• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Fixed mag AR-15 clone

900ss

900ss

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Location
San Jose CA
Moto(s)
None, but my brother has 56 and counting.
Name
Ken
LEOs care to chime in on how they would react to an AR-15 clone with a fixed mag (10 rounds), made permanent with either a bullet button or set-screw locked mag release? More to the point, how should one respond to a LEO when questioned about its legality?

I punch paper at the range, and chances of being pulled over while carrying are slim to none. Still, I'm curious with the paranoia about "California legal" lowers.

Mine has a standard stock, bayonet mount, pistol grip and flash supressor. I am not interested in running afoul of any interpretation of the regs.

Thanks!
 
Read CalGuns.net.

It is a slippery slope and a definite grey area.

What will you find in the field? Well, unless the cop you are dealing with is extremely well versed in 12276.1 and the current legal-lower deal that's going on, you're probably going to be picked up for having the AR -- even with your Prince-50 magazine lock.

The argument comes from "ability to accept a detachable magazine." Some people think that means with no tools, others think it means at all (as in, you'd have to have a welded magazine well -- and that's what the DOJ says, but the DOJ doesn't write law, so their "say" is merely an opinion).

What the law does is define "detachable magazine" and that clearly says that you have to be able to detach the magazine without the use of a tool. To me, if you have pinned the magazine in place and cannot remove it without the use of a tool -- then its not a detachable magazine and you can have all the other "evil features." Would I arrest you? No. But that's only because I've built myself a California legal-fixed mag AR in the past, and I could articulate why I let you go if something were to go wrong. A cop who doesn't know.... who see's it, who see's that you don't assault weapon registration.... prolly going to hook you up -- whether or not it sticks is an entirely different subject.

Now, how do you "respond?" Well, bring an actual Penal Code with you -- not a copy of the page -- and show the officer PC 12276.1. Bring the C&R that shows the definition of "detachable magazine" and see if he believes you. It may not hurt to consensually register the lower (as a rifle, not assault rifle obviously -- you cant register it as an assault rifle) so that through a computer check, you can prove that you legally own the firearm. As it sits now, only handguns are registered.
 
antarius said:
Read CalGuns.net.

It is a slippery slope and a definite grey area.

What will you find in the field? Well, unless the cop you are dealing with is extremely well versed in 12276.1 and the current legal-lower deal that's going on, you're probably going to be picked up for having the AR -- even with your Prince-50 magazine lock.

The argument comes from "ability to accept a detachable magazine." Some people think that means with no tools, others think it means at all (as in, you'd have to have a welded magazine well -- and that's what the DOJ says, but the DOJ doesn't write law, so their "say" is merely an opinion).

What the law does is define "detachable magazine" and that clearly says that you have to be able to detach the magazine without the use of a tool. To me, if you have pinned the magazine in place and cannot remove it without the use of a tool -- then its not a detachable magazine and you can have all the other "evil features." Would I arrest you? No. But that's only because I've built myself a California legal-fixed mag AR in the past, and I could articulate why I let you go if something were to go wrong. A cop who doesn't know.... who see's it, who see's that you don't assault weapon registration.... prolly going to hook you up -- whether or not it sticks is an entirely different subject.

Now, how do you "respond?" Well, bring an actual Penal Code with you -- not a copy of the page -- and show the officer PC 12276.1. Bring the C&R that shows the definition of "detachable magazine" and see if he believes you. It may not hurt to consensually register the lower (as a rifle, not assault rifle obviously -- you cant register it as an assault rifle) so that through a computer check, you can prove that you legally own the firearm. As it sits now, only handguns are registered.
Click to expand...

All of this sounds reasonable to me and is in keeping with other opinions I have read. I know LEOs are supposed to enforce and uphold laws and not interpret them per se, but that will be of no help nor a defense if I encounter an officer who for whatever reason will not hear my request to consider what 12276.1 states. I do intend to carry a copy of 12276.1 with the fixed mag portion highlighted.

Thank you sir for your input.:thumbup
 
print out the paper work in my first link. It's even signed by the, (then), attourney general.
 
Jakemate said:
print out the paper work in my first link. It's even signed by the, (then), attourney general.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jakemate, I will do that. I guess if a cop is in the mood to read what I present to him / her it could save the day. I can see the toolkit cavity is going to become my CMA (Cover My Ass) library.

I won't be out and about with this piece, except for transporting to and from the range where I mercilessly slaughter poor defenseless paper with abandon, so I'm not too concerned. It never hurts to be educated though.
 
