Hello, this is my 1st post as a member of the forum.  I was stationed in Hawaii (USN) from 1989 to 1999 and was a home based FFL from 90-94.  I'm living in WA now.  I searched a bit but did not find the answer to the questions I have.

In the early 90's after the assault pistol ban was passed I modified my Browning Hi-power, P14-45 and AR-15 magazines to hold ten rounds to be in compliance with 138-8.

(c) The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds which are designed for or capable of use with a pistol is prohibited. This subsection shall not apply to magazines originally designed to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition which have been modified to accept no more than ten rounds and which are not capable of being readily restored to a capacity of more than ten rounds.

 

The problem was no one I talked to knew what readily restored meant.  One of the larger gun dealers in Honolulu told me that most people just inserted a spacer above the mag base plate and riveted it in place.  They also said the police refused to define the law and were waiting to see what the courts said.  In other words when someone was arrested for an improperly modified mag, then we might find out what is legal and what is not.

One low volume dealer told me he just turned over the mag parts to his customer as the law did not apply to mag parts.  During a BATFE compliance inspection I asked the agent what he thought about the spacer riveted to the base plate method; he thought it was a legal way to modify the mags.  I did see Colt five round mags for sale after the ban which were the usual 20-rounds mags with the spacer spot welded to the sides.

Anyway, I'm involved in a gun control debate on an anti-gun forum I belong to.  I and a few others fight the good fight there and try to educate people on gun control laws.  I'm being told on a regular basis that I'm breaking the law because silencers, short barreled shotguns/rifles blah blah blah are illegal in the USA.  My latest argument is about how I modified my magazines while in Hawaii. 

I'm being told by a anti-gun zealot that a magazine with a riveted spacer on the base plate can still be readily restored to original capacity even though I have to cut metal (with a drill bit) to take the spacer out.  Did Hawaii law enforcement ever come out with any guidelines at all concerning modification of magazines?  Was there ever any court case that settled the issue?  Was anyone ever arrested for possession of an improperly altered magazine?

If this has been addressed on the forum in the past please give me a link.    Thanks.

Ranb

Hi,

The common definition of "readily" is "without delay or difficulty; easily."

The best interpretation I've read concerning that phrase is, if it requires the use of a tool, then restoring the mag to standard capacity can not be readily completed.

You can buy mag limiters to block a Magpul 20 rd to 10 rds, but if you only insert the limiter and do nothing else, it's capable of being readily changed back by removing the base plate and replacing the original parts.

I've seen videos of some taking a gas block pin, cutting it in half, and inserting it into the mag plate and base so it can't be removed.  This way, they can remove the pin & base plate with some effort to do maintenance or repair/replace parts.

The gun shops that do mag blocking may use more permanent measures, like using epoxy to attach the mag plate to the base.  That makes cleaning harder and repairs all but impossible.

As far as I know (which isn't much) nobody has been charged with that violation.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

For handgun mags, I've only ever seen a plexiglas spacer (probably 1/8" thick by maybe 1/2" - 3/4" wide) epoxied to the baseplate and fits in the mag spring coil below the follower.  My standard cap CZ and PPQ mags are blocked like that. 

No confirmation of legality or documentation from HPD though. . .

One of my Beretta mags has this modified follower.  Though you could swap out followers and be a felon.



Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk

For handgun mags, I've only ever seen a plexiglas spacer (probably 1/8" thick by maybe 1/2" - 3/4" wide) epoxied to the baseplate and fits in the mag spring coil below the follower.  My standard cap CZ and PPQ mags are blocked like that. 

No confirmation of legality or documentation from HPD though. . .

When I bought my XDM that's how the gun shop had the mags blocked.

For handgun mags, I've only ever seen a plexiglas spacer (probably 1/8" thick by maybe 1/2" - 3/4" wide) epoxied to the baseplate and fits in the mag spring coil below the follower.  My standard cap CZ and PPQ mags are blocked like that. 

Did the local dealer in Hawaii modify the magazines themselves?

No confirmation of legality or documentation from HPD though. . .

Here in WA I was tasked with installing noise abatement at a local range.  In WA before 2011 it was a gross misdemeanor to use any device or contrivance to suppress the noise of a firearm; RCW 9.41.250(c).  Whether this only applied to screw on silencers or to buildings, berms, overhead baffles and ear plugs was anyone's guess.  The day after I installed a bench mounted muffler (a large box) into which the rifle shooter inserted the barrel, I was contacted by the county prosecuting attorney saying my box was illegal to use.  I had to talk one of my legislators into obtaining an opinion from the Attorney General saying it was not illegal to reduce noise at a rifle range with a bench mounted muffler.  The BATFE also agreed.

So has anyone in Hawaii ever got one of their legislators to ask the AG exactly what the words "readily restore" mean?

Did the local dealer in Hawaii modify the magazines themselves?

No.  I've bought two guns with standard capacity mags from two different LGS.  I both cases, they sent the mags out to someone else locally to block them.  Don't know who ended up doing the work though, but I believe each shop used someone different. 

AG will not define for you.  It's against their policy.  I called once to see what "residence" was defined as.   HPD will tell you to call AG.

But basically, as long as it's blocked in some manner, you're probably ok.  It's an add on charge if anything.  As in  you used your weapon to shoot someone/thing else illegally.  And if the gun was used illegally, then mag limits are the least of your problems.

So has anyone in Hawaii ever got one of their legislators to ask the AG exactly what the words "readily restore" mean?

AG will not define for you.  It's against their policy.  I called once to see what "residence" was defined as.   HPD will tell you to call AG.

HPD and the AG has thus far declined and/or refused to give a legal meaning to the words  "readily restore". I can't find any government entity in the country that has either. Once they do, it's pigeon holed and a legal definition and they lose the ability to make it up as they go along. They also refuse to define a detachable magazine. California and Maryland have both defined them but Hawaii refuses to so they can mostly prevent AR pistols from coming in. (They confiscated one this past year). A couple of guys I know have AR pistols but had to weld the magazine to the lower per the direction of HPD. I don't know how HPD got away with that since they are not supposed to make interpretation of the law, just enforce as written and if not written, obtain direction from the AG. But then it's a circular argument...


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

AG will not define for you.  It's against their policy.  I called once to see what "residence" was defined as.   HPD will tell you to call AG.

The AG works for the State departments and legislature.   You can ask your legislator to get a definition.

I'd advise against it cause you'll get an answer you (and everyone) won't like.

Legislator?  As in my district rep?

Legislator?  As in my district rep?

yes your state senator or representative

HPD and the AG has thus far declined and/or refused to give a legal meaning to the words  "readily restore".

You mean a Hawaii Senator or Representative has actually requested an opinion from the AG on the definition of "readily restore" and was refused?   

Here in WA our AG has consistently refused to issue opinions on our most recent bkgd check law.  He is a coward.

Ranb

You mean a Hawaii Senator or Representative has actually requested an opinion from the AG on the definition of "readily restore" and was refused?   

Here in WA our AG has consistently refused to issue opinions on our most recent bkgd check law.  He is a coward.

Ranb

They are all cowards that hide behind the very thing we want to protect from them taking from us.

"Rules for thee, not for me"

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk