capacity greater than 10 by next July 1. There now is no "Grandfather Clause" for those we already possess.

 

The standard M1 Carbine magazine holds 15 rounds. Ten round models are at times available, but the ones I've found have terrible reviews. (If you know of a source for decent quality versions please share!)

 

So... is anyone familiar with a practical method of limiting the capacity of a standard 15-round model to 10 rounds? :huh:

 

And again... please try not to be political. We must, of course, be good citizens and obey the laws of the land. :( :angry: :(

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

HC

 

the mod will have to be , one approved , By Ca DOJ , I would think .

 

does it have to be a permenant MOD ?

 

I have taken 10 rd SKS mags and put a block under the follower , to reduse the cap , to 5 , for a hunting mag

 

the thing , you will have to be careful of is to not bind the follower spring , and cuase it to fail

 

If it has to be permenant , I would think you could silver brase a block to the side if the mag body , where it blocks the follower

 

You could also disrupt the mag body to limit the follower , use a center punch to dent the mag body , limiting the follower movement

 

CB

Share this post


Link to post

It has to be a "permanent" modification, I believe:

 

...excludes, in pertinent part, a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

 

They're kinda serious:

 

commencing July 1, 2014, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

 

 

I'm a bit alarmed: I read the text, and nowhere did I see mention of exemptions for tubular or fixed magazines or .22 rimfires.

 

This could present a problem for a bunch of Cowboy rifles... AND some of our favorite plinkers. :blink:

 

Damn. :(

Share this post


Link to post

Well at least here in CT they let us keep the mags over 10rd. We would just have to register them an not have more than 10rds in them except at a firing range.

But rather than go through the registration I just gave away the 25rd mag for my AR7 and bought some 10rd ones.

Share this post


Link to post

Hardpan,

One way might be to list on the classifieds a trade for the size you need. As far as the carbine mags are concerned, I believe they are not that hard to modify.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry....but I wouldn't get rid of any mags...just hide 'em for when the SHTF.

 

GG

Share this post


Link to post

 

Sorry....but I wouldn't get rid of any mags...just hide 'em for when the SHTF.

 

GG

 

Yeah gunner.... but this seems to go beyond the obvious.

 

Lever CAS rifle in some cases may hold more than ten. Many .22 rimfire rifles hold more than ten. These were specifically excluded in previous "hi-cap" magazine bills... but I didn't see any such verbage in this one and I didn't see reference to it applying only to removable mags. (I hope I just missed it!)

 

And

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yeah gunner.... but this seems to go beyond the obvious.

 

Lever CAS rifle in some cases may hold more than ten. Many .22 rimfire rifles hold more than ten. These were specifically excluded in previous "hi-cap" magazine bills... but I didn't see any such verbage in this one and I didn't see reference to it applying only to removable mags. (I hope I just missed it!)

 

And

well it was mentioned about the M1 Carbine - that is what I was referring to. When I lived in California and bought my 45 cal Marlin Cowboy Limited with the 24 inch barrel I took out that stupid orange 10 round limiter plug that was in the magazine....

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I started with the M1 carbine issue.... but when I read Chickasaw Bill's comment and question about the DOJ and permanent modifications, I looked the thing up and read it - and realized what I was not seeing; namely, the exemptions I noted.

 

Examle: A Rossi .44 Magnum will hold 10 rounds of .44 Magnum. I'll bet it'd hold 11 or 12 .44 special rounds...

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah gunner.... but this seems to go beyond the obvious.

 

Lever CAS rifle in some cases may hold more than ten. Many .22 rimfire rifles hold more than ten. These were specifically excluded in previous "hi-cap" magazine bills... but I didn't see any such verbage in this one and I didn't see reference to it applying only to removable mags. (I hope I just missed it!)

 

And

You didn't miss a thing :angry: .....There is NO exemption stated for tubular or fixed mags or for .22 rimfire either. :angry::angry:

My '94 Marlin, 24" bbl .44 mag "Cowboy"(my main SASS rifle, BTW)will hold 13 rnds in the mag. :ph34r:

My wife's :wub: Marlin CBC holds 11, long loaded .38 Specials.

All of my tube feed .22s hold 15 rnds of LR ammo. Who knows how many 'shorts' they will hold. :unsure:

"They" knew exactly what they were do'n, when this bill was written.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB48

 

Last I'll say on this as I don't want HC's post'n, pulled or locked

LG

Share this post


Link to post

You didn't miss a thing :angry: .....There is NO exemption stated for tubular or fixed mags or for .22 rimfire either. :angry::angry:

My '94 Marlin, 24" bbl .44 mag "Cowboy"(my main SASS rifle, BTW)will hold 13 rnds in the mag. :ph34r:

My wife's :wub: Marlin CBC holds 11, long loaded .38 Specials.

All of my tube feed .22s hold 15 rnds of LR ammo. Who knows how many 'shorts' they will hold. :unsure:

"They" knew exactly what they were do'n, when this bill was written.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB48

 

Last I'll say on this as I don't want HC's post'n, pulled or locked

LG

No it reason it should be...

 

GG

Share this post


Link to post

Hardpan I just read the link that Lumpy posted and there is also no exemption for law enforcement either

Share this post


Link to post

H.C.,

 

Before you do anything you should find out what the DOJ's requirement for "permanently altered" means.

 

As a bureaucrat I would have a field day writing the rules on this one.

Share this post


Link to post

Hardpan I just read the link that Lumpy posted and there is also no exemption for law enforcement either

 

Interesting.... you're right!

 

Didn't an east coast state run into this issue last summer with one of their own hastily and poorly written new regulations? Or was it maybe Colorado...? I don't recall.

