I was driving down Hwy50 this morning when a thought occurred to me.  AB23 only addresses semi-autos with detachable *magazines*.  What if you got a belt-fed lower?  Would the CA DOJ perform linguistic alchemy after the fact to redefine "magazine" to mean "magazine or belt?"  Or has this already been done at the federal level, ensuring that putting more than 10 links together be considered "making a 'high-capacity' magazine" by our duly-elected members of the BATF?

If anyone is really well-versed in California's current "laws that are not laws," can you tell me what I'm missing here?

Correct me if I'm wrong (and God knows someone here will!), but they already consider ammo links to be "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" covered under the law.

A place was selling belted ammo, but won't ship to Caliban turf.  Something about 10 linked rounds = 10-rd mag.

Correct CA DOJ considers belt fed a high capacity device. This falls under all weapons banned under RR89 and the rest falls under the expanded SB23.

Ah.  Should've guessed, although I don't see 'belt-fed' anywhere on that handy 1999 DOJ pamphlet.  So much for adequate notice.  I guess I'll just keep the wheels turning until I find the mother of all loopholes somewhere.

It seems counter-intuitive that Perata and Co. would so actively encourage people to perfect the art of the bolt gun.  You would think that forcing people to buy accurate long range shooting tools would be the last thing that corrupt politicians would want.  Oh, wait, those are probably next.

Next?... they are already after bolt action .50bmgs.