User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/21/2002 11:42:38 PM EDT
Fellow Kalifornistanis! For your perusal:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2002 9:19:29 AM EDT
[#1]
That sucks. How do you complete an 80% AR receiver and have it NOT be an AR series weapon? [:(!]
This "answer" still leaves questions unanswered. What if I wanted to build a dedicated .22 AR15 rifle? The CA AW ban applies to centerfires only, not rimfires like the federal ban. What if I wanted to build a fixed mag receiver, a la FAB10? I'm surprised you got an answer at all out of them. They usually just refer you to their website or tell you to ask your local police... useless because cops don't all interpret the law the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2002 11:26:45 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: That sucks. How do you complete an 80% AR receiver and have it NOT be an AR series weapon? [:(!] Have it be a FAB10 or similar. Which means using a 0% forging instead. This "answer" still leaves questions unanswered. What if I wanted to build a dedicated .22 AR15 rifle? The CA AW ban applies to centerfires only, not rimfires like the federal ban. What if I wanted to build a fixed mag receiver, a la FAB10? Then build a FAB10. And use a 22lr topend. In theory you can build a complete ar15 lower that you would use with a 22lr, but I'm pretty sure that they'd get you under series law pretty quick. After the confiscated the rifle. I'm surprised you got an answer at all out of them. They usually just refer you to their website or tell you to ask your local police... useless because cops don't all interpret the law the same. Letter wasn't mine, I just uploaded a pic of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2002 1:35:48 PM EDT
[#3]
What I get from the letter is that finished 80%'ers are legal, just not the AR-AK 80%'ers.
There are 80% or less receivers for the Ruger 10/22 and MKI/II, 1919a4/6, 1911, Hi-standard .22, various SIG's, and others. So acording to the DOJ letter, you should be able to "complete" those since they are not of the AR or AK series. I like how the DOJ talks about registration of imported firearms and 10 day waiting periods. Since the 80%'ers are not firearms when acquired, those restrictions should not apply. Since the original question to the DOJ that prompted this response is not known, it is unclear whether or not the DOJ considered the 80% receiver to be a "papered receiver". The DOJ does not mention the completed firearm being a "zip gun". However, I still see the possibility of that description being applied to a completed firearm. In CA, a "zip gun" includes any firearm in which the federal excise tax has not been paid, and that would fall into the "prohibited weapon based on any Federal and State laws" in the letter. There have been arguements on both sides of whether or not a "homebuild firearm" falls under the CA "zip gun" statute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2002 7:28:59 PM EDT
[#4]
..so what if I put a Colt upper on it and call it a " Sporter",
or a Bushy upper and call it a "M-15", or an Oly upper and call it a "PCR" ??? then its not really an "AR", RIGHT!!!! [shock] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2002 8:16:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Then build a FAB10. And use a 22lr topend. In theory you can build a complete ar15 lower that you would use with a 22lr, but I'm pretty sure that they'd get you under series law pretty quick. After the confiscated the rifle. Problem with a FAB10 lower with a .22LR upper is that every .22LR conversion I've ever seen uses magazines that go well below the bottom of the mag well. Unless you could modify the .22LR magazine to fit in the mag well with the bottom of the mag well closed up. And I think you may be right about the "series" law... even using a dedicated .22LR upper like a KKF or Kuehl or Accuracy Speaks... which CANNOT fire .223 centerfire, "technically" it's not an assault weapon per SB23 because it's a rimfire, BUT again "technically" it IS an assault weapon because it's an AR "series." Unfortunately, it looks like the "series" law is a catchall. The only way I see to build a dedicated .22LR AR15 is if maybe one could get a DOJ ruling whether or not it would be legal if the upper were permanently attached to the lower. You could make the front pin permanent and leave the rear pushpin so you could still open it up for cleaning and maintenance. That way you couldnt' switch uppers. Of course we all know in this day and age of "permanently" attaching muzzle brakes and FAL magazines and other machine work, that NOTHING is really permanent. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2002 9:46:56 AM EDT
[#6]
Oh well..At least I have one lower, some Kalifornia bro's don't have any.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2002 8:59:15 AM EDT
[#7]
The CA so-called AW rifle ban only bans centerfire cartridges. If you want an AR lower in .22LR for CA, you will need to modify it in such a way that it could not be used for centerfire cartridges.
