Repairing freedom week mags

[treelogger]

And from our (sometimes friend) Mr AI:
...

I wonder where the AI got that information from. That quote makes some statements that are too definitive.

Don't ask, don't tell.

The jails are full of people who thought they wouldn't get caught.

 

[cali_jazz]

I wonder where the AI got that information from. That quote makes some statements that are too definitive.

They cited 11 sources including CPRA. Of course AI makes mistakes. Any particular statement you think is too definitive?

 

[Hit Factor]

Are the different groups (USPSA, IDPA, et. al.) not limiting everything to 10+1 in California? I thought that's what all of their rule books say about limited capacity states.

Ummm . . . Yeah! Of Course!

 

[lactoast]

Law enforcement typically focuses on violent crime, illegal firearms, prohibited possession, etc

An otherwise law abiding citizen with an 11+ mag is not on anyone’s radar, freedom week or not.

People on this forum will bean count the law until the sun explodes but the reality is no one cares what you do with your magazines if you aren’t a dirtbag.

Sure, but let’s not pretend that the state (generally speaking, not just CA specific) can’t change its tune as it sees fit. It’s not like there aren’t examples in history of the state persecuting and violating the rights of those you and I would not consider “dirtbags.”

Of course, if they really wanted to go after you or a particular group, they’ll find some kind of excuse, law-abiding or not. I also don’t think the vast majority of LEOs give any about a random citizen having 10+ round mags, I’m just personally risk averse in that area

 

[tenemae]

Any particular statement you think is too definitive?

Yup

1. Changing the Baseplate for Use in a Different Gun
You can generally replace parts of a lawfully owned magazine for repair or maintenance purposes. However, using parts to "re-manufacture" a magazine into a different configuration can be legally risky:

What is the source for this?
32310 (b) is very clear in its text, though unclear in its intent as it seems completely unreasonable

(b) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.

If I took a magazine apart to clean it, then reassembled it, It sounds like I am violating the text of the law. It sounds like I can be arrested for this, though I agree it's probably highly unlikely.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Isn’t it about time to tell California to go pound sand and just do what we need without posing ridiculous questions about asking for the states consent? If Canadians can do it, I think we can.

 

[jkcerda]

I don't even look legal so..............

 

[Deleted member 11316]

How many beans was it guys

 

[cali_jazz]

Yup

What is the source for this?
32310 (b) is very clear in its text, though unclear in its intent as it seems completely unreasonable

If I took a magazine apart to clean it, then reassembled it, It sounds like I am violating the text of the law. It sounds like I can be arrested for this, though I agree it's probably highly unlikely.

That statement is an original summary of California firearms law provided by this AI to explain the legal distinction between "repair" and "manufacturing."
It is not a direct quote from a single statute, but rather a synthesis of two conflicting legal concepts within the California Penal Code:

• The Right to Repair: Under California law, owners of legally possessed "large-capacity" magazines (such as those acquired during "Freedom Week" in 2019) are permitted to maintain and repair them. This includes replacing worn-out springs, followers, or damaged baseplates with identical or functional replacement parts.
• The Prohibition on Manufacturing (PC 32310): California law strictly prohibits the "manufacturing" of large-capacity magazines. The California Department of Justice has historically argued that if you use parts to create a magazine that did not exist before—such as changing a baseplate to make a magazine fit a completely different firearm—you have "manufactured" a new large-capacity magazine rather than simply "repairing" an old one.

The "legally risky" label is used because California statutes do not explicitly define where "repair" ends and "manufacturing" begins. Prosecutors could argue that changing the configuration to fit a different gun constitutes the creation of a new, prohibited item.

 

[tenemae]

Relying on right to repair when breaking statuatory text to repair an illegal item sounds like a defense I wouldn't want to test in court. Again, this is pendantic seeing as nobody will know unless a cop is standing in your garage and watching you do this- and even then he probably wouldn't care.
But the OP asked a question about legality (I think? It was so long ago) and that is a pendantic matter. Just because the cop doesn't enforce the law doesn't mean it's legal.
I wouldn't personally hesitate to disassemble and reassemble a 30 rounder. I _would_ hesitate to order repair parts online (specifically a kit, a mag body, or an extended plate). If it's a matter of replacing a spring, standard baseplate, or follower, I'd by a 10 rounder and swap parts. Not that I've had to do that yet, nor do I specifically intend to

 

[2muchsoysauce4allthisrice]

Are the different groups (USPSA, IDPA, et. al.) not limiting everything to 10+1 in California? I thought that's what all of their rule books say about limited capacity states.

