I've been helping someone out here in California develop a magazine locking device for the FAL that is compliant with the new assault weapon laws here.  What I've been wondering is if this device, while tailored specifically for California compliance, would also be suited for AWB in any other AWB States.  The crux of the issue would seem to be what is meant by "ability to accept a detachable magazine, and by extension, how detachable magazine is defined.  Doing Google searches hasn't led me to much in the way of answers, and mostly just leads me to news articles about the SAFE Act.  So in NY, how are these terms defined, and what would have to be done to make it so that a semi-auto rifle with banned features is no longer "able to accept a detachable magazine"?

The device is specifically designed to require opening or disassembling the action to remove the magazine, and it requires the same and removal of one or more components to remove the locking device or disable its locking function.  With the rifle assembled, the magazine inserted, and the action closed and ready to fire, the magazine cannot be removed, the magazine catch cannot be removed (and the magazine with it), and the components used to lock the catch cannot be removed.  If the magazine is not installed, but the above conditions otherwise apply, a magazine cannot be inserted into the magazine well and lock into place or be manually held in place high enough to theoretically permit feeding.  However, the current generation of the system makes it so that the locking mag catch can be removed with the magazine removed and the action closed; an alternative idea for one of the components of the system does not permit removal of the mag lock with the action closed and magazine removed while still blocking insertion of a magazine, but it is currently not being developed further since the former component is easier to manufacture.

Would a FAL so configured still be considered one with an "ability to accept a detachable magazine"?  While we aren't going to change how the system works for other States, regardless of which variant we decide to go with, it would be nice to know that it would be viable for use elsewhere and to be able to offer it to gun owners in those States who want a FAL but don't want to weld the magazine in place or anything radical and permanent like that.

i doubt your going to get an answer because until a court case up and the state has to give what they believe the law really says.. the sky is the limit.

Kinda of amazing we have AG that can get away with this but this the new century where they screw you first than beg for forgiveness afterwards if they are wrong.

By that time your so screwed that all you want to do is just end the pain.. which means they win. period.

Is there no legal or regulatory definition, then?

The problem we have here in California is that the DOJ exceeds what the law permits when it promulgates regulations or even uses the opportunity to alter or add regulations in areas not addressed by new laws, such as changing how overall length is defined for AWB purposes.  The law was not changed, but the DOJ issued new regulations anyways that made a bunch of non-AWs AWs overnight, effectively legislating by bureaucratic fiat.  They did the same to other areas, too (a number of shotguns that are not AWs by law, even after the new laws took effect, were defined as such by the DOJ's regulations, for example).

Is it basically the opposite over there?  Is there basically a lack of any guidance as to what anything means, and they just decide whether or not to go after you for something that is in a grey or undefined area?

There are no definitions and the law is purposely vague so they can insure a conviction. Furthermore,  the attorney general refuses to offer a definition.

Nothing has been set by law yet. It is all up to interpretation. You really are rolling the dice.  As soon as some one removes the magazine from that rifle in the court room, with no tools, with a gun hating stacked jury, you are screwed. They will not see that it cant be fired broke open, just that you can insert another mag. Cooked.

Sounds like the AR Mag Lock right? That requires you break open the action on an AR to remove the mag as well.

Also, there is no definition of "ability to accept a detachable mag."

I mean, ANY gun has the "ability" to accept a detachable mag...An SKS can be modified...as can many other guns...Hell I bet someone could even figure out how to make a Garand accept a detachable mag.

Does that make all those guns illegal now?

THIS IS JUST MY THOUGHTS ON WHAT I'VE READ.  THIS IS BY NO WAY ANY SORT OF LEGAL ADVICE, COMPETENT ADVICE, OR EVEN HOW REALITY ACTUALLY WORKS.  TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

As best as I can figure (and some threads I've read about an arrest in the north country) the best rule of thumb I can come up with to follow is that a DA is likely to fall back on whether the gun, in it's factory configuration, could take a detachable mag.  So an SKS is kosher even though it can be (easily) made to take detachable mags, or why you won't get a favorable answer about why an AR 15 isn't considered to be a fixed mag.

That doesn't even touch the can of worms that are 80% lowers and whether they were designed before being milled out to have a fixed mag.

IM sent