Legal magazine modifications?

[HiBC]

I have a S+W M+P 9 C Its a short grip double stack ,I think 12 rds.

The 9mm M+P duty pistol holds 17 rds,standard.

I saw S+W factory M+P 15 rd mags for sale. Brownells,IIRC. I ordered.

Those fit the M+P 9C . They hold 15. As the mag tubes are Duty gun 17 round length, they project longer than the M+P 9 C grip frame. Pierce X-Grip makes a spacer that fills the gap. So its like having the M+P duty gun grip on the 9C.
Conceal with short mag,reload with 15 rds. OK.

Of course,I had to see how they did it. Remember this is a S+W factory 15 rd mag.
They did it with the spring.They wound the coils so approx 6 or 7 of the lower coils were wound so the wires are in contact,line to line with no compression room. It works. Mag disassembles/reassembles as normal. No extra parts.

Who knows,if you can get a S+W 15 round mag or spring you might be able to make it work.

 

[TunnelRat]

It also doesn't provide any indication as to whether or not the epoxy solution is accepted in any of the states that require a permanent modification. There are only about ten or so such states -- it wouldn't be difficult for the company to contact those states and find out definitively whether or not their product is approved. Magazine vendors don't seem to have any problem staying up to speed on which states they can ship standard capacity magazines to.

From what I can tell from this thread you yourself are getting the run around from authorities in your state as to what does or doesn’t meet the requirements for permanent modification. If you yourself are having that trouble with just one state, I don’t see how a company is going to have an easier time with 10 states. As for magazine vendors, it seems to me the total number of rounds a magazine can hold is more black and white than what counts as “permanent modification”, at least from what is described here, so I’m not sure that metaphor fits. I can tell you that I have friends that live in restricted states and they have had vendors refuse to do business with them on items that were legally allowed in that state simply because the vendor didn’t want to bother confirming legality. I’ve also watched those same friends accumulate “evidence” as to whether magazines were or weren’t preban based on what was essentially forum responses such as here. I always wondered how well that would hold up in court.

I wish you luck in finding someone to accept responsibility for making a decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I’ve also watched those same friends accumulate “evidence” as to whether magazines were or weren’t preban based on what was essentially forum responses such as here. I always wondered how well that would hold up in court.

Pre-ban magazines were legal under the old, now-expired federal AWB that was in effect from 1004 to 2004. During the ban, there was a thriving market in pre-ban magazines for Para-Ordnance pistols. It was easy to tell the difference -- the pre-bans were black, the post-bans were either nickel or stainless.

Unfortunately, what I'm dealing with now is a post-Sandy Hook state law. The only standard capacity magazines that are legal are those that were owned at the time the law was enacted and that have been registered with the State Police. So -- for me -- when the magazines were manufactured or purchased isn't a consideration. I had no 9mm double-stack Para magazines when the law went into effect, so I didn't register any. That means I cannot buy, rent, or borrow them now. Any new magazines I obtain have to be limited to 10 rounds.

 

[TunnelRat]

Pre-ban magazines were legal under the old, now-expired federal AWB that was in effect from 1004 to 2004. During the ban, there was a thriving market in pre-ban magazines for Para-Ordnance pistols. It was easy to tell the difference -- the pre-bans were black, the post-bans were either nickel or stainless.

Unfortunately, what I'm dealing with now is a post-Sandy Hook state law. The only standard capacity magazines that are legal are those that were owned at the time the law was enacted and that have been registered with the State Police. So -- for me -- when the magazines were manufactured or purchased isn't a consideration. I had no 9mm double-stack Para magazines when the law went into effect, so I didn't register any. That means I cannot buy, rent, or borrow them now. Any new magazines I obtain have to be limited to 10 rounds.

In the case of my friends in MA even though the federal AWB expired, they essentially still live under it through state law. They can have and buy/sell high capacity magazines as long as those magazines are preban, so before 1994. Like I said in their case they have to show that the magazines are preban. In some cases it’s easy (some current pistols didn’t even exist then). In other cases the evidence is based on the weld/seam pattern of magazines, types of followers and baseplates, all things that get pretty nuanced. The magazines were never registered or serialized to a user so the onus is on the user to prove legality.

I know this is an aside to your problem, but out of curiosity can people that owned and registered magazines when the ban was enacted sell those magazines to others? Also, given a magazine isn’t serialized how did they register them? Did the state police put serial numbers on the magazines?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill DeShivs]

REGISTER with the state police! Damn!

 

[44 AMP]

In the case of my friends in MA even though the federal AWB expired, they still live under it.

sort of. MA and several other states passed their own state laws that mimic the 94 Fed AWB, (minus the sunset provision), sometimes virtually verbatim, and sometimes slightly different in detail.

PLUS states have passed additions to their laws since the Fed AWB sunset in 2004.

SO the good people of MA are still living under the effect of the 94AWB (and even more, today) but its because of MA state law.

One of the things that was required by the Fed AWB that hi-cap mags have their mfg date stamped on them. Which made telling pre/post ban mags apart, easily. No date, pre ban.

But the same provision in a state law would, I suspect only be applicable if the mag was made in such a state.

Personally, I don't have a problem if they enhanced penalties for USING a high capacity magazine in a crime (I know, not realistic I guess) I just don't understand why, with all the other and more important things going on in the world, why such concern of ownership of a spring loaded metal or plastic box by people who are not committing crimes....

 

[TunnelRat]

SO the good people of MA are still living under the effect of the 94AWB (and even more, today) but its because of MA state law.