Going back to the letter, this has been circulated around on several boards. There appears to be two groups of consensus. First, group tends to think that it gives the green light. The second group believes the letter doesn't say jack but is a legalise, long-worded method of not saying anything. I'm with the second group because it basically says that you can finish a 80% as long as you abide by all federal and state laws... including any that prohibit this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2002 9:06:51 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Then build a FAB10. And use a 22lr topend. In theory you can build a complete ar15 lower that you would use with a 22lr, but I'm pretty sure that they'd get you under series law pretty quick. After the confiscated the rifle. Problem with a FAB10 lower with a .22LR upper is that every .22LR conversion I've ever seen uses magazines that go well below the bottom of the mag well. Unless you could modify the .22LR magazine to fit in the mag well with the bottom of the mag well closed up. And I think you may be right about the "series" law... even using a dedicated .22LR upper like a KKF or Kuehl or Accuracy Speaks... which CANNOT fire .223 centerfire, "technically" it's not an assault weapon per SB23 because it's a rimfire, BUT again "technically" it IS an assault weapon because it's an AR "series." Unfortunately, it looks like the "series" law is a catchall. The only way I see to build a dedicated .22LR AR15 is if maybe one could get a DOJ ruling whether or not it would be legal if the upper were permanently attached to the lower. You could make the front pin permanent and leave the rear pushpin so you could still open it up for cleaning and maintenance. That way you couldnt' switch uppers. Of course we all know in this day and age of "permanently" attaching muzzle brakes and FAL magazines and other machine work, that NOTHING is really permanent. [;)] I've been thinking about this also. I've been thinking to try and design the magazine well of a 0% to use another rifles .22 magazines. A real small magazine well so that anything bigger then .22 mags can't fit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2002 1:18:25 PM EDT
[#9]
And didn't the California Supreme Court strike down the "series" provision last year?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2002 11:11:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Does this mean that no more 80% receivers can be sent to Kalifornia? If so the Kalifornia bullshit pile must be approaching the edge of the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2002 6:19:24 AM EDT
[#11]
They can be sent in Kali because as an 80% finished receiver it is still considered just a part. The question/debate is if you can finish an 80% AR/AK receiver into a legal firearm in my state. Somebody [i]PLEASE[/i] correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2002 11:31:36 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: They can be sent in Kali because as an 80% finished receiver it is still considered just a part. The question/debate is if you can finish an 80% AR/AK receiver into a legal firearm in my state. Somebody [i]PLEASE[/i] correct me if I am wrong. If you can finish an AR/AK into a complete firearm without violating features law, then you can do it. IE, fixed mag & pistol grip should be ok, but a detachable mag and a grip, f/h, bayo lug, etc. wouldn't be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 12:58:05 PM EDT
[#13]
Well, since the MG-42 isn't on the list, I guess I will go foreward on my semi-auto MG-42
[<]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 9:49:54 PM EDT
[#14]
God damn those Kommunist Kalifornia Lawmakers. They are dicks aren't they. Guns have three enemies: Rust, Corrosion and Liberals. Sorry for all you gun supporters living in Kalifornia, hope you all move out of there into the free world and then we will let Kalifornia slide off into the Pacific when the earthquakes strike. Do you think we could just deport some of those nutcase lawmakers to... say... Vietnam where they will feel at home with other Kommies! Then we take the land back and make it free again
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2003 8:10:40 PM EDT
[#15]
There is a simple way of obtaining an answer to your various questions. Write the Attorney General in Sacramento and request what is known as an Attorney General Opinion.
