ORC 2921.x - magazine capacity limit

[The German]

I understand that according to the ORC, magazines with a capacity of more than 30 rounds are not legal to use, however the excemption seems to be .22 short, long and long rifle. So, am I correct that larger magazines (in .22 LR) would be legal to use?
I did not find a specific capacity limitation, just that Ohio definition of an automatic firearm - therefore double checking if I missed something...

.. there seem to be cool 50 round drum magazines for the 10/22 in the market

Tom

[P-chan]

You are correct. Here's the applicable statute :

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Section E :

(E) “Automatic firearm” means any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a single function of the trigger. “Automatic firearm” also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges.

Specifically, magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are not illegal, however, if you insert a 31 round Glock 9mm magazine into your Glock 17, you have "specially adapted" it to be able to fire more than 31 rounds (31+1) without reloading, which is a violation.

[Rhino]

First I've heard of it.

[TB]

There is an ordinance against the sale and use of them but it is pretty much ignored and everyone just looks the other way.
If you find something somewhere for sale they may tell you that you are not supposed to use it while they are selling it to you.
I have ordered 75 and 100 round drums for my AK online and have never had a problem with having them shipped to me.

[captainstormy]

From what I've always heard Its legal to own those magazines, but illegal to use them in your firearm. Which is why you can buy them but it isn't a good idea to try and use them at the range though.

Thats just what I've heard. I'm not a lawyer and I've never even looked at the ORC that long myself I don't own any magazines with enough capacity to be affected.

[willbird]

You are correct. Here's the applicable statute :

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Section E :

(E) “Automatic firearm” means any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a single function of the trigger. “Automatic firearm” also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges.

Specifically, magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are not illegal, however, if you insert a 31 round Glock 9mm magazine into your Glock 17, you have "specially adapted" it to be able to fire more than 31 rounds (31+1) without reloading, which is a violation.

Actually there is no set standard for when it becomes illegal to have a magazine that can hold more than 31 rounds, people make all kinds of statements, but they are not backed with legal fact.

Bill

[P-chan]

You are correct. Here's the applicable statute :

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Section E :

(E) “Automatic firearm” means any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a single function of the trigger. “Automatic firearm” also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges.

Specifically, magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are not illegal, however, if you insert a 31 round Glock 9mm magazine into your Glock 17, you have "specially adapted" it to be able to fire more than 31 rounds (31+1) without reloading, which is a violation.

Actually there is no set standard for when it becomes illegal to have a magazine that can hold more than 31 rounds, people make all kinds of statements, but they are not backed with legal fact.

Bill

The ORC I quoted is legal fact. Certainly it's up to interpretation, but I can't see any interpretation of the law in which a firearm (other than a .22) able to fire more than 31 rounds without reloading wouldn't be illegal.

Nowhere in the ORC does it outlaw magazines that carry more than 30 rounds. That's pretty crystal clear. It outlaws firearms capable of firing more than 31 rounds without reloading.

A Glock 17 with a 31 round mag inserted is able to fire more than 31 rounds without reloading and is certainly illegal.

Simply possessing a Glock 31 round mag, a box of ammo, and a Glock 17 is not illegal. Loading the mag is not illegal. Once you insert it into the firearm, you have the ability to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading.

You can be the test case if you want and argue with the police or the judge about whether you topped off the mag after you racked one into the pipe, I'll play it safe with centerfire mags, and stay on this side of the line

[willbird]

You are correct. Here's the applicable statute :

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Section E :

(E) “Automatic firearm” means any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a single function of the trigger. “Automatic firearm” also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges.

Specifically, magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are not illegal, however, if you insert a 31 round Glock 9mm magazine into your Glock 17, you have "specially adapted" it to be able to fire more than 31 rounds (31+1) without reloading, which is a violation.

Actually there is no set standard for when it becomes illegal to have a magazine that can hold more than 31 rounds, people make all kinds of statements, but they are not backed with legal fact.

Bill

The ORC I quoted is legal fact. Certainly it's up to interpretation, but I can't see any interpretation of the law in which a firearm (other than a .22) able to fire more than 31 rounds without reloading wouldn't be illegal.

Nowhere in the ORC does it outlaw magazines that carry more than 30 rounds. That's pretty crystal clear. It outlaws firearms capable of firing more than 31 rounds without reloading.

A Glock 17 with a 31 round mag inserted is able to fire more than 31 rounds without reloading and is certainly illegal.

Simply possessing a Glock 31 round mag, a box of ammo, and a Glock 17 is not illegal. Loading the mag is not illegal. Once you insert it into the firearm, you have the ability to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading.

You can be the test case if you want and argue with the police or the judge about whether you topped off the mag after you racked one into the pipe, I'll play it safe with centerfire mags, and stay on this side of the line

Yes the ORC you quoted is fact, however your interpretation is just that...yours

In fact your Glock is "specially adapted" from the factory to accept a magazine larger than 31 rounds...as is any other gun for which a 31+ magazine is made.

The law does not say specifically when a violation occurs......it in no way spells out things which people often say "it is fine to have the mags as long as you never load them up and put them in your gun"

The law also applies to BELTS for belt fed firearms...and for example has no exemption for the blanks reenactors often use. When was the last time you saw anybody with a belt fed semi, and a pile of 30 round belts ?? And by inserting a round to link two 30 round belts together, you easily get an illegal configuration....thus the belt is readily converted.

This law plain and simple needs to go away.

But as responsible gun owners it makes no sense to dream up things that are not supported by legal fact.

I have no desire to be a test case, so to be on the safe side I simply do not possess ANY mags that will hold more then 31 center fire cartridges.

Also worthy of mention is the fact that you CAN get a "may issue" permit from the state fire marshal (must be signed for and approved by your local sherrifs ) This is in fact the exact same permit you would need to have to buy dynamite or other explosives.

[P-chan]

Yes the ORC you quoted is fact, however your interpretation is just that...yours

I'm just curious to see how your interpretation differs from mine.

In fact your Glock is "specially adapted" from the factory to accept a magazine larger than 31 rounds...as is any other gun for which a 31+ magazine is made.

It's only "specially adapted" to fire more than 31 rounds if said magazine is inserted. So is your assertion that any centerfire firearm for which a magazine exists that can hold 31+ rounds is illegal? This would include a lot of Glock, XD, AK-17 and AR-15 firearms. I'm sure your assertion is not that all of these are illegal under Ohio law, but I'm curious as to your point in this sentence?

The law does not say specifically when a violation occurs......it in no way spells out things which people often say "it is fine to have the mags as long as you never load them up and put them in your gun"

The law clearly says when a violation occurs (are we reading the same law?). The violation occurs when you are in possession of "any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading".

Section E doesn't even mention the word magazine. Laws don't make things legal, they make things illegal. Anything that is not illegal is by definition legal. It's no more illegal to have a 31 round magazine for your Glock than it is to have an ice cream cone. There are no laws forbidding either.

The only reason the law applies to belts is that with a belt longer than 31 rounds, you have the same situation. A belt by itself with 32 rounds is not illegal, by definition. It is not forbidden in the law any more than an ice cream cone is forbidden. However, once you insert that belt into a firearm, you now have a firearm capabale of firing more than 31 rounds without reloading, which is a violation.

This law plain and simple needs to go away.

But as responsible gun owners it makes no sense to dream up things that are not supported by legal fact.

I have no desire to be a test case, so to be on the safe side I simply do not possess ANY mags that will hold more then 31 center fire cartridges.

I agree 100% on all points

[The German]

So, could it be interpreted that any gun that is technically capable working with a magazine which can hold more than 30 rounds would fall under the "automatic" definition? As you mentioned, the ORC does not talk about a magazine, but about a gun that is designed to fire more than 31 rounds without reloading - as there is typically not a round counter with lock mechanism built into any gun that I know of, this would make all guns for which magazines with a capacity of more than 30 rounds "automatic" guns. No matter even if you own such a magazine or not. The gun is designed to shoot more than 31 rounds without reloading... (well, not designed to stop at 31...).

Yikes - who puts something like that into a law?

...So is your assertion that any centerfire firearm for which a magazine exists that can hold 31+ rounds is illegal? This would include a lot of Glock, XD, AK-17 and AR-15 firearms. I'm sure your assertion is not that all of these are illegal under Ohio law, but I'm curious as to your point in this sentence?...

[P-chan]

So, could it be interpreted that any gun that is technically capable working with a magazine which can hold more than 30 rounds would fall under the "automatic" definition? As you mentioned, the ORC does not talk about a magazine, but about a gun that is designed to fire more than 31 rounds without reloading - as there is typically not a round counter with lock mechanism built into any gun that I know of, this would make all guns for which magazines with a capacity of more than 30 rounds "automatic" guns. No matter even if you own such a magazine or not. The gun is designed to shoot more than 31 rounds without reloading... (well, not designed to stop at 31...).

Yikes - who puts something like that into a law?

...So is your assertion that any centerfire firearm for which a magazine exists that can hold 31+ rounds is illegal? This would include a lot of Glock, XD, AK-17 and AR-15 firearms. I'm sure your assertion is not that all of these are illegal under Ohio law, but I'm curious as to your point in this sentence?...

I agree that the law verbiage needs revising, but it's pretty clear that an AR with a 30 round mag or a Glock with a 17 round mag is incapable of firing more than 31 rounds without reloading. A 40 round AK magazine is also incapable of firing any rounds at all. When you put the 40 round AK mag in the AK, now you've got a violation.

[McM]

Aren't NFA items, like full auto and SBRs, are exempt from the mag limits? IIRC.

[P-chan]

Aren't NFA items, like full auto and SBRs, are exempt from the mag limits? IIRC.

This one took a little searching and cross-checking, but let's see what we have :

First let's define "dangerous ordnance" :

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(K) “Dangerous ordnance” means any of the following, except as provided in division (L) of this section:

(1) Any automatic or sawed-off firearm, zip-gun, or ballistic knife;

So we know that automatic firearms are a dangerous ordnance per 2923.11(k)(1).

We also know that firearms capable of firing more than 31 rounds without reloading are automatic:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Automatic firearm” also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.17" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


(A) No person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any dangerous ordnance.

(B) No person shall manufacture or process an explosive at any location in this state unless the person first has been issued a license, certificate of registration, or permit to do so from a fire official of a political subdivision of this state or from the office of the fire marshal.

(C) Division (A) of this section does not apply to:


(1) Officers, agents, or employees of this or any other state or the United States, members of the armed forces of the United States or the organized militia of this or any other state, and law enforcement officers, to the extent that any such person is authorized to acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous ordnance and is acting within the scope of the person’s duties;

(2) Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and users of explosives, having a license or user permit issued and in effect pursuant to the “Organized Crime Control Act of 1970,” 84 Stat. 952, 843, and any amendments or additions thereto or reenactments thereof, with respect to explosives and explosive devices lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used under the laws of this state and applicable federal law;

(3) Importers, manufacturers, and dealers having a license to deal in destructive devices or their ammunition, issued and in effect pursuant to the “Gun Control Act of 1968,” 82 Stat. 1213, 923, and any amendments or additions thereto or reenactments thereof, with respect to dangerous ordnance lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used under the laws of this state and applicable federal law;

(4) Persons to whom surplus ordnance has been sold, loaned, or given by the secretary of the army pursuant to 70A Stat. 262 and 263, 4684, 4685, and 4686, and any amendments or additions thereto or reenactments thereof, with respect to dangerous ordnance when lawfully possessed and used for the purposes specified in such section;

(5) Owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the national firearms registration and transfer record pursuant to the act of October 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1229, 5841, and any amendments or additions thereto or reenactments thereof, and regulations issued thereunder.

(6) Carriers, warehousemen, and others engaged in the business of transporting or storing goods for hire, with respect to dangerous ordnance lawfully transported or stored in the usual course of their business and in compliance with the laws of this state and applicable federal law;

(7) The holders of a license or temporary permit issued and in effect pursuant to section 2923.18 of the Revised Code, with respect to dangerous ordnance lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used for the purposes and in the manner specified in such license or permit.

So we know that dangerous ordnance (automatic weapons), which includes not only full-auto firearms, but also firearms that fire more than 31 rounds without reloading, are legal if the dangerous ordnance is lawfully acquired in accordance with the GCA and federal law (NFA). HOWEVER, there is nothing in the ORC that defines a dangerous ordnance or automatic weapon as having a short barrel. A short barreled rifle is not included in the definition of automatic firearm or dangerous ordnance, and would still be subject to the 30 round magazine limit, IMO.

Of course, try as I might, I am not a lawyer

[djthomas]

So we know that dangerous ordnance (automatic weapons), which includes not only full-auto firearms, but also firearms that fire more than 31 rounds without reloading, are legal if the dangerous ordnance is lawfully acquired in accordance with the GCA and federal law (NFA). HOWEVER, there is nothing in the ORC that defines a dangerous ordnance or automatic weapon as having a short barrel. A short barreled rifle is not included in the definition of automatic firearm or dangerous ordnance, and would still be subject to the 30 round magazine limit, IMO.

Ah but if you read how they chose to put the magazine limit in the law you'll see that under Ohio law any firearm capable of firing more than 31 rounds without loading IS considered to be an automatic firearm under state law. So if you have an semi-automatic NFA like a short barrel it is considered to be an automatic weapon under Ohio law if you have a large magazine for it. The fact that it's registered with the feds as a semi-automatic SBR is irrelevant; it's covered under 2923.17 by virtue of being an "automatic" firearm, and thus is exempt under (5).

There was a case not too long ago where a guy was popped for having some large capacity magazines for his SBR. It was ultimately thrown out. The prosecution had all sorts of arguments and the defense raised all sorts of counter arguments but the court narrowed it down and said there was no need to interpret anything. There was no disagreement that the SBRs were registered under the NFA and the statute itself exempts NFA items from further state control. I don't remember exactly where the case was but it was discussed here on the boards at the time.

[P-chan]

So we know that dangerous ordnance (automatic weapons), which includes not only full-auto firearms, but also firearms that fire more than 31 rounds without reloading, are legal if the dangerous ordnance is lawfully acquired in accordance with the GCA and federal law (NFA). HOWEVER, there is nothing in the ORC that defines a dangerous ordnance or automatic weapon as having a short barrel. A short barreled rifle is not included in the definition of automatic firearm or dangerous ordnance, and would still be subject to the 30 round magazine limit, IMO.

Ah but if you read how they chose to put the magazine limit in the law you'll see that under Ohio law any firearm capable of firing more than 31 rounds without loading IS considered to be an automatic firearm under state law. So if you have an semi-automatic NFA like a short barrel it is considered to be an automatic weapon under Ohio law if you have a large magazine for it. The fact that it's registered with the feds as a semi-automatic SBR is irrelevant; it's covered under 2923.17 by virtue of being an "automatic" firearm, and thus is exempt under (5).

There was a case not too long ago where a guy was popped for having some large capacity magazines for his SBR. It was ultimately thrown out. The prosecution had all sorts of arguments and the defense raised all sorts of counter arguments but the court narrowed it down and said there was no need to interpret anything. There was no disagreement that the SBRs were registered under the NFA and the statute itself exempts NFA items from further state control. I don't remember exactly where the case was but it was discussed here on the boards at the time.

I guess that actually does make sense, since full-auto belt-fed firearms are legal in Ohio provided you have the correct tax stamps and NFA registration. Would make sense that since SBRs are registered under NFA, it would be included also.

FWIW : the NFA statute exempting NFA items from further state control is certainly not the case in CA where suppressors are illegal, and other states where NFA items are not permitted....