Magazine Plugs

[peter_nh]

I've seen these things listed on *bay, for reducing the capacity of a magazine, say from 12 rounds to 10 rounds.
Its just a printed plastic plug that goes under the spring in the magazine.
Would these be considered legal in MA for getting magazine down to 10 rounds?

 

[G4Y4HK]

I've seen these things listed on *bay, for reducing the capacity of a magazine, say from 12 rounds to 10 rounds.
Its just a printed plastic plug that goes under the spring in the magazine.
Would these be considered legal in MA for getting magazine down to 10 rounds?

If you can remove it and make it 'high capacity' again, in MA that's STRAIGHT TO JAIL. It needs to be permanently modified. Pin and welded probably works. Not sure if epoxying it in place would.

 

[SparkyP]

Epoxy or rivet is the usual advice. If it's removable without drilling, it's not kosher.

 

[MAJoe]

What others said. It needs to be pretty much permanent and there’s the new “constructive possession” language which means you have a banned mag if you have the old parts to convert it back.

You’re better off buying factory 10 round mags. They’ll be more reliable and you can easily take them apart to clean and fix.

 

[peter_nh]

OK, thanks, new mags it is then!
Expoying or riveting these things in place would pretty much make it impossible to dissemble the mag in the future for cleaning, etc.

 

[Darkslide]

You can hot glue it, then if you want to remove it in the future, just use a little heat. I heard this from a cop at the range.

 

[whatluck]

You can get fitted for a plug by a specialist there's people on NES that offer the service. The advantage of doing it this way as you can get it done in custom colors to match your shoes and purse.

 

[nordic alien]

do it legally unless you want the the healy special edition

 

[TJ4]

You can get fitted for a plug by a specialist there's people on NES that offer the service. The advantage of doing it this way as you can get it done in custom colors to match your shoes and purse.

I read that a tampon soaked in epoxy is considered a legit mod to reduce mag capacity.

 

[whatluck]

I read that a tampon soaked in epoxy is considered a legit mod to reduce mag capacity.

 

[Asaltweapon]

do it legally unless you want the the healy special edition

That’s no fleshlight.

 

[TJ4]

That’s no fleshlight.

No, but it is meant to explore the darkest of dark places!

 

[CrackPot]

There are a couple styles of mag block. The ones you describe are ADDED to the magazine and are easily removed. These would require at a minimum epoxy or hot glue to stop the mag from being opened and the block removed w/o tools.

Another style is one that replaces the internal baseplate with one of height. If you then remove it, the magazine falls apart and is not functional. This is what we use to limit magazine capacity as it is not readily convertible to a LCFD since it will fall apart. For belt and suspender folks, they can still epoxy these...

In the end, you have to decide your own risk. I feel comfortable with the ones that replace the internal baseplate. Others may not.

 

[peter_nh]

Glad that I did not ask about gun lubes

 

[Dennis in MA]

This is the only pug magazine you're allowed in mASS.

 

[rewster]

You can hot glue it, then if you want to remove it in the future, just use a little heat. I heard this from a cop at the range.

So ! That's ONE cop that won't arrest YOU !!!

 

[Agnotology]

So it's not a matter of it requiring "tools" to convert it back?

 

[pastera]

So it's not a matter of it requiring "tools" to convert it back?

No, it must require a non-trivial permanent modification.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Anyone declaring what meets the requirements is just guessing, despite the common sense basis of their argument. It is easy to give advice on how to take a cautious path, but absent court decisions or a more specific legislative definition, one cannot definitively know.

As to "What is sufficient?" - nobody knows where the line is. Suppose a mag uses a plug, but the full length spring is not available for purchase? Is that readily convertable?

And what if it requires drilling something out? Or milling out the indentation in the side of a metal magazine? How much drilling/cutting crosses the line to make it "acceptable"?

And what if something is glued but the glue can be removed by an industrial solvent or the hot melt glue trick as mentioned earlier.

A real example:

High cap magazines are sometimes made compliant by the body of the magazine being made with an indentation preventing the follower from going down the tube past a specific point. Some manufacturers take this one step further by cutting the magazine body so that the mag wil fall apart of someone uses a dremmel with a cutting wheel to remove the indentation. Is this second step necessary for compliance?

And what if the conversion requires a different part? For example, suppose a manufacturer uses springs with the lower half embedded in a plastic block that fills the mag so it cannot take more than 10 rounds? Does the fact that the magazine cannot be converted without adding another part render it compliant?

 

[pastera]

Anyone declaring what meets the requirements is just guessing, despite the common sense basis of their argument. It is easy to give advice on how to take a cautious path, but absent court decisions or a more specific legislative definition, one cannot definitively know.

As to "What is sufficient?" - nobody knows where the line is. Suppose a mag uses a plug, but the full length spring is not available for purchase? Is that readily convertable?

And what if it requires drilling something out? Or milling out the indentation in the side of a metal magazine? How much drilling/cutting crosses the line to make it "acceptable"?

And what if something is glued but the glue can be removed by an industrial solvent or the hot melt glue trick as mentioned earlier.

