You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New 10 shot Magazine Followers
- Thread starter rc
- Start date
Actually, from living out here it seems that the only 'permanent alterations' that are readily accepted are those that modify the actual magazine tube, so that any follower can't go below that 10 round threshold.
I know that Glocks, for example, have the type of follower you are referring to. However, other companies have actually made a false-base, that reduces the tube capacity [think BHP, S&W M&P, etc].
When we modify our mags, it seems that LEO look a bit suspiciously upon a follower change, or a mag block/limiter [that goes above baseplate and below follower- think a chunk of wood/plastic that stops the follower], unless there is a permanent epoxy/rivet/weld that prevents us from swapping back to the full capacity size.
Yet, I'd love what you are describing for the BHP!
I know that Glocks, for example, have the type of follower you are referring to. However, other companies have actually made a false-base, that reduces the tube capacity [think BHP, S&W M&P, etc].
When we modify our mags, it seems that LEO look a bit suspiciously upon a follower change, or a mag block/limiter [that goes above baseplate and below follower- think a chunk of wood/plastic that stops the follower], unless there is a permanent epoxy/rivet/weld that prevents us from swapping back to the full capacity size.
Yet, I'd love what you are describing for the BHP!
Look closely at the specific wording of the law. (and no, I don't know exactly what it says)
IF the words "permanent" are in there, that one thing, if the law is worded something like "containing over" or "capacity above" that's another.
Shotgun round limits (3 rnds) don't require anything permanent, as long as you cannot put more rounds in the gun than allowed (in the field) that meets the law. A piece of wood in the mag tube suffices.
Of course, that's a game law...
Do they? are you guys in CA being inspected by LEOs? Are there compliance checks? And has anyone been arrested and charged because of the LEO's suspicions?? Is there a written standard for what is and is not an acceptable method of permanently altering a magazine? Or is it left up to the whim of the administration of each jurisdiction?
Last year, WA passed (barely) a law requiring a background check for all transfers. That law is so poorly written that state agencies, including the State Patrol are refusing to enforce it, UNTIL the state provides them with a written standard for what is, and is not a transfer covered under the law. Which, to date (as far as I know) the state has not done.
If there's no written standard in the law, saying A is legal and B is not, LEOs can look suspiciously at you all day long, but they can't legally do anything about it.
IF there is no standard, then some poor fellow will eventually become the test case. After that, there will be a standard, and you'll have to live with whatever it is.
IF the words "permanent" are in there, that one thing, if the law is worded something like "containing over" or "capacity above" that's another.
Shotgun round limits (3 rnds) don't require anything permanent, as long as you cannot put more rounds in the gun than allowed (in the field) that meets the law. A piece of wood in the mag tube suffices.
Of course, that's a game law...
it seems that LEO look a bit suspiciously upon a follower change,...
Do they? are you guys in CA being inspected by LEOs? Are there compliance checks? And has anyone been arrested and charged because of the LEO's suspicions?? Is there a written standard for what is and is not an acceptable method of permanently altering a magazine? Or is it left up to the whim of the administration of each jurisdiction?
Last year, WA passed (barely) a law requiring a background check for all transfers. That law is so poorly written that state agencies, including the State Patrol are refusing to enforce it, UNTIL the state provides them with a written standard for what is, and is not a transfer covered under the law. Which, to date (as far as I know) the state has not done.
If there's no written standard in the law, saying A is legal and B is not, LEOs can look suspiciously at you all day long, but they can't legally do anything about it.
IF there is no standard, then some poor fellow will eventually become the test case. After that, there will be a standard, and you'll have to live with whatever it is.
If I change out the original follower to an after market and the mag only holds 10 from now on, then I've met the definition of the law as long as the new follower stays with that magazine "permanently". If I take the magazine apart it is no longer a magazine but parts. If I assemble the mag with the old follower, I've manufactured an illegal magazine. As long as I don't possess a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, I don't know why it wouldn't be legal under the new law as long as I don't go back to the original configuration in CA.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It depends on exactly what the language of the new law says.rc said:If I change out the original follower to an after market and the mag only holds 10 from now on, then I've met the definition of the law as long as the new follower stays with that magazine "permanently". If I take the magazine apart it is no longer a magazine but parts. If I assemble the mag with the old follower, I've manufactured an illegal magazine. As long as I don't possess a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, I don't know why it wouldn't be legal under the new law as long as I don't go back to the original configuration in CA.