Jump to content
mikka1

Weird question on mag capacity and law...

Recommended Posts

So, no long preface or lengthy explanation - I know various topics of mag legality has been discussed million times before, but this one I've never personally heard about.

 

1) I have Glock 22 in 40 and Glock 19 in 9mm.

 

2) Glock 22 has a 15rd magazine for .40 and Glock 19 has a 15rd magazine for 9mm (both seem to be legal if used properly)...

 

3) Due to a relatively similar size of rounds, .40 Glock mags CAN be used to feed 9mm (reliability is out of the equation now, but I tried inserting G22 mag with some 9mm rounds to my G19 and I was able to continuously load and extract 9mm rounds from the chamber for maybe 10 times (and then I stopped).

 

4) And... due to the mag size and due to the fact that 9mm rounds are a bit smaller than .40 you can easily put MORE THAN 15 rounds of 9mm to G22 mags. Oops...

 

***

 

Speculating on what is said above, I can try to assume that everyone who has G22 with 15rd mags and any 9mm Glock (that will gladly accept mags from G22) might be a felon because of having a mag that can be practically used as a high-cap mag.

 

The law says:

 "Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm"

 

So, it only defines a large cap mag "in terms of operability" and says nothing about the caliber that is stamped on a mag or if it has been initially designed to hold that many rounds.

 

***

 

Common sense tells me that this is a complete BS and nobody is going to prosecute on the grounds of an experiment with feeding a wrong type of ammo from a mag, not designed to be used with this ammo. But I will be happy to hear your opinion on this and specifically some ideas on why this logic is wrong (that I definitely hope of)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should immediately dispose of those G22 magazines.  If you ship them to me, I will gladly use destroy them for you, for a small disposal fee.

 

Without any legal research or knowledge whatsoever*, I'd say that that little stamp of ".40" makes all the difference, as long as you're not [sitting and posting about] loading mags up with other calibers that fit and feed.  That whole "intent" thing.

 

 

 

 

 

*take from that whatever you will ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense tells me that this is a complete BS and nobody is going to prosecute on the grounds of an experiment with feeding a wrong type of ammo from a mag, not designed to be used with this ammo. But I will be happy to hear your opinion on this and specifically some ideas on why this logic is wrong (that I definitely hope of)...

 

I believe you got it right with your last paragraph.  I have observed the same thing as well, but I try not to lose too much sleep over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should immediately dispose of those G22 magazines.  If you ship them to me, I will gladly use destroy them for you, for a small disposal fee.

 

Without any legal research or knowledge whatsoever*, I'd say that that little stamp of ".40" makes all the difference, as long as you're not [sitting and posting about] loading mags up with other calibers that fit and feed.  That whole "intent" thing.

 

 

 

 

 

*take from that whatever you will ;)

 

I wholeheartedly agree, but that abstract from the law that I mentioned in my first post says exactly nothing about the type of ammo the mag is designed to hold (40 marking). It only says about feeding. Apart from that, if I'm not mistaken, my CZ75 mags have no stamps at all (that's in part why I confuse them with my SIG P226 mags sometimes), so I can in theory imagine a .40 mag without any caliber markings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mags for my baby eagle all steel from late 1980's the mags for 9mm, 40 and 41 AE  were all the same..  An extra mag i ordered came stamped 9mm and loaded 41AE fine and to the same amount.. When i called they explained to me that all 3 mags were the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree, but that abstract from the law that I mentioned in my first post says exactly nothing about the type of ammo the mag is designed to hold (40 marking). It only says about feeding. Apart from that, if I'm not mistaken, my CZ75 mags have no stamps at all (that's in part why I confuse them with my SIG P226 mags sometimes), so I can in theory imagine a .40 mag without any caliber markings...

 

 

you are correct.. no mention of how it is labeled.. the label is irrelevant per the law..

 

 

y. "Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.

 

does it hold more than 15 rounds? YES

can it be loaded into a semi auto firearm? YES

 

illegal..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make sure you have the 40 with you when you have those mags..

 

not sure they would check unless they read this thread..

 

doesnt matter what gun you have.. you can even have NO gun with you.. large capacity magazine violation has no relevance to having a specific gun or ANY gun for that matter..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vlad, thanks, now I can sleep better knowing that *by the letter of law* I'm a felon already, LOL :)

 

PK90, that's what I immediately thought about - get hi-cap mags for my 9mm CZ, engrave ".40" on them and feel like a smartie who cheated the system :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vlad, thanks, now I can sleep better knowing that *by the letter of law* I'm a felon already, LOL :)

 

PK90, that's what I immediately thought about - get hi-cap mags for my 9mm CZ, engrave ".40" on them and feel like a smartie who cheated the system :)

Just to be clear... My post was in fact genuine... And if you happen to have 15 round 40 s&w glock mags.. You are without question in violation of the law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear... My post was in fact genuine... And if you happen to have 15 round 40 s&w glock mags.. You are without question in violation of the law...

 

Yeah, mine as well, I really heard felons sleep better as they have at least one concern less in their lives :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of .40 mags will hold and feed 9mm, Are they reliable? Maybe for some.  is it legal?   You can answer that how ever you wish.

 

I know CZ ships magazines with 9mm / 16 on one side and 40 / 12 on the other.    EVen if you use those only in a 40 this state might still consider them high cap. I think its all in the printing LOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if Vlad's contention is correct then I guess the state now has grounds to shut down each and every gun store in the state that has ever sold a 15 round G22 magazine :(

 

We definitely need to spread the word to NY, CA, MD and other great states, as I *think* factory-made .40 Glock 10-rounders *may* hold 11+ rounds of 9mm :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We definitely need to spread the word to NY, CA, MD and other great states, as I *think* factory-made .40 Glock 10-rounders *may* hold 11+ rounds of 9mm :-)

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Slow down there buddy.  Before we start stirring up a hornet's nest and creating a panic solely on vlad's word (no disrespect to him),

it might be a good idea to see if anyone has ever been prosecuted for this.  Moreover, if they have not, why give this state ammunition (pun intended) to start going after legal gun owners for a technicality like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Slow down there buddy.  Before we start stirring up a hornet's nest and creating a panic solely on vlad's word (no disrespect to him),

it might be a good idea to see if anyone has ever been prosecuted for this.  Moreover, if they have not, why give this state ammunition (pun intended) to start going after legal gun owners for a technicality like that?

Come on, I'm joking :nyam:

I've personally always been on a side that mag cap restrictions are a joke for so many reasons, this is just one of them. I definitely don't want this thread (that I initially thought of mostly as a JOKE and illustration how BS the current regulation is) to grow into anything even remotely serious :jester:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, I'm joking :nyam:

I've personally always been on a side that mag cap restrictions are a joke for so many reasons, this is just one of them. I definitely don't want this thread (that I initially thought of mostly as a JOKE and illustration how BS the current regulation is) to grow into anything even remotely serious :jester:

Laugh if you want to but in this case it's a shame you have so much time on your hands, lol.  But, alas, you're certainly NOT the first .40 caliber owner that brainstormed THIS one....  and yet I see NO evidence of mass-arrests being made, 4473's being confiscated, or any sign of ze Gestapo going house-to-house.  So we'll all rest easy........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, I'm joking :nyam:

I've personally always been on a side that mag cap restrictions are a joke for so many reasons, this is just one of them. I definitely don't want this thread (that I initially thought of mostly as a JOKE and illustration how BS the current regulation is) to grow into anything even remotely serious :jester:

 

Whew, I'm relieved to hear that.  But I got a little concerned because vladtepes took you quite seriously (I think, unless he was joking as well).

 

And you're absolutely correct, the whole thing is utter BS.  Government creates mag limits because they assume that people who own guns could snap at any time and turn into mass killers, totally neglecting the fact that they (legal gun owners) would be far more likely to be acting in self defense, and could well need the additional rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vladtepes is correct on the law as it is written, but I doubt that we will ever see someone charged for having a G22 mag alone, or with a G22 pistol. Perhaps if one were to have a G17 pistol and a G22 mag alone, then yes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Slow down there buddy.  Before we start stirring up a hornet's nest and creating a panic solely on vlad's word (no disrespect to him),

it might be a good idea to see if anyone has ever been prosecuted for this.  Moreover, if they have not, why give this state ammunition (pun intended) to start going after legal gun owners for a technicality like that?