Ask you questions clearly. Tell the Attorney General what you intend to do. You will receive a letter. If this is unacceptable, believe me it is better than asking the guy on the corner for his legal opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 5:42:33 AM EDT
[#16]
What ever you don't get caught with , you can't get prosicuted for. Not that I own any firearms at all of course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 3:01:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Well done, you caught California DOJ lying outright in the claim that California law has force over California "residents" when they are outside of the state. Example, a "California resident" owns a second home in Montana. He buys an AR15 at a gun show and leaves it as his second home in Montana. The gun never enters California, the transaction takes place outside of California, and yet, the California DOJ attempts to claim jurisdiction. They have continued to perpetuate this lie in spite of several CA DOJ investigators being busted for trying to bully people at Reno gun shows when they are clearly operating outside their jurisdiction. Example number two. I live outside California and then get a summer construction job in California. I own several assault weapons but only take a pump shotgun with me when I move to California and get a CA driver's license for a few months. During that time, I pay CA income tax and am for legal purposes a California resident. Does that mean I am a California resident in illegal posession of assault weapons if I go home to Oregon for the weekend and take my guns shooting at an Oregon shooting range? Yeah right, the first DOJ employee, whether LE or not who tries to arrest me or take my stuff on that scenario will end up dead or in prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2003 11:42:55 PM EDT
[#18]
I don't think the first example is legal, since you're only supposed to do deals with locals or residents of bordering states. That doesn't mean it can't occur, though.
The second isn't a crime, since you've moved out of state and the weapons are not in Kalifornia. If you attempted to re-import banned guns, then you'd be in trouble. Perhaps I'm not reading your reply clearly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2003 1:12:26 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Well, since the MG-42 isn't on the list, I guess I will go foreward on my semi-auto MG-42 [<]:)] Sounds like a great project but I'd be cautious with the MG-42. The DoJ could argue that it is designed to be fired from the shoulder and therefore qualifies as a "rifle" (see PC 12020 and search for the definition of "rifle") - That with the pistol grip would qualify it an "assault weapon". If push came to shove your only defense be to argue that it is not designed to be shoulder-fired. People import, sell, and even build belt-fed semiauto M1919-A4s in Californistan - The A4 version has no shoulder stock so it (clearly IMHO) does not fit the definition of "rifle" (or pistol or shotgun) and therefore cannot be an "assault weapon". I've even seen people selling M1919-A6s at gun shows. That version does have a shoulder stock, though a claim that it was designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder would be highly debatable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2003 1:20:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: And didn't the California Supreme Court strike down the "series" provision last year? SCOCaliban ruled in Kassler v. Lockyer that to be considered a "series" arm it has to be explicitly listed by make and model: [url]http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf[/url] My opinion is as worthless as the next guy's, but I believe if you could build a functional rifle that lacked SB23 features it would be legal in any (otherwise legal) caliber. Obviously some major engineering hurdles - Or build a tripod-mounted version with no shoulder stock (so it isn't a "rifle" and therefore not an "AW" - see my previous post above). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2003 1:46:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Hey OSI,
What about a military member, New Jersey resident, living on a Federal Military instilation, in Kalifornia? Can I own an SKS or AR-15? I'm tempted to ask the L.E. Desk here but I'll either get to talk to a dumb-ass know nothing 1 striper, or some reservist Janet Reno lovin investigator that is a CHP (read SS) nut job that thinks noeone should own guns. You seem pretty high-speed on the laws, so I figured I'd ask. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2003 2:14:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Ask your Base CO (actually, ask CATM first!), and see if he'll sign off on your rifles that are othwerwise banned in the PRK (hint:they cannot leave base!).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2003 3:40:44 PM EDT
[#23]
[size=3]It wasn't Kassler vs Lockyer, but Harrot vs Kings County that eliminated the series ban. Kassler filed suit well before Lockyer ran for the AG job. Plus, his suit challenged the legality of the AG updating the AW ban list. Kassler asserted that this was illegal legislation and that our state constitution only allows the legislated branch to do so (state senate and assembly). He lost even though I believe he was correct. Lockyer updated the AW ban list for the first time right afer CASC made it's ruling against Kassler. That is why it is nicknamed the "Kassler list".[/size=3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2003 4:17:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Ya....The CO is a democrat, CATM troops would let you do anything, and the Armory seems to inspect weapons an awful lot. They even clean them for you from time-to-time, if ya know what I mean. IF I OWNED a weapon I would keep it off base with a friend or burried in the desert somewhere! I can't wait to PCS!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2003 7:45:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Thanks stator, you are absolutely correct. My bad.
