Bakelite magazines are ALL preban magazines right?

Talked to a good friend in California today about AK magazines, and we were talking about how over there you have to buy "preban" magazines which is silly. He mentioned that he has always wanted a bakelite but couldn't get them there because of the laws, but I was wondering...aren't they ALL preban so perfectly legal in California, or am I missing something? I don't really know the rules there, and am just wondering. If so, you guys all might make this guys day. He isn't an internet guy so he doesn't have the wealth of knowledge of ak47.net :)

You'll probably get a better answer on the Kalifornica HTF.

"Preban" does not apply here, so the fact that it is or is not Bakelite means nothing.

Hi caps must have been here and in your possession prior to the law going into effect Jan 2000. The law now prohibits importation into the state, selling, giving, lending of any high capacity magazine. Whatever you had prior to the law you can keep, but acquiring new ones is generally prohibited.

Oh ok. I see.

I have noticed at the sar show people buying normal capacity mags that live in california , i figuire they are keeping them here in az for when they visit ha!

All they have to do to bring them in is disassemble them. Now they are rebuild kits for your legally owned normal capacity magazines or can be built into 10 rounders.

"Preban" does matter in NY and maybe other states too. But, as correctly stated above, not here in CA.

But you can repair any part of a magazine you want ... upto and including the complete replacement of all parts ... so long as there are not two functional magazines at the end of the event. Lots of people were alive back 12 years ago and there are likely hundreds of thousands of magazines running around California that are completely legal. I bought magazines for rifles that I didn't yet own back in the 1990's.

You are correct insofar as there is a plausible compatibility path to the original magazine, meaning you cannot repair an existing, legally possessed hicap with a completely dissimilar hicap. There has to be parts compatibility for a 100% repair. For example, repairing a USGI 30 rounder with an AK mag or a beta mag is beyond any legal protection. Even complete USGI repair using a PMAG, Lancer or even HK Maritime mag is highly risky since there is no part compatibility between them.

Agreed - good clarification.

Not trying to split hairs here, but isn't the spring compatible?

Yeah, I am uncomfortable with all the PMAG goons "repairing" their USGI 30s into PMAGs.

Guess they have money for lawyers.

-Bill

As someone mentioned, the SPRING are compatible.

For that to matter, everything but the spring would have to break at once.

There is NO WAY that I would stand in front of a judge and expect to be believed.

Just a question.

Can a person with a legally owned preban mag upgrade parts on his magazine or can he only replace broken parts on his magazine? IE, can he sub an upgraded follower? Can he upgrade the mag body? Can he do all the upgrades at once? If he can legally do all the upgrades at once, why could he not upgrade all the parts except the spring?

Thanks

I am pretty sure DOJ said you cant replace a worn out mag with another, in a straight across swap. But you can repair mags you own. Those are the two data we have. Anything in between is ripe for judicial application, and practical thinking.

It is not a question I expect to answer, as I wont be using any pmags or parts. USGI works well enough for me, and the pmags are a legal headache waiting to happen IMHO. Just not worth it.

"Repair" does not have to mean a broken part, it can be preventative maintenance compelling you to change out parts, but the steps you are implying result in a very suspicious conclusion, one that is not provable by either party. This will just as likely blow up in your face as protect you.

While I'm well aware that springs on PMAGs and others are compatible, the spring just should not be considered the compatibility path for reasons already mentioned. It's a situation where you may be 100% legally correct, but still find yourself still on the other side of the issue because of perception. If LE thinks you made or imported a new hi cap magazine, they will charge you with that. Can you get out of legal peril with a generic spring when all other parts clearly suggest new mag, one that did not even exist in 2000? I certainly hope so....

While I understand what others have said, I still disagree.

I have several RAWs (Registered Assault Weapons) and loads of LCMs (Large Capacity Magazines). Many of them have been repaired with Pmag parts. I see no difference in using Pmag parts to repair or rebuild them than in using USGI, Lancer, or any other NEW parts.

Correctamundo.

Several comments to other statements above:

1.) Rightly or wrongly, it's "all about the smell test". PMags are post-2000 and newfangled. There at least is some
believeable possible presumption that USGI mags are preban and at worst one part failed. And btw, floorplates
don't really fail.