Given that we already covered that the federal ban expired I figured that was obvious, but I’ll edit the post for the less imaginative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Limnophile]

Consequent to the NYSRPA ruling, mag restrictions are clearly illegal. I wouldn't bother buying or making low cap mags.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Consequent to the NYSRPA ruling, mag restrictions are clearly illegal. I wouldn't bother buying or making low cap mags.

The NYSRPA v Bruen case was about "may issue" carry permits. It had nothing to do with magazine capacity limitations. Please explain how you think the case invalidates magazine capacity laws, and why you think our members who live in states with magazine capacity limits should risk felony convictions and lifetime firearms prohibitions by ignoring these laws.

 

[10-96]

I recently converted magazines and magazine releases for a gentleman I work with. He transferred out of Ca. and his firearms were bought in Ca. I was interested to see that the round limiter on his Sig PCC and H&K pistols were simply a plastic tab that resembles a tongue depressor that was epoxied to the bottom of the magazine follower. I get that is their industry standard that was apparently accepted by Ca. So why wouldn't it fly for you? And- who would dissect and inspect your magazines to that extent?

 

[44 AMP]

Consequent to the NYSRPA ruling, mag restrictions are clearly illegal. I wouldn't bother buying or making low cap mags.

That particular ruling has nothing to do with magazines, capacity, or any physical gun features, clearly or vaguely. IT is about the authority of govt to require special circumstances be shown in order to approve a permit.

While you might not bother making or buying "low cap mags", in those places where it is the law, it IS THE LAW.

And, it remains the law whether we like it or not, and whether we agree with it, or not, until and unless legislative action repeals the law, or applicable court action rules it invalid.

I get that is their industry standard that was apparently accepted by Ca. So why wouldn't it fly for you? And- who would dissect and inspect your magazines to that extent?

First point, CA is CA and what they choose to accept as being in compliance with their law, is their choice and not binding anywhere else. In this case, I imagaine it would come down to who makes the determination about what is, and is not a "permanent" alteration.

Second, the "who would dissect and inspect your magazines?" would be what ever laboratory the "evidence" is sent to for inspection/determination.

This is not going to be done in the field by the arresting officer, or their immediate supervisor. Remember what is under discussion here is not just how many rounds a magazine can physically hold, but also, and particularly, what constitutes a legal "permanent" modification in the eyes of the state.

NO COP will determine that. Nor will any lab tests. What the testing will determine is what the modification is, what and how it does what it does, and what it would take to remove it. THEN a court will rule if that meets the state legal standard, or not.

FOR example, a plastic tab limiting follower travel and that you could break off with your fingers COULD meed a state's requirement as "permanent" because in order to remove it, you have to break it off.

OR another state might rule that if it can not be removed by hand, and requires the use of tools, it would be considered permanent, and in compliance.

And yet another might require the use of shop tools/machine tools to remove it in order to comply with the law. Each state has their laws and their own definitions.

The OP's problem is that he wants to comply with the law, but cannot get the state to tell him what does and does not meet their requirements.

This may be the usual govt run-around, or it may even be because in this case, the state does not actually know what does or doesn't meet the intent of the law.

 

[Captain Nice]

A Personal Experience

Several years ago I purchased a Walther PPQ M2 Q5 for my son at a local gun shop. The gun was purchased and was to be registered in his name. We also live in a ten round limit state. Upon inspecting the gun at the store counter we noticed that the two magazines that came with the gun indicated a 15 round capacity. We questioned the counter clerk and he said " no problem the magazines have been modified to hold only ten rounds". Okay, so we purchased the gun with the two modified magazines. My son then took the gun to his local police headquarters to have the gun registered and placed on his license. The PO who inspected the gun and magazine remarked " oh you are law enforcement". My son said "no I'm not". The PO said "then why do you have a 15 round magazine". My son explained that the magazine had been modified by the store to hold only ten rounds. The PO then told my son modified or not he was in possession of a 15 round magazine which is a class E felony and promptly confiscated the magazine. The PO also told my son to dispose of any other 15 round magazines that came with the gun or face arrest. The PO was gracious enough to register the gun. We returned to the gun shop with the gun, bill of sale and remaining 15 round modified magazine and informed the clerk what had happened. The clerk shook his head in disbelief and took the magazine back and provided my son with two ten round magazines for the gun. The store was out a 15 round modified magazine and my son had encountered a close call with the law.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ The above shows us why we should not rely on gun store clerks for legal advice.

That said, I'm not in New York state. The law in my state specifically allows the use of magazines that have been "permanently" modified to hold no more than 10 rounds. The problem is that nobody seems able to clearly state what constitutes a "permanent" modification -- other than loading up the bottom of the mag tube with epoxy, but that would make it impossible to clean the magazine or to replace either the magazine spring or the follower.

Mec-Gar still makes 10-round magazines for the Para P18-9. They'll protrude a bit beyond the end of the magazine well, but that's probably the way I'll have to go to be safe.

 

[TunnelRat]

^^^ The above shows us why we should not rely on gun store clerks for legal advice.

The law in my state specifically allows the use of magazines that have been "permanently" modified to hold no more than 10 rounds. The problem is that nobody seems able to clearly state what constitutes a "permanent" modification

A problem I see here is not only should we not take legal advice from people in a gun store, but the people who are presumably the legal authorities may not even know themselves or be unwilling to commit to an answer, as you found out. And in both of these cases the user is making a concerted effort to obey the law. Good luck to the people who simply don’t know better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk