Legal question regarding belt-fed guns.

[krispos42]

As some of you may be aware, there is a thread in GD talking about a bump-fire stock for AR-15s and the various pros and cons of such a device. The gun being held up for discussion in the OP has such a stock, but it is also a belt-fed AR-15.


Obviously, the two can exist independently; you can have a fixed-stock belt-fed rifle, or a sliding-stock magazine-fed rifle.

The question I have is this:

In states that have a restriction on magazine capacities, would a belt-fed version of the gun fall under that law?

For example, say someone had an AR-15 that was converted to feed from a belt instead of regular box magazine. Would that person have to limit the belt length to 10 rounds?


It occurs to me that this might be a work-around for magazine limits in those states, whereas a person could have a rifle or shotgun that feeds from a belt (contained inside a box attached to the gun) instead of a detachable magazine. For example, instead of a 2 or three 10-round magazines taped together, a person might have a single 50-round or 100-round belt that they keep in their self-defense rifle or shotgun.¹

Would such an arrangement be legal in, say, California or New Jersey or Massachusetts?

I am thinking that, if redesigning a rifle to be belt-fed could be done to keep them in line with regular, magazine-fed versions, then this idea would have potential for millions of customers in states with magazine limits.





¹If the first round in the belt was a dummy cartridge, it would be safer for storage purposes yet still be able to be loaded quickly.

[rrneck]

1. If the legal limitation

specifies "box magazine" it would be a workaround, but if the specification refers to "ammunition capacity" the delivery system would become moot I would think.

[petronius]

2. The phrasing in CA seems to be that a 'magazine' is defined as

"any ammunition feeding device", with some exceptions not including belts. For example, PC 16740:

16740. As used in this part, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

So I'm pretty sure a belt-feeding mechanism would run afoul of our law, even if you only had a 10-round-long belt. (Caveat: IANAL)

Although on edit, here's a thread on Calguns that indicates I'm wrong - belts are OK as long as they're 10-rounds or fewer.

[oneshooter]

4. I know that the belts for my semi-auto 1919a4 contain 250rds each

no problem here in Texas. Unless I plan to hunt with it, then I am restricted to 5 rds.

[sarisataka]

3. I believe most legislation

Includes language like feed device, in this case the belt is the device and would fall under it.
If the law is written to say box or magazine it should be a simple amendment to add belt

[HolyMoley]

5. At the time, under the old Federal 94 ban

it was illegal to link more than 10 rounds on a belt, but only if they were post 9/94 links.


(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(31) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’--

‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr3355/text


Problem is, that while post 9/94 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices' had to bear serial numbers or markings denoting date of manufacture, it was unfeasible to place those markings on individual links. Instead, manufacturers only had to place the markings, date, on the packaging. To get around that during the years of the ban, surplus ammo vendors selling to the public would take a full belt and delink it into 10 round 'mini' belts. The buyer could then relink it all to once again make one large continuous belt. And as long as it wasn't repackaged in it's original packaging, there was no proof of it's pre-ban/post-ban status (the burden of proof was on the government to show date of manufacture).

In states that have a restriction on magazine capacities, would a belt-fed version of the gun fall under that law?

Obviously that would depend on the wording of individual State laws and if their definitions of 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices' also includes 'belts'.

Of the 6-7 states that have a magazine capacity in place, all (with the recent exception of CA), grandfathered in pre-existing 9/94 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices' as still being legal to purchase and posses.

That being the case, while it would be illegal for a non-exempt person to have in their possession (or manufacture), a post 9/13 ammunition belt of greater than 10 rounds, there would be no way to prove their legality without any markings or date codes.

[Eleanors38]

6. To get even more tendentious, would a box attached

to the breach, a la Krag 30-40, fall under the definition. I understand this device doesn't dynamically "feed" the action.

[krispos42]

7. Thank you everybody for your input on the matter.

I was curious as to this aspect of the law.