Posted: 10/6/2005 5:31:06 PM EDT
|
Please pardon my ignorance. Is it legal to build an 80% receiver with a fixed ten round magazine in the state of California? Thanks in advance for your help.hug.gif |
| Also to do it legally you need to kind of 'dance' as you make it. California recognizes 100% receivers as firearms and the ATF recognizes 81% or more as firearms, so you need to make sure your build can't be completed, in any way, to fire before it is complete. For example, you can still fire the gun without the pistol grip, so even though the pistol grip may not be drilled and tapped, it could still be a firearm as per California law. Just make sure you drill the hammer and trigger last AFTER the mag is pinned just to make sure it is never an AW. |
What is a legal pinning method, the minimum requirements? FAL rifles require a simple set screw to affix the mag. AR seems to require more, but the definition of how much is not clear. FAB goes to one extreme, and Vulcan uses a cotters pin. A set screw thought the mag well release is similar to the FAL method. |
Cali law only states the "use of a tool" to change magazines, thus the FAL method. |
First, Vulcan has a manufacturing license. Second, they are not made in California, so going from 100% AR-15 status to Pinned/Glued/JBWelded status is done before they enter California. Once that was complete, they submitted the lower to the CA DOJ for inspection and approval. Basically, the only 100% legal way for you to do it would be to complete the lower, fix the mag in place, and make it compliant out of the state. Then, you would still be in potential trouble as your weapon wasn't "certified" and isn't recorded as a non-AW according to the DOJ. Better to just buy a Vulcan lower at this point for us Californians. If you ever move, or the AW ban here gets repealed, you can drill out the pin and have a lower that accepts magazines. |
|
What I did was pinned my wag well in place BEFORE it was finished, so the final holes were drillied with a mag in the mag well. It may not be the best way to do it, but it complys with the approval I got from the DOJ and it was never a firearm that didn't, so I think I am ok. If not I can always destroy it. The AR seems to get some more strict rules to it. One letter I got in response to asking about acceptable mod methods was that IF you could take JUST THE RECIEVER and use AR-15 parts and it would function as an AW than it was an AW. So even though the nut on the mag release makes the mag nonremovable, you could change it with AR-15 parts and it would be illegal. Having a pin in the mag well would make not only the current mag nonremovable, but would prevent a new mag from being put in. Also, putting all AR-15 parts would not change the fact that the mag could not be removed. Pinning and welding seems to be the only acceptable method as of right now. ETA: I am not an authority on the subject. Do NOT take my word as legally true as I may be wrong, and all circumstances that apply to me may not apply to you, and vice versa. Contact the DOJ before attempting any build. |
No sorry, you are miss informed. Look at the California definition of an assault weapon. The 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) identified assault weapons by specific characteristics. Penal Code section 12276.1 complements rather than supersedes the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. A firearm that is of a type specified in Penal Code Section 12276.1 that has any of the specified characteristics listed for that type of firearm is considered a Category 3 (generic characteristics) assault weapon. Under Penal Code section 12276.1, a firearm’s make, model, or markings have no bearing on whether it is an assault weapon. A firearm’s status as an assault weapon under this category is determined solely by its characteristics. There are three general types of firearms that are controlled by the generic characteristics assault weapons laws. These types include semiautomatic centerfire rifles, semiautomatic pistols, and semiautomatic or revolving cylinder shotguns.
So if your 81% receiver doesn't have the ability to accept a detachable magazine then you don't have an "assault weapon". Source: ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf = a 3 MB .pdf guide. |
|
Thanks for your input Paul!!! I think I will build the 80% lower and pin the magazine. I guess this is similar to the replacement hicap mag parts paranoia I read about in another thread.h.gif Knowledge is power! |
|
Paul is correct as usual. You guys need to quit smoking dope and read the law. You think everything that has to do with an AR15 is illegal. Always talking about prison when someone is asking about building a firearm. Have you ever read the fucking 2nd Amendment?? You're not helping anyone by making ridiculous legal claims. Show me an instance where some authority figure catchs someone who has drilled one hole on his 80% lower reciever without fixing the mag yet, and then gets ass raped in prison. Sometimes I think the problem with CA is the gun laws. Sometimes I think it's the people.  Thank God you guys have Paul to guide you. 
