Legality of Restricted High Cap Mags

CorkCBR6

A restricted BX25 mag.. it's filled so only 10 rounds will fit.

Is this now legal for an unrestricted license?

The pigeon man

Provided the magazine is incapable of holding more than ten rounds it is unrestricted.

If you have modified your 25 round magazine so it is only able to hold ten rounds it's now unrestricted.

Similar to a semi or pump shotgun. Unrestricted with the plug in, take the plug out and you need a restricted license.

CorkCBR6

The pigeon man wrote: »

Provided the magazine is incapable of holding more than ten rounds it is unrestricted.

If you have modified your 25 round magazine so it is only able to hold ten rounds it's now unrestricted.

Similar to a semi or pump shotgun. Unrestricted with the plug in, take the plug out and you need a restricted license.

Brilliant stuff! Thank you

Cass

Be very careful on this. Regardless how we interpret it the only true meaning is what AGS say as they'll be the ones charging you and seeking prosecution if you are on the wrong side of this. Not saying they are always right or infallible just a court case can be costly even if you're in the legal right.

CorkCBR6 wrote: »

A restricted BX25 mag.. it's filled so only 10 rounds will fit.

Is this now legal for an unrestricted license?

In my opinion, no.

The reason is the wording. The Pigeon Man said:

The pigeon man wrote: »

Provided the magazine is incapable of holding more than ten rounds it is unrestricted.

Which is not quite right. The law says:

single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds

It doesn't say capable, it says capacity. You might argue it's the same thing, but it's not.

A 25 round mag restricted to 10 shots still has a 25 round capacity and is still capable of holding 25. A 25 round magazine filled with (exaggerated example) concrete or manufactured to look like a 25 round mag, but the bottom part is solid plastic and can only hold 10 rounds is most likely fine in the first instance (permanently filled) and definitely fine in the second (manufactured to be solid).

SI 21/2008 covers this. The amendment in 2009 (SI 337/2009) and even the newer one (SI 391/2015) don't change the wording and SI 391 only deals with pistols, not rifles.

If you have modified your 25 round magazine so it is only able to hold ten rounds it's now unrestricted.

Again, it's not really. Not to be scaremongering, but i recently (in the last 12 months) spoke to two lads facing court over this very issue. The first was a lad with 25 round mag, with a plug in it to make it 10 rounds, and he lost his rifle and shotgun. The second lad had a 25 round mag and only loaded 10 at time, but because the mag had a 25 round capacity he too was done for it. He lost his rifle, and they later took his second rifle and shotgun under revocation of licenses citing intemperate character and basically saying he was not trustworthy. He went to court to appeal, and lost the appeal.

Similar to a semi or pump shotgun. Unrestricted with the plug in, take the plug out and you need a restricted license.

Again not quite.

The original SI 21/2008 says:

shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges

.......... and even the one for pistols (SI 391/2015) says:

firearms which are designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition and use magazines that have been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition

So as you can see both the laws covering shotguns and pistols allow for any modification, manufacturing or adaption to the magazines to make them unrestricted but nothing in any of the SI or the principal act allows for the same with rimfire rifles.

The even funnier part is it does not only apply to semi auto rimfires, but all rimfires. However, and here is the funny part, it doesn't mention centrefire bolt actions and as all centrefire semi autos are restricted they're covered.

If you didn't bother to read all the above take this from it. The law is worded a certain way for a reason and certain words can have a different meaning to what you think they do. As a result you may find yourself in trouble and a 25 round mag is not something that is subtle.


Lastly, and this is simply curiosity, why the want for a 25 round mag? If you have an unrestricted license why not just but 10 rounds and avoid the possibility of any crap?

CorkCBR6

Cass wrote: »

Lastly, and this is simply curiosity, why the want for a 25 round mag? If you have an unrestricted license why not just but 10 rounds and avoid the possibility of any crap?

Cass that's fantastic thanks a million.

A friend I do field work with offered me his old 10/22 mags for half nothing and he had some 25 round mags that were plugged.

Do you think it would be above board if I plastic weld them solid only allowing space for 10? Would definitely be a more permanent way of restricting.

Cass

My advice in situations like this is always air on the side of caution and if there is a hint of it causing problems or being illegal, don't risk it. You could loose your rifle, and as above, possibly more.

Just because the Firearms Act doesn't specifically mention something doesn't mean it's illegal, but nor does it mean it's legal.

The acts and SIs all address shotguns, and rifles in terms of modifying mags, but seem to (or least they read as such to me) quite clearly state rimfire mags must be of a certain capacity to be deemed unrestricted/restricted.

Of course i'm not the internet police nor the real police so as with all info on this forum its only personal advice. The decision ultimately lies with you.

Grizzly 45

IMO the capacity question was sorted in the high court with the .22 mag capacity in pistols a few years back.As is commonly known NO gun maker makes for "non-Olympic style" pistols a mag with a five round capacity. Therefore we have 5shot revolvers and 5 shot .22 mags here.

