Quick question, are sworn law enforcement officers able to use high capacity (30rnd) magazines in an ar-15?
If illegal, would it be legal if Pre ban magazines were used?
If legal to use pre ban magazines, would it be legal if after you own the Pre ban magazines, you upgrade them to PMAGS 30rnd?

For the LEO's, if illegal would you bust another LEO for this?

1. are sworn law enforcement officers able to use high capacity (30rnd) magazines in an ar-15?

If the AR15 is a registered assault weapon, or a "featureless" OLL, or a rimfire variant.

2. If illegal, would it be legal if Pre ban magazines were used?

No, same restrictions as above.

3. If legal to use pre ban magazines, would it be legal if after you own the Pre ban magazines, you upgrade them to PMAGS 30rnd?

No, see above.

I am not a cop or LEO.

But...

Anyone (Regular Citizen, LEO) who isn't a prohibited person (Felon, DV, etc) can own and use LCMs (Large Capacity Magazines).

LEOs can purchase and use brand new LCMs.  Regular Citizens can use any LCMs they already legally own but are not supposed to obtain new or additional ones.  Certain activities regarding LCMs were banned for Regular Citizens in 2000.  Importing, Manufacturing, Selling, Offering for Sale, & Lending of LCMs are banned activities for Regular Citizens.  Continued Possession and Use of LCMs is LEGAL.

Legally owned LCMs can have any or all parts Repaired/Replaced.  The Repair/Replacement parts do not have to be "preban" and can be brand new (to include Date Stamps).  At least one of the Repair/Replacement needs to work in the original LCM.  So yes, parts from a Magpul Pmag can be used to Repair/Rebuild an existing LCM since at least one part (the spring) is interchangeable with the original LCM parts.

You're mixing and matching a lot of issues and seem not to have some basic understandings that magazine
law and AW law are generally nonoverlapping in CA except in one specific instance discussed below.



1. LEOs are allowed to acquire and possess over-10-round magazines.  Mags they acuqire/possess themselves
   can be retained on retirement.  Mags that are given to them or "sold with duty gun for $1 on retirement" (or
   variation thereof)  are  illegally transferred to them and the Dept is at fault.

2. They can use these over-10rd mags in any firearm in which that configuration is legal.

3. They cannot install an over-10rd magazine in a BullletButton maglock equipped semiauto centerfire rifle as that  triggers
    "assault weapon" status per a PC 12276.1 definition.  If the rifle in question can legally be in non-assault weapon
    status (i.e., "featureless" - no pistol grip, flash hider, etc. or rimfire)  then that particular configuration can have an
    over-10rd mag  inserted.

4. If they want to use an "assault weapon" configuration per 12276/12276.1 PC, they can get dept sign-off and DOJ registration.
   They are allowed to use over-10rd mags in these guns always.  This "LEO AW registration" becomes void on termination,
   separation/retirement or even transfer to another PD/SO in CA.  



I hate the terms pre-ban/post-ban  because those generally refer nationwide to the now-expired Fed AW ban of 1994-2004
and have little relevance to CA.  

CA allows individuals who have acquired/possessed over-10rd mags within CA before 1/1/2000 to keep them.  It does not
matter if the individual was or is a CA resident or not - the mere fact he possessed them for a microsecond in CA is sufficient
regardless of his residency then, any intermediate time, or now.  [And as long as he's not a prohibited person; prohibiteds
can't have ammo nor mags either, as best I recall.].   Also,  Fed 1994 mag status  (i.e, 'post ban" mag mfgd after 1994)  is
not relevant now [ even if that acquisition path were Federally illegal at the time.]

LEOs are exempt from all this stuff if they acquired the mag themself.

For LEOs, magazine dates of acquisition or manufacture are irrelevant to their ownership.  


And regardless of dates,  using an over-10-round mag in a semiauto centerfire rifle with a BulletButton-style maglock is still an
'assault weapon' by law.  LEOs are NOT automagically exempted from these AW laws.



Again, it's legal to own/use pre-2000-owned magazines in CA for normal folks.   You are allowed to repair magazines and replace
such parts as they wear. (There's even a DOJ letter on this.)