|
I don't smoke dope and I have read the law and have written to DOJ. This is their REPLY True it was only written by a field agent, but I have not succeeded in getting any higher. Until I see in writing anything different, I will not take the chance of building one and losing my right to firearms. I will also try to warn others; it is up to them to take the risk. How do you know that Paul is correct, do you have anything in writing? And by the way, the 2nd Amendment is not in the California Constitution Declaration of Rights. You may be the one that needs to read the law and quit smoking dope. Or you can prove me wrong (I wish you would), write to the DOJ on this subject and post the reply. |
Nothing to go on at all but the written law which we all know ain't worth a shit. A DA can indite you for the murder of Jimmy Hoffa if he damn well pleases based on a dream he had last night. Fuck them. Come get some. I got the written law as linked above from the California Department of Justice web site. The law states in black and white - in plain english - that an assault weapon is a centerfire semi-automatic rifle with the ability to accept a detachable magazine AND has any one of the following ... . If it's not that the DA can call it your right shoe. Words mean something despite the efforts of some here to change them. If you interpept 12276.1(a) to be a warning from the space aliens of the next earthquake then you're welcome to your opinion, probably equal to a field agent's, or mine. You follow your understanding of the text of the law that I quoted above and I'll follow mine. But to re-read the law to be anything other than what it is tends to be stupid and dangerous. To give advice on an unclear or careless understanding of the laws isn't all that uncommon here and I try to prove those who are wrong ... wrong. It is important that we read and understand the laws and that's why I will always quote the very text of the law from the CA DOJ's mouth. IF you could point out where:
is tricky or mis-leading I might be able to understand your concerns better. If the weapon is not a centerfire rifle the law doesn't apply. If the weapon is not semi-automatic the law doesn't apply. If the weapon can not accept a detachable magazine the law doesn't apply. If the weapon is a pistol the law doesn't apply. There are semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines that are still sold in California - the Ruger 10/22. There are semi-automatic centerfire rifles with fixed magazines for sale - the FAB10 etc. There are even centerfire rifles with detachable magazines that are not semi-automatic - the DMPS Pather pump etc. There are pistols sold here that are centerfire semi-automatic, with detachable magazines that have pistol grips  , are less than 30 inches in length, and have the capacity to accpet more than ten rounds!And finally there are weapons like the Springfield Armory M1A, Ruger Mini-14, Ruger Mini-30 and a few others that are at the same time semi-automatic, centerfire, and with a detachable magazine ... the just lack that "and" any one of the following ... These weapons are all for sale - where do you see that these are illegal? Think that the States Attorney has some how missed or over looked the tens of thousands of them sold and reported over the last five years somehow? |
I read the reply and the Attorney General is incorrect. A 80% lower reciever is not considered a firearm by any law. I wouldn't try to split hairs with Paul, you'll lose everytime. |
How about this a little further down in the regs: The term “assault weapon” also means any firearm specified by the Department of Justice as an AK or AR-15 series weapon pursuant to Penal Code section 12276(e) and the California Supreme Court decision in Kasler v. Lockyer. As a result of this Penal Code section and court decision, all AK and AR-15 series rifles are assault weapons regardless of their characteristics. The Department of Justice maintains a roster of firearm makes and models which the Attorney General has identified as AK and AR-15 series weapons. The most current list is available on the DOJ website at http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/awguide. At the time of this printing, this list includes the following: California Firearms Laws 2005 |
Happy? ETA: Not to be mean, but if you spent more time reading the law than bickering and insulting each other, you would have a better understanding of how the law works. Civility, you should try it. |
Happy enough to start a new correspondence with the DOJ. This is the first letter I have seen that indicates a change in the DOJ policy. Thank you for posting it. |
Based on the letter a FAB10 and Vulcan are both over 80% of an AR receiver, and would be considered AWs. DOJ is breaking their own interpretation of the law and should be issued a felony and jail time  Finish the mag well of an 80% receiver first and pin the magazine. I still question what form of pinning is required, Fal style or Vulcan style? |
Basically, under their defininf of the law, the reciever itself must be modified. So altering the mag release like the FAL would not change the fact that if you removed the altered mag release, you could put on normal AR-15 parts and have an illegal weapon. Altering the reciever, like the way Vulcan did by putting a pin in it, is acceptable. It just needs to modify the firearm enough so that it can't function as the AR-15 was designed, and still can't be banned by feature. By pinning the mag, it removes the ability to remove the magazine or put in a new one, which is hoe the AR-15 is designed to be fed. That is how the Vulcan got away with it, Sorry if I am talking to you like you are stupid Chaingun, you seem to know your stuff and I am not trying to talk down to you or anything like that. I was more talking into the topic for people in general who didn't know, it was just spun off something you said. |
[Bill Bennett]you are stupid Chaingun[/Bill Bennett] I'm just attempting to show that there's little difference between the Fal (bolt/nut through the mag release) style and the Vulcan style of pinning the mag in place. Or maybe I'm just trying to show the stupidity of the DOJ. The image of the stripped Vulcan lower is now gone, but if it were there it would resemble an AR receiver with an extra hole for the roll pin. Point being, the roll pin is a little more work to remove than a bolt/nut though the mag release, but it can be done. Once the pin is removed the Vulcan receiver functions like an AR receiver. Additionally, the unsuspecting who remove the pin to replace a broken mag have created an "AW". www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=205407 |
|
That's true, but then again we are on an honor system. Kind of like, you take the matches just don't start a fire. Besides, it's not like it's that hard to make an AW. I am still in school to be a machinist and I already have the know how, and access to the machinery, to make an AW from scratch in a couple hours time. You just choose not to. I guess that is the way they see the roll pin. Besides, maybe under their interpretation of the law, you need to use ALL parts that come with the reciever for it to be considered a completed firearm. So a Vulcan minus the pin is a different gun than a Vulcan with the pin. Who knows, it's the DOJ; it doesn't have to be smart or make sense. |