 

 

not my word... read the law..

 

does a 15 round 40 S&W magazine hold more than 15 rounds of 9mm... YES

will that mag loaded with more than 15 rounds of 9mm fit into  9mm glock and function.. YES

 

without any question in my mind.. as the law is written.. it is a large capacity magazine... and at that point.. it is illegal to own in NJ.. no interpretation needed.. the law is clear as could be on this..

 

 

y. "Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vladtepes is correct on the law as it is written, but I doubt that we will ever see someone charged for having a G22 mag alone, or with a G22 pistol. Perhaps if one were to have a G17 pistol and a G22 mag alone, then yes.

Even worse for those with a g22 and a conversion barrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are basic rules of statutory construction that are applied when an issue is raised concerning the interpretation and application of a statute. Statutes are not supposed to be construed to reach absurd results or results contrary to legislative intention. I doubt this issue was ever discussed or considered when the statute was adopted or if there is any legislative intent or history on the issue. The statute although not expressly stating that the limit assumes that the magazines are loaded with the caliber of ammo they were designed for only makes sense if interpreted that way, otherwise, as others have pointed out standard 15 round 40 cal mags would be illegal, as they can hold more than 15 rounds of 9mm and would not be permitted to be sold in NJ, which of course, they are. Literal interpretations of statutes are only done, where absurd results are not reached. Clearly, if you use 40 round mags to file 9mm, you should not be loading more than 15 rounds, and if you do, you do it at your own peril. Frankly, as this is a public forum, and can be viewed by anyone, why would anyone want to give the State of N.J. more ideas on how to screw us? I am all in favor of vigorous debate, but where the debate takes place, in some instances should be in non public sections of this website, where those given access can be pre-screened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are basic rules of statutory construction that are applied when an issue is raised concerning the interpretation and application of a statute. Statutes are not supposed to be construed to reach absurd results or results contrary to legislative intention. I doubt this issue was ever discussed or considered when the statute was adopted or if there is any legislative intent or history on the issue. The statute although not expressly stating that the limit assumes that the magazines are loaded with the caliber of ammo they were designed for only makes sense if interpreted that way, otherwise, as others have pointed out standard 15 round 40 cal mags would be illegal, as they can hold more than 15 rounds of 9mm and would not be permitted to be sold in NJ, which of course, they are. Literal interpretations of statutes are only done, where absurd results are not reached. Clearly, if you use 40 round mags to file 9mm, you should not be loading more than 15 rounds, and if you do, you do it at your own peril. Frankly, as this is a public forum, and can be viewed by anyone, why would anyone want to give the State of N.J. more ideas on how to screw us? I am all in favor of vigorous debate, but where the debate takes place, in some instances should be in non public sections of this website, where those given access can be pre-screened.

 

because right or wrong... the law does not offer any clarity on what is to be assumed.. if your assumption was correct "Clearly, if you use 40 round mags to file 9mm, you should not be loading more than 15 rounds, and if you do, you do it at your own peril." then you could buy a 30 round AR15 mag "marked" for 50 Beowolf and simply only load 15 rounds and be well within the "spirit" of the law.. and we all know how far you would get with that argument... Gun laws were written by people that have no concept of firearms.. and what we wish the law meant... what we assume as logical.. is simply not.. in fact there is even a written clarification floating around somewhere that states that ANY large cap mag that is modified in a less than permanent capacity is STILL unacceptable.. this IMO shows that the intent is to directly ban ANY mag that could in ANY way feed more than 15 rounds..

 

if a 30 round mag blocked to 15 is unacceptable based on the notion that it COULD be reversed...

a 15 round mag that could readily feed over 15 rounds of a different caliber.. is certainly equally unacceptable.. as the result is the same.. a mag that COULD at some point.. readily feed over 15 rounds..

 

the law is clear.. in that it states what it states..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...