Posted: 1/24/2006 8:55:03 PM EDT
| Let say if we were to make a Fixed 10 round out of our STAG Lower, how fixed do California want us to make it? any idea? |
Also, there is no limit on the definition of "tool". It just can't be finger tight (no wingnuts for instance). That's all that's required now and that's all I've done. Who knows what the DOJ might or might not change in the future? |
|
Calif Code of Regulation sec 978.20 specifies standards for detachable magazine. Basically, to be nondetachable it's gotta take tool(s) + time; the mag can't be removed or replaced readily during typical operation of rifle. Interestingly, a bullet tip can be considered a tool - this is in the formal defintion. Make sure your 10rd mag is affixed and that nothing can come loose. Don't use a spring on the mag catch, use a lockwasher and maybe even a bit of ThreadLok (the removable green kind) on the threads and maybe on the mag catch bar itself - "just in case". This definition can't be changed without an announcement and formal regulatory update, comment period, etc. Bill Wiese San Jose CA |
Not much to go on but be careful, the OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT can make up mean down and black mean white.  s 978.20. Definitions. The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1: (a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine. |
|
Seems to me that someone could devise a device for the AR that uses a modified, fixed magazine which accepts 10-round en-bloc clips. These could be inserted through the open bottom of said fixed magazine. The rifle would not have to be broken open to reload. This would keep an off-list rifle in the "not an assault weapon" category. We have so many bright designers and mnachinists here in California, I often wonder why no one is developing a better system than the FAAB-10 or the closed bottom receivers. There is an obvious market - just look at the flood of off-list receivers coming into the State. |
|
There is no 'Office of Legislative Intent'. What would they hire, psychotherapists? Legislative intent is a concept. It means that when something is unclear, a court may try to divine legislative intent. Legislative intent is most applicable in broadly-drawn laws that haven't been revised. CA AW law has, by contrast, been in place in 1989 and been revised in a major fashion at least 3 times. It is highly detailed and specific, and has been shaped by several CA Supreme Ct decisions. If there were any further intent to do/ban something, etc. it would have already been coded into the law. The legislative intent was to indeed control assault weapons. They set up the DOJ/AG office with admin powers to declare/name things as AWs, and because of the 'series' language, AR/AK series members are easily added to list without the add-on court proceedings required of other AW types. Just because the DOJ did not act for 5 years in naming new members does not mean that we, the purchasers of off-list lowers, are violating legislative intent. The legislative intent was for a functioning administrative body, in the executive branch and with technical expertise in the field, to execute its duties expeditiously. A court would more than likely find the 'problem' is solvable with laws, regulations and procedures already in place. Bill W. San Jose CA |
I've been thinking of a mag with a hole in it to slide cartridges in, the mag would have a pull cord to pull the follower down allowing the cartridges to be fed in. Think Winchester Mod94. It might work. |
|
How about a side-loading integrated rotary magazine like the M1941 Johnson semiautomatic rifle. Load it up using stripper clips and your're good to go. |
|
I've seen "tools + time" mentioned several times, but the PC only says "tool". If a tool is all that's needed, I don't see how a recessed mag button would be non-compliant. Just thread the mag catch as far as it can go into the button, and it should sit well below the outside of the receiver. Then dremel off the protuding part of the mag catch (actually this should be done first). My fingers definitely could not reach, much less push, the mag release button. But insert a bullet tip, and voila, the mag drops. What do you think? Too close for comfort? |
Just get one of these for now, Sporting Conversions. |
Then when you're in court and their witness who has a fake fingernail glued on and trimed pushes your mag catch and the mag falls out. "Any other questions for this witness"? |
 There is an Office of Legislative Intent and it's located between the Thought Police who enforce hate crime legislation and the Office of Racial Purity that determines if your'e non-white enough to fill a state quota. |
|
The code says the magizine can not be "readily removed" with a tool. I think that's what the "tool and time" comment is about. I'm not an accountant but I'm pretty sure the cost/benifit analysis of your idea versus an AW firearm violation does not work in your favor. Most people are being very conservative to the point of overkill on these issues because the certified a$$hole beaureacrats in the DOJ would love to find a victim to prosecute for anything even as small as a magazine catch. |
| Seeing how a bullet is a "tool." Couldn't we just cut the threaded portion of the mag release off and have it inside the gun? Deep enough to require a bullet to actuate it? But then again once the magazine comes out... you have an assault weapon... So I guess there really isnt a way around this... |
That's an interesting comment, and I guess it would mean that the magazine would need to be an integral part of the firearm. In other words you can potentially have a magazine that can be removed and then REATTACHED with a bullet and be considered within the confines of the law provided that the rifle must not be able to accept "standard" AR series magazines. LOL crazy california. |
You don't want any chance - or even the appearance of chance - that the mag has ability to come out during normal operation (which means with pistol grip + telestock). You guys are asking for trouble. For now, you should not even want the ability to remove the mag except for a complete disassembly of the rifle, removing the pistol grip and/or telestock or thumbhole stock and/or flash-hider -equipped upper FIRST. Why have it easy to commit a felony? And if you're travelling out of state, you can spend 2 minutes with a screwdriver once in a free state (NV, OR, AZ, etc.) to run your rifle as it should be run. Then reassemble the screwed-in magcatch and return to CA. Many folks have thought about all the legal issues here. The FAQ was written to stay clear of any grey areas. Get 'cute' at your own risk. Bill Wiese San Jose |
That's what I've been saying here and on CalGuns for weeks Bill |