So, therefore, we have to block or convert our mags/cylinders to 5shot. There is NO instructions or Govt directive on who can do this, or how it is to be done to render these mags incapable of holding more than five shots. You can do it yourself even with a drill and a bit of steel rod or nicking the mag at the 5shot mark and peening ith cut inwards.

Ergo,having a high cap mag blocked to 10 rounds in a .22 rifle with the law the way it is written already has precedent in law, as all pistol mags in this country, legally, are 5 shots, BUT which are still capable of holding that capacity of 10 is really no different.

ADD.
This like most Irish gun law is farcical anyway.If the intention is to stop people committing a NZ style shooting,[where the shooter ignored the NZ gun laws anyway and had numerous illegal high cap mags to start with] They have failed to explain how a piece of duct tape or super glue applied to the base of two legal 10 rounders is somehow "safer" [and actually utterly legal, as they are two separate mags] than a single box containing 20 rounds.

Cass

You are talking about pistols in your post, but i've already said above that SI 391/2015 addressed pistols specifically and to modify, adapt or buy them made to hold only 5 is perfectly fine.

The OP is asking about a rimfire rifle mag which is no mentioned or covered by any of the three SIs dealing with this, again as linked to above. Even shotguns get a mention about modifying them, but NOT rimfire rifles.

One could argue this is an oversight or even that the law means to include these, but it doesn't, and it's your ass in the dock if AGS want to pursue this. Unlike other "test cases" that need to be heard (barrel length, etc) i've personally heard of two in the last year or so where both lads were caught and done for this very thing.

So again, proceed with caution, and to those saying go for it, i'd recommend to the OP to take all advice, mine included, and make your own decision because it's your ass on the line, not ours.

The pigeon man

There's been some really good advice given here. I've learned alot.

I would look at this from a risk reward perspective. Given that you could be charged with a firearms offence for having the 25 round mags I wouldn't bother.

Even if you are found not guilty this will cause a huge amount of stress and cost alot of money.

I'd just buy a factory made 10 round mag if I was you.

We've had similar debates about short barrels and tacticool 10/22 conversion kits. These attachments can often bring unnecessary attention to yourself, which is best avoided.

CorkCBR6

Thanks for all the help and advice.
I think it's too much time and money on the line to take the chance.

It would be great if someone who deals with the powers at be could ask the question to get the legislation cleared up or more complete restricting magazines.

Probably the only other way is if someone's ends up in court for something similar with a plugged or filled magazine and fights it

Grizzly 45

CorkCBR6 wrote: »

Thanks for all the help and advice.
I think it's too much time and money on the line to take the chance.

It would be great if someone who deals with the powers at be could ask the question to get the legislation cleared up or more complete restricting magazines.

Probably the only other way is if someone's ends up in court for something similar with a plugged or filled magazine and fights it

TBH ,it seems betimes the PTB themselves haven't an idea either. One gunsmith here asked the chief range inspector of the DOJ what was the situation with setting up a small range, wholly as a gunsmith, to be able to zero and test fire various repaired guns and be able to correct or fine tune them in his shop, rather than traipse off to his local range.
The answer was ,its a grey area,that the law never thought of such a scenario when being drafted and they couldn't advise either which way.:rolleyes:

This is the trouble with Irish firearms and knife laws,it is horribly vague on definitions of particular items or wording,that can be used by both sides to prove or disprove a point in law. Like the "assault rifle" scenario. There is no definition in Irish law what exactly an assault rifle is. And seeing that such genuine defined firearms types are already illegal under Irish and most EU countries laws having them mentioned in your national law here nullifies the legislations intent.
There is even HC precedent on this back in the 1980s "The Waterford Tractor" case.
Where a farmer took an old Hilux pickup,put balloon tyres on it and mounted a spraying apparatus onto its deck and made a low-pressure ground sprayer out of it. Redeclared it as a tractor and went about spraying and put Green diesel in it. Revenue, sure enough, dipped him and brought a prosecution forward claiming it was a pickup and not valid for marked diesel use. The case and Revenue lost, was simply because there is NO definition of what a "tractor" is in Irish law.We all know one when we see one,more or less,[as things like Unimogs and JCB pullers are defined as "fast tractors" nowadays].But unless there is a definition in law...

Bottom line is,it can be or go either way for you, with our vague legislation. Like the two lads Cass mentioned,but and no reflection on these gents, if one of them lost his lics due to "intemperate habits"...There might be a bit more to the tale that they omitted to tell Cass.

Be interesting to know under what circumstances were they stopped and found with these mags??? Were they acting the prk with them someplace?Or did someone rat them out?? Just seems odd that two lads get hit for having the same type of mag, one "legal" and one not.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

if one of them lost his lics due to "intemperate habits"...There might be a bit more to the tale that they omitted to tell Cass.