Ummm . . . Yeah! Of Course!

For SCSA which utilizes rules from USPSA rule book, Production division (bone stock Oem running on irons crew) use to be 10 but the newer/more current rules is technically 15 from what I remember reading.

 

[five.five-six]

If a person lawfully acquired standard cap mags during Freedom Week replacing components to maintain function without increasing capacity is should be understood as repair or maintenance rather than "manufacturing" IMHO.

Minor fitment adjustments should also be viewed as working on the same magazine rather than creating a new one.

I'm confident SCOTUS will rule on the issue of mag capacity first and will force CA to back down.

I am new here and noticed your post received a facepalm reaction:
View attachment 173732
This to me is oppressive Reddit culture virtue signaling. I think your question is worth asking vs shunning. These forums exist because Reddit is too oppressive to allow these discussions and trade to exist right? I find the irony that this is a 2a community hilarious.

CA firearms law is complex and frequently litigated and questions like yours are reasonable and worth discussing.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if someone was to obtain a 11 round magazine during freedom week, I don’t see any reason they couldn’t put a different base plate on it that turned it into a 500 round magazine.

 

[five.five-six]

For SCSA which utilizes rules from USPSA rule book, Production division (bone stock Oem running on irons crew) use to be 10 but the newer/more current rules is technically 15 from what I remember reading.

When I play USPSA, I play single stack major. I think I spend more time picking up my magazines then I do running the stage lol

 

[weaverftw]

Are the different groups (USPSA, IDPA, et. al.) not limiting everything to 10+1 in California? I thought that's what all of their rule books say about limited capacity states.

No, from what I’ve read everyone uses standard cap mags unless the division otherwise restricts it. I guess I’ll find out when I go to my first class and match this month.

 

[Hit Factor]

No, from what I’ve read everyone uses standard cap mags unless the division otherwise restricts it. I guess I’ll find out when I go to my first class and match this month.

We got all our magazines during Freedom Week. All of them. The sooner you learn that the better off we’ll all be, including the LEOs on your squad. Better yet, don’t even mention it. No one cares.

 

[Mil-Dot]

So just a thought experiment here. If one has freedom week mags (or other lawfully possessed standard cap mags from years ago) and they were to replace the base plates or other part, would that then constitute illegal manufacturing of a hi cap mag? Would that change if the part replaced was for maintenance or actually repairing something that was broken? I assume if the change increased capacity at all that it would be a no no, but what if it’s just maintaining the same capacity?

Other scenario: you have freedom week mags that are compatible with a new firearm (say, Glock mags for a staccato), but they don’t quite seat right unless you swap the base plate with a different version (or require light sanding of the plate to remove an edge that gets in the way of the mag well). Would such a modification to allow use in a new gun constitute manufacturing a new hi cap mag? Or does lawful ownership of the mag already put you in the clear?

Do what you want to your stuff to make it work bro. Stop overthinking.

 

[Punkur67]

My scenario is having an existing lawfully owned “high capacity” 15rd mag. Can I change the baseplate to allow it to be used in a different gun but keep the capacity the same? Can I change the baseplate to increase to 19rds since it’s already “high capacity”?

If your worried about it some companies make +0 basepads.

 

[weaverftw]

We got all our magazines during Freedom Week. All of them. The sooner you learn that the better off we’ll all be, including the LEOs on your squad. Better yet, don’t even mention it. No one cares.

Yeah the last 2 sentences were kinda what I was planning on. The thread is more just for my own technical knowledge on the letter of the law

 

[Sloat]

Are the different groups (USPSA, IDPA, et. al.) not limiting everything to 10+1 in California? I thought that's what all of their rule books say about limited capacity states.

IDPA is 10 round (or less for BUG/REV) except for the PCC division. USPSA is not limited to any round count, and no USPSA clubs in the Bay Area have round counts as part of their local rules (which the USPSA rules allow them to do as you point out). There are specific divisions that people without freedom week mags can compete in without a magazine penalty, most notably Single Stack and Limited-10, but those are pretty unpopular divisions (especially L10). The vast majority of USPSA shooters are in Carry Optics or Limited, generally with 22-24 round freedom week mags that fit in the 140mm size limit.