Quoted:
Quoted: That sounds like strong language, for someone who is admittedly already operating in a gray area by pinning the mag. Neither a pinned mag, nor what this guy is talking about, is DOJ APPROVED. So they are in the same gray area in that respect. Both methods follow the letter of the law. So they are in the same gray area in that respect.
|
You are wrong. The purchase of off-list lowers is not grey area. It's clean. We'd all be in the cooler otherwise, with 175 FFLs in jail.
|
No, you are wrong. It IS in a grey area, in terms of the fact that even many of the DOJ letters states that any of the 58 other DAs can arrest you. It is technically legal, but the DOJ says you can still be prosecuted by any one of the other 58 DAs. The DOJ isn't arresting you, because as their letters have said, they believe it to be legal. Someone, and I forget who
even posted this on calguns:
My FAQ is gonna be updated later today.
The "58 DAs" warning you've seen is a bit more than boilerplate. While Harrott is indeed strong and should be a defense, you could have a real antigun DA combined with an antigun judge that just wouldn't kick it out (even though Harrott says AR/AK 'series' determination is not a matter for a trial court's determination!), and it could conceivably run up thru appeal.
|
By the letter of the law, the purchase of receivers is legal. By the letter of the law, the use of a tool(such as a bullet) to remove a magazine makes it not a detachable magazine. Hence it is in a gray area, where it is legal according to the letter of the law, but you could still be prosecuted.
None of those DOJ letters mention using just a nut on the mag catch to lock the mag in place. The letters simply state that it can't have the features of an AW according to 12276.1, unless I have missed one somewhere. I haven't seen anyone post anything saying that the nut method of affixing a magazine was approved by the DOJ as meeting the requirements of fixed magazine. But it is legal, according to how the laws are written. Sounds an awful lot like the situation with using a bullet to remove the magazine.
Stating that one is unequivocally 100% legal, and the other is unequivocally 100% going to get you jail time, as some are stating, is ridiculous.
Quoted: You are confusing DOJ approval with legality. [DOJ approval, in fact, may NOT mean legality, esp if an agent signs off on a design when he doesn't really know the law!] If the DOj says "dance on the receiver and wrap it in cow dung to be legal" a manufacturer will - just so he can sell. Unapproved does not mean illegal.
|
I am not confusing approval with legality, I don't know where you are getting that from. Reread what I said.
Quoted:
there's just no rational reason right now to have a mag that shouldn't ever be detached in CA easier to detach than the pistol grip or telestock: there never should be an open magwell if a pistolgrip or telestock, etc is attached.
|
Per the letter of the law, where is it stated that an open magwell means that it has a detachable magazine? To have a detachable magazine, wouldn't it need an open magwell, AND require that the magazine, once inserted, could be removed without the use of a tool? Thats what I got out of reading 978.20
Quoted: it's not screwed in, so something shocking/jarring that subsystem could cause a heavy, loaded mag to move even if mag catch is tight. It IS spring loaded if it's gonna be operated by a bullet tool and something could happen (car crash?) to make you a felon.
|
I don't want to do the math on it right now, but it would take a good bit of G forces to get it to pop out without use of a tool, IF it were just spring loaded. And even then you would have to hope for a situation where the forces against the magazine don't bind it on the mag catch, because that would help lock it in place. The forces necessary to do this will only happen when the rifle hits a solid object to change its velocity, as you may have heard the old saying "it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end."At that point, whatever the AR hits that causes the G shock could be considered the tool.
If your AR with a locking nut was involved in a crash, where it was ejected, and skidded down the freeway at say 80mph, it is very conceivable to wear through the nut, releasing the magazine. Then you'd be in possession of an open magwell AR!
If you are in doubt, I can show you what asphalt does to metal motorcycle parts when they go sliding...
But you are assuming that the design isn't set up so that the mag catch is locked solid, and held by more than just a spring. Making a mag catch that locks solid(and impervious to the acceleration event), but still allows removal with a tool(and only with a tool) is doable.