A real example:

High cap magazines are sometimes made compliant by the body of the magazine being made with an indentation preventin the follower from going down the tube past a specific point. Some manufacturers take this one step further by cutting the magazine body so that the mag wil fall apart of someone uses a dremmel with a curring wheel to remove the indentation. Is this second step necessary for compliance?

And what if the conversion requires a different part? For example, suppose a manufacturer uses springs with the lower hald embedded in a plastic block that fills the mag so it cannot take more than 10 rounds? Does the fact that the magazine cannot be converted without adding another part render it compliant?

Most of those questions would be easily answered by an expert at trial.
How free can you afford to be?
Crippled mags are cheaper than a trial.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Most of those questions would be easily answered by an expert at trial.
How free can you afford to be?
Crippled mags are cheaper than a trial.

Nope. An expert, for either side, can provide an opinion.

The answer is provided by what the court, or jury, accepts after hearing testimony (including that from experts). Whether this sets a binding precedent is determined by the level of the court.

I have a bit more than average familiarity of the expert witness process, since my wife spends a considerable amount of time as an expert witness (not firearms though).

As to trial - if this issue comes up it will probably be solved in a non-precedent setting manner (CWOF, plea bargain), so don't hold your breath for a precedent.

 

[pastera]

Nope. An expert, for either side, can provide an opinion.

The answer is provided by what the court, or jury, accepts after hearing testimony (including that from experts). Whether this sets a binding precedent is determined by the level of the court.

I have a bit more than average familiarity of the expert witness process, since my wife spends a considerable amount of time as an expert witness (not firearms though).

As to trial - if this issue comes up it will probably be solved in a non-precedent setting manner (CWOF, plea bargain), so don't hold your breath for a precedent.

I should have been more clear
The only answers that matter are the "experts" in court.
And the state has their own along with a very heavy thumb on the scales.
So the question becomes can you afford to out spend the law government in order to buy a sliver of justice?
Very few can.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I should have been more clear
The only answers that matter are the "experts" in court.
And the state has their own along with a very heavy thumb on the scales.
So the question becomes can you afford to out spend the law government in order to buy a sliver of justice?
Very few can.

The question is often "Are you willing to risk PP status by going to trial if offered a CWOF, or prison if offered a no jail/prison time but lifetime PP status deal?". People who refuse plea deals are often severely punished for the impudence of demanding a trial.

The court may also consider questions about what is "readily convertable" as a matter of law when giving jury instructions, leaving the expert's role to explaining what tools, parts or skills are necessary for a conversion.

I have seen a regular pattern in criminal cases:
- Defendant declares they are innocent, will never cop a plea, and will go to trial
- Time passes as the case and retainer refreshes drag on
- Defendant tells his/her friends about the great plea deal their attorney negotiated for them
and, in one case where the above played out:
- Federal government sends defendant a presidential pardon certificate suitable for framing

I've also seen attorney talk about how they will never cop a plea at the state later talk about how skillful they were at negotiating a plea deal.

 

[ackwaves]

Any opinion on whether a high cap magazine case without spring, base plate or follower, would be considered a magazine (without any of those in possession to imply constructive possession)?

 

[PappyM3]

Yes, nobody has an authoritative answer on what is okay, but let’s at least use the actual text for reference. Then people can make up their own mind based off the actual wording.

“”Large capacity feeding device”, (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells; or (ii) any part or combination of parts from which a device can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or control of the same person; provided, however, that “large capacity feeding device” shall not include: (a) any device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells; (b) an attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or (c) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm or on a pump shotgun.”

Any opinion on whether a high cap magazine case without spring, base plate or follower, would be considered a magazine (without any of those in possession to imply constructive possession)?

Part (ii) above is relevant to your question. It kind of sounds like one part would be okay if you don’t have all the parts necessary to assemble. But if you had all the parts necessary to complete the magazine, it would be illegal. So if you have a PMAG 30 round body, but nothing else, you’re good.

It is important to notice that it does specify “part” OR a combination of parts. So I take that to mean if you have a single part that could turn a magazine into greater than 10 rounds, then it would be illegal.

But as mentioned previously, this is all my opinion. Just make sure to use the actual law in your calculus/decision.

 

[ackwaves]

Appreciate this. That was my interpretation as well, but wanted to run it by the more experienced members here.

 

[TomMalthus]

"any device that has been permanently altered . . . "

We would need the legal definition of permanent for this law to answer the question.

Some of the suggestions in this thread are educated wishes.

 

[PappyM3]

"any device that has been permanently altered . . . "

We would need the legal definition of permanent for this law to answer the question.

Some of the suggestions in this thread are educated wishes.

It doesn’t even need to be permanent. Just not “readily converted”. But yes, still a grey area without caselaw.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Any opinion on whether a high cap magazine case without spring, base plate or follower, would be considered a magazine (without any of those in possession to imply constructive possession)?

Opinion, yes.

Definitive ruling, no.

 

[Dench]

You can find the solution to this problem over at uhaul.