I agree with Antarius and would defer to him, but I think you also need to consider whether the weapon will accept and function with a removable mag. Having a mag installed with a screw/button is one thing whereas a welded mag would certainly be more permanent and would prevent the gun from accepting a removable mag. It would be up to the DA and their interpretation of the law as to whether you could be prosecuted.. now, if your screw/button someohow prevented a non-compliant removable mag from seating and feeding rounds or otherwise kept it from functioning without the screw locked, you may stand a better chance. OTOH, if it will accept most any removable and large capacity mag and function in that (unlawful) configuration, you may have a hard time convincing a judge or a jury that you are in compliance with the laws.

Personally, I feel the restrictions on gun owners in high-crime states are a violation of the 14th amendment. As a law-abiding citizen, you should have the same right to purchase and own the same guns as a Nevada or Washington resident. You should be able to go to Nevada and Washington and purchase them and after the proper background check, you should not be prevented from brining your property (firearms) into CA. Prohibiting you from doing so is essentially a violation of your constitutional rights.

2nd amendement to the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By enforcing these assault weapons laws, that infring upon our right to keep and bear arms.. and place unrealistic restrictions and outright prohibitions upon citizens, the state of CA is enforcing laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States and depriving us of liberty and property without due process of law and deny us equal protection under the law.

That's my opinion anyhow.
 
Hear Hear MM4L!!! If I could, I would clone you and make sure that one of you was in every department in the State...as CLEO! :)

I'd also like to point out the double standard that owners of OLL's find themselves in, here in CA, when dealing with law enforcement.

We have all heard the term "ignorance of the law is no excuse"...well, unfortunately, in regards to OLL's here in CA, that does NOT apply to LEO's. There have been a number of cases where uninformed LEO's have confiscated perfectly legal OLL's from law abiding citizens. What I find particularly ironic and disgusting is when LEO's make this type of mistake they are given a free pass...they claim they were acting in "good faith". For the most part I believe them...its really a failure on the part of their Departments and the CA DOJ to train them properly. Couple that with the confusing way CA gun laws have been written and we have a recipe for civil rights violations.

I see the situation as a clear failure on the part of the CA DOJ to explain the law to the various departments throughout the State. I know a few people that were "trained" at POST that if it looks illegal it probably is. Some have been trained to confiscate any questionable firearm and let the DA sort it out. Well folks, that is unacceptable and also a Civil Rights violation...specifically 42 U.S.C. 1983.

OLL's are perfectly legal in the State of CA...there is no gray area other than the lack of training of LEO's. In regards to the "capacity to accept" argument put forward by the CA DOJ...it died...there was no change to the law as the DOJ sought. And with the settlement of Hunt, there will soon be some clarification given by the DOJ that should fix some of the problems.

When the government deprives you of your freedom and/or property when there is no violation of the law, a Civil Rights action is in order. This case is a perfect example.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
MACKINNEY v NIELSEN, 69 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1995)

To succeed, a S 1983 plaintiff must show that there is a direct link between the city policy and the constitutional violation. Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). The plaintiff can show this link by proving that the policy itself is unconstitutional or that the city made a "deliberate" or "conscious" choice to fail to train its employees adequately. Id. at 389.

Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
 
Last edited:
motorman4life said:
Having a mag installed with a screw/button is one thing whereas a welded mag would certainly be more permanent and would prevent the gun from accepting a removable mag.
Click to expand...

Welding the magwell shut can be construed as "making a substanative change" to the firearm. That is illegal according to the ATF. They believe changes as such is manufacturing a new firearm, (silly, I know). This was addressed in one of the many DOJ posted memos that they claim never existed.

Keep the mag in place with a locking device requiring a tool. Or get a U-15 stock and run no "evil" features.

<edit>

Also keep copies of the laws, the admission of lockyear, and whatever comes of Hunt.

With that, I doubt if a LEO is going to want to waste his time.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty clear, the DOJ tried to do whatever it could to make the off-list lowers illegal without opening up registration. It's clear that their goal is to prevent the purchase or production of any "assault type" weapons, merely because they're anti-gunners for the "good of the children." We can all agree there and ignore it -- to an extent. The DOJ, while it does not create law in the traditional sense -- it does have a lot of power and influence on local district attorneys. "Grey" or not, you should be careful as you may be right -- but as Hunt found out, it cost a lot of money and a lot of time to make sure he was "right."

I built myself a lower and when my chief later said he'd sign letters to allow us to purchase AR's, I just sent a letter in to the DOJ with the registration card and told them that I had originally purchased the "off list lower" from a regular dealer (not a class-III dealer) and that I had converted it, myself, to an "assault weapon" per PC 12276.1.

