The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 19, 2013, 06:34 AM   #1
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 3,022
So, "which" mag is it, .223, or .50?

I don't own a .50 Beowulf upper.
But it's my understanding that they use standard .223 mags, with the 30 round .223 mag holding ten rounds of .50.

SO....
How do states with "high cap" mags now illegal, differentiate between the two?

I have seen nothing in legislation stating even that you must own a .50, to own a "ten round" .50 mag.

Loophole waiting for a lawsuit?
__________________
Custom Bent Bolts and Gunstocks for the Mosin-Nagant
www.biggorillagunworks.com
tobnpr is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 07:52 AM   #2
7n6
Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2013
Location: missouri
Posts: 48
Best excuse ever, no officer thats not for 30 rounds of 223 thats so I can hold ten rounds for my 50. See, not near as dangerous.
7n6 is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 07:58 AM   #3
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
The markings (if any) on the magazine may come into play as well.

If you have a thirty-round magazine that's marked "5.56 x 45", you own an AR chambered in that caliber, and you *don't* own one chambered in .50 Beowulf, then you're going to have a hard time supporting the claim that it's not a prohibited item.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 08:46 AM   #4
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
This is more of a legal question than a rifle question, so I'm going to ship this off to L&CR.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 09:51 AM   #5
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
The markings (if any) on the magazine may come into play as well.

If you have a thirty-round magazine that's marked "5.56 x 45", you own an AR chambered in that caliber, and you *don't* own one chambered in .50 Beowulf, then you're going to have a hard time supporting the claim that it's not a prohibited item.
Yeah, I thought that as well.
But, it all depends on how the law is actually written.

If there is no such requirement to own a weapon of that caliber, I can't see how "not" owning one at the time could be enforceable.

"I'm getting one next week (.50 upper)".

Just raising the issue for discussion, wondering if anyone has actually read the text of the law in jusrisdictions where "high capacity" mags are prohibited.

But more importantly, it goes to the issue of sales for the manufacturers.

What prevents a manufacturer, like Magpul, from continuing to sell ten round magazines " for the .50 Beowulf". None of the magazines I own are marked for caliber.
__________________
Custom Bent Bolts and Gunstocks for the Mosin-Nagant
www.biggorillagunworks.com
tobnpr is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 11:23 AM   #6
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,385
The question lies with the wording of the law. If it says "can hold more than x rounds" or "can be modified to hold more than x rounds," you could run into trouble.

It may not matter whether it's meant to hold 10 rounds of .50; if it can hold more than 10 rounds of .223, an enterprising prosecutor could make life difficult.

It's a big problem with laws seeking to place arbitrary limits on magazine size.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 11:40 AM   #7
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
The NY SAFE Act is a perfect example of this question. The lawmakers, through an act of near willful ignorance, included phrases like "which hold more than 7 rounds", with the intent to EXCLUDE pump and semi-auto shotguns, except that they didn't know that there are 1 3/4" 12ga shells, so those guns don't hold 7 rounds, they hold 11 and are therefore illegal.

Every law I've seen has been worded roughly the same way. There are no specifics about this or that caliber/cartridge. If it can hold more than "X", it is illegal. It wouldn't matter if the magazine was labeled ".50 Beuwolf ONLY! Do not use with .223/5.56 ammunition!". If it fits in a .223/5.56 gun and holds the ammo, it's illegal.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; March 20, 2013 at 04:58 PM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 09:59 PM   #8
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 3,022
Wasn't there a "show cause" order in NY, an injunction to take effect next month unless the State can convince the Court that the SAFE act is constitutional?

Sounds to me like it's going to be an embarrassment for Cuomo.
Heller limited regulation to unusually dangerous firearms not in common use, correct? I just can't see how that crapola can pass the smell test.
__________________
Custom Bent Bolts and Gunstocks for the Mosin-Nagant
www.biggorillagunworks.com
tobnpr is offline  
Old March 20, 2013, 04:48 PM   #9
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Depending on how it's written a .22 that holds ten .22lr but could hold a lot more .22 shorts might be a problem also. Or a a 10 shot .357 lever that holds 11 or 12 .38s, etc...
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old March 20, 2013, 06:08 PM   #10
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
sounds like a perfect excuse to purchase said 50 cal..ya think?
hermannr is offline  
Old March 20, 2013, 06:52 PM   #11
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
Stargazer65, most of the laws exempt rimfire. Edit- well tubular rimfire magazines attached to the rifle.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 20, 2013, 08:19 PM   #12
Nickel Plated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 540
I'm guessing that the fools who wrote these laws never even took it into consideration. I you mentioned .50 Beowulf to them, their response would be "Fifty-wha?" So this is something the law was never designed to even address and as such becomes a gray-area. Perhaps not necessarily illegal but something that can bite you in the ass if some prosecutor decides he doesn't like you.

This is what happens when you put gun regulation in the hands of people who know nothing about guns.
Nickel Plated is offline  
Old March 20, 2013, 08:45 PM   #13
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
You're also operating under the assumption that if they knew what it did, they'd think it was a mistake.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 20, 2013, 09:57 PM   #14
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
The question lies with the wording of the law. If it says "can hold more than x rounds" or "can be modified to hold more than x rounds," you could run into trouble.

It may not matter whether it's meant to hold 10 rounds of .50; if it can hold more than 10 rounds of .223, an enterprising prosecutor could make life difficult.

It's a big problem with laws seeking to place arbitrary limits on magazine size.

What I get concerned with are firearms that may have a mag that takes say 10 full size rounds, but that there has been/is/was a conversion to a smaller round, say 22LR. So, in that case, would a 10 round 40S&W mag that may hold over 7 or 10 rounds of a smaller caliber ammo, depending on the law reads (even if it doesn't feed, the rounds just fit in there somehow) be illegal?

Edit to add...

Also, are they speaking of an ammunition feeding device, or an actual "magazine"? If they are speaking of a "magazine" in the explosive term, we may all be in trouble...Every explosive magazine I have hever seen could hold thousands of rounds with no trouble at all, and room for an outhouse with at least a radio, if not color tv as well, to spare. Again, the terms and wording are important.

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; March 20, 2013 at 10:16 PM.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old March 21, 2013, 04:02 PM   #15
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,203
I'd say if you have a .223 lower and a magazine feeding .223/.50 Beowfulf, that could be considered constructive ownership or whatever it's called.

If you only had the .50 Beowulf I imagine you could prove it, but it the wording of the law still says "or can be converted to". In this case a conversion isn't even necessary
dakota.potts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09212 seconds with 9 queries