This was the reason given when they took his other guns, not the one with the 25 round mag. Reading between the lines it means you used a mag that is restricted on an unrestricted gun therefore you cannot be trusted.

Intemperate character can cover a host of situations. I say this cause i know one chap well enough and i would never class him as intemperate.

Be interesting to know under what circumstances were they stopped and found with these mags???

One of them i don't the details off. and didn't ask and the other was reported as having it (most likely because a 25 round mag sticks out like a sore thumb and as we all know the great unwashed see all guns like this:

Just seems odd that two lads get hit for having the same type of mag, one "legal" and one not.

Neither were legal. That is the problem and why i brought them up for the purpose of this thread.

Both lads had different "ideas". One didn't know (only loaded ten rounds into the 25 round mag) and ignorance is no excuse, and the other lad thought once it was blocked (with a wooden dowel i believe) that it was no longer restricted. IOW if this was done he was covered. He wasn't.

Neither had malicious intent, and one was simply unaware but both got done.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

T
Both lads had different "ideas". One didn't know (only loaded ten rounds into the 25 round mag) and ignorance is no excuse, and the other lad thought once it was blocked (with a wooden dowel i believe) that it was no longer restricted. IOW if this was done he was covered. He wasn't.

Neither had malicious intent, and one was simply unaware but both got done.

AH!!! Therein might lie an answer.:) It's not a permanent block, depending on how he put it in to prevent further rounds being added.
I'm only speculating at this point,As I only have what you are telling us,but if it didn't look like a permanent alteration to the mag as well,or looked too easy to reconvert to 25 rounds then maybe that's what happened? IOW was it an 8mm hardwood dowel drilled into the mag at ten shots the spring cut to rest on that,and then araldited into place?
Or was it just a dowel stuck in the mag end plate and left there stopping the follower at round ten?

Just speculating but it would be of intrest for us all to know as it would give an idea too as to what the aGS mindset is on what is an acceptable permanent conversion of capacity.

CorkCBR6

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Or was it just a dowel stuck in the mag end plate and left there stopping the follower at round ten?

This would be the simplest way for the BX25 type of magazine to be restricted and the same for the ones I was looking at.

CorkCBR6

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Or was it just a dowel stuck in the mag end plate and left there stopping the follower at round ten?

Just for reference the BX25 mags have a coiled strip at the top of the magazine which connects to the follower, so it 'pulls up' it up as opposed to the traditional spring on the base pushing the follower.

Makes it very easy to restrict these types of magazines because there no possibility of the spring snagging or getting caught.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

....... but if it didn't look like a permanent alteration to the mag as well,or looked too easy to reconvert to 25 rounds then maybe that's what happened?

Where in any of the SIs i put above, does it say permanent?

Hint, it doesn't.

In SI 21/2008, SI 337/2009, and SI 391/2015 it says "magazine capacity of not greater than", or "use magazines that have been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to accommodate no more than". Not once does it say the block, modification, or adaption has to be permanent.

Any lad with a shotgun that can hold more than 3 rounds gets it plugged to keep it unrestricted. However that plug doesn't have to be permanent and if the lad goes to sell it he can advertise that the plug can be removed and the gun licensed as a restricted firearm.

The reason for this is simple and possibly two fold.

1. Poor legislation in that they never added the word permanent or did not see it as necessary.
2. Anyone caught changing from 3, 5 or 10 rounds to 4+, 6+ or 10+ rounds is already in breach of the conditions of their license and guilty of an offense.

IOW was it an 8mm hardwood dowel drilled into the mag at ten shots the spring cut to rest on that,and then araldited into place?

Doubt it.

Or was it just a dowel stuck in the mag end plate and left there stopping the follower at round ten?

Most likely.

Just speculating but it would be of intrest for us all to know as it would give an idea too as to what the aGS mindset is on what is an acceptable permanent conversion of capacity.

Again no mention of permanent in any part of the legislation unless i've missed something glaringly obvious (which does happen so please correct me if i'm wrong).

On a related, but side, topic. I nearly had something similar myself. Bought a pistol (22lr) and it came with two mags. It was second hand, but new. The previous owner bought the pistol, modified the mags at the RFDs, but never got the license so left it back to be sold. I bought it and got the license.

Brought the pistol to the range and as i always do strip everything down to clean before first use. I took the mags apart, as i saw something in the mag, and noticed a float (for fishing) had been cut to stop more than 5 rounds been loaded into the mag. I spent the next two hours creating and installing a permanent fix into the mags (very similar to what you described above) to make sure they remained 5 shot and if anyone attempted to undo this work they'd be left with an unusable mag(s).

Long story short i didn't know if the previous modification would be accepted even though the law says once it's done, it's done. However i was taking no chances and as the pistol could never be licensed as a restricted firearm (as a shotgun with a larger capacity could) i wanted a permanent fix both for legal reasons and my own sake (didn't want to load 6 or more rounds by mistake when the matches are only 5 shots per detail).