Anti-Orwellian Device from Bastiani Arms for CA MSR Shooters

California-based firearms owners are now in the midst of their legislative squeeze. While the politics are indeed outside our scope here at TFB, it can be hard to untangle the pacing of legislative restrictions and new inventions that show the true “letter of the law”.

Small California gun shop Bastiani Arms is yet another company stepping up to the plate to keep Modern Sporting Rifles relevant within California. While California has given the option to firearms owners to register their weapons, many are opting not to given California’s penchant for pushing the gun-control status quo. As such, they looked to various ways to inexpensively modify AR’s into compliance with California’s latest revision.

The MOD 1 (“Mandatory Orwellian Device”) is a dead-simple part that replaces the bolt catch in an AR-15. Using the pivot point, the MOD 1 reaches down and locks a mil-spec magazine catch into place when the receivers are pinned together. When the pivot pin is released, the bolt catch plunger then pushes the MOD 1 away from the receiver, allowing the shooter to press the magazine catch and release the magazine.

The MOD 1 has a huge cost savings advantage to it compared to the various other devices. As a single piece of steel, its costs are significantly lower (though it does remove the bolt catch functionality). Per KRCTV, Bastiani plans on selling for $10 a unit. The first units should be on sale March 1st.

Nathan S

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


  • datimes

    “MOD1” accurate name to describe their product.

  • PK

    That’s a clever solution to a problem impacting many gun owners in CA. $10 is annoying, but doable… a box or two of ammo, really.

    • tts

      Yeah making it cheap is key IMO. Those $90+ devices come off as trying to milk the customer for money to me. Its like they never heard of lowering the price and then making more money by selling large volumes or something but that idea is ooold hat in industry.

      • bee O bee

        But that’s how liberals always think.

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      Yeah but given the price of a firearm, $10 is marginal. It seems to be the best solution Ive seen yet (other than a featureless rifle).

  • Redbeckroadracer

    Only problem is that it can be removed without “disassembly of the action.” It’s a great idea that comes close, but no cigar in CA or CT.

    • Greg

      At this time, disassembly of the action includes the opening of the rear pivot pin. It is totally CA compliant (I can not speak for CT).

      • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

        And it can still be removed without opening the rear pivot pin since it’s held in place by a roll pin.

        The law declaring bullet buttons illegal did so by removing the language that holds using a tool satisfies a fixed magazine rifle.

        Since you can “use a tool” to remove the magazine, it’s not going to fly, legally.

        • kagami

          I can use an angle grinder to saw off my magazine well and mag catch to remove my magazine as well, is that “using a tool to remove my magazine”? Remember the law specifically states no magazine release creates an assault weapon.

          I can snap the arm off my armaglock or take a hammer and chisel to it to turn it into an assault weapon is that “using a tool to remove my magazine”

          it’s pure semantics at this point. this is valid as any other one of these new CA compliant devices.

          • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

            BREAKING a gun is very different than using a proper tool in the proper way to properly remove a device that holds the magazine in place.

            The law equates that to being an assault weapon.

            Jason Davis, a very reputable firearms attorney in CA advises against the use of this device.

          • kagami

            how am I breaking the firearm by sawing cutting half of the magazine well? Does it make it not able to fire rounds if you hold a magazine up to the gun?

            who defines the proper way to remove the bolt catch? I could saw off the hump holding the bolt catch or I can use a roll pin punch. I could also use that same roll pin punch and a hammer to crack the armaglock arm. Is that not breaking the gun? Who decides what is “properly removing a device”? The person who made this part could just say that using a bolt catch is proper assembly but “removal”

            But we’ll see, its all hearsay at this point. I’ll be proved wrong if someone actually goes to court over this.

          • Marcus D.

            The technical term is that it is all speculation at this point. Hearsay is something else all together different.

        • Greg

          What are you talking about? With this part, you have to open the upper to release the magazine. This meets the definition of a fixed magazine per the rules. I can now put a standard release on my bullet buttoned rifle with this part and not have to register it also. It is a great idea.

          • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

            With this part, you can also use a roll pin punch to remove it while the upper and lower and hinged closed. Once done, the magazine is removable.

            Jason Davis, a pro-gun and reputable firearms and civil rights attorney in CA advises against the use of this device.

          • Greg

            Weird, I posted the youtube video of Jason Davis and this part, but it is no where to be found. I still don’t agree, but it looks like I was wrong.

          • Marcus D.

            Then Mr. Davis, who I agree is a reputable gun rights attorney, would also opine that the Bullet Button Reloaded and the MagLock also do not comply, since you can just remove the screw to remove the device and drop the mag. But what one also must consider is that the purpose of the law is to make mag changes slower, and pulling the roll pin to remove a mag–which cannot be reinstalled without reinstalling the device since the mag will simply fall out–complies with the intent of the law. Moreover, the State DOJ did file proposed regulations to implement the law, but if my understanding is correct, those proposals were pulled (probably because people pointed out how poorly written and illogical they were, on top of which some of those regs clearly exceeded the delegated legislative authority). So there is no final word on what does or does not constitute “disassembly of the action.” And it is also true that if this device is used as intended, it does require splitting the receivers to remove the mag.

          • Marcus D.

            I stopped by the store yesterday (for a different reason). I talked to one of the owners, and he said that the device shown is not the final design. The final design has a tab that goes up into the upper receiver and prevents it from being removed even with the roll removed unless the halves are split.I have no reason to doubt his word. Problem solved.

  • Sunshine_Shooter

    $10 per is way better than the $90 some other Orwellian devices are selling for.

  • Jake

    Clearing jams with a bolt not in battery is gonna suck

    • Marcus D.

      An often expressed issue with the law–that it makes an AR, if it jams, actually more dangerous. This is what happens when people who know nothing about the guns they are trying to write laws banning “features.” Either that or it is a feature and not a bug.

  • anana

    One small step to needing to perform a pirates of penzance dance to make your rifle work, quoting the koran won’t save you.

  • Friend of Tibet

    It’s fun to carry around in China since the possibility of someone carrying an actual loaded pmag is 0.

    Carrying it in North America tho gonna be problematic. Especially in Airport.

  • valorius

    Move to America.

  • zanye skype

    HA ive gone to this gun shop a couple of times they are pretty nice people

  • Marcus D.

    Bastiani Arms is indeed a small shop way up at the northern end of the Sacramento Valley in Redding California. Nice people. I have to drop in there soon to put a “thread protector” on my rifle instead of the A2 that’s on there now. I’ve decided to avoid the ambiguity of the law and of the proposed/withdrawn/still to be reproposed regulations implementing the law by going featureless. Yes, it will be a bit more expensive to replace the stock, but at least I know I will not run afoul of the law–until the Legislature decides to change it again. About the only thing they can do to completely bar the AR (which is their ultimate purpose) they will be required to ban all centerfire semiautomatic rifles. And then they will face the conundrum that there will still be bunches of AR pistols that just won’t go away!

    • FulMetlJakit

      Always refreshing to hear real world feedback.
      The POTG support you.
      Keep fighting the good fight, brother!

  • Joseph Woods

    I would like to see what the attorney says about heading one side of the mag release roll pin hump and substituting a screw and lock tight for the roll pin.

  • Wes Crockett

    As an update, ARMagLock stuck their attorneys on Bastiani Arms over a patent ‘verbiage’ issue… I guess ARMagLock doesn’t welcome competition.