My (not especially) triumphant return to USPSA competition post-Rogers

[TheTrevor]

Do you need a legally plausible explanation when possession of "high capacity" magazines is not illegal?

Everyone has their own comfort zone. Mine extends to only having standard-capacity magazines which were available pre-2000. I don't judge anyone for interpreting the law in a more permissive fashion.

I will say that I don't believe rivets and/or epoxy are required to legally limit a standard-cap mag to 10 rounds, as long as the capacity limiter will not fall out unless manually removed.

On an entirely unrelated note, I'm a huge fan of Vibra-Tite for ensuring that friction-fit parts don't separate unless you want them to.

[Lomshek]

Because California. I have no legally plausible explanation for standard-capacity magazines which only became available in 2006, when I would have had to own them as of 1 Jan 2000 for them to be grandfathered in.

Totally makes sense. I didn't even look at your location. I agree with being cautious. I seem to recall some story of a firearms trainer getting busted while traveling in CA and can understand not wanting to be a felon.

[Savage Hands]

Do you need a legally plausible explanation when possession of "high capacity" magazines is not illegal?

Possibly, what would you tell a cop if they asked why you had them and/or said they were illegal even to possess?
You could say nothing and ask for your lawyer but that's a hassle if it can be explained on the spot and hopefully verified by a supervisor.

By the way, you're in SF. Did you rid yourself of both standard mags and hollow point bullets?

[Savage Hands]

Everyone has their own comfort zone. Mine extends to only having standard-capacity magazines which were available pre-2000. I don't judge anyone for interpreting the law in a more permissive fashion.

I will say that I don't believe rivets and/or epoxy are required to legally limit a standard-cap mag to 10 rounds, as long as the capacity limiter will not fall out unless manually removed.

On an entirely unrelated note, I'm a huge fan of Vibra-Tite for ensuring that friction-fit parts don't separate unless you want them to.

Eh, the modified to 10 round magazines are supposed to be permanently fixed that way.

[Suvorov]

Eh, the modified to 10 round magazines are supposed to be permanently fixed that way.

Yep. But the definition of permanent is the catch. During the "Nam", industrious GIs who counted 10 less pointy things in their M14 and M16 mags than Charley had in their mags, were known to weld their mags together. So, is a factory 10 round magazine really more permanent than a MagPul 20 with 10 round base epoxied closed? I'm not brave enough to claim that the 10 round base plate is a permanent fix.

[TheTrevor]

Why do these discussions always cause me to regret sharing how I handle legal compliance in CA?

Folks, don't take this the wrong way, but unless you're a district attorney considering whether to charge me with a magazine-related violation, I do not care what your opinion is. You all do whatever makes you comfortable with the law, and I'll continue to do what I think will keep me out of trouble.

If I ever desire opinions on what constitutes a good means of legal compliance for a specific application, e.g. HK pistol magazines, I will make an explicit request for same.

Thank you.

[Savage Hands]

Why do these discussions always cause me to regret sharing how I handle legal compliance in CA?

Folks, don't take this the wrong way, but unless you're a district attorney considering whether to charge me with a magazine-related violation, I do not care what your opinion is. You all do whatever makes you comfortable with the law, and I'll continue to do what I think will keep me out of trouble.

If I ever desire opinions on what constitutes a good means of legal compliance for a specific application, e.g. HK pistol magazines, I will make an explicit request for same.

Thank you.

If you don't want something discussed here than don't post about it or harden the fudge up. I've been on this forum for awhile and have met Todd and many members, afaik discussing illegal activities knowingly or unknowingly is rather frowned upon.


If my words hurt you then use the ignore list.

[TheTrevor]

If you don't want something discussed here than don't post about it or harden the fudge up. I've been on this forum for awhile and have met Todd and many members, afaik discussing illegal activities knowingly or unknowingly is rather frowned upon.


If my words hurt you then use the ignore list.

Sorry if it seemed like I was stepping on your toes. No offense was intended to anyone, simply expressing my position regarding CA compliance.

Regarding your very first point: I think it's possible for someone to share how they handle a particular situation, e.g. legal compliance for magazine capacity limits, without that being an implicit invitation to criticize or second-guess that person's approach.

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from implying that I'm doing anything illegal or out-of-compliance. That was both untrue and uncalled-for.

[Savage Hands]

Sorry if it seemed like I was stepping on your toes. No offense was intended to anyone, simply expressing my position regarding CA compliance.

Regarding your very first point: I think it's possible for someone to share how they handle a particular situation, e.g. legal compliance for magazine capacity limits, without that being an implicit invitation to criticize or second-guess that person's approach.

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from implying that I'm doing anything illegal or out-of-compliance. That was both untrue and uncalled-for.

You opened up yourself to criticism when you said this:

I will say that I don't believe rivets and/or epoxy are required to legally limit a standard-cap mag to 10 rounds, as long as the capacity limiter will not fall out unless manually removed.

On an entirely unrelated note, I'm a huge fan of Vibra-Tite for ensuring that friction-fit parts don't separate unless you want them to.

Since you mention "manually removing" and "not moving until you want to" than it seems to violate the law requiring that they are "permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds." I'm not going to turn you in or snitch on you, I'm just pointing out that there's a possible flaw in your post.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...=201320140AB48

[TheTrevor]

Since you mention "manually removing" and "not moving until you want to" than it seems to violate the law requiring that they are "permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds." I'm not going to turn you in or snitch on you, I'm just pointing out that there's a possible flaw in your post.

The definition of "permanent" is not at all clear in the codes, nor has it been clarified through case law, as I'm sure you know. Reasonable people have staked out positions along the spectrum of options regarding magazines, from "possession is not illegal" to rivet-and-epoxy, and everything in between.

I'm comfortable that I am legally compliant with CA magazine capacity limitations, having installed properly retained internal limiters in all of my post-2000 magazines.

Since I'm using limiters which insert into the follower, it seems like by the standard you're applying that there is no way for me to ever be legally compliant since I could simply swap in one of my spare (non-limited) followers, even if I epoxied the limiters in place.