20 round mag? No, it’s a 7 round mag

[badkarmamib]

Do you think this will pass?

It depends. Doomsayers have already handed the election and all subsequent bans to the Democrats before the elections have begun. There is enough turmoil in the state that there is no way to be sure which way the election will go, or what the priorities of the new legislature will be.

 

[Elkins45]

That argument ain't gonna work in California.

The magazine was designed as a 20 round 5.56/.223 magazine. It can also be employed as a 7 round .458 magazine. The key to the argument is that when employed as a .458 magazine, it has only a 7 round capacity and is therefore legal.

The problem, in California, is that the law does not define a magazine's capacity according to its usage. It defines magazine capacity as "having the ability to accept" more than 10 rounds (refer to CPC 16740). So long as the magazine in question "has the ability to accept" 20 rounds of 5.56/.223 it's a large-capacity magazine irrespective of only holding 7 rounds of .458.

How many rounds of 9mm can be stuffed into a 10 round 40 S&W magazine? 12 or 13 probably. In many cases they will still feed and function in a 9mm gun. How does CA handle that?

Taking the argument to the absurd, how many 22 shorts can fit into a 10 round AR magazine? Absurd because it won’t feed them, but feeding is not in the letter of the law either.

 

[RickD427]

No point in considering the absurd. If the magazine will not feed the rounds, then it's no longer a magazine within the definition of CPC 16740 (although it would still be a magazine if loaded with .40 S+W).

As to the question of loading a .40 S+W magazine with 9mm, and assuming that you have a weapon that will fire that combination, you get into the issue of statutory construction and that brings in the intent of the law. The likely outcome (and I say that having taken a ton of cases to trial, but not being able to cite a case law directly on point) is that if you load the magazine with .40 S+W rounds, you're cool. If you load it with 9mm rounds, and have a weapon that will fire that combination, then you're in violation. The idea being that you're doing something contrary to the design of the magazine and that the apparent explanation for the departure from design is to create a magazine capacity of greater than ten rounds.

There is a good case law comparison involving stabbing instruments. Consider whether a piece of wire can be a "Dirk or Dagger." There is no law against carrying pieces of wire, electricians do it all the time, so do folks with iPods and earphones. But in the California case a People v Cabral, Cabral carried a piece a wire that he used to stab a fellow guest in a California prison. In upholding his conviction for the possession of a "Dirk or Dagger", the court did not look at what the object "was" (as you and the OP seem to be doing here), the court rather looked at how the object was "used."

By the same token, if you use an otherwise legal magazine, in a manner where it exceeds the legal capacity, then the DA is probably going to be successful in fanging you for the effort.

 

[Elkins45]

No point in considering the absurd. If the magazine will not feed the rounds, then it's no longer a magazine within the definition of CPC 16740 (although it would still be a magazine if loaded with .40 S+W).

As to the question of loading a .40 S+W magazine with 9mm, and assuming that you have a weapon that will fire that combination, you get into the issue of statutory construction and that brings in the intent of the law. The likely outcome (and I say that having taken a ton of cases to trial, but not being able to cite a case law directly on point) is that if you load the magazine with .40 S+W rounds, you're cool. If you load it with 9mm rounds, and have a weapon that will fire that combination, then you're in violation. The idea being that you're doing something contrary to the design of the magazine and that the apparent explanation for the departure from design is to create a magazine capacity of greater than ten rounds.

There is a good case law comparison involving stabbing instruments. Consider whether a piece of wire can be a "Dirk or Dagger." There is no law against carrying pieces of wire, electricians do it all the time, so do folks with iPods and earphones. But in the California case a People v Cabral, Cabral carried a piece a wire that he used to stab a fellow guest in a California prison. In upholding his conviction for the possession of a "Dirk or Dagger", the court did not look at what the object "was" (as you and the OP seem to be doing here), the court rather looked at how the object was "used."

By the same token, if you use an otherwise legal magazine, in a manner where it exceeds the legal capacity, then the DA is probably going to be successful in fanging you for the effort.

So what if you own a 458 SOCOM but don’t own a .223? Could you still own the 7 (20) round magazines? YOU couldn’t use them as an illegal magazine because you don’t have a gun in which it would function as such. In your hands it can only function as a seven round mag.

 

[BSA1]

Please forgive my ignorance on this subject. Can the .458 be used in a unaltered .223 / 5.56 magazine? It seems to me that the feed lips on the magazine would need to be widened for the .458 thus rendering the magazine unusable for the .223 / 5.56.

 

[RickD427]

So what if you own a 458 SOCOM but don’t own a .223? Could you still own the 7 (20) round magazines? YOU couldn’t use them as an illegal magazine because you don’t have a gun in which it would function as such. In your hands it can only function as a seven round mag.

OK, now you're starting to zero-in on the dividing line. No exact answer here without a controlling court case, but as long as the magazine was designed as a .223 magazine and then adopted for .458, I would bet on the argument losing in a court trial. If the magazine were designed as a .458, then you'd probably win. But that only my personal opinion based on a lot of court watching, and in the bottom line, my personal opinion don't count for much.

 

[Elkins45]

Please forgive my ignorance on this subject. Can the .458 be used in a unaltered .223 / 5.56 magazine? It seems to me that the feed lips on the magazine would need to be widened for the .458 thus rendering the magazine unusable for the .223 / 5.56.

Yes. From what I’ve read the 450 Bushmaster requires modified mags but 458 SOCOM does not. That’s one of the two reasons I’m favoring it as a possible purchase. The other reason is that 458 uses a .457 rifle bore like the 45-70 rather than a .451 pistol bore like the Bushmaster. That means I can use my big heavy bullet molds, up to a 500 grain roundnose, for subsonic hunting loads.

 

[reddog81]

So what if you own a 458 SOCOM but don’t own a .223? Could you still own the 7 (20) round magazines? YOU couldn’t use them as an illegal magazine because you don’t have a gun in which it would function as such. In your hands it can only function as a seven round mag.

Which law are you asking about specifically? What rules and regulations that have been issued on the subject? I would assume if you asked the question to whatever agency you are afraid of arresting you they'd recommend to not push your luck. There are 10 states that have mag limits. Call a coupe of Sheriffs offices in those states and see what they say.

As to actually trying a case it depends on how good of a lawyer you've got, how anti-gun the prosecutor is, the mood of the judge, and who's sitting on the jury. There are a lot a variables. It doesn't seem like an unwinnable position, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.

 

[AlexanderA]

Do you think this will pass?

There are actually three stages to this analysis. The first concerns the chances of the Democrats taking over the legislature. Most observers think they have it in the bag.

The second stage of analysis is whether gun control legislation will pass, if the Democrats take over the legislature. The answer to that is yes.

Finally, there's the question of whether an AWB specifically will pass, and if so, what form it will take.

It's almost certain that Universal Background Checks, a "red flag" law, and a one-handgun-a-month limit will pass. But, I'd say that the chances of an AWB passing are 50-50, seeing that even some Democratic lawmakers have doubts about it. And if it passes, I can see a grandfathering provision being added, a higher magazine capacity limit, or possibly registration of semiautomatics with the State Police under the Uniform Machine Gun Act, rather than outright banning. This is where some judicious lobbying could make a world of difference.

 

[jmorris]

Yes. From what I’ve read the 450 Bushmaster requires modified mags but 458 SOCOM does not.

I run unmodified mags for both. For the 450 I do use a 3D printed part that sits on top of the .223 follower.