Large .22 magazines in California

[SixShootinSam]

Howdy,
I'm sure most of you know of the many silly laws in California, one of them being that you can't use a magazine that has a capacity more than 10 rounds.
However I was reading the AG website today and saw this part in it:

(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any
ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it
cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action
firearm.

Now, forgive me for being cautious of this lawyer talk, but does this mean that .22 magazines are exempt from the 10 round law?

 

[rantingredneck]

Only tube magazines such as on the Marlin Model 60 or the like.

30 rounders for the 10/22 are still not OK.

 

[3pairs12]

it doesn't seem that way to me. it seems to read .22cal equiped with a tube mag. Not detachable mag. But i dont know.

 

[rantingredneck]

The marlin 60 in it's original configuration held 18 rounds. Newer versions have shorter magazines with I believe 15 or 14. I don't know, mine's 18.

 

[tube_ee]

Only if they're tube-fed.

Vertical-feed (or horizontal, from the side, if there are such a thing) magazines are limited to 10 rounds.

So a Marlin Model 60 can hold 18 rounds, but a Ruger 10/22 cannot.

--Shannon

 

[SixShootinSam]

Thanks for the quick reply, I pretty much expected it to be so.
Now what of the 30 rounders that people have had in possession since before 2001? Equally illegal I suppose?

 

[kcmarine]

Let me just sum this up...


VERBOTEN!!! SHNICKELHIVEN SAVENHORTAN!!! SEIG HEIL!!!


That is all.

 

[esmith]

If your doubting a gun law in California odds are you are thinking far too much about firearms related things and should be imprisoned ASAP, if not put on death row.

 

[SixShootinSam]

I know a few people here that have their California gun case, and then they have the "secret" gun case .
It's just a bit hard to be aware of ALL the gun laws, every time I go out shooting I nervously look around because I never know if I'm breaking the law or not!

 

[Mike 56]

In Ca possession of hi capacity mags is legal importing, selling, loaning, or trading is illegal.

Mike

 

[railroader]

If you had your hicap mags prior to 1/1/2000 in california you can use them in rimfire or centerfire firearms. You can also rebuild those mags as need be. Mark

 

[ArmedBear]

To the best of my knowledge, this provision of the law was added when the California "assault weapon" ban was found to ban "not-so-scary" guns like the Marlin 60 and 39, the Browning SA22 and BL22, Henry lever rifles, Remington 552 and 572, etc., as well as some longer-barreled centerfire lever guns. Some of the more rational voices in the legislature introduced this change to the law, and it was passed.

It would have made more sense to simply allow rimfires of all sorts to have larger magazines, but this was all done while the Federal AWB was still in effect, so it was mostly a moot point at the time. Nobody had produced, say, 30-round 10/22 magazines in years.

This law, then, is not intended to apply to anything but tube magazines as we know them, as on the guns listed above.

Now, I've long thought that, if someone can figure out how to make a working tube magazine for the 10/22, it might meet the letter of the law (many of us have perfectly-legal AR-15s also, that meet the letter of the "assault weapons" law). It might be ugly, but the law doesn't require it to be pretty.

 

[hirundo82]

The marlin 60 in it's original configuration held 18 rounds. Newer versions have shorter magazines with I believe 15 or 14. I don't know, mine's 18.

The Marlin 60's capacity was reduced to 14+1 a number of years back to make it legal in New Jersey, where the mag capacity limit is 15 and there is no exception for tube-fed rimfire guns as there is in California.