The DOJ did not like this, in fact, they delayed over 3 months in sending me my registration paperwork and later said that I had "an unregistered assault weapon and the 90 day period had expired" and that I must "destroy it or turn it into a law enforcement entity." I called them and told them I wasn't turning my firearm over regardless what they said --- it had been 120+ days at this point. They buckled and told me to send them another $20 registration check and it would all be taken care of. It was, I now have my registration in my name -- for my once-offlist lower. With all the evil features.

To me it made it very clear what the intent of the DOJ firearms department is. It isn't for our safety, for our "children" or for anything else. It's merely to take firearms out of law abiding citizens hands and to try to profit as much as possible while doing so (see the "california legal handgun" rules).

All that said, as much as we want to write them off as idiots who have nothing good in their heart when it comes to firearms -- they can and do exert a lot of influence on local district attorneys -- so be careful with whatever route you go, be informed and be prepared to explain yourself. It sucks, but that's California for you.
 
motorman4life said:
2nd amendement to the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

By enforcing these assault weapons laws, that infring upon our right to keep and bear arms.. and place unrealistic restrictions and outright prohibitions upon citizens, the state of CA is enforcing laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States and depriving us of liberty and property without due process of law and deny us equal protection under the law.

That's my opinion anyhow.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the very settled case law reads the second ammendment as:

2nd amendement to the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This pretty much gives cart blanche to most gun restrictions as long as you aren't talking about national guard service weapons.

(What I find annoying is that it is based on a "Framer's Intent" argument, without even mentioning Thomas Jefferson.:wtf)
 
Do you guys have any pictures of the guns you're discussing? I want to see what these "bullet button or set-screw locked mag release" mechanisms look like...or to the untrained eye do they look the same as illegal ones?
 
highonF4i said:
Do you guys have any pictures of the guns you're discussing? I want to see what these "bullet button or set-screw locked mag release" mechanisms look like...or to the untrained eye do they look the same as illegal ones?
Click to expand...

Check out this page. http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/index.php?main_page=ar15

It lists all your options for building a CA legal AR-15. I've done both a fixed mag and one with the Monsterman Grip. I happen to like the Monsterman Grip the best.
 
Great link Will..

More on what I was saying, from the link above:
"The California Department of Justice did two things to try and "clarify" the defintion of "capable of accepting" a detachable magazine. First they issued an undated memo stating in their opinion that "semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1)." However, there is no basis for this opinion in the law. In fact, Firearms Enthusiast Gene Hoffman wrote the Office of Administrative Law and asked that the CA DOJ stop posting that memo on their website as it was creating "underground regulations". The CA DOJ has since removed the "Important Notice" from its website."

Interesting stuff. Still not enough to compel me to go out and buy one. I'm happy with my Mini-14, Tack-driving "overbuilt" 10/22 and the other 30-odd guns in my arsenal. :teeth

I could buy a "in course of employment" AR-15 or AR-30 with a Department Letter and it appears I could legally keep it after retirement.. but, I just don't see a need for it.. I mean, I don't have a real use for it. I don't shoot IPSC or USPSA or IDPA or ICORE or Steel Challenge events.. if I did have the time and money to shoot in another multi-gun shooting genre, I would likely get an AR, if that what was needed to compete.. and I don't think it is fair that those law-abiding civilians that DO wish to shoot in those types of competitions, but cannot legally purchase and use the guns they want/need to compete with. To me, it is criminal.
 
nweaver said:
The problem is, the very settled case law reads the second ammendment as:

2nd amendement to the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This pretty much gives cart blanche to most gun restrictions as long as you aren't talking about national guard service weapons.

(What I find annoying is that it is based on a "Framer's Intent" argument, without even mentioning Thomas Jefferson.:wtf)
Click to expand...

"Regulation" as typically used in today's language is different than the "Regulation" as used by the Framers.

reg·u·late
1 a: to govern or direct according to rule b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

Just something to think about.
 
We have about 6 hours until the Supreme Court rules on Heller. With a positive ruling, for gun rights advocates, we could see the Assault Weapons Ban here in CA go by the way side...or at least be some sort of "shall-issue" with registration and tax.

I look forward to removing my mag lock, LEGALLY, in the near future.
 
The supreme court did rule in favor of "gun owners" today, or as I like to say, they just reaffirmed what we already know - The 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective right.

In any case, the court did not - by any means - make it illegal to ban "assault weapons" or make reasonable regulation to restrict/regulate firearms. It basically, specifically, said that you cannot prevent a law abiding citizen from owning a handgun and possessing it inside their home.

I have not read the 100+ page ruling yet, but I do not believe it even touched on assault weapons and other "regulated" firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top