Posted: 10/19/2013 1:29:50 PM EDT
|
If you take four 10 round magazines and assemble them onto a holder which binds them together using screws, are you fabricating (assembling) a 40 round magazine?
In what way is that legal, given our current high cap magazine ban? What's the rationale that will keep you "out of jail"? |
|
If needing to use a tool to remove a magazine from a receiver means it is a fixed magazine, then needing to use a tool to disassemble what use to be four magazines would mean the four are no longer separate magazines and have become one.
Okay, the theory must rely upon the fact that the four do not share the rounds. That means they remain four functionally separate magazines. |
|
I'm not sure common sense applies to this problem.
I've had several people tell me that an AR with a Bullet Button without a magazine currently inserted is not considered "able to accept magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds." (or at least wasn't until last week.) If that is in effect the correct status, then it's moot as it refers to the rifle. Now, if the idea, is to have 4 10 round magazines more readily available and to get a round a magazine capacity limit, I think it is a pretty clunky way to do it. the more commonly available 2 magazine clamps are shorter and narrower. The 4 clamp looks like it would make prone firing awkward at best and it looks like it would be catching on things. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not sure common sense applies to this problem. It rarely does in matters of the law. Hence, my discussion of this. I would want to be sure it was legal before doing it. The laws have become so arcane, convoluted, vague and confusing, there's no way for any of the parties to know for sure until it's too late (when you're in court). Haven't laws been ruled unconstitutionally vague? |
|
Quoted:
Does the device allow you to fire more than ten rounds fed from one magazine without removing one magazine and inserting another? If no, then it's not making a large-capacity magazine. I think the question is, does clamping them "permanently" together make the assembly a 40 rounder, and the follow-on do we really want to get a ruling that is overbroad and includes other items. |
|
Quoted:
I think the question is, does clamping them "permanently" together make the assembly a 40 rounder, and the follow-on do we really want to get a ruling that is overbroad and includes other items. Quoted:
Quoted:
Does the device allow you to fire more than ten rounds fed from one magazine without removing one magazine and inserting another? If no, then it's not making a large-capacity magazine. I think the question is, does clamping them "permanently" together make the assembly a 40 rounder, and the follow-on do we really want to get a ruling that is overbroad and includes other items. While the definition is "an ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition", you have 4 distinctly separate magazines that are "permanently" bonded together, that's all. At no point could it be legally construed or argued as a violation of law that the device has a continuous, uninterrupted feed of 40 rounds, which would be the threshold. If the contrary had any legal weight, then mag couplers would be illegal or at the very least have a practical legal warning by any number of CA gun groups. Non-issue. |
|
I think the threshold exists at the tenth round. Beyond that, it is considered "high capacity".
It is a single device that holds 40 rounds. It feeds those forty rounds, too, but not without interruption. Would belts of ammo with every eleventh round missing then be okay? You'd have to cycle the bolt manually to get to the next ten rounds. So, the concept of the magazine being the "ammunition holding/storage" place does not apply? Well, I'm just trying to understand these laws we have. |