Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Round in chamber" counts towards magazine capacity?
50 views
Skip to first unread message
Petey
Mar 5, 2012, 6:56:58 PM3/5/12
to
Here's a question that has always puzzled me somewhat. Let's say I take a
Glock 23 magazine that I add a 2 round extension baseplate to. In a state
with magazine restrictions (NJ, for example with 15 rounds allowed (as of
now ;-) ), if I then take this modified Glock magazine to the shooting range
and just load the magazine to capacity (no round in the actual chamber
itself), can an overzealous police officer who happens to be at that same
shooting range that day harass me even if I swear that I never loaded the
Glock with more than the actual magazine itself could hold?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glock 23 magazine that I add a 2 round extension baseplate to. In a state
with magazine restrictions (NJ, for example with 15 rounds allowed (as of
now ;-) ), if I then take this modified Glock magazine to the shooting range
and just load the magazine to capacity (no round in the actual chamber
itself), can an overzealous police officer who happens to be at that same
shooting range that day harass me even if I swear that I never loaded the
Glock with more than the actual magazine itself could hold?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
greylock
Mar 5, 2012, 10:10:03 PM3/5/12
to
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 23:56:58 +0000 (UTC), Petey <thu...@magpage.com>
wrote:
#Here's a question that has always puzzled me somewhat. Let's say I take a
#Glock 23 magazine that I add a 2 round extension baseplate to. In a state
#with magazine restrictions (NJ, for example with 15 rounds allowed (as of
#now ;-) ), if I then take this modified Glock magazine to the shooting range
#and just load the magazine to capacity (no round in the actual chamber
#itself), can an overzealous police officer who happens to be at that same
#shooting range that day harass me even if I swear that I never loaded the
#Glock with more than the actual magazine itself could hold?
You're in the clear by my "not a lawyer" interpretation of the letter
of the law.
But an "over zealous" cop can always harrass you - and you have to
take it with a smile on your face and your mouth firmly shut on
whatever your possibly well-founded objections may be.
I have remained polite in spite of listening occasionally to really
stupid crap out of the bad kind of cop - but doing so has kept the
number of tickets I have gotten to a bare few.
I would note that the proportion of bad cops is still quite small in
my experience, in spite of being quite a bit worse than it was 30 or
40 years ago.
wrote:
#Here's a question that has always puzzled me somewhat. Let's say I take a
#Glock 23 magazine that I add a 2 round extension baseplate to. In a state
#with magazine restrictions (NJ, for example with 15 rounds allowed (as of
#now ;-) ), if I then take this modified Glock magazine to the shooting range
#and just load the magazine to capacity (no round in the actual chamber
#itself), can an overzealous police officer who happens to be at that same
#shooting range that day harass me even if I swear that I never loaded the
#Glock with more than the actual magazine itself could hold?
You're in the clear by my "not a lawyer" interpretation of the letter
of the law.
But an "over zealous" cop can always harrass you - and you have to
take it with a smile on your face and your mouth firmly shut on
whatever your possibly well-founded objections may be.
I have remained polite in spite of listening occasionally to really
stupid crap out of the bad kind of cop - but doing so has kept the
number of tickets I have gotten to a bare few.
I would note that the proportion of bad cops is still quite small in
my experience, in spite of being quite a bit worse than it was 30 or
40 years ago.
Larry Fishel
Mar 6, 2012, 6:57:53 PM3/6/12
to
I don't know about NJ, but the former Federal restriction, and I would
imagine most others, are worded such that the restriction applied to
the magazine, not the gun. A round in the chamber is clearly NOT in
the magazine. But...
1) Make sure you at least read for yourself, the exact wording of the
law in your area.
2) Chances are the local cops have never read it themselves, so don't
be too terribly surprised if you need a judge to set them straight
(after you've already been arrested of course).
imagine most others, are worded such that the restriction applied to
the magazine, not the gun. A round in the chamber is clearly NOT in
the magazine. But...
1) Make sure you at least read for yourself, the exact wording of the
law in your area.
2) Chances are the local cops have never read it themselves, so don't
be too terribly surprised if you need a judge to set them straight
(after you've already been arrested of course).
Petey
Mar 6, 2012, 6:58:01 PM3/6/12
to
I guess the best option would be is to have a pair of those glasses on with
the miniature video camera built in them as you load up the magazine. ;-)
But yeah, most police I met here on the range seem pretty laid back. Most
of them are none too fond themselves of the current New Jersey firearms laws
that are on the books. We can always hope to take a page from Maryland (and
Judge Legg) and hope eventually one day that the laws here start changing
for the better too.
I just don't want to be a last test case for someone like irrational Senator
Frank Lautenberg before the law does in fact change regarding firearms
capacity. That guy (and his firearms irrationality) scares me more than any
New Jersey LEO I have ever run into.
the miniature video camera built in them as you load up the magazine. ;-)
But yeah, most police I met here on the range seem pretty laid back. Most
of them are none too fond themselves of the current New Jersey firearms laws
that are on the books. We can always hope to take a page from Maryland (and
Judge Legg) and hope eventually one day that the laws here start changing
for the better too.
I just don't want to be a last test case for someone like irrational Senator
Frank Lautenberg before the law does in fact change regarding firearms
capacity. That guy (and his firearms irrationality) scares me more than any
New Jersey LEO I have ever run into.
Gandalf
Mar 6, 2012, 9:27:21 PM3/6/12
to
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Petey <thu...@magpage.com>
wrote:
#I guess the best option would be is to have a pair of those glasses on with
#the miniature video camera built in them as you load up the magazine. ;-)
#
#But yeah, most police I met here on the range seem pretty laid back. Most
#of them are none too fond themselves of the current New Jersey firearms laws
#that are on the books. We can always hope to take a page from Maryland (and
#Judge Legg) and hope eventually one day that the laws here start changing
#for the better too.
#
#I just don't want to be a last test case for someone like irrational Senator
#Frank Lautenberg before the law does in fact change regarding firearms
#capacity. That guy (and his firearms irrationality) scares me more than any
#New Jersey LEO I have ever run into.
At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
It still sucks, as there are quite a few semiautomatic pistols whose
magazines hold more than 15 rounds; the Glock 17 being the most common
of them.
wrote:
#I guess the best option would be is to have a pair of those glasses on with
#the miniature video camera built in them as you load up the magazine. ;-)
#
#But yeah, most police I met here on the range seem pretty laid back. Most
#of them are none too fond themselves of the current New Jersey firearms laws
#that are on the books. We can always hope to take a page from Maryland (and
#Judge Legg) and hope eventually one day that the laws here start changing
#for the better too.
#
#I just don't want to be a last test case for someone like irrational Senator
#Frank Lautenberg before the law does in fact change regarding firearms
#capacity. That guy (and his firearms irrationality) scares me more than any
#New Jersey LEO I have ever run into.
At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
It still sucks, as there are quite a few semiautomatic pistols whose
magazines hold more than 15 rounds; the Glock 17 being the most common
of them.
Argent
Mar 7, 2012, 8:05:43 AM3/7/12
to
On Mar 6, 7:27=A0pm, Gandalf <ingold1...@yahoodot.com> wrote:
SNIP
#
# At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
# ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
#
15 rounds is still arbitrary and ridiculous.
SNIP
#
# At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
# ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
#
15 rounds is still arbitrary and ridiculous.
Gunner Asch
Mar 7, 2012, 9:32:23 AM3/7/12
to
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:27:21 +0000 (UTC), Gandalf
<ingol...@yahoodot.com> wrote:
##
##I just don't want to be a last test case for someone like irrational Senator
##Frank Lautenberg before the law does in fact change regarding firearms
##capacity. That guy (and his firearms irrationality) scares me more than any
##New Jersey LEO I have ever run into.
#
#At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
#ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
That law is STILL in effect here in California..with the exception of
"grandfathered" magazines. Of which I own an inordinate number for some
reason.....
<ingol...@yahoodot.com> wrote:
##
##I just don't want to be a last test case for someone like irrational Senator
##Frank Lautenberg before the law does in fact change regarding firearms
##capacity. That guy (and his firearms irrationality) scares me more than any
##New Jersey LEO I have ever run into.
#
#At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
#ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
That law is STILL in effect here in California..with the exception of
"grandfathered" magazines. Of which I own an inordinate number for some
reason.....
Steve W.
Mar 7, 2012, 7:24:19 PM3/7/12
to
Gunner Asch wrote:
# On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:27:21 +0000 (UTC), Gandalf
# <ingol...@yahoodot.com> wrote:
#
# ##
# ##capacity. That guy (and his firearms irrationality) scares me more than any
# ##New Jersey LEO I have ever run into.
#
# That law is STILL in effect here in California..with the exception of
# "grandfathered" magazines. Of which I own an inordinate number for some
# reason.....
Same thing here in NY. Then you have the idiotic hunting regs that limit
the ammo count even more....
--
Steve W.
# On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:27:21 +0000 (UTC), Gandalf
# <ingol...@yahoodot.com> wrote:
#
# ##
# ##I just don't want to be a last test case for someone like irrational Senator
# ##Frank Lautenberg before the law does in fact change regarding firearms
# ##capacity. That guy (and his firearms irrationality) scares me more than any
# ##New Jersey LEO I have ever run into.
# #
# #At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
# #ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
# #At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
#
# That law is STILL in effect here in California..with the exception of
# "grandfathered" magazines. Of which I own an inordinate number for some
# reason.....
Same thing here in NY. Then you have the idiotic hunting regs that limit
the ammo count even more....
--
Steve W.
Kevin Snodgrass
Mar 7, 2012, 7:24:23 PM3/7/12
to
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:27:21 +0000, Gandalf wrote:
# At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
# ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
And 15 rounds isn't totally arbitrary and ridiculous?
# At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
# ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
And 15 rounds isn't totally arbitrary and ridiculous?
Steve W.
Mar 8, 2012, 7:23:17 AM3/8/12
to
Kevin Snodgrass wrote:
# On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:27:21 +0000, Gandalf wrote:
# # At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
# # ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
#
# And 15 rounds isn't totally arbitrary and ridiculous?
Yes and no.
At least with 15 rounds you can carry a full sized and loaded mag for
most handguns. With the 10 round limit you have to short load just about
anything unless it's a large bore small frame gun. For every 30 rounds
you need three mags instead of 2 which means more change over time.
I wish they had decided on at least 20 rounds since that would have
allowed a LOT more flexibility.
One question that I have wondered about is a belt fed weapon. Which part
is the magazine? The ammo can with the belt? The belted rounds? The feed
adapter?
I did hit a nice score a few years ago. Found an outfit that was selling
surplus ammo that was preloaded in 30 round AR magazines. 1,500 rounds
all loaded prior to 1993....
--
Steve W.
# On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:27:21 +0000, Gandalf wrote:
# # At least the limit is 15 rounds, and not the totally arbitrary and
# # ridiculous 10 rounds of the AWB of '94 to 2004.
#
# And 15 rounds isn't totally arbitrary and ridiculous?
Yes and no.
At least with 15 rounds you can carry a full sized and loaded mag for
most handguns. With the 10 round limit you have to short load just about
anything unless it's a large bore small frame gun. For every 30 rounds
you need three mags instead of 2 which means more change over time.
I wish they had decided on at least 20 rounds since that would have
allowed a LOT more flexibility.
One question that I have wondered about is a belt fed weapon. Which part
is the magazine? The ammo can with the belt? The belted rounds? The feed
adapter?
I did hit a nice score a few years ago. Found an outfit that was selling
surplus ammo that was preloaded in 30 round AR magazines. 1,500 rounds
all loaded prior to 1993....
--
Steve W.
Petey
Mar 8, 2012, 8:33:36 PM3/8/12
to
Thanks for all of the opinions, gentlemen!
I think I'm just going to put the 13 round baseplate back on the magazine to
be safe (even though it hasn't been an issue for me yet).
I think I'm just going to put the 13 round baseplate back on the magazine to
be safe (even though it hasn't been an issue for me yet).
Childers
May 23, 2012, 12:12:31 PM5/23/12
to
All we need to remember is the key word MAGAZINE. When the mag is loaded,
how many does it hold? The chamber is not part of the magazine but the gun
itself. Actually, by removing the mag you in essence make the gun a single
shot pistol/rifle since you can still put a round in the chamber.
how many does it hold? The chamber is not part of the magazine but the gun
itself. Actually, by removing the mag you in essence make the gun a single
shot pistol/rifle since you can still put a round in the chamber.
Pete
May 23, 2012, 7:08:56 PM5/23/12
to
Childers wrote:
# All we need to remember is the key word MAGAZINE. When the mag is loaded,
# how many does it hold? The chamber is not part of the magazine but the gun
# itself. Actually, by removing the mag you in essence make the gun a single
# shot pistol/rifle since you can still put a round in the chamber.
You would think so logically. But remember we're talking about New Jersey
here, and Frank Lautenberg who would use any lame excuse to totally screw
over anyone who dares to take the imitative to own a firearm here in his
domain.
# All we need to remember is the key word MAGAZINE. When the mag is loaded,
# how many does it hold? The chamber is not part of the magazine but the gun
# itself. Actually, by removing the mag you in essence make the gun a single
# shot pistol/rifle since you can still put a round in the chamber.
You would think so logically. But remember we're talking about New Jersey
here, and Frank Lautenberg who would use any lame excuse to totally screw
over anyone who dares to take the imitative to own a firearm here in his
domain.
0 new messages