I agree the decision was wrong. The ability of the AG to write legislation violates the separation of powers. The legislature is too dumb to write good code so they dumped the job on the AG, so everything becomes a "regulation" which I also think is unconstitutional... Stop me before I blow a gasket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2003 1:44:22 AM EDT
[#26]
Hold up, so if the series ban is illegal then what if the lower was called by some other name
What if i called it the white fluffy rifle and stamped that on the lower. Would it still be considered illegal? Im confused |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2003 2:00:15 PM EDT
[#27]
I really miss CA. I liked the Bass Lake area - but I'm glad I live in TX when I see this crap.
You can look at, pay for and walk out of the store with a handgun or AR in this state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2003 9:17:57 PM EDT
[#28]
There are two bans in effect in CA the first is the 89 ban, the original A.W ban. (The mother of the 94Crime bill) The Fed AW ban that all of the people talk about post-pre. The ban was passed because of a semi-AK-47 type rifle being used to kill scool children in stocton CA by Patrick Purdy. This law baned 15-20 assault weapons by name like Colt AR-15 but the other makes ie bushmaster, PWA,eagle, etc were still legal to own. The stupid thing was the rifle purdy used was not even one of the rifles that were banned by the new law (egyption maddi I tink) So the manufactures / importers got smart and started adding thumb hole stock and changing the model names of the guns like the MAK-90 and the sporter and selling the SH*T out of them in Kali. The second AW ban was in response to this to close the loope holes in the first ban, SB23 which banned A.W by the features of the guns like Pistol grips Flash suppressors folding stocks . SB23 also banned the striped receivers of AR;a and AK's so the AK and AR-15 series of weapons are history in cali and that is why the 80% can not be finnished in California, no matter if the upper is a 22 LR, the receiver it's self is the baned part , where a FAL or a HK clone receiver you can buy and have as long as it doesn't have a pistol grip, FH etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2003 9:30:36 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Hey OSI, What about a military member, New Jersey resident, living on a Federal Military instilation, in Kalifornia? Can I own an SKS or AR-15? I'm tempted to ask the L.E. Desk here but I'll either get to talk to a dumb-ass know nothing 1 striper, or some reservist Janet Reno lovin investigator that is a CHP (read SS) nut job that thinks no one should own guns. You seem pretty high-speed on the laws, so I figured I'd ask. You can own anything you want (semi-auto) and even bring them into California after getting a permit. Look for my post in the Hometown/California on how to get a California Military Assualt Weapon Permit. I applied for mine last week and put four of my rifles on paper: DSA FAL - which current is California legal with its fix magazine and stripper clip upper. The permit will allow me to return it to normal configuration for trips to the range. In its current configuration its good for BLM shooting. Two AR-15's which were purchased here in the 1990's but were taken to Washington before the ban. One pre-ban, one post ban. A finished 80% forging [:D] - I can't wait to see if they grant this one! The lower isn't marked, doesn't have a make nor model number so I can stamp whatever I want to before bringing them in. My other AR's are kept off of paper and safety out of state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2003 9:54:51 PM EDT
[#30]
There's the current loophole looking for a test case. finish an 80% into a pump action or rimfire rifle. Then see if DOJ will attempt to prosecute.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2004 11:56:19 PM EDT
[#31]
I thought the language of the AW Ban law said it was illegal to MANUFACTURE, import, sell or otherwise transfer... an assault weapon. The AR-15 series of rifles are banned, no matter who makes them. There is a list of known banned models but it is not complete.
Anyone know if you can buy the DPMS pump action rimfire rifles here in California? They are manually operated, rimfire rifles. I know, this is an OLD thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2004 12:33:09 AM EDT
[#32]
MANUFACTURE (by .gov terms) == build/complete with intent to sell. IE commercial entities manufacture. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