You PMAGgers bought yourself a battle you didn't need - just saying you've 'repaired' your magazine into a radically
different one with radically different parts. A local judge may well not agree with you. Your ass, your lawyer, your money.

The PMAG30 argument is the rough equivalent to building a Rolls Royce around a Ford horn button and insisting it's a
Ford. The 'smell test' + construction of the mag laws and burdens of proof etc pretty much gives you a wide berth,
but there's always people pushing it.

There are nowhere near enough articulable benefits for 30rd PMAGs vs USGIs that you should wave a flag to a cop and/or
prosecutor with 'easy bait'.


2.) People above appear to be making the funamental assumption they can talk their way out of the situation. MOST PEOPLE
HERE SAYING WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOVE WILL TALK THEMSELVES INTO JAIL OR FELONY CONVICTION. Your best
friend is silence.




Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Exactly what I'm thinking when the Gumps come out of the woodwork and start the "well, say that you found them" games.

What this will boil down to is the defendant, standing in front of a judge and jury, asking them to believe that the indistinguishable spring in the pmag is not a pmag spring; and, if they accept that it is, then they will have to accept that everything about the prior mag failed at once, except the spring, so the dependant "repaired" it, instead of "replaced" it.

I cannot say I would believe that. I do not believe that has happened often, if ever in CA. I doubt it has ever happened, or will ever happen, in a non-ban state. Given the ready availability of correct replacement parts, I say BS.

Stupid laws do not excuse stupid behavior. They (unfairly) demand smarter behavior.

What sort of proof do you need to have showing that you can own/posess a pre-ban magazine here in California? Do you have to show a receipt or similar document showing that you legally bought/owned it before the 2000 ban date or can you just posess a dated pre-ban magazine? If you don't have that sort of documentation, how are they supposed to know if you bought/owned it before the date or if you just smuggled it into the state last week! Would you have to show proof that you were a resident before the 2000 ban date as well in order to own one?

The prosecution will be the one making the claim that the magazines were unlawfully imported, sold, or manufactured after 01/01/2000, and they are responsible for proving that claim.

That's where a lot of the more ballsy and less brainsy folks start to go off the deep end with what they think are intellectual exercises in defenses such as "tell them you found them..." or "statute of limitations is 3 years, so say you manufactured/imported/conspired to sell them 3+ years ago" or "There were a lot of now twelve year-olds who were confused by the magazines they were given on Christmas in 1999" and other such nonsense that doesn't begin to pass the smell test, especially when dealing with stuff like SA XDs, SW M&P, FN 5-7, etc; and that's where most of the grey area is: does your claim pass a smell test? If not, then you can be setting yourself up to be rudely introduced to the criminal justice system.

While there isn't a requirement to maintain records of your lawful pre-ban magazines, it certainly would help those who actually do have lawful large capacity magazines, and not the intellectual Gumps who think they masterfully found a loophole and will tlak themselves into a conviction. Personally, I've retained the mutilated bodies of very old magazines I've replaced, but it's hardly a requirement. If you do not have your iron clad proof of evidence, then the common suggestion is to keep your mouth shut. Of course Bill will be in shortly to say that his advice is to always keep your mouth shut, innocent or not, but I'll have to agree to disagree with him on that point.

What are you referring to when you mention the SW M&P?

I have receipts and pictures. I sent records to myself in sealed envelopes, registered mail, with copies of all. I have multiple copies.

All unserviceable mag parts are bent beyond use and retained. My replacement mag bodies are not date stamped.
I bought mags for guns I didn't have yet. And I have proof.
None of that is legally required, but it is all smart.

Remember, the prosecutor doesn't have to be right to ruin your future. Why take an unnecessary chance?

The S&W M&P series, along with the other mentioned pistol series, was introduced after the magazine restrictions were put in place (2005 for the M&P). Unless the person possessing the large capacity magazines for those pistols had or has an exemption to the magazine restrictions, it is very unlikely that the magazines were obtained lawfully.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik[/youtube] This is a speach to live by

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.