I personally feel one is really reaching to 'convert' an USGI-style mag to a PMAG.   You cannot swap mag for mag, and this is something
that involves the ol' "smell test"  -  there may be wiggle room if the mag was 'repaired' to use a PMAG tube and retained at some point
floorplates etc.    That may cause extended interaction with DAs and who knows what happens if it gets into a courtroom.

I have hundreds of pre2000 hicap mags and would not do this.  (I also do not understand the fascination with PMAGs (except by
the Airsoft kiddies).



Aside from getting facts and details straight per above, this just won't happen.   If LEOs are popped for AWs it likely will be result
of DOJ BOF investigation/activity,  and/or local DA encounters AW in investigation of cop (domestic violence, etc.)  or some kinda
IA thing.   Cops have been popped for AW matters but usu due to other ancillary investigations.  A large Dept like LAPD with its
own "Gun Unit" *might*.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Wow thank you for your write-up, very informative, its just frustrating that my service weapon has a larger magazine capacity than my newly acquired Ar-15. I just dont want to go through the hassle of registering the Ar-15 through my dept. since according to law I would have to turn in the firearm after retirement.'
I dont think other officers would do this to a fellow LEO but then again im sure there are exceptions.

What to do, what to do?  

Answer is to get a non-listed AR15 as a personal patrol rifle.   Get the approval from dept on letter head, get a full featured S&W or Ruger or whatever from a licensed AW dealer, register it with the DOJ as an AW.   Keep it, shoot it, then at time of retirement turn it into a compliant OLL configuration while unregistering it.

My own department is too short sighted to understand the actual laws much less the options for personal patrol rifles, the issuing of letters, or the actual legal options at time of retirement so my department stopped issuing letters for personal patrol rifles.   Explaining things is unlikely to change dept politics or cause them to bend their ear away from legal counsel.

At my agency, if you want to buy your agency owned gun when you retire, you write a check to the agency for the purchase price.  If retiring in CA, agency ships gun to CA FFL of your choice for transfer with one ten round magazine.  Retired Officer then goes through the same process as non-LEO to pick up the gun.  He can then use whatever high-capacity magazines he possessed prior to retirement with the gun and CCW with the gun as a honorably retired peace officer.

If retiring out of state, the agency simply ships the handgun to whatever FFL the Officer wants with a ten round magazine, and the transfer is conducted in accordance with the laws of that state and federal law.

This is what were hoping our agency does.  Allow the purchase of a quality Off-List rifle meeting agency guidelines with agency letterhead and DOJ AW registration.  If you retire in-state, the rifle is then made into a CA legal configuration (bullet button and 10 round mag) and the rifle is removed from the AW registry.  It's actually not that hard, but you'd think it was rocket science mixed with quantum physics when you discuss it with management.

Yeah, ditto.

You'd think you are talking to them in klingon.   What is even more ironic.   After years of having a dept policy that described what configurations was allowable for a patrol rifle, they finally decided to change it so that it allowed a patrol officer to have a red dot sight, collapsing stock, and a few other pieces of what is preferred gear.    See, the old policy only allowed SWAT to customize their rifles with fancy tech.   The old policy also stated that no modifications can be made to a department owned and issued rifle, which is what I have(Colt A2 Sporter with no flash suppressor).    Now I would LOVE to change the grip, love to change the A2 stock, and maybe even have a semi-custom upper for it but I cannot.    I was attempting to get a letter shortly before all this nonsense with the San Diego Chief/Sheriff went through the DOJ.    As the new policy came into effect it would have allowed new fancy kit on a personally owned patrol rifle.    Sadly, the new policy went into effect shortly before the new stance on issuing personal patrol rifles.

No idea if the policy will ever go away, I'd rather cross my fingers and hope the stupid law goes away.

welcome to being stuck w/ the same crap as the rest of us have to put up with...

I hope you get it worked out.  This law abiding citizen follows the law and has to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a usable AR.

Well, I could tell you I've got multiple personal ARs already from before 2000.

Thing is none of them are worth sacrificing for duty work because one bad day of training or bad day on the job and having a dreaded kB on a non-replaceable rifle is pretty much not an option.

I'll blow up a department issued rifle or I will buy a personal "beater" duty AR15 with the intention of essentially getting rid of it or converting it into a legal configuration.   But I will not be using a precious personal rifle for duty use.   Call me sentimental I guess.