 

By the way - this bill initially was to address the sale of kits to modify existing magazines to increase their capacity... and eventually "morphed" into the totally different animal we now see. Sheesh! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

LG

 

thank You for posting it

 

HC

 

after reading it , I have no clue as to what is required , to stay within the law? , as to what was posted .

 

I fear , anything , I was to suggest , could be WRONG , under this dictate

 

CB

Share this post


Link to post

The key is the legal definition of "permanently altered" is. It may be possible to put a block in your existing magazine(s)and then run a blind rivet into the block. Short of drilling out the rivet, the block can not be removed. The downside is it can no longer be dissembled for cleaning either.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I was wait'n to see if someone else caught that there was no mention of a LEO exemption too.

:blink:

LG

Share this post


Link to post

L.G.,

 

1911 ROCKS!!!

:lol:

I am now drying the keyboard off and have Bulleit run'n out nose. BTW-It burns mucho much too :blush:

:D

LG

Share this post


Link to post

Wish I had some Bulleit.... could really use some 'bout now!

Share this post


Link to post

16740.

As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

( a ) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

( b ) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.

( c ) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

Share this post


Link to post

Frisco, I hope you're right... but that verbiage appeared in an earlier version of the bill. The bill was amended several times, and I'm not sure that part survived.

 

My abilities to read and comprehend legal documents are pretty weak, but when I read the bill on the California Assembly site I can't find the reference you quoted:

 

AB 48

Share this post


Link to post

Another couple of legislative sessions and you guys in California will be back to muskets.

Share this post


Link to post

16740.

As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

( a ) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

( b ) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.

( c ) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

 

 

Frisco, I hope you're right... but that verbiage appeared in an earlier version of the bill. The bill was amended several times, and I'm not sure that part survived.

 

My abilities to read and comprehend legal documents are pretty weak, but when I read the bill on the California Assembly site I can't find the reference you quoted:

 

AB 48

Hi Folks,

 

IIUC (I'm sure you will let me know if I am wrong ;) ), if 16740. was not amended, that section of the penal code remains unchanged. According to my search, there is no mention at all of 16740 in AB48.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Folks,

 

IIUC (I'm sure you will let me know if I am wrong ;) ), if 16740. was not amended, that section of the penal code remains unchanged. According to my search, there is no mention at all of 16740 in AB48.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

Allie, there's a bit of logic I hadn't considered....

 

You're making me feel a mite better! (But then you usually do...!) :blush:

Share this post


Link to post

Allie, there's a bit of logic I hadn't considered....

 

You're making me feel a mite better! (But then you usually do...!) :blush:

Yup, she can do that for sure..... ;)

A call to Ca/DOJ may be in order. :wacko:

LG

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a site for the text of the final bill AB 48. I can not find the exemption reference in the final passed version. I am not Bar certified in Calif. but if it is not exempted then it would seem that this bill would trump previous law on the issue. http://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB48/id/885936 In review of Senate Bill 396, the exemption is included in that bill. The Key it seems if I understand Calif. constitutional law is the final bill signed by the Gov. is the bill as finally amended and accepted by the originating house. It does not look like both sides of the legislature assed and combined the bills. I will see if I an find a copy of the actual signed bill.

I know someone in SASS is a criminal attorney or even a member of a county atty office. maybe the will chime in.
Sorry guys...
Serious offer, ifn anyone eventually wants to dispose of their magazines out of state, I will store for you.

Share this post


Link to post

16740 is part of the existing California Penal Code. It exempts .22 caliber tubular magazines on any action and any caliber lever action tubular magazines from the definition of large-capacity magazine. AB48 uses that definition of large-capacity magazine.

 

I don't know about how the Texas legislature writes laws, but California is real good about making something illegal in one section and then burying the exceptions in a completely different section.

 

The Penal code and the text and progress of California bills can be found at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/

Share this post


Link to post

I have a call into Ca. DOJ/FA unit now(YES, they be working today :blink: ).

Will ask about P.C. section 16740 and the just signed AB 48.

LG

Share this post


Link to post

Hi again,

 

From what I read there is no mention of guns in this bill. So, I believe it only applies to detachable magazines. If it applied to magazines that were part of a gun and not detachable, I would expect some mention of exemptions or guns, as even some BB guns have internal magazines and it would ban BB guns.

 

I hope I am correct.

 

Well that is "Allie Logic."

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Share this post


Link to post

Vote for Allie!!! :lol:

 

Oops... wait.... is that political...? :blush:

Share this post


Link to post

Lumpy,

It is ONLY the Federal government that is shutdown. All the State governments are up and running.

 

Also, ask if AB 48 only refers to detachable magazines or any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. I think it is the latter.

 

Of course this applies to handguns, not just rifles. So, all those old Browning Hi-Power and other double stack pistol magazines are now illegal.

 

Frisco

Share this post


Link to post

Me again, ;)

 

Like I implied, if it applies to internal magazines holding more than 10 rounds, it would ban BB guns. I found the following on Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BB_gun

"...one of Daisy's early lever action models held 1000 BBs, in contrast to the Daisy Model 25 which held only 50 BBs."

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Share this post


Link to post

Lumpy,

It is ONLY the Federal government that is shutdown. All the State governments are up and running.

 

Also, ask if AB 48 only refers to detachable magazines or any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. I think it is the latter.

 

Of course this applies to handguns, not just rifles. So, all those old Browning Hi-Power and other double stack pistol magazines are now illegal.

 

Frisco

HUH? Today IS Columbus Day :lol: I'm sure you heard of him :P:D

As I read it, 10 and over are a NO-NO.

Allie, a BB gun is NOT a firearm(yet :unsure: ) :